A FRAMEWORK FOR THE USE OF ICT IN THE EFL CLASS

Pablo Paredes Stecher Licenciado en Educacin con Mencin en Ingls y Pedagoga en Ingls Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educacin Santiago, Chile.

ABSTRACT
In the last 30 years, the advent of new technological platforms of information and communication has brought more powerful and improved tools to the service of education. Although it has been proven that the use of Information Communication Technologies (ICT) brings relevant advantages to education, several problems arise when a teacher faces the use of these technologies in the classroom. This paper proposes a framework for the use of ICT in the teaching-learning process of English as a Foreign Language (EFL), suggesting the Task Based Language Teaching (TBLT) approach as the methodology used for the mentioned purpose in a Cooperative Learning (CL) environment.

INDEX

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Chapter 1. Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 4 1.1 ICT Tools .................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1.1 Definition of ICT Tools ........................................................................................................ 4 1.1.2 Benefits in Education.......................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning Overview ........................................................... 5 1.2.1 Definition of Task ............................................................................................................... 6 1.2.2 Tasks and Exercises ............................................................................................................ 8 1.2.3 Form and Meaning when Sequencing Tasks. ..................................................................... 9 1.2.4 Sequencing Tasks ............................................................................................................. 12 1.3 Collaborative Learning Overview ............................................................................................ 13 1.3.1 Elements of Cooperative Learning. .................................................................................. 14 References......................................................................................................................................... 18

INTRODUCTION
Over the last fifty years, technology has been changing extremely fast. Since the spread of computers in the 1980's, Information Communication Technology ICT has brought more powerful and improved tools to the service of education. Unfortunately, the use of technology in education is a step backwards when we compared it with other fields of knowledge where the use of these tools has brought significant advances. Several problems arise when an EFL teacher faces the use technology in the teaching-learning process. Methodology, teaching techniques, technology skills are among the most prominent. The scope of this proposal has been limited to the methodology needed to utilize ICT tools. As a first approach to the problem, the attention has been focused on Task Based Language Teaching (TBLT) as a methodology which provides an environment for communication and active use of technologies by the students. Additionally, Cooperative Learning (CL) is proposed as a complementary methodology to develop affective-social skills in a technological environment of mutual collaboration.

CHAPTER 1. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 1.1 ICT TOOLS 1.1.1 DEFINITION OF ICT TOOLS
ICT is the acronym for Information and Communication Technologies. These technologies are described as a diverse set of technological tools and resources used to communicate, and to create, 1 disseminate, store, and manage information( ).

Actually, all of these technological tools and resources are managed either electronically in the analogue domain or digitally in the virtual domain. The former domain, where we can find the television and the radio, was the predominant one in twentieth century. The later was brought by the application of computers to handle text, pictures, sound and video and it is becoming the predominant one in the twenty first century given the vast advantages that it presents.

1.1.2 BENEFITS IN EDUCATION

The quality of education can be improved by the use of ICTs in numerous aspects. Some of these aspects are: making students become involved in their own learning process, making the acquisition of basic 2 skills easier, and increasing teacher training ( ). What is more, when ICTs are used properly, they convert 3 educational environments from teacher-centred into learner-centred ( ).

1.1.2.1 MAKING STUDENTS BECOME INVOLVED IN THEIR OWN LEARNING PROCESS

The combination of video, sound and written text offers interesting and genuine context that involves students in their own learning processes. Movies with subtitles likewise make use of the features 4 mentioned above, inducing the students to watch and pay attention to the given lesson ( ).

Blurton, Craig. New Directions of ICT - Use in Education. Hong Kong Learning Without Frontiers, UNESCO 1999. Abstract. 2 Haddad, Wadi D., and Sonia Jurich. ICT for Education: Potential and Potency, Technologies for Education: Potentials, Parameters, and Prospects. Haddad, W. & Drexler, A. (eds), Washington DC: Academy for Educational Development: UNESCO, 2002. p. 34. 3 Tinio, Victoria L. ICT in Education. UNDP-APDIP, e-ASEAN Task Force, 2003. p.7. 4 Ibid., p.9. 4

1.1.2.2 MAKING THE ACQUISITION OF BASIC SKILLS EASIER

Using ICTs to drill and practice assist the acquisition of essential knowledge and skills which are the 5 basis of creativity and higher order thinking skills ( ). Children's arts and crafts shows, such as Mister Maker, use reinforcement and repetition to teach colours, shapes and how to cut and paste.

Furthermore, the use of computers has three advantages when applying drilling and practicing strategies. These advantages are large memory, speed, and the capacity to repeat the same task an infinite 6 number of times without reducing performance ( ).

1.1.2.3 CONVERTING ENVIRONMENTS FROM TEACHER-CENTRED INTO LEARNERCENTRED

When education supported by ICTs is planned and put into operation appropriately, students can obtain the concepts and skills that will allow them to access enduring learning. Moreover, if ICTs, especially 7 computers and Internet technologies ( ), are utilized properly, new methods of teaching and learning are facilitated. These new methods, supported by constructivist theories, represent a radical change from a pedagogy characterized by rote learning and memorization to one where the students obtain meaningful 8 learning ( ).

1.2 TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING OVERVIEW

A lot has been written about the TBLT in the last three decades. Although scholars define this approach from different points of view and take various positions, all of them coincide on a solid basis of principles. This section focuses on the principles which, in opinion of the author, give a path to make use of technology in the teaching-learning process so as to obtain enduring learning for students. This overview of TBLT principles is illustrative and it is not to any degree exhaustive.

In recent years, TBLT has emerged in the TEFL and TESL fields gaining popularity among educators. 9 In pedagogic terms, David Nunan ( ) enumerates some teaching-learning practices and principles that are strengthened by TBLT. An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target language. The introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation.

5 6

Ibid., p.7. Haddad, W., and S. Jurich. Op.Cit., p.35. 7 Tinio, V. Op.cit., p.9. 8 Ibid. 9 Nunan, David. Task-Based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004. p.1. 5

The provision of opportunities for learners to focus, not only on language, but also on the learning process itself. An enhancement of the learners own personal experiences as important contributing elements to classroom learning. 10 The linking of classroom language learning with language use outside the classroom ( ).

These practices and principles are clearly connected to some of the benefits of ICT in education mentioned above. For example, TBLT framework for teaching and learning supports the students involvement in the learning process and the conversion of educational environments into learner-centred. Moreover, both the provision of opportunities for learners to focus, not only on language but also on the 11 learning process itself ( ) and the linking of classroom language learning with language use outside the 12 classroom ( ) promote the students involvement in the learning process giving them strategies to carry learning through autonomously. As an example, we have the mixed strategy of guessing and checking the meaning of unknown words and phrases from a text using the context, which facilitates comprehension in any scenario.

In addition to this, the enhancement of the learners own personal experiences as important 13 contributing elements to classroom learning( ) and the emphasis on learning to communicate through 14 interaction in the target language( ) convert educational environments from teacher-centred into learnercentred. This change of centre breaks the paradigm where learners were mere passive receptors of the knowledge transferred by the teacher. In a learner-centred environment, different learning styles take place and students are allowed to advance at their own pace. What is more, the individualities of each learner are in favour with enduring learning.

1.2.1 DEFINITION OF TASK

By common knowledge, a notion of task conveys different meanings. In a definition given by Long, we find that a task is a piece of work undertaken for oneself or for others, freely or for some reward [By+ task is meant the hundred and one things people do in everyday life, at work, at play and in between 15 ( ). In this respect, Nunan states that the tasks covered by this definition may not engage use of language at

Ibid. Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Long, Michel .H. A Role for Instruction in Second Language Acquisition: Task-Based Language Training. 1985 Modelling and Assessing Second Language Acquisition K. Hyltenstam and M. Pienemann (Eds.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1985. p. 89.
11

10

all and in contrast with most classroom language exercises, [these] tasks have a non-linguistic outcome 16 ( ).

Addressing the need of a definition of task from a teaching-learning language point of view, Rod Ellis and David Nunan give complementary definitions of task. In the words of Ellis a task is: a workplan that requires learners to process language pragmatically in order to achieve an outcome that can be evaluated in terms of whether the correct or appropriate propositional content has been conveyed. To this end, it requires them to give primary attention to meaning and to make use of their own linguistic resources, although the design of the task may predispose them to choose particular forms. A task is intended to result in language use that bears a resemblance, direct or indirect, to the way language is used in the real world. Like other language activities, a task can engage productive or receptive, and oral or 17 written skills and also various cognitive processes ( ).

On the other hand, Nunan defines a pedagogical task in the following way: a pedagogical task is a piece of classroom work that involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language while their attention is focused on mobilizing their grammatical knowledge in order to express meaning, and in which the intention is to convey meaning rather than to manipulate form. The task should also have a sense of completeness, being able to stand 18 alone as a communicative act in its own right with a beginning, a middle and an end ( ).

Apart from the engagement of receptive and productive skills, both Ellis and Nunan also coincide in the notion that pedagogic tasks entail communicative language use in which the users attention is focused 19 on meaning rather than grammatical form ( ). Nunans definition alludes to the effective use of grammatical knowledge to convey meaning, emphasizing the fact that meaning and form are highly interrelated, and that grammar exists to enable the language user to express different communicative 20 meanings ( ).

In this respect, Estaire and Zann add a distinction between communication tasks and enabling 21 tasks. In the former the learners attention is focused on meaning rather than form ( ). In the later the

Nunan, D. Op.Cit., p.2 Ellis, Rod. Task Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford UP 2003. p.16. 18 Nunan, D. Op.Cit., p.4 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Estaire, Sheila, and Javier Zann. Planning Classwork: a Task Based Approach. Oxford: Heinemann, 1994. pp. 13-21
17

16

main focus is on linguistic aspects (grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, function, and discourse) ( ). Although Estaire and Zann classified these activities focused on linguistic aspects as enabling tasks, Ellis 23 ( ), among others, classified this activities as exercises some years later.

22

1.2.2 TASKS AND EXERCISES

A clear difference between task and exercises has been placed by some authors in TBLT. Although their definitions cover a wide spectrum, they all coincide in the notion that exercises focus on specific features of language, whereas tasks focus on the transmission of a message, making use of language as a whole system. As examples of exercises we have the pronunciation of some verb endings or the practice of the pattern of a specific grammatical item.

First, Bygate makes a distinction where exercises are defined as activities which practise parts of a 24 skill, a new sub-skill, a new piece of knowledge ( ). At the same time, tasks are defined as activities which 25 practise the whole integrated skill in some way ( ).

Second, a less broad definition is given by Candlin who describes exercises as serving as 26 sequenceable preliminaries to, or supporters, of tasks ( ). Alternatively, tasks are described as activities which practise the integrated use of language, acquire language development strategies and use language 27 meaningfully and creatively ( ).

Finally, Ellis places the difference between tasks and exercises based on the focus of the activity which may be meaning or form. He defines tasks as activities that call for primarily meaning focused 28 29 language use ( ) and exercises as activities that call for primarily form focused language use ( ).

Ibid. Ellis, Rod. Op. Cit. 24 Bygate, Martin. Effects of Task Repetition on the Structure and Control of Oral Interaction. Researching Pedagogic Tasks, Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. M. Bygate, P. Skehan, M. Swain (Eds.). Harlow: Longman. 2001. p. 176. 25 Ibid. 26 Candlin, Chris. Afterword, Taking the Curriculum to Task. Researching Pedagogic Tasks, Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. M. Bygate, P. Skehan, M. Swain (Eds.). Harlow: Longman. 2001. p.235 27 Ibid. 28 Ellis, Rod. Op. Cit., p. 3. 29 Ibid.
23

22

Moreover, Ellis highlights the notion that the overall purpose of tasks is the same as exercises, learning a 30 language- the difference lying in the means by which this purpose is to be achieved ( ).

1.2.3 FORM AND MEANING WHEN SEQUENCING TASKS.

The roles of meaning and form that characterize TBLT may be found in the definitions of task given by Nunan and Ellis. Even though Ellis leaves form aside, stating that a task requires them to give 31 primary attention to meaning( ), Nunan states that when a task is carried out, the attention of the performers is focused on mobilizing their grammatical knowledge in order to express meaning, and in 32 which the intention is to convey meaning rather than to manipulate form( ). Furthermore, Nunan adds that meaning and form are highly interrelated, and that grammar exists to enable the language user to 33 express different communicative meanings ( ).

Raising the issue of sequencing tasks to teach language and the role of form in this process, the distinction of synthetic and analytical approaches to syllabus design placed by David Wilkins play a 34 relevant role ( ). According to his suggestion, all syllabi may be classified in one of these categories. Wilkins establishes that in synthetic approaches [d]ifferent parts of the language are taught separately and step by step so that acquisition is a process of gradual accumulation of parts until the whole structure of 35 language has been built up ( ). Teaching approaches such as the Silent Way, audioligualism and grammar translation fit this category thoroughly. In Nunans view, these approaches reproduce the common-sense belief that the instructor must simplify the learning endeavour for the student, dividing the content into 36 parts with the purpose of present each part isolatedly and step by step ( ).

Facing the problem of rote learning brought by the synthetic approaches, Wilkins proposes the 37 option of analytical approaches in his book Notional Syllabuses ( ). In analytical approaches, while language is introduced in holistic chunks, the learner is required to make the analysis work, dividing language into parts. The most noticeable quality of analytic approaches is that *t+hey are organized in terms of the purposes for which people are learning languages and the kinds of language performance that are 38 necessary to meet those purposes ( ).

Ibid. Ellis, Rod. Op. Cit., p. 16. 32 Nunan, D. Op.Cit. 33 Ibid. 34 Wilkins, David. Notional Syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1976. 35 Ibid., p. 2 36 Nunan, David. Task-Based Language Teaching in the Asia Context: Defining Task . The Asian EFL Journal. 8.3 (2006): pp. 12-13. 37 Wilkins, David. Op.cit. 38 Ibid., p 13.
31

30

Based on the classification into the superordinate categories of synthetic and analytical syllabi 39 40 made by Wilkins ( ), Long ( ) proposes both the use of tasks as basic units of a language course syllabus and three types of syllabi in which the focus of these tasks moves from meaning to form. These types of syllabi are constituted by tasks focused on meaning, tasks focused on form and tasks focused on formS*Synthetic+. Where the syllabus based on tasks focused on formS is in essence synthetic, the syllabi built around tasks focused on meaning and tasks focused on form are analytical.

1.2.3.1 TASK FOCUSED ON MEANING

According to Long and Crookes( ), when a task of this type is performed, no grammatical rules are presented and learners are exposed to chunks of communicative L2 which progress gradually in complexity. In this type of analytic syllabus, the learner might or might not notice or induce language patterns or grammatical rules. There should be no discussion of grammatical rules, given that the development of inner structures of language is understood as a natural process by the learner.
41

1.2.3.2 TASK FOCUSED ON FORM

A second alternative given by Long and Crookes ( ) to focus tasks is form. As Rebecca Oxford reaffirms, the tasks are immersed in meaningful and communicative contexts. In these tasks learners face 43 communicative language problems (breakdowns) and are encouraged to find a solution for them ( ). In Longs opinion, a focus on form takes place when the attention of learner is moved from meaning to form 44 sporadically while a communication breakdown takes place ( ). Rebecca Oxford states that some techniques such as recasts are applied to accomplish this objective, where the instructor gives a 45 corrective reformulation of the learners incorrect production or understanding ( ). Given the fact that learners make analysis of language and draw relationships and rules from the contrast of the original and 46 the correct form in context, tasks focused on form constitute an analytic approach ( ). In summary, three major components define a focus on form . . . [:] (a) can be generated by the teacher or the learner(s), (b) it
42

Wilkins, David. Op.cit. Long, Michel .H. Input and Second Language Acquisition Theory. Input in Second Language Acquisition, S. Gass and Madden. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1985. 41 Long, Michel .H, and Graham Crookes. Three Approaches to Task-Based Syllabus Design. TESOL Quarterly. 26.1 (1992). P. 28. 42 Ibid. 43 Oxford, Rebecca. 2006, Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning: An Overview. The Asian EFL Journal. 8.3 (2006): p.98. 44 Long, Michel .H. Input and Second Language Acquisition Theory. Op.cit. 45 Oxford, Rebecca. Op.cit. p. 98. 46 Wilkins, David. Op.cit.
40

39

10

is generally incidental (occasional shift of attention) and (c) it is contingent on learners needs (triggered by 47 perceived problems) ( ).

However Long stated that tasks focused on form have a sporadic movement from meaning to 48 49 form when a communication breakdown takes place ( ), Salaberry ( ) introduced a type of task where forms are preselected. In this alternative, the focus on form is preceded by a focus on meaning and the 50 objective of the task is to focus on preselected forms related to meaning-oriented tasks ( ). In this respect, Skehan recommends the selection of an array of structures using the principle of usefulness in the 51 place of necessity ( ).

1.2.3.3 TASK FOCUSED ON FORMS

Tasks focused on formS are characterized by the consecutive presentation of isolated and preselected forms, expecting that learners will understand and acquire them prior to make use of them in a 52 communicative situation ( ). Given that learners must combine separate features of language by 53 themselves, this is a synthetic syllabus approach to language teaching ( ). In Rebecca Oxfords view, *l+essons tend to be dull, sometimes arcane, and not oriented toward communication, as though L2 learning could be reduced to memorizing accumulated, small items and mechanistically applying myriad 54 rules. ( ).

These tasks focused on FormS keep a close resemblance to the Presentation/Practice/Production model. In this approach, learning is believed to be a linear progression of understanding, internalizing, and 55 activating knowledge ( ), where the target forms are presented, analyzed and practiced before they 56 are functionally needed in a contextualized communicative situation ( ). Although PPP is successful to meet some isolated grammatical or functional objectives, such as practicing the past simple or telling the 57 time, more sophisticated models are requiredfor more contextualized and integrated objectives ( ) .

47 Salaberry, Rafael. Task-Sequencing in L2 Acquisition Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education. 6.1 (2001): p. 105. 48 Long, Michel. Op.cit. 49 Salaberry, Rafael. Op.cit., p.104. 50 Oxford, Rebecca. Op.cit. p. 99. 51 Skehan, Peter. Second Language Acquisition Research and Task-Based Instruction. Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. J. Willis and D. Willis (Eds.). Oxford: Heinemann. 1996. 52 Oxford, Rebecca. Op.cit. 53 Wilkins, David. Op.cit. 54 Oxford, Rebecca. Op.cit. 55 Nunan, David. and Clarice Lamb. The Self-Directed Teacher: Managing the Learning Process. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998. p. 47. 56 Salaberry, Rafael. Op.cit., p. 104. 57 Nunan, David. and Clarice Lamb. Op.cit. 11

1.2.4 SEQUENCING TASKS

In the TBLT field, researchers have not yet reached an agreement on how to sequence task and the 58 59 60 61 elements that compose them ( ). Prabhu ( ), Skehan ( ) and Willis ( ), among others, have suggested various designs which reproduce the progression of phases within a lesson. Despite the differences, they all 62 share the notion of the existence of three main phases, pre-task, during task and post-task ( ).

Alternatively, based on the concept of the three Is (Illustration, Interaction, and Induction) 63 64 suggested by McCarthy ( ), Salaberry ( ) proposes a pedagogical sequence of four stages. Within his framework, Salaberry also establishes that learners are led to: (1) communicate with limited resources; (2) become aware of apparent limitations in their knowledge about linguistic structures that are necessary to convey the message appropriately and accurately, and (3) look for alternatives to overcome such 65 limitations ( ). In addition, he argues that *t+his sequence focuses students attention on the structure of the language by demonstrating that each component of language as a whole contributes to the meaning 66 that makes up any type of interaction ( ).

The pedagogical sequence offered by Salaberry covers both the teacher and the learners roles, placing learners in an active position in the process as stakeholders. From the learners point of view, the stages are involvement, inquiry, induction and incorporation. The equivalent steps for the teacher are introduction of the topic, illustration, implementation, and integration. The connection of stages for 67 teachers and learners processes is described in the following table ( ):

Oxford, Rebecca. Op.cit., p. 109. Prabhu, N.S. Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1987. 60 Skehan, Peter. A Framework for the Implementation of Task-Based Instruction. Applied Linguistics. 17.1 (1996) 61 Willis, Dave, and Jane Willis. Consciousness-Raising Activities in the Language Classroom. Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. J. Willis and D. Willis (Eds.). Oxford: Heinemann, 1996. 62 Ellis, Rod. The Methodology of Task-Based Teaching. The Asian EFL Journal. 8.3 (2006): pp. 1920. 63 McCarthy, Michael. Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics. New York: Cambridge UP, 1998. p.67. 64 Salaberry, Rafael. Op.cit., pp. 107-108. 65 Salaberry, Rafael. Op.cit., abstract. 66 Salaberry, Rafael. Op.cit., p.108. 67 Summarized from Salaberry 2001, p.108.
59

58

12

1.3 COLLABORATIVE LEARNING OVERVIEW

Johnson and Johnson state that the interaction among students in a class follows three noticeable 68 patterns when the learning process takes place ( ). First, each student can try to be the most successful competing against the others to be the best. Second, they can strive individualistically in direction to a learning objective without paying attention to the success of the others. Third, they can cooperate with each other and work together to reach a learning objective. Although competition and individualistic effort are the prevailing interaction patterns in most classrooms, cooperative learning has shown the higher rates of th 69 learning achievement in more than 900 research studies throughout the 20 century ( ).

In Johnson and Johnsons view ( ), cooperative learning is characterized by a clearly structured work made by the students in groups. This structure, among other elements, provides a common accepted goal where students are rewarded by their common efforts, a sense of positive interdependence and a sense of personal accountability where the group succeed or fail together. The work in groups must be structured; otherwise their learning outcomes will be only compared to the results of individualistic or competitive efforts, showing no improvements.

70

Johnson, David W., and Roger T. Johnson. An Overview of Cooperative Learning. Creativity and Collaborative Learning; J. Thousand, A. Villa and A. Nevin (Eds), Brookes Press, Baltimore, 1994 69 Johnson, David W., Roger T. Johnson, and Mary Beth Stanne. Cooperative Learning Methods: A Meta-Analysis. N.p. May 2000. Web. 70 Johnson, David W., and Roger T. Johnson. Op.cit. 13

68

1.3.1 ELEMENTS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING.

Johnson and Johnson ( ) introduce some definite conditions that must be present to have students achieve learning objectives in the way that it is expected by the use of cooperative learning. The mentioned conditions are: Clearly perceived positive interdependence. Considerable promotive (face-to-face) interaction. Clearly perceived individual accountability and personal responsibility to achieve the groups goals. Frequent use of the relevant interpersonal and small group skills. Frequent and regular group processing of current functioning to improve the groups future 72 effectiveness ( ).
71

The relationships among cooperative elements introduced by Johnson and Johnson ( ) are summarized in the following map:

73

1.3.1.1 POSITIVE INTERDEPENDENCE

The first condition to set an effective cooperative lesson is that the students perceive that the success of the group depends on each one of its members. In cooperative circumstances, students have a dual responsibility where they ought to learn the given material and make certain that every member of the 74 group learns the given material. Positive interdependence encourages the existence of the notion that ( ):

71 72

Johnson, David W., and Roger T. Johnson. Op.cit. Ibid. 73 Ibid. 74 Ibid. 14

Each group members efforts are required and indispensable for group success (i.e., there can be no free riders). Each group member has unique contribution to make to the joint effort because of his or her 75 resources and/or role and task responsibilities ( ).

From Johnson and Johnsons ( ) point of view, some techniques can be used to structure positive interdependence in a learning group. These techniques are positive goal interdependence, positive reward-celebrate interdependence, positive resource interdependence and positive role interdependence.

76

2.3.1.1.1 POSITIVE GOAL INTERDEPENDENCE

The group is given a reason for its existence as a common objective is established. The common goal creates the sense that the success of the group depends on the efforts of all of the members to complete the assigned task or reach the objective. Always, the group goal is integrated in the lessons 77 objectives ( ).

2.3.1.1.2 POSITIVE REWARD-CELEBRATE INTERDEPENDENCE

All the members of the group are given the same reward when the group reaches the objective. As a complement to goal interdependence, teachers provided students with: 1) a group grade for the overall production of their group, 2) an individual grade resulting from the test, and 3) bonus points if all members 78 of the group achieve the criterion of the test ( ). The quality of cooperation is improved by habitual celebrations of the group hard work and success.

2.3.1.1.3 POSITIVE RESOURCE INTERDEPENDENCE

The required resources to complete the task are in possession of different members of the group. 79 The cooperative association is emphasize by the provision of limited resources that must be shared ( ) and combined by the students.

75 76

Ibid. Ibid. 77 Ibid. 78 Ibid. 79 Ibid. 15

2.3.1.1.4 POSITIVE ROLE INTERDEPENDENCE

Complementary and interconnected roles are given to the members of the group. These roles are planned in anticipation of the necessary responsibilities for the completion of the collective task. An 80 example of this technique is the Jigsaw procedure ( ).

1.3.1.2 FACE-TO-FACE PROMOTIVE INTERACTION

Promotive interaction is a product of positive interdependence. Promotive interaction is defined as individuals encouraging and facilitating each others efforts to achieve, complete a task, and produce in 81 order to reach the groups goal ( ). A behaviour that exemplifies promotive interaction is the mutual provision of efficient and effective support by individuals within a group.

1.3.1.3 INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY / PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

Individual accountability is the third indispensable element of cooperative learning. It is characterized by the assessment of the performance of each member of the group. Once the assessments feedback is given to each student and the group, individuals are held accountable for providing their fair share to the groups achievement by their group mates. Some techniques to structure individual 82 accountability are ( ): Keeping the size of the group small. The smaller the size of the group, the greater the individual accountability may be. Giving an individual test to each student. Randomly examining students orally by calling on one student to present his or her groups work to the teacher or to the entire class. Observing each group and recording the frequency with which each member contributes to the groups work. Assigning one student in each group the role of checker. The checker asks other group members to explain the reasoning and rationale underlying group answers. Having students teach what they learned to someone else. When all the students do this, it is 83 called simultaneous explaining. ( )

1.3.1.4 INTERPERSONAL AND SMALL-GROUP SKILLS

80 81

Ibid. Ibid. 82 Ibid. 83 Ibid. 16

The suitable use of interpersonal and small-group skill is the fourth indispensable element of cooperative learning. Given that social skills are not innate, their learning is necessary for effective collaboration. With the intention of attaining common objectives, learners must: 1) get to know and trust each other, 2) communicate accurately and unambiguously, 3) accept and support each other, and 4) 84 resolve conflict constructively ( ).

1.3.1.5 GROUP PROCESSING

The fifth indispensable element of cooperative learning is group processing which Johnson and Johnson define as reflecting on a group session to: 1) describe what member actions were helpful and 85 unhelpful, and 2) make decisions about what actions to continue or change ( ). As a result of this process, the group enhances and makes clear the efficacy of the members in their contribution to achieve the common goals by means of collaborative efforts.

The group processing may be done at two levels, small groups and the entire class. With the purpose of guaranteeing that small-group processing happens within a lesson, teachers assign a period of time at the end of the lesson where the learning groups reflect on how effective was the work of the members of that group. This analysis: 1) enables learning groups to focus on maintaining good working relationships among members, 2) facilitates the learning of cooperative skills, 3) ensures that members receive feedback on their participation, 4) ensures that students think on the metacognitive as well as the cognitive level, and 5) provides the means to celebrate the success of the group and reinforce the positive 86 behaviours of group members ( ). A relevant feature of both whole-class and small-group processing is group and class celebrations.

84 85

Ibid. Ibid. 86 Ibid. 17

REFERENCES

Blurton, Craig. New Directions of ICT - Use in Education. Hong Kong Learning Without Frontiers, UNESCO 1999. Web. http://www.unesco.org/education/educprog/lwf/dl/edict.pdf 28 June 2010. Bygate, Martin. Effects of Task Repetition on the Structure and Control of Oral Interaction. Researching Pedagogic Tasks, Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. M. Bygate, P. Skehan, M. Swain (Eds.). Harlow: Longman. 2001. (pp. 23-48). Print. Candlin, Chris. Afterword, Taking the Curriculum to Task. Researching Pedagogic Tasks, Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. M. Bygate, P. Skehan, M. Swain (Eds.). Harlow: Longman. 2001. (pp. 229-43). Print. Ellis, Rod. Task Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford UP 2003. Print. Ellis, Rod. The Methodology of Task-Based Teaching. The Asian EFL Journal. 8.3 (2006): pp. 19-45. Print. Estaire, Sheila, and Javier Zann. Planning Classwork: a Task Based Approach. Oxford: Heinemann, 1994. Print. Johnson, David W., and Roger T. Johnson. An Overview of Cooperative Learning. Creativity and Collaborative Learning; J. Thousand, A. Villa and A. Nevin (Eds), Brookes Press, Baltimore, 1994. Print. Johnson, David W., Roger T. Johnson, and Mary Beth Stanne. Cooperative Learning Methods: A MetaAnalysis. N.p. May 2000. Web. http://www.tablelearning.com/uploads/File/EXHIBIT-B.pdf 18 November 2010. Haddad, Wadi D., and Sonia Jurich. ICT for Education: Potential and Potency, Technologies for Education: Potentials, Parameters, and Prospects. Haddad, W. & Drexler, A. (eds), Washington DC: Academy for Educational Development: UNESCO, 2002. pp. 34-37. Print. Long, Michel .H. A Role for Instruction in Second Language Acquisition: Task-Based Language Training. Modelling and Assessing Second Language Acquisition K. Hyltenstam and M. Pienemann (Eds.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1985. pp. 77-99. Print. Long, Michel .H. Input and Second Language Acquisition Theory. Input in Second Language Acquisition, S. Gass and Madden. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1985. Print. Long, Michel .H, and Graham Crookes. Three Approaches to Task-Based Syllabus Design. TESOL Quarterly. 26.1 (1992). pp. 27-56. Print. McCarthy, Michael. Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics. New York: Cambridge UP, 1998. Print. Nunan, David. and Clarice Lamb. The Self-Directed Teacher: Managing the Learning Process. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998. Print. Nunan, David. Task-Based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004. Print. Nunan, David. Task-Based Language Teaching in the Asia Context: Defining Task . The Asian EFL Journal. 8.3 (2006): pp. 12-18. Print. 18

Oxford, Rebecca. 2006, Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning: An Overview. The Asian EFL Journal. 8.3 (2006): pp. 94-121. Print. Prabhu, N.S. Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1987. Print. Salaberry, Rafael. Task-Sequencing in L2 Acquisition Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education. 6.1 (2001): pp. 101-112. Print. Skehan, Peter. Second Language Acquisition Research and Task-Based Instruction. Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. J. Willis and D. Willis (Eds.). Oxford: Heinemann. 1996. pp. 17-30. Print. Skehan, Peter. A Framework for the Implementation of Task-Based Instruction. Applied Linguistics. 17.1 (1996): pp. 38-62. Print. Tinio, Victoria L. ICT in Education. UNDP-APDIP, e-ASEAN www.apdip.net/publications/iespprimers/ICTinEducation.pdf 28 June 2010. Task Force, 2003. Web.

Willis, Dave, and Jane Willis. Consciousness-Raising Activities in the Language Classroom. Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. J. Willis and D. Willis (Eds.). Oxford: Heinemann, 1996. pp. 63-76. Print. Wilkins, David. Notional Syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1976. Print.

19