Analyzing speaking tasks in contemporary English textbooks for Swedish compulsory schools

(1)

Malmö högskola

Lärarutbildningen

Kultur – språk – medier

Examensarbete

15 högskolepoäng

Analyzing speaking tasks in contemporary English textbooks for Swedish compulsory schools

En analys av uppgifter som kräver talat språk i nutida textböcker för engelska i svenska högstadieskolor

Jan Tietge

Lärarexamen 270 hp

Moderna språk med inriktning mot undervisning och lärande i engelska 2010-06-04

Examinator: Björn Sundmark

(2)

(3)

2 Abstract

Textbooks still dominate teaching materials in English classes in Sweden. This paper analyzes speaking tasks in two sets (textbook and workbook) of textbooks for year nine in Swedish schools, Happy, Workbook No. 3, and What’s Up? Textbook 9 and Workbook 9. The first analysis presents a content analysis, providing a general overview of speaking tasks found in both textbooks. Here, I will quantitatively account for the qualitative items types of speaking (monologue or dialogue), text types (narration, giving information, description, instruction, discussion/argumentation), cognitive operations (open/productive, open/reproductive, closed productive or closed/reproductive speech patterns), and classroom organization (single or pair work, pair or group work, or class work) in a matrix. This shows what kinds of tasks dominate the books and are required most of the students.

The second is a close analysis of four speaking tasks against a framework of seven principles: scaffolding (actually demonstrating a solution), task dependency (tasks build upon each other), recycling (introducing language items in different contexts), active learning, integration (the task shows the relationship between meaning, form, and function of language items), from reproduction to creation (the order of tasks goes from reproductive to productive), and reflection (the task offers opportunity for reflection over one’s own learning). Two tasks will meet most, and two will meet only few of these principles.

The content analysis reveals a vast majority of dialogues (100 out of 124 tasks, or 80.65%). This might not be surprising, keeping the communicative approach of the syllabus in mind. But it is surprising that discussion/argumentation is the text type most frequently asked for (46 out of 124 tasks, or 31.7%), not narration or giving information. They occupy a firm second and third place with 30 (24.19%) respectively 27 (21.77%) tasks out of 124. 21 (16.94%) tasks in total ask for description. Even more surprisingly, not one task demands that students give instructions. Giving instructions may not require as much two-way communication, but it still presents an important skill.

(4)

3

This is an analysis, not an evaluation. An analysis aims at objectively accounting for what is presented and in what proportions without making some form of judgment on what is found. This would be the objective of an evaluation. This paper aims at analyzing speaking tasks and task design in English textbooks, not to pass or fail them against the needs of students or the demands of the Swedish syllabus for English.

(5)

(6)

(7)

6 Table of contents

1 Introduction………10

1.1 Why analyze task design in textbooks? A brief background………11

1.2 What does the syllabus for English say?...13

1.2.1 A brief outlook on the Swedish syllabus for English………...13

1.2.2 Goals to strive towards………14

1.3 Purpose statement………..15

1.3.1 Research questions………..16

1.4 Defining central concepts………..16

1.4.1 Analysis vs. evaluation………...17

1.4.2 The textbook as learner material………...17

1.4.3 Text type………...17 1.4.4 Task definition………...17 2 Literature review………20 2.1 Reports………..20 2.2 Literature………...20 2.3 On content analysis………...21

2.4 Principles of task design………22

2.4.1 Scaffolding………..23

2.4.2 Task dependency……….23

2.4.3 Recycling………24

2.4.4 Active learning………24

2.4.5 Integration………...25

2.4.6 From reproduction to creation……….25

2.4.7 Reflection………26 3 Methodology………..26 3.1 Content analysis………27 3.1.1 Task name………...27 3.1.2 Types of speaking………...28 3.1.3 Text types………28

(8)

7

3.1.4 Task description………..28

3.1.5 Focus (function/form)……….29

3.1.6 Cognitive processes……….29

3.1.7 Classroom organization………...31

3.2 Structuring the content analysis………32

3.3 Task selection………32

3.4 Close task analysis………33

4 Results and analysis………...34

4.1 Content analysis………34 4.1.1 Types of speaking………...35 4.1.2 Text type……….35 4.1.3 Focus………...36 4.1.4 Cognitive operations………...37 4.1.5 Classroom organization………...38

4.2 Content analysis – results………..39

4.2.1 Happy, Workbook No. 3………40

4.2.2 What’s Up? Textbook 9………...49

4.2.3 What’s Up? Workbook 9……….53

5 Close analysis of four speaking tasks………61

5.1 Happy, Workbook No. 3, example……….61

5.1.7 Reflection………64

5.2 Happy, Workbook No. 3, non-example……….65

(9)

8

5.3 What’s Up? Textbook 9, non-example………..68

5.4 What’s Up? Workbook 9, example………70

6 Conclusion……….………73

(10)

9

(11)

10 1 Introduction

In every educational setting of foreign language learning, teachers are faced with an abundance of text- and workbooks. This is certainly true of foreign language education in schools. Lundahl (2009) writes that “Läroböcker som bas för undervisningen har […] en mycket lång tradition[…]” (p.48), and every school is known to use one edition of a text- and workbook compiled and edited by one of many publishing companies. In its report Läromedlens roll i undervisningen (2006, p.25) the Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket) confirms that textbooks occupy a very prominent position in Swedish classrooms. Teachers use them to plan their lessons, and especially as a source of material (ibid.). Teacher and student attitudes towards them may vary, but textbooks are an integral element of foreign language education.

The goal of the Swedish syllabus for English is to enable students to develop a versatile “communicative ability” (translation my own) and language skills for international contacts, an increasingly internationalized labor market, for taking advantage of rapidly developing communication technology and for future studies (translation my own) (SKOLFS 2000:135). Within this communicative ability, speaking occupies a very important role. In fact, verbal interaction and the importance of conversation are emphasized in the syllabus (Myndigheten för skolutveckling, 2001, p.48).

The goal of this paper is not to evaluate speaking tasks in textbooks. An evaluation would mean to try to ‘pass’ or ‘fail’ a textbook with regards to the broadly formulated goals of the curriculum, and thus prove a nigh impossible venture. My interest lies solely in how speaking tasks are designed in textbooks. An analysis of speaking tasks and task design would provide a more unbiased look upon what tasks are provided and how their design draws upon students’ verbal abilities. Happy, Textbook No. 3 and Happy, Workbook No. 3 (2006, Malmö: Gleerups utbildning) and What’s Up? Textbook 9 and the accompanying Workbook 9 (2007, Stockholm: Bonnier utbildning) are two fairly recent and widely used textbooks with accompanying workbooks which have been recommended to me for my analysis. Happy, Textbook No. 3 only includes texts, but no tasks at all. My analysis, then, will consist of three books, the Happy, Workbook No. 3 and What’s Up? Textbook 9 and Workbook 9.

First, I will carry out a content analysis of both the textbook and the two workbooks, accounting quantitatively for the number of speaking tasks and qualitatively for the types of speaking, output text types, learning focus, cognitive operations and classroom organization set forth by each task. This comprehensive analysis is followed by an in-depth

(12)

11

analysis of two speaking tasks in each of the two sets of textbooks, drawing upon seven task principles set forth by David Nunan (2004). In his book Task-Based Language Teaching, Nunan asks seven questions of tasks to set up a formidable set of components for task design. Are students given scaffolding, concrete examples on how to complete the task at hand? Does the task build upon the previously encountered ones; is there task dependency that will help students solve the task at hand? Does the task provide for the reintroduction, or recycling, of language items in different settings and contexts? Are the students the ones doing the active learning while solving the task at hand? Does the task help with integration? In other words, does it help students understand the relationship between the meaning, the form, and the function of language items? And does the task, as one of many within a unit, fit into an order of task progression that goes from reproduction to creation, where students are asked to reproduce patterns before creatively producing their own? And finally, does the task provide an opportunity for reflection, so that students can reflect over what they are doing and how well they are doing it? With this set of seven criteria for effective task design, Nunan (2004) provides for a feasible framework for analyzing the four speaking tasks.

1.1 Why analyze task design in textbooks? A brief background

The present Swedish syllabus states learning aims and goals for students, but no specific methods or materials to use to achieve them. This has not always been so. Seen from a historical perspective, the Swedish government regulated – often very detailed - the choice and use of learning materials in schools by means of strict guidelines and the distribution of economic resources (Skolverket, 2006). The syllabuses often contained detailed descriptions of the content and method of the instruction, and preferred learning materials were often explicitly stated in syllabuses and commentaries (ibid.). In other words, the syllabus was more detailed but also more restrictive with regards to choice of materials and methods of instruction. In fact, it was not until 1991 that government control over teaching materials and thus - more or less directly – methods, was abolished in Sweden:

Riksdagens beslut om förändring av de statliga skolmyndigheterna 1991 innebar bl.a. att Statens Institut för Läromedel (SIL) avvecklades och att statens kontroll och styrning av läromedel helt upphörde. Ur ett historiskt perspektiv har läromedel varit en av de styrfaktorer som staten använt för att åstadkomma den likvärdiga eller enhetliga skolan,

the Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket) writes in its report Läromedlens roll i undervisningen (Skolverket, 2006, p.13). Accordingly, government control was not only

(13)

12

used to implement the use of certain learning materials, but to implement a unitary national school system as well, that paid little heed to regional and local diversities.

Today, the government still is responsible for setting up goals and regulations, the report continues (ibid.), but the interpretation and implementation of the goals set forth in the present Swedish syllabuses is left to the municipalities and schools themselves. This leaves more room for schools to adapt their learning and teaching methods to regional and local diversities. But this also spawns debate on how to reach the nationally established learning aims and goals (Skolverket, 2006). With teachers now left up to their own professional judgment and freedom (ibid.) to reinterpret and lead their students towards the national aims and goals, the popularity of the textbook seems to have suffered no demise. In Sweden, 83% of the interviewed fifth grade and 56% of the interviewed ninth grade English teachers use textbooks in every, or almost every, lesson (Skolverket, 2006).

On a more personal note, my decision to analyze speaking tasks in textbooks partially comes from my own personal reluctance to use textbooks if possible in my own teaching, and partially from the resulting interest to investigate how these learner materials are designed. I find textbooks have a tendency to become outdated, and thus irrelevant, to students fairly quickly. And although publishers try hard to reach out to students, topics like love, music, friendship, etc. often seem stereotypical topics to present to teenagers. Yes, using textbooks greatly reduces the time needed to plan lessons, but will students feel inspired and involved when using pre-fabricated, repetitive materials? Once again, my personal preference to avoid textbooks when possible would make an evaluation of two sets of them seem very feasible, the objective being to show how they fail to meet the demands of students or the syllabus. But, as we shall see, an evaluation is often not even possible without a preceding analysis, and letting my personal preference cloud the investigation would not do justice to any set of textbooks or founded research on them, for that matter. And, how does one “pass” or “fail” a textbook against a vaguely formulated syllabus? At this point, an evaluation would feel like jumping the proverbial gun. An analysis, on the other hand, will provide an objective overview of what kinds of speaking tasks are provided and how they are designed. This will satisfy my own personal interest in investigating speaking tasks in textbooks. The evaluation I leave up to others.

I have specifically chosen to analyze speaking tasks, since speaking is such an integral part of human communication and thus also of the communicative language acquisition approach prescribed by the Swedish syllabus for English. In spoken conversation,

(14)

13

grammatical and syntactical mistakes can be so grave that they go beyond the point of disturbing communication. The speakers cannot go back and re-read what their conversational partner has just said, as they can in i.e. chat rooms. Also, conversational skills will be essential for effective communication in students’ future careers and social lives in an ever more globalized world. And, last but not least, the reluctance many students portray towards speaking in class makes the analysis of speaking tasks all the more interesting.

1.2 What does the syllabus for English say?

What does the Swedish syllabus for English in compulsory schools say about the use of spoken English, both in school and outside?

1.2.1 A brief outlook on the Swedish syllabus for English

English has been a mandatory subject since the first steering document for compulsory schools in Sweden in 1962 (Lgr 62), with the obligation to learn English being expanded to include more grade levels in 1969 (Lgr 69) (Skolverket, 2006). Both documents presented a strictly linguistic approach to learning English, with emphasis placed exclusively on correct language use. In other words, grammatical correctness and proper pronunciation dominated language teaching and learning (ibid.). The revised steering document from 1980 (Lgr 80) saw a change from a linguistic to a communicative approach to language learning, placing the ability to understand and use a language in different contexts above correct language use. This view still prevails in today’s syllabus and approach to language teaching (Skolverket, 2006, p.36). The communicative approach to language learning anchored in the Swedish syllabus for English since 1980 implies a paradigm shift. In one of the earliest documents released by the Council of Europe, van Ek (1977) explains the shift towards the performance-based communicative curriculum by writing that the performance-based curriculum

…tries to specify foreign language ability as a skill rather than knowledge. It analyzes what the learner will have to be able to do in the foreign language and determines only in the second place what language-forms (words, structures, etc.) the learners will have to be able to handle in order to do all that has been specified (Nunan, 2004, p.44).

Whereas knowledge refers to declarative knowledge of how a language is structured, skills refer to the actual ability to use it in various contexts.

The current Swedish syllabus for English has its origin in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2001), a framework

(15)

14

for language teaching, learning and assessment, which defines language activities for different groups of language users (Lundahl, 2009). A look at today’s syllabus for English and its section about the purpose and role of English in education (Syfte och roll i utbildningen) confirms the communicative approach.

1.2.2 Goals to strive towards

The syllabus names versatile ‘communicative competence’ (translation my own) as the ultimate learning goal for all students. The steering document, Lpo94, stipulates that every student has to be able to communicate in English in spoken and written form before leaving compulsory school (Skolverket, 2004). This ‘communicative competence’ consists of receptive, interactive, and productive skills (SKOLFS: 2000:135). These three skills appear in an own system of progression in the syllabus from 2000 (Skolverket, 2004):

Kursplan 2000 har dock arbetat fram ett eget progressionssystem i vilket de kommunikativa färdigheterna återfinns

– receptiva färdigheter (att förstå text eller tal),

– interaktiva färdigheter (att förstå och svara på text eller tal) och – produktiva färdigheter (att själv producera text eller tal) (p.37).

The order in which these competences are presented within the learning goals follows the four ‘traditional’ competences listening, speaking, reading, writing (Myndigheten för skolutveckling, 2001). Emphasis has, however, been placed on oral interaction and the importance of conversation (ibid.). The receptive skills encompass students’ ability to understand English in written and spoken form. Interactive skills describe students’ ability to function both as listener and speaker, or reader and writer (ibid.) This ability requires the student to be able to initiate, contribute to, as well as end a conversation or written correspondence in English, “förmågan att inleda, bidra till att utveckla och avsluta ett samtal eller en skriftväxling” (SKOLFS:200:135). Productive skills refer to students’ ability to convey meaning in speaking and writing. These three skills can then be assessed according to different aspects set forth in the assessment section of the syllabus (ibid.), such as pronunciation, fluency, variation, and confidence in language use.

With regards to speaking, the syllabus for English in compulsory schools states the following goals to strive towards:

Skolan skall i sin undervisning i engelska sträva efter att eleven

– utvecklar sin förmåga att använda engelska för att kommunicera i tal […],

– utvecklar sin förmåga att delta aktivt i samtal […], uttrycka sina egna tankar på engelska samt uppfatta andras åsikter och erfarenheter,

(16)

15

– utvecklar sin förmåga att använda engelska muntligt i olika sammanhang för att berätta, beskriva och förklara samt motivera sina åsikter,

The goals to strive towards are vaguely formulated. This is due to the heavily decentralized Swedish school system, which is meant to leave the interpretation and practical implementation of the learning goals up to the teachers keeping local diversities in mind (Skolverket, 2006). Approximately eight out of ten English teachers in Sweden agree that they often engage in pedagogic discussions over the syllabus and steering documents (ibid.).

The syllabus also sets forth specific goals that the student should have achieved by the end of fifth and ninth grade in the section Mål som eleverna skall ha uppnått i slutet av det nionde skolåret. These goals are the minimal levels of competence that students have to achieve in order to pass the respective grade level (Myndigheten för skolutveckling, 2008). They are, however, not synonymous with the goals to strive towards, which determine the course content for teaching and learning (ibid.). With regards to speaking, the goals set forth for ninth grade I find in the syllabus are:

– kunna delta aktivt i samtal kring kända ämnen och med hjälp av olika strategier bidra till att kommunikationen fungerar,

– kunna muntligt berätta och beskriva något som hon eller han sett, hört, upplevt eller läst samt uttrycka och argumentera för en uppfattning i något för honom eller henne angeläget ämne.

1.3 Purpose statement

Textbooks are still the dominating form of teaching material in English classrooms in Sweden today. The aim of my research is to investigate what kind of speaking tasks are presented in two sets of widely used textbooks in ninth grade English classes in Swedish compulsory schools, and then to analyze task design in a close analysis. My first analysis will be a content analysis, taking an objective look at the content of speaking tasks and simply accounting for “what is there” (Littlejohn, 1998, p.195). The purpose of this analysis is to get a quantitative overview of tasks presented and to be able to draw more qualitative, and therefore more general conclusions about the books. My second analysis will be a close analysis of four speaking tasks against a framework of seven task principles established by David Nunan (2004). In order for tasks to be efficient, they need certain key components. My close analysis will investigate two tasks that hold true to most, and two tasks that lack most of these principles.

(17)

16 1.3.1 Research questions

To help with both the content analysis of the two sets of textbooks and the close analysis of four speaking tasks, I have devised and adapted a number of research questions to guide my research. These are closely related to Brendan Duffy’s description of a task analysis in his essay The analysis of documentary evidence (Bell, 2005). With regards to the four task items (types of speaking, text type, focus, cognitive operations, and classroom organization) that I focus on in my content analysis, I ask myself the following questions. When looking at the total amount of speaking tasks, how often do what combinations of the four task items appear? And what does their frequency tell me about the general ideas behind the two sets of textbooks?

In my close analysis of four speaking tasks (two from each set of textbooks), I draw upon David Nunan’s (2004) seven principles of task design. The research questions I ask of every one of the four speaking tasks I analyze are:

1. Is supportive scaffolding provided? Or does the textbook simply give directions?

2. Does the task grow out of, and build upon, preceding ones (task dependency)?

3. Does the task reintroduce linguistic items to maximize students’ opportunities to see these items in different environments (recycling)? 4. Does the task provide opportunity for active learning? In other words, does

it allow students to learn by doing?

5. Does the task make clear to the learners the systematic relationships between form, function and meaning (integration)?

6. Does the task provide opportunity for the learners to recombine familiar elements in a new way, or does it simply ask to reproduce language models (reproduction to creation)?

7. Does the task provide opportunity for learners to reflect upon what they have learnt and how well they are doing?

1.4 Defining central concepts

To simplify understanding and to set up an effective framework for my analysis, a couple of central concepts have to be defined.

(18)

17

1.4.1 Analysis vs. evaluation

As Andrew Littlejohn (1998) points out, the many developments in learner materials and textbooks over the recent years call for means by which to examine them. A framework is needed which allows “materials to ‘speak for themselves’ and which helps teacher-analysts to look closely into materials before coming to their own conclusions […]” (ibid., p.192). Analyzing textbooks thus first implies what Littlejohn calls looking at materials in terms of ‘what is there’ (McGrath, 2002, p.22) and ‘as they are’ (Littlejohn, 1998, p.191). In other words, an analysis should provide an objective overview over what the learner materials present. This means that they are to be analyzed by means of content, not by how they actually work in class (Littlejohn, 1998, p.191). This is an important key factor in textbook analysis.

In contrast, David Nunan (2004) defines evaluation as “processes and procedures for gathering information […] for purposes of improvement” (p.214). As McGrath (2002) writes, evaluation differs from analysis in that it makes a subjective judgment: “[…] analysis is a process which leads to an objective, verifiable description. Evaluation, as the word suggests, involves the making of judgments” (p.22). Analysis may lead up to evaluation (Littlejohn, 1998), or even present an important pre-evaluation stage (McGrath, 2002). Evaluation itself plays a role in, for example, deciding on which textbook to purchase by identifying which one most effectively meets the requirements of the language classroom (McGrath, 2002). To effectively summarize the distinction between analysis and evaluation, McGrath (2002) writes: “In its simplest form, analysis seeks to discover what is there (Littlejohn 1998), whereas evaluation is more concerned to discover whether what one is looking for is there – and, if it is, to put a value on it” (p.22).

1.4.2 The textbook as learner material

The term textbook is not synonymous with the term learner materials, even if textbooks still dominate instruction in Swedish classrooms. In fact, for many teachers, learner materials and textbooks mean the same thing (Skolverket, 2006). Learner materials include textbooks, but they also include much more. According to the Swedish National Agency for Education there is no explicit definition for learner materials (Skolverket, 2006). The steering documents from 1980, Lpo80, define learner materials as “such materials teachers and students agree to use to achieve set goals” (ibid., p.9) (translation my own). The intention – in this case the reaching of learning goals – behind the use of the material in question determines if something is

(19)

18

considered learner material or not, the National Agency for Education continues (ibid.). Brian Tomlinson (1998) offers a similar definition:

Anything which is used to help teach language learners. Materials can be in the form of a textbook, a workbook, a cassette, a CD-Rom, a video, a photocopied handout, a newspaper, a paragraph written on a whiteboard: anything which presents or informs about the language being learned (p. xi) (translation my own).

The textbook is thus an example for learner materials. The textbook is, however, often used to substantiate the goals set forth in the syllabus, Bo Lundahl (2009) writes, securing it a dominant position in learning materials. Tomlinson (1998) describes a textbook as providing the core materials for a course, aiming to present as much as possible to serve as the only book learners need. During the latest decades, however, the Internet with the new possibilities it offers has become an increasingly popular learner material alongside the textbook (Skolverket, 2006).

1.4.3 Text type

The syllabus requires students to be able to produce a number of different text types in written as well as spoken English. With regards to spoken English, the syllabus (SKOLFS, 2000:135) sets forth that every student develops his or her ability to use English verbally in different contexts to tell, describe, explain, and to motivate his or her opinion:

– utvecklar sin förmåga att använda engelska muntligt i olika sammanhang för att berätta, beskriva och förklara samt motivera sina åsikter.

Five general text types can be deduced from the goals of the syllabus: narration and information (berätta), description (beskriva), instruction (förklara), and discussion/argumentation (motivera sina åsikter). As for texts students are to encounter in class, there is a sheer limitless amount of different texts in the world and learner materials cannot include all of them (Lundahl, 2009). However, Lundahl (ibid.) shows great concern when he writes that the bulk of texts presented in learner materials center around narration and information, although the ‘communicative competence’ requires students to come into contact with a broad spectrum of texts and genres.

1.4.4 Task definition

As this paper will concern speaking tasks and task design, the concept of what a task constitutes in an educational setting must be clearly defined. The term ‘task’ in itself is a very broad one. Long (1985), for instance, defines a task as “a piece of work undertaken for

(20)

19

oneself or for others, freely or for some reward. […] In other words, by ‘task’ is meant the hundred and one things people do in everyday life, at work, at play and in between” (Nunan, 2004, p.2). The term ‘task’ is thus valid for everything a human being does intentionally to meet an end. A more precise definition for tasks in an educational setting is needed. In order to make a distinction, Nunan (2004) refers to pedagogical tasks. Tasks become pedagogical, when “they are transformed from the real world to the classroom” (Nunan, 2004, p.2). Pedagogical tasks have their root in the real world, but the processes are altered to fit into an educational setting. In other words, they “are defined in terms of what the learners will do in class rather than in the world outside the classroom” (ibid.).

Defining learner tasks proves to require quite some consideration of many different factors. Nunan (2004) himself offers a comprehensive definition of a learner task as: […] 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 alone as a communicative act in its own right with a beginning, a middle and an end (p.4).

Nunan’s definition of pedagogic tasks shows how they must activate learners to draw on receptive, interactive and productive language skills. Also, grammatical knowledge of the target language is required of the learners to express themselves. However, Nunan emphasizes, expressing meaning is more important than expressing it in the correct form. This does not mean that form does no matter, but that the function of the task supersedes its form (Lundahl, 2009). Nunan (2004) also stresses the importance of structuring the learner task to stand as complete, clearly confined unit.

Tasks usually emanate from a form of text, a story, a newspaper article, etc., followed by written or oral instructions on what is to be done and how to do it – in individual, pair or group work (Lundahl, 2009). Often, the instructions include a goal and the task design also calls for a number of choices; should communication be one- or two-way, should there only be one or many possible solutions, and should the task be solved individually or together (ibid.)? Pica, Kanagy and Falodin (1993) list some of the most common tasks (Lundahl, 2009), which can also be used for speaking. Speaking tasks can thus consist of jigsaw tasks, information-gap tasks, problem-solving tasks, decision-making tasks, or opinion exchange tasks (ibid.).

(21)

20

2 Literature review

2.1 Reports

The Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket) offers a number of reports that are relevant for my field of research. Nationella utvärderingen av grundskolan 2003 (NU-03) (Skolverket, 2004) is a report which aims at presenting the Swedish government with a holistic view of the compulsory school. It provides information about how well the national goals of the curriculum are met, or why students do not meet these goals. It also provides useful information about the construction of the Swedish syllabus for English and the goals conveyed in it.

The report Läromedlens roll i undervisningen (Skolverket, 2006) gives a comprehensive overview of the role that teaching materials have played and still play in Sweden. This report is obviously of great value to my research when it comes to investigating the impact of learner materials – especially textbooks – have had and still have in English classrooms.

In 2008, the Agency for School Development (Myndigheten för skolutveckling) released Engelska - en samtalsguide om kunskap, arbetssätt och bedömning (English - a guide over knowledge, methodology and assessment [translation my own]). The idea behind this guide is to be a useful tool to help develop a supportive teaching environment (Myndigheten för skolutveckling, 2008). The guide also provides useful insights into the Swedish syllabus for English.

Useful insights and explanations of goals and underlying thoughts about the Swedish syllabus for English can also be found in Språkboken, published by the Agency for School Development (Myndigheten för skolutveckling) in 2001.

2.2 Literature

Bo Lundahl’s book Engelsk språkdidaktik (2009) provides insight on most topics addressed in this paper. Lundahl comments on syllabus construction and implications, task definitions and designs, cognitive processes, learner materials and issues of methodology. It is a comprehensive book about teaching English which has proven to be extremely helpful in my research.

(22)

21

The editions of Jeremy Harmer’s book The Practice of English Language Teaching (1983, 2001 and 2007) offer a very practical view on using learner materials in English classes and language teaching in general.

Brendan Duffy’s essay The Analysis of Documentary Evidence in Judith Bells’ book Doing your Research Project (2005) provides the methodology for the content analysis of the two sets of textbooks. The aim of a content analysis is to account for the number of times a specific item occurs in a source, to establish the frequency of these items and then placing them into their context before interpreting and explaining the result (Duffy, in Bell, 2005). As I am looking at how often certain text types, types of speaking, cognitive operations, and other items occur in the two sets of textbooks, a content analysis combining quantitative and qualitative elements seems to be a proper approach. The figures gained in this approach will then help me draw conclusions about the books.

Amos Hatch’s book Doing Qualitative Research in Educational Settings (2002) provides the framework for the typological analysis which I have decided to use in my close analysis of four speaking tasks.

In his book Task-Based Language Learning (2004), David Nunan provides the framework of seven principles of task design upon which I base my close analysis of for speaking tasks.

2.3 On content analysis

I base my content analysis of the two sets of textbooks for English on Ian McGrath’s book Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching (2002) and Andrew Littlejohn’s essay The analysis of language teaching materials: inside the Trojan Horse in Brian Tomlinson’s book Materials Development in Language Teaching (1998). Whereas Duffy introduces the general idea of the content analysis, McGrath (2002) and Littlejohn (1998) provide an actual framework for it. To begin with, both McGrath and Littlejohn make the important distinction between analysis and evaluation. Whereas evaluation is for making subjective judgments about learner materials when, for instance, looking for a new textbook to adopt. Analysis implies taking an objective, non-judgmental look at the presented material. Analysis investigates what tasks demand of learners, and evaluation is the process used to decide which material best meets a specific educational setting.

Why analyze textbooks? McGrath (2002) points out that analysis is an important initial step in evaluation. When looking at “an objective, verifiable description” (analysis) of

(23)

22

a textbook within a learning context to see if the textbook might be suitable, we are evaluating (McGrath, 2002, p.22). Littlejohn (1998), keeping the rapid advancement and development of “complete ‘packages’” of learner materials in mind, calls for a “means by which we can closely analyse materials” (p.190). The implications the materials may have in a classroom setting, as well as the claims made by the publishers of promoting i.e. task-based learning or learner autonomy need to be examined (ibid.). McGrath (2002) agrees. Littlejohn (1998) is concerned with the analysis of what Candlin (1987) and Breen (1989) call tasks-as-workplans, the tasks per se, before they are put into action in an educational setting (ibid.). In other words, the material needs to ‘speak for itself’ first (Littlejohn, 1998, p.192). In short, McGrath (2002) sums up by saying that the analyst should “reach a general understanding of the philosophy underlying the materials” (p.25).

What is to be analyzed in tasks? And how? Littlejohn (1998) proposes a three-step framework to do so. The first three-step is to analyze “what is there” (Littlejohn, 1998, pp.195-196), taking a very basic look at the purely physical aspects like publication date and form, components, the division into units or chapters, or the access into the material itself, i.e. through an index of vocabulary items. The second step consists of investigating what is required of learners and what objectives the tasks pursue (Littlejohn, 1998). The focus lies on “what precisely learners are expected to do” (ibid.). The third step is then to draw conclusions from the information gathered in the previous two steps. Now it is possible to make a general statement about i.e. the demands the material places on learners, or how the material as a whole is to facilitate language learning, Littlejohn (1998) concludes.

When it comes to analyzing tasks themselves, Nunan (2004) provides a number of principles to adhere to in his book Task-Based Language Teaching. In my close analysis of two speaking tasks from the two sets of textbooks I have chosen, I will rely on the seven principles of task-based language teaching devised by David Nunan (2004). These principles place the task and its design in the center of focus and provide a comprehensive framework of what opportunities tasks should offer learners.

2.4 Principles of task design

My close analysis of four speaking tasks is based on seven principles of task design that Nunan (2004) introduces in his book Task-Based Language Teaching: scaffolding, task dependency, recycling, active learning, integration, reproduction to creation, and reflection. These seven principles will be the objects of scrutiny in the four tasks I analyze closer. To rate

(24)

23

exactly how well one or more principles apply to a task would be difficult. By what measures does one say that a task i.e. provides excellent scaffolding? But a task can be examined with regards to how and to what extent a principle is deductible, and thus a conclusion can be drawn. Nunan’s seven principles of task design require some more detailed description.

2.4.1 Scaffolding

Does the task at hand give directions or does it actually provide scaffolding? Whereas directions tell the learner what to do, scaffolding shows the learner how to do it. Scaffolding must thus build on what the learner knows and be aimed at assisting the learner to make use of that knowledge in different settings. Harmer (2007) writes that learners can only benefit from scaffolding if they are “just getting to a stage (above their own current level of knowledge) where they are ready to learn the new thing” (p.59). He demonstrates scaffolding on two concrete examples: when students write a certain form of report it is almost imperative to provide actual samples and to help the learners analyze structure and style. For giving spoken directions, learners will benefit from listening to somebody doing it first (ibid.). This kind of scaffolding demonstrates how tasks can be solved and provides what Gibbons (2002) calls “the temporary assistance by which a teacher helps a learner know how to do something, so that the learner will later be able to complete a similar task alone” (Lundahl, 2009, p.160).

2.4.2 Task dependency

Nunan uses the term task dependency to describe that tasks should draw and build upon one another. The idea is that students should not be exposed to unknown content, but should encounter and work with content they are already familiar with. Providing tasks that do not build upon one another does not form a sort of natural progression. Lundahl (2009) writes that, ideally, tasks do follow a logical progression. In other words, tasks are to form a certain sequence, where “learners are led step by step to the point where they are able to carry out the final pedagogical task in the sequence” (Nunan, 2004, p.35).

In a series of tasks, a sense of progression is an important aspect. Most of today’s textbooks are thus designed to follow a thematic division into chapters, as well as an organization that builds upon grammatical structures and vocabulary (Lundahl, 2009). In other words, the textbook slowly builds upon increasingly challenging content and complex structures. Since the materials have such great impact on teaching and learning – 56% of the ninth grade English teachers in Sweden use textbooks regularly - Lundahl (ibid.) points out

(25)

24

the importance of looking at the design of the entire textbook. Harmer (1983) describes a good textbook as one which “provide[s] a sensible progression of language items, clearly showing what has to be learnt and in some cases summarizing what has been studied[…]”(p.219). When looking at task dependency, Nunan (2004) points to the receptive-to-productive principle as a chief principle within task dependency. This principle will be explained in more detail below. In short, tasks are first to draw upon receptive skills for comprehension’s sake, before the learner can advance to engage in productive procedures.

2.4.3 Recycling

By recycling language items, learners gain the opportunities of experiencing these items being used in different settings and contexts (Nunan, 2004). Recycling means exposing the learners to a linguistic item in a variety of contexts and settings. Since learners tend not to master items at their first encounter, these need to be continuously reintroduced in a range of different environments (Nunan, 2004). Learners need to see the item used in as many ways as possible, as it would be in real life. By seeing these items reintroduced in different settings, learners can experience how they function in a language (ibid.). “[Recycling] would appear to be healthy for second language acquisition because it allows learners to ‘restructure’ and develop an elaborated understanding of the item in question” Nunan (2004) writes (p.30). Instead of focusing on the item in isolated settings, students see it in a more holistic view, and in what possible contexts and settings it fits into real spoken or written language.

2.4.4 Active learning

Active learning ensures the best learning results. Students learn best by using the language they are learning (Nunan, 2004). Nunan points to the principle of learning by doing, by having students “actively constructing their own knowledge rather than having it transmitted to them by a teacher” (ibid., p.36). Tasks should thus enable the students to make as much practical use of the target language as possible. Tomlinson (1998) writes that:

Using language for communication involves attempts to achieve a purpose in a situation in which the content, strategies and expression of the interaction are determined by the learners. Such attempts can enable the learners to ‘check’ their internal hypotheses, [especially] if the opportunities for use are interactive and encourage negotiation of meaning (Allwright 1984, p.157) (pp.14-15).

By using the target language as much and as actively as possible, students are able to practice it in different contexts and to see if they obtain the desired effects. Students gain command

(26)

25

over and understanding of the language and can determine whether they are using it correctly to achieve a desired outcome. Nunan (2004) writes that the opportunities for learners can be many and varied, but the key point is that the learners, not the teacher, do the work.

2.4.5 Integration

According to Nunan (2004), learners need to be taught to see the relationship between linguistic form, communicative function and semantic meaning. In other words, students need to see a connection between how they say something, why they say it and what it means and implies. Although function is more important than form in communicative language settings, form should not be considered irrelevant. Even if focus lies on communication (function), Long still considers form to be a part of the learner task (Lundahl, 2009). According to Nunan (1999), learner tasks should focus on authenticity, task dependency and the form/function principle, Lundahl continues (ibid.). The form/function principle implies a connection between function and form, and learners should be encouraged to draw own conclusions about how language works (Lundahl, 2009). Nunan (2004) points out that until the 1980s, language teaching centered on a synthetic approach, where the linguistic elements - the grammatical, lexical, and phonological components – were taught separately. Whereas this paradigm shift caused the separation of form and meaning in favor for communication, systemic-functional linguists now argue that learners need awareness of the systematic relationship between form, function, and meaning (ibid.). This argument is remotely stated in the Swedish syllabus for English which sets forth that students should develop their ability to analyze, revise and improve their language use towards greater variation and confidence (SKOLFS, 200:135). As Bo Lundahl (2009) writes, “Focus on grammar does not have to require knowledge of grammatical rules. It can also imply curiosity about how language works and increased linguistic awareness” (p.166) (translation my own).

2.4.6 From reproduction to creation

This principle states that learners should be encouraged to move from reproductive tasks to creative tasks (Nunan, 2004). Reproductive tasks ask students to imitate language models provided by teachers, textbooks or recordings and are designed to give learners mastery of form, meaning and function (ibid.). Creative tasks, on the other hand, ask students to recombine these familiar items in new ways (ibid.). In other words, the reproductive tasks lay the foundation for learners to start using language items in different context in creative, or

(27)

26

productive, tasks. From a cognitive perspective, learning portrays a progression from simpler to harder items (Lundahl, 2009). If learners do not have the chance of encountering language items in reproductive tasks, chances are, they might lack knowledge of form, meaning or function needed to use language items in productive tasks. Ideally, textbooks will follow a progression from simpler to harder tasks and from retelling and reproduction to more creative and critical reasoning (Lundahl, 2009).

2.4.7 Reflection

Nunan’s principle of reflection states that learners should have the opportunity to reflect upon what they are doing and how well they are doing it (Nunan, 2004):

Becoming a reflective learner is part of learner training where the focus shifts from language content to learning processes. […] Research suggests that learners who are aware of the strategies driving their learning will be better learners [, since adding] a reflective element to teaching can help learners see the rationale [...]” (p.37).

A question worth asking is if tasks actually ask the learner to reflect. Nunan’s task definition implies that tasks are to be communicative, have a sense of direction and a goal (Lundahl, 2009). But whereas the final result (a dialogue, a written answer, etc.) of the task is often mentioned, textbooks may seldom present the purpose (why the students are doing what they are asked to) of a task. Reflection is also a goal to strive towards in the Swedish syllabus for English, which sets forth that students should “develop their ability to reflect over and take responsibility for their own language learning, and consciously use learning methods that gain their language learning” (SKOLFS, 200:135) (translation my own). “Conscious knowledge about how language learning works” is yet another competence expressed in the syllabus (ibid.).

3 Methodology

The purpose of my paper is to investigate task design for speaking tasks in two widely used English textbooks and their accompanying workbooks for grade nine. In order to do so, my work will include two separate analyses. The first will be a content analysis with quantitative and qualitative elements to give a general overview of what Littlejohn (1998) calls “what is there” and “what is required of the users”, in other words, what tasks are presented, and what

(28)

27

they require the learners to do. The second analysis will be a qualitative close analysis of two speaking tasks in each of the two sets of textbooks based on Nunan’s seven principles of task design mentioned above. This approach is what Brendan Duffy (Bell, 2005) calls “a ‘problem-oriented approach’, which involves formulating questions by using other research methods and then by reading secondary sources” (p.123). This method, Duffy (ibid.) continues, builds upon previous discoveries in the subject area and then researching the relevant primary sources, in this case, the two textbooks. Both the content analysis and the close task analysis follow this method and draw upon the findings of different researchers.

3.1 Content analysis

The content analysis is, as Duffy (Bell, 2005) writes, “’a research technique for making replicable and valid inferences from data to their context (Krippendorff, 1980, p.21)” (p.128). Andrew Littlejohn (1998) and McGrath (2002) present a valid three-level framework for such an analysis. In order to account for what kinds of tasks are presented and how tasks are designed, I will combine the first two levels of Littlejohn’s framework, ‘what is there’ and ‘what is required of users’ (ibid.) in a matrix framework of my own. The items I investigate in my matrix are: types of speaking, text type, task description, focus, cognitive operations, and classroom organization. Each speaking task I investigate in the two sets of textbooks will demand a certain type of speaking, text type, focus, cognitive operation and classroom organization. Having accounted for each of these items in the matrix one book at a time, I can then deduce certain general underlying principles of each book. For instance, it is possible to conclude what types of speaking (monologues or dialogues) or cognitive operations (closed, opened, reproductive, or productive) dominate a certain book and what kind of language teaching methods this book follows. The items are described in greater detail below.

3.1.1 Task name

This item names the task from the text- or workbook by its name. The chapter, page- and task number are also included. A capital letter ‘S’ in parentheses (S) below the task name and location indicates that the task is a designated speaking task, explicitly labeled as such by the authors of the text- or workbook.

(29)

28

3.1.2 Types of speaking

What kind of speaking does the task require of the learner? Does the task require the learner to produce output on his or her own, or in cooperation with others? In other words, is the communication required one-way or two-way? One-way communication implies that there is only one speaker who i.e. answers questions or presents a topic verbally to one or more listeners in the form of a monologue. Two-way communication, a dialogue, is “a controlled conversation between one or more participants designed to illustrate and practise one or more language points” (Nunan, 2004, p.213). This implies that two or more speakers must communicate verbally to reach the goal set forth by the task, i.e. debate, discuss a topic or perform a dialogue together. The task types requiring one-way communication are labeled monologue (abbreviated to Monol.). Two-way communication is labeled Dialogue. Types of speaking thus answer to how the students are to engage in the task, alone or together.

3.1.3 Text types

Text types refer to the five text types that students have to produce as the task outcome, namely narration, description, instruction, information, and discussion/argumentation. These have been mentioned above in section 1.4.3. Narration refers to retelling the content of a text or engaging in telling a story or non-factual text. For example, I class many of the dialogues the students have to produce as narration. Narration is abbreviated Narr. in the matrix. Description refers to describing something, i.e. an object, feeling, experience or opinion in a non-argumentative manner. It is abbreviated Desc. in the matrix. Instruction refers to i.e. giving directions or telling somebody how to do something. Information refers to i.e. providing facts from a text or answers to a specific question, or presenting facts in a presentation. Information is abbreviated Info. in the matrix. Discussion/argumentation is asked of students in task where they are required to present an opinion or idea and compare and contrast it to others or justify their standpoint. For lack of space, discussion/argumentation is abbreviated D/A. Giving instructions is abbreviated Instr..

3.1.4 Task description

The task description provides a brief idea of what the task asks the students to do. This is part of Littlejohn’s framework (McGrath, 2002), asking what is required of users.

(30)

29

3.1.5 Focus (function/form)

Focus means what aspect of language the task draws upon. According to Littlejohn (1998), “’Focus refers, for example, to whether the learners are asked to focus on the meaning of the language, its form or both” (p.199). Focusing on meaning implies centering language education on meaningful communication, Lundahl (2009) writes. Rod Ellis (2003) writes that tasks should have “primary focus on meaning”, arguing in favor of the communicative approach to language teaching (Lundahl, 2009, p.293). Ellis states that, when focusing on meaning, participants choose linguistic and non-linguistic resources needed to complete a task, instead of having to draw on one specified language aspect (Lundahl, 2009). This definition does not rule out form, since certain linguistic elements are needed to complete certain tasks (arguing, describing, retelling, etc.). It rather incorporates form as parcel to express meaning as best as possible. As the function of language is to convey meaning, I will refer to conveying meaning as the function of language in my analysis.

The dichotomy, then, that presents itself in this criterion of the content analysis is the one between function, if the tasks ask the learner to focus on conveying meaning, and form, if the tasks ask learners to focus on the grammatical or linguistic composition in the expected output. The Swedish syllabus for English prescribes a communicative approach to language learning, focusing on meaning over form and adhering to the ruling principle of many linguists that function is of primary, and form of secondary importance (Lundahl, 2009). However, I think focusing on form might be helpful from time to time to improve language correctness and thereby communication. Also, with regards to speaking, I find Jeremy Harmer (2001) makes an interesting comment when he cites Carter and McCarthy (1995) who write that spoken and written grammar require separate rules. Often, Harmer (2001) writes, certain grammatical rules seem completely ignored in spoken English. At first glance, the two sets of textbooks I am to analyze seem to confirm that speaking tasks may mostly serve function, but that there may be a secondary focus on form (i.e. having to formulate questions out of statements).

3.1.6 Cognitive processes

Questions can be formulated from different points of departure (Lundahl, 2009). A cognitive point of departure emanates from the complexity of thinking (ibid.). The cognitive processes investigated in my analysis touch upon the demand the task makes in terms of learner output, and in which way the output is made. The first cognitive aspect is whether the task is a closed

(31)

30

or an opened one. David Nunan (2004) defines closed tasks as tasks in which there is only one correct answer. This would be the case in i.e. fact questions which ask the learner to retell facts from a text correctly (Lundahl, 2009). They are often quite restricted from a linguistic viewpoint.

Open tasks, on the other hand, are such in which there is no single correct answer (Nunan, 2004). They often pave the way for a more free language use, since there are several possibilities of answering to an open task and there is no definite answer (Lundahl, 2009). Open tasks often come in the form of discussions or arguments in which students express their own opinions. Closed and opened tasks thus draw upon different language skills. Productive skills, for instance, are in much higher demand in opened than in closed tasks, where the answers often can simply be given straight from a text without any modification. In essence, does the task ask for one correct answer or for a vast possibility of answers that students can formulate freely?

The second cognitive aspect accounted for in my content analysis is whether the requested output should be in reproductive or productive language. Reproductive language is “language produced by learners in imitation of models provided by a teacher or by pedagogical materials” (Nunan, 2004, p.217). Tasks that require reproductive output require the learner to stick closely to the language used in the input text. The audio-lingual method which relied heavily on language drills which were to shield learners from making mistakes (Harmer, 2001) would present an extreme of reproductive language use. Tasks that demand productive language use, on the other hand, require the learner to use language freely. Production is sometimes referred to as ‘immediate creativity’ (Harmer, 2001, p.81). This is when students are asked to use new language in sentences of their own (ibid.). Group discussions would fall into the category of productive tasks. Tasks that are discussed in groups often lead to a more free language use, Lundahl (2009) confirms.

These two dichotomies, open or closed and productive or reproductive (abbreviated Reprod. in the matrix), can now be combined with each other, to closer describe the cognitive operations demanded from the learners. This leaves us with four possible combinations:

-open/productive -open/reproductive -closed/productive -closed/reproductive.

(32)

31

The first and last combination represent the two extremes, with open/productive being an outcome that does not ask for a single correct answer and demands free, productive language use. Discussions often fall into this category. Closed/reproductive tasks embody the opposite, where learners are asked to give one correct answer imitating a given model. Open/reproductive tasks do not ask for a single answer, but still hold the learner to a certain model. Presenting an interview given earlier would be an example of such a task, where the interview follows a certain set of questions with more than one possible answer. Closed/productive tasks ask for a single answer, but do not restrict the learner linguistically. Retelling a story in own words would fall into this category. It is important to remember that these combinations, as all others in the analysis, consider strictly the speaking part of the tasks. For instance, if students write an own dialogue to perform in class, only the speaking part will be analyzed. The writing process itself will not be analyzed. It can, however, affect the cognitive operations required. Re-enacting a dialogue the students have previously written would demand a different cognitive operation than i.e. making one up ad hoc.

3.1.7 Classroom organization

This item describes the “with whom”-part of the task (Littlejohn, 1998, p.195). It is fairly straight forward and defines if the students are to produce the outcome alone or in cooperation. The five alternatives are:

-individual work -pair work -group work

-pair or group work -pair, group or class work

Individual work, pair work, and group work are fairly clear. The instructions explicitly tell the students how to organize themselves. I added the last two alternatives due to the lack of clear instruction in the text- or workbooks. Pair or group work is used for a task which does not constitute an individual or whole class task, but lacks directions whether to perform it in pairs or groups. Both options are possible. Similarly, tasks labeled pair, group or class work do not instruct the learners how to organize themselves. Theoretically, all three constellations are possible to complete the task.

(33)

32

3.2 Structuring the content analysis

Sorting the speaking tasks defined in the two text- and workbooks according to these seven items produces a quantitative listing of qualitative items. I will examine each book separately and use the chapters that the book is divided into. The number that each item or combination occurs in a chapter can be accounted for in a matrix. As Brendan Duffy (2005) writes, content analysis “usually involves counting the number of times particular [items] occur in a sample of sources” (p.128). The total amount of ‘hits’ can be added up. In the end, the matrix presents how many tasks are monologues or dialogues, informative, narrative, descriptive, instructive or argumentative, focus on function or form, are open/productive, open/reproductive, closed/productive or closed/reproductive, and to be carried out in individual, pair, or group work or fit either pair or group, or pair, group or whole class work. As Brendan Duffy (ibid.) writes, “Having established the frequency of your chosen [items], you must then be able to place them in context before interpreting […] them” (p. 128). The total number of each item then gives a qualitative overview and enables the reader to draw an objective conclusion about a book, i.e. that the bulk of the speaking exercises are open/productive dialogues focusing on function, demanding for discussion/argumentative texts as output in pair work. This can then tell the reader what the underlying language teaching ideas of the book are, i.e. if it places emphasis on free language use or bound replication.

3.3 Task selection

Selecting speaking tasks has proven not to be an easy endeavor. In many cases, speaking tasks are explicitly marked as such by the authors of the text- and workbooks. But surprisingly often, they are not. Happy, Workbook 3 uses an icon to point out speaking tasks. What’s Up? Textbook 9 features a task named Talk about it after numerous texts, clearly signalizing speaking tasks. What’s Up? Workbook 9 also clearly identifies tasks by printing the skill they require directly under the task name in bold letters. Speaking tasks are thus also clearly identified. To indicate a clearly stated speaking task in the matrix, I have included a bold letter ‘S’ in parentheses (S) under each task name and location in the book in the task name section.

However, many speaking tasks can be found apart from the clearly marked ones. To provide a more comprehensive analysis, I have decided to include these, too. They are not marked with an ‘(S)’ in the matrix. This decision is problematic as it makes the selection

(34)

33

process a very subjective one and I run the risk of analyzing many borderline cases. Since these tasks can, for instance, also be solved in writing, I have only selected the tasks that explicitly instruct the students to speak using terms like ‘discuss’ or ‘explain to each other’.

3.4 Close task analysis

After presenting the results of the content analysis, I will select two tasks from each book for closer scrutiny. Having put the tasks in their context, conducting a close analysis to see how tasks are actually designed seems only natural. David Nunan (2004) identifies seven principles of task-based language teaching upon which to base task structure and design. The seven principles have been explained above. Essentially, I will ask seven questions of every speaking task I investigate:

1. Is supportive scaffolding provided? Or does the textbook simply give directions?

2. Does the task grow out of, and build upon, preceding ones (task dependency)?

3. Does the task reintroduce linguistic items to maximize students’ opportunities to see these items in different environments (recycling)? 4. Does the task provide opportunity for active learning? In other words, does it allow students to learn by doing?

5. Does the task make clear to the learners the systematic relationships between form, function and meaning (integration)?

6. Does the task provide opportunity for the learners to recombine familiar elements in a new way, or does it simply ask to reproduce language models (reproduction to creation)?

7. Does the task provide opportunity for learners to reflect upon what they have learnt and how well they are doing?

This approach presents what Amos Hatch (2002) calls a typological analysis, where “[t]ypologies are generated from theory, common sense, and/or research objectives, and initial data processing happens within those typological groupings” (p.152). The seven principles determined by Nunan (2004) provide the theory, the backbone, for my analysis. They establish a set of criteria that learner tasks should be designed to incorporate. They also act as the typologies (scaffolding, task dependency, recycling, active learning, integration, from reproduction to creation, and reflection) I break my analysis down into. My research