From Print to Practice: Bringing Textbook to Life

Norhayu Binti Norany (PhD.)

Institute of Teacher Education, Sultan Abdul Halim Campus, Sungai Petani, Kedah.

Abstract

Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) has gained popularity and various levels of formal curriculum endorsement in Asian countries such as China, Taiwan, Thailand, Korea and Japan (e.g., Hu, 2005; Zhang, 2007; Carless, 2007; McDonough & Chaikitmongkol, 2007; O’Dwyer, 2009). TBLT is appealing as it promotes communicative competence and so aligns with the explicitly stated aims of many EFL/ESL curricula, including the new Primary School Standard Curriculum or Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Rendah (KSSR) in Malaysia. But to what extent are officially sanctioned KSSR textbooks congruent with the principles of TBLT? And what opportunities and constraints do these textbooks offer teachers who would like to draw on the principles and practice of TBLT in their teaching? In this paper, we address these questions through first describing the six criterial features of TBLT as proposed by Ellis (2003) and then discussing the results of an analysis of a sample textbook unit from the Level 1 Primary Year 2   textbooks which draws on these principles.  The analysis paints a complex picture of the range of activities present in the textbook and their ‘taskiness’. Most importantly it highlights the critical role of day to day decisions made by teachers in realizing the potential of textbook activities.

Introduction

Textbook, other than being a useful resource can also be a great tool to provide structure and control in a classroom. It provides teachers and learners with a structure of teaching and learning, methodological support and opportunities for revision and preparation (McGrath 2002). Textbook is also a major source of contact with the target language other than input from teachers (Richards, 1993). This is the case in many Malaysian primary classrooms.  However, in order to ensure the effective use of textbooks’ materials, teachers need to know how to make the words and illustrations in the textbooks become alive in the minds of the young learners. Translating what in the textbook to real life event in the classroom requires teachers to be creative and innovative. Adaptations may be needed to suit different contextual constraints, among others the learners’ level of proficiency, interest and motivation.  Having a good textbook alone is not sufficient. Teachers also need to employ good teaching practices based on sound principles of language teaching and learning.

This is an analysis that aims to determine the congruency of the design of the textbook activities with Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) principles and to explore how a primary school textbook can be utilised to promote communicative competence among young learners. In achieving this, textbook activities are analysed using principles of language teaching and learning that are generated as a result of rigorous studies in the field of language teaching specifically Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT). The results of this analysis hopefully will provide insights for teachers who are interested to draw on these principles in their teaching and to equip their young learners with effective communication skills.

The Contexts

In Malaysia, the same mandated textbooks are used in all public national primary schools regardless of their location be it urban, suburban or rural areas. The disparity between these different contexts is vast.  At one end of the continuum, are elite urban schools in Kuala Lumpur, the capital city of Malaysia, where most of the pupils regardless of race and religion speak English at home or have been exposed to other English-speaking environment for instance travelling to English speaking countries with their parents or living in one for certain duration in their life.  

At the other end of the continuum would be rural schools that are very remote with no access to internet and even telephone signals such as schools for the indigenous children and schools in remote areas in Sabah and Sarawak (East Malaysia).  So, the crucial question is how much English they know before entering primary school? Based on interviews with teachers teaching in such schools, these children may have attended preschool but many do not due to the distance from home to school. In many cases, the only transportation to reach these schools in remote areas is a few hours of boat ride. The difficulties the children face to go to school are one of the main factors why many did not attend preschool. The attendance of pupils in other levels too is very poor due to this.    Therefore, teachers as curriculum implementers play a vital role in bridging the urban-rural divide. The biggest challenge is to ensure that by the end of the six years of primary education these pupils possess communicative competence as stipulated in the aim of Malaysian Primary School Standard Curriculum (Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Rendah, KSSR) and are able to at least pass the public examination that is known as Primary School Assessment Test (Ujian Penilaian Sekolah Rendah, UPSR) before continuing in the mainstream secondary education.

The Status Quo

In Malaysia, English is taught formally as a second language since primary year one until form five of secondary school. Despite being exposed to the language for eleven years, potential employers claim that school leavers have problem communicating and writing in English (Nor Hashimah Jalaludin, Norsimah Mat Awal & Kesumawati Abu Bakar, 2008; Nambiar, Noraini Ibrahim & Pramela, 2008; Saadiyah Darus and Kaladevi, 2009). There are also complaints published in the media over the last few decades of youth including university graduates having difficulty expressing themselves in English during job interviews (Chan & Tan, 2006; Normala Othman & Mohamed Ismail Ahamad Shah, 2013). In private sector, these graduates when employed face problem corresponding with foreign counterparts due to low level of English proficiency. For these reasons, there is a critical need to try new approaches to teaching language in Malaysia (Normala Othman & Mohamed Ismail Ahamad Shah, 2013). These indicate the gravity of the problem and the Malaysian government is giving utmost priority in addressing the problem. This has to be rectified right from the early years of learning English. Realising this, a new primary school curriculum was introduced in 2011 with the major aim “to equip pupils with basic language skills to enable them to communicate effectively in a variety of contexts that is appropriate to the pupils’ level of development “(Curriculum Development Division, 2011: 1).

The Curriculum

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has been embedded in Malaysian curriculum for more than three decades. It has been implemented since 1977 in Malaysia (Chan & Tan, 2006) and it is still prevail in Malaysian curriculum until today. This is reflected in the main aim of the new curriculum namely Primary School Standard Curriculum or Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Rendah  (KSSR) that is to develop students’ communicative ability (Curriculum Development Division, 2011).  The gradual implementation of this new curriculum (KSSR) took effect in 2011 starting with Primary Year 1, followed by Year 2 in 2012, Year 3 in 2013, Year 4 in 2014 and will arrive at its completion in 2016.

KSSR is a standard-based curriculum with modular approach. The curriculum documents clearly specify the learning standards and the content standards that the pupils should achieve and master in each schooling year. Under this new curriculum, primary school education in Malaysia is divided into two stages. Stage One (Level 1) is from Year 1 to Year 3 and Stage Two (Level 2) is from Year 4 to Year 6. The modules for Level 1 and Level 2 are as follow:

Level 1	Level 2
Module One : Listening and Speaking Module Two : Reading Module Three Writing Module Four : Grammar Module Five : Language Arts	Module One: Listening and Speaking Module Two : Reading Module Three Writing Module Four: Language Arts (Children’s Contemporary Literature) Module Five: Grammar

Grammar is taught explicitly commencing in Year 3 as stated below

“As English is the second language for pupils in schools, it is believed to be prudent and pedagogically sound to defer the learning of grammar to a later stage. Pupils need to first develop an awareness of grammar in their first language and this is later exploited in Year 3 when English grammar is introduced. By doing so, the load and stress of learning in the early years will be reduced as the emphasis is on learning through fun and play” (Curriculum Development Division, 2013: 7)

The Textbook

Due to this latest curriculum development, new textbooks were designed in accordance with the principles of KSSR. These textbook were also written in line with the National Philosophy of Education that aims to ensure the development of pupils’ full potential in a balanced and holistic manner (Textbook Division, Ministry of Education official website, http://www.moe.gov.my/bbt/). The textbooks are the key components of language classrooms especially in Malaysian ESL contexts. The textbooks are provided to all public school students (Ministry of Education, Supplies Act 2008) regardless of their socio-economic background. Hence, the textbooks are the main resources in the Malaysian classrooms.

This analysis involves Primary Year 2 textbook. The modular approach of KSSR is reflected in the organization of the skills taught in these textbook. The Year 2 package contains four modules as follow

1.      Listening and Speaking

2.      Reading which involves the reading of a phonic text and a comprehension text;

3.      Writing

4.      Language Arts.

The activities in the textbook are organized in this order.  The language contents in the package are organized in 18 units which covers three main themes namely World of Self, Family and Friends, the World of Stories and the World of Knowledge. 

The Analysis

This analysis involves a unit from primary Level 1 Year 2 textbook and activity book. The English Year 2 (National School) package consists of the textbook and an activity book. Each unit in the textbook has a corresponding unit in the activity book. The unit of analysis is textbook activity. It is reasonable to assume a unit of the textbook is representative of the other units in the same textbook since the units in the textbook are organised in line with the modular approach mentioned above. In addition, there are many similar activities recurring throughout the textbook. The activities in the unit are analysed based on the principles of Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) specifically the six criterial features of a task as proposed by Ellis (2003). These features are discussed below.

This analysis attempts to address the questions below

1.      To what extent are officially sanctioned KSSR textbooks congruent with the principles of TBLT?

2.      What opportunities and constraints do these textbooks offer teachers who would like to draw on the principles and practice of TBLT in their teaching?

The Theoretical Framework

Task-Based Learning and Teaching (TBLT) is an extension of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT).  In TBLT, task is the core component of the curriculum. A definition of task that guides this analysis is based on Ellis (2003: 16) as follows

“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. It requires learners 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. A task can engage productive or receptive, and oral or written skills, and also various cognitive processes.”

There is a gap in a task and learners are required to close the gap by using their own linguistic or non-linguistic resources. Non-linguistics resources can be the learners’ body language and facial expressions. The main focus is on meaning. The learners formulate their own meaning based on the verbal or non-verbal input provided. Planning time may or may not be given.  The more planning time given, the better learners’ performance of the task in terms of fluency and accuracy (Willis &Willis, 2007).The task is related to real-world language use such as making polite requests, stating opinions and expressing agreement and disagreement. Learners are also engaged in listening, speaking, reading or writing activity in completing the task. There must be a clear communicative outcome of the task such as reporting on the findings of a simple survey conducted involving their classmates, role-playing or predicting an ending to a story.

This analysis is based on the six criterial features proposed by Ellis (2003: 9-10) as follow

1.      A task is a workplan. It constitutes a plan of learner activity.

2.      A task involves primary focus on meaning. This means that learners use language pragmatically and not just displaying language. The aim is to develop L2 proficiency through communicating. Some kind of gap is incorporated in the task as to motivate learners to close the gap using their linguistic or non-linguistic resources in completing the task.

3.      A task involves real-world processes of language use.

4.      A task can involve any of the four language skills (Listening, Speaking, Reading and Writing).

5.      A task engages cognitive processes such as selecting, classifying, ordering, reasoning, and evaluating information.

6.      A task has a clearly defined communicative outcome

These principles were developed by drawing on findings of various studies on tasks (Breen, 1989; Long, 1985; Richards, Platt and Weber, 1985; Crookes, 1986; Prabhu, 1987; Nunan, 1989; Skehan, 1996a; Lee, 2000; Bygate, Skehan and Swain; 2001 as cited in Ellis, 2003). A set of defining criteria of a task proposed by Ellis (2003) above is a clear and tight operational definition that guides the evaluation of the textbook activities in this analysis.

To determine the “taskiness” of the textbook activities, each activity is analysed based on which criteria of a task it fulfils. If the activity fulfils all the defining criteria of a task, it can be considered as highly task-like. On the other hand, an activity may not meet all the defining criteria of a task yet is meaning-focused and communicative in nature; this type of activity can be regarded as less task-like. Situational grammar exercise that focuses primarily on forms is considered as not task-like but this does not mean that grammar exercise lacks pedagogical values.

It is also important to bear in mind that these classifications are not definite when they are implemented in the classroom. Teachers can reshape the activities to be highly task-like or de-task a highly task-like activity as they deem appropriate to address the learners’ needs and contextual constraints in the classrooms. Another crucial aspect of implementation is the learners’ uptake i.e. how they carry out the activity. The teachers may intent to conduct a task that focuses on meaning but the learners may turn it into a grammar practice when they are more concern on form rather than meaning. This may due to exam pressure.  

The Conceptual Framework

Six criterial features of task (Ellis 2003) 1. Does the activity involve a workplan? 2. Does the activity focus primarily on meaning? 3. Does the activity involve real-world language use? 4. Does the activity involve any of the four language skills? 5. Does the activity involve any cognitive processes? 6. Does the activity have a definite communicative outcome?

Less Task-Like

Highly Task-Like

Unit of Analysis - Textbook Activity - Modular Approach (L, S, R, W & LA)

Not Task-Like

L – Listening

S – Speaking

R – Reading

W- Writing

LA – Language Arts

Highly Task-Like: Activities that fulfils all the defining criteria of a task.

Less Task-Like: Activities that are meaning-focused and communicative in nature but do not satisfy all the defining criteria of a task.

Not Task-Like: Activities that are form-focused and do not meet all the defining criteria of a task.

The Rationale

Why TBLT? TBLT principles are chosen as the guiding principles in this analysis as TBLT can be one of the options in resolving the issues of lack of communicative ability among Malaysian learners as it promotes communicative competence. This is so since TBLT is based on communicative and interactive tasks that require meaningful communication and interaction among learners (Nunan, 2004; Bygate, Skehan, & Swain, 2001; Barnard & Nguyen, 2010) in achieving communicative purposes similar to real world tasks (Ellis, 2003).

TBLT has gained popularity in the curricula of many other Asian countries such as Taiwan, China, Vietnam and Hong Kong (Adams & Newton, 2009) mainly because TBLT promotes communicative competence as desired in many ESL and EFL contexts. Achieving communicative competence is also the aim of Malaysian Primary School Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2011). TBLT can be one of the ways to resolve Malaysian students’ English proficiency issues despite having  learnt the language for at least 11 years (Naginder, 2006; Nor Hashimah  Jalaludin, Norsimah Mat Awal & Kesumawati Abu Bakar, 2008 as cited in  Normaziah Che Musa, Koo, Y. L & Hazita Azman , 2012).

The Walkabout

Let us walk through a sample unit of Year 2 primary textbook. The sample unit is unit 12 entitled “On the Farm”.

Activity 1: Listening and Speaking

Figure 1.1

The first activity involves reciting a poem and discussing the picture of a farm (Figure 1.1).  The aim of this activity is to enable pupils to recite rhymes and talk about stimulus with guidance (Learning Standard 1.1.3 and 1.1.4 of the Standard Curriculum Document).

 In the poem the words ‘fawn’ and ‘haystack’ may pose difficulty to these young learners as these are unfamiliar words for year 2 pupils. Haystack is not a common thing on a Malaysian farm since there is no winter in tropical Malaysia and the animals can eat fresh grass all year long.  Teacher, then will direct pupils’ attention to the picture by asking “What do you usually see on a farm? (Refer Figure 1.1). This question is provided in the textbook and aims to draw the pupils’ attention to the animals on the farm.  The pupils may be able to name the animals due to exposure at earlier stage (there are activities involving different animals in earlier units) albeit in the word list of the curriculum standard document, there are only two words related to animals that are cat and dog. However, the suggested word list can be expanded upon if pupils demonstrate an ability to acquire more words (Curriculum Development Division, 2011: 23-24).

Points to Ponder

To introduce new words, teacher can insert a pre-task phase in dealing with the difficult vocabulary especially for pupils with low proficiency level. Ellis (2003) labels this under non-task preparation activities that help to “reduce the cognitive or the linguistic demands placed on the learners” (p. 246). Newton (2001) provides three pre-task options in dealing with unfamiliar vocabulary. The first option is predicting where learners brainstorm a list of words in group. Second option involves cooperative dictionary search that entails each learner to look up certain words from the task in the dictionary. The third option requires learners to match a list of words to the correct definitions. The third option is simpler and more suitable for Year 2 primary pupils with low proficiency level as they may not yet possess adequate cognitive capability and lexicons to predict meanings on words and may not yet acquire appropriate dictionary skills.

If this activity is a teacher-led discussion as instructed in the textbook, this will be more like a communicative activity.  This fulfils the first five criteria of a task as proposed by Ellis (2003) as follow

       (1).       There is a workplan for learners’ activity that is identifying animals and other things in the picture.

       (2).        It is a meaning-focused activity as the pupils have to name the animals they know.  

       (3).       Answering or responding to an open-ended question resembles real-world language use.

       (4).       The skills involve are reading and speaking.

       (5).        Identifying animals and describing what they see may be quite demanding cognitively for the young learners.

This teacher-led activity can be reshaped as a task if the sixth criteria is inserted that is a clearly defined communicative outcome.  For instance, a closed outcome that requires pupils to label the animals in the picture. A set of correctly labelled farm animals is a definite communicative outcome of this activity. This will make learning more effective as closed tasks encourage meaning negotiation and promote acquisition (Ellis, 2003: p.91). Words that are negotiated for meaning in an interactive task (through clarification and confirmation checks) are retained better than words that are not negotiated (Newton, 1993).  The outcome can also function as a tool to assess pupils’ performance and ability.

For pupils with higher level of proficiency, teacher can insert a post task phase by highlighting the verbs in Simple Present tense such as “Larry sleeps”,  “He yawns”  and “…the boy who looks after the fawn” that are found in the poem. This can be done explicitly after the completion of the task if this activity is reshaped into task as discussed earlier.  If the form-focused activity is done before the task completion, the pupils may focus more on form than meaning and this will weaken the taskiness of the activity. Drawing pupils’ attention to form used in the input can promote noticing that is defined as a cognitive process that involves attending to linguistic form in the input learners receive and the output they produce (Ellis, 2003). Pupils can be asked to provide other examples using the same structure.

 Activity 2: Listening and Speaking

Figure 1.2

There are three sub-activities in this activity. These three sub-activities are suggested to be carried out together in the textbook (refer to the small print in green at the bottom of the page). The first sub-activity is from the textbook (Figure 1.2). The other two sub-activities are from the activity book which complements textbook activities (Figure 1.3).

Sub-Activity I

The aims of this activity are learning standards:

1.1.1 Able to listen and respond to stimulus given with guidance:

a) environmental sounds

1.1.4 Able to talk about a stimulus with guidance.

This activity is related to the first activity above. A picture of a farm is given and the names of all animals including their young ones are labelled. This picture suits Malaysian context of a farm with a chicken coop and a goat pen unlike the picture in the first activity with haystack, something that is uncommon on Malaysian farms. In this activity, teacher is instructed to play sounds of animals before talking about the picture. The teacher names the animals in the picture and asks questions. The pupils respond using the structure provided in the picture. Teacher then draws the attention of the pupils to the sounds these animals make and the special names of their young ones. Teacher then, gets pupils to talk about camels and ostriches.

This is to provide input to the young learners of names of animals and their young ones. Association is also made to the animals’ sounds.  This seems more like a vocabulary activity. Two possible unfamiliar words are introduced at this stage. They are camels and ostriches. Before getting pupils to talk about these animals, teacher may need to give some input on the animals. Nonetheless, the words deer and its young, fawn as introduced in the first activity are not included. Opportunities should be provided for the young learners to practice what they have learnt earlier. If the meanings of these words are not negotiated during task performance in Activity 1, the immediate opportunities to use them in communication should be provided at this stage to facilitate retention. “Greater involvement with unfamiliar words led to better retention” (Newton, 2001: p.32) as processing new lexical information more elaborately (pronunciation, spelling, grammar and semantic relations to other words) lead to retention rather than focusing on one or two dimensions of the lexical information (Laufer & Hulstijn , 2001: p.6). This can only happen if learners are given opportunities to process the new words meaningfully.

Sub-Activity II

Figure 1.3

The learning standard of this activity is

3.2.2 Able to write 3-5 word sentences with guidance.

At this stage, the pupils are required to complete sentences on the ways how farm animals help us. A sample answer is provided. To ease linguistic burden, the picture of the animal is given for each sentence. A new word is introduced at this stage that is “hide”. Teacher will discuss the use of hide and feathers to give ideas to the pupils what they are and how they can be useful.  The key words are given and the pupils are required to construct sentences based on the structure provided in the sample answer. This activity does not seem like a task as the pupils’ are not using their own linguistic resources in completing the exercises. It seems more like a language practice.

Sub-Activity III

Figure 1.4

The learning standard for this activity is

3.2.4 Able to spell common sight words

Finally, the pupils find names of young animals in a word puzzle. After finding the names of the young animals, the pupils are to transfer the name in a table. This is a vocabulary activity. These names are not given in earlier activities. In other words, these are new words and have not been introduced to the pupils before this such as a goose and its young, a gosling; and young kangaroo that is joey. The learning standard i.e. the aim of this activity is to get the pupils to be able to spell common sight words. Contradictory, the words “gosling” and “joey” are not common sight words to many of the young beginner learners in Malaysia.

Points to Ponder

Activity 2 is clearly a form-focused activity as pupils are not using their own linguistic resources to complete the activity. Key words and structure are given. The main emphasis is on vocabulary. The first sub-activity is to provide input of animal names and their young ones to the beginner learners. The second sub-activity is to construct 3 to 5 words sentences based on the sample sentence provided. The third sub-activity is to get pupils to spell the common sight words. These sub-activities are not well linked and give superficial treatment to vocabulary building.

Many new words are introduced in these three sub-activities but they do not entail deep processing of the words. One way to do this is by making Sub-Activity I more task-like. This can be done by getting pupils in groups to list useful products from each animals and then present at a subsequent plenary session in the form of sentences. Teacher should not impose the use of certain forms but instead focus can come from the “seeding” in the input i.e. repetitive use of the focused form in the input. There are many benefits of group work activity like this. One is, “the combined lexicons of learners in a group generally provide greater coverage of L2 vocabulary than the lexicon of any individual learner (Saragi, Nation and Meister, 1978; Newton, 1993; as cited in Newton, 2001: p. 33).  The interaction is richer and there will be negotiation of meanings which is conducive for retention (Newton, 1995).  There will also be scaffolding among learners in terms of cognitive and affective aspects. The group activity such as this will promote collaborative work among learners. Moreover, this will provide opportunity for teacher to direct learners’ attention to form by using recast for instance. Recast proved more effective than direct grammar instruction (Ayoun, 2001 as cited in Ellis, 2003).

This modification reshapes the activity to be more task-like. It fulfils the criteria of a task as follows

       (1).       The workplan involves getting learners to list products from animals in the picture and construct sentences to be presented at plenary.

       (2).       This is a meaning-focused activity.

       (3).       This is related indirectly to real-world communication since the products from these animals are used in everyday life.

       (4).       This activity involves speaking.

       (5).       Listing animals’ products and construct grammatically correct sentences entails meaningful and demanding cognitive operations.

       (6).       The definite outcome of this activity is a list of animals’ products.

Reshaping activities to be more task-like involves creativity on the part of the teachers. By doing this, learning will become more effective as pupils need to process the words deeply. Deep processing will facilitate retention of new words (Laufer & Hulstjin, 2001).

Activity 3: Phonemic Awareness

Figure 1.5

The learning standards for this activity are as follow

1.1.1 Able to listen and respond to stimulus given with guidance:

g) oral blending and segmenting

2.1.1 Able to recognise and articulate initial, medial and the final sounds in single syllable words within given context:

(e) /ɔɪ/ (oy)

      / ɜː /  (ir)

     /uː/   (ue)

     /ɔː/    (aw)

2.1.2 Able to blend phonemes into recognizable words and read them aloud.

2.1.3 Able to segment words into phonemes to spell.

2.2.3 Able to read and understand simple sentences in linear and non-linear texts.

2.2.4 Able to read and understand a paragraph of 5-8 simple sentences.

There are five sub-activities in this section as follow

Sub-Activity I-In The Ball in the Air

Figure 1.6

Teacher introduces the phonemes by getting pupils to bounce a ball and at the same time say the sounds. This is just to make the repetition interesting to the pupils. This activity does not make much sense. Conducting an activity such as this in a large class of forty or more pupils will make the class become very chaotic and will pose serious classroom management problem.

Instead of doing this, one way to make it more interesting and meaningful, teacher can divide the pupils into two groups and assign one sound to each group i.e. /uː/   (ue) sound is assigned to group 1 and /ɔː/ (aw) sound is assigned to group 2. The teacher then will pronounce one word from the list of words provided at random.  If the word contains   /uː/   (ue) sound the pupils in group 1 will raise their right hands.  On the other hand, if /ɔː/    (aw) sound is heard in the word, pupils in group 2 raise their right hands. This activity is more meaningful in facilitating sound recognition in the words. This will also help teacher to assess pupils’ ability in recognizing these sounds in words. To make this activity more interesting and motivating, conduct this in a form of a competition with one group will become the winner.

Even though this activity does not fulfill all the defining criteria of a task since it only involves linguistic component and no pragmatic use of language, it is more interactive which involves listening and responding. The pupils are not required to produce any language. They response to what they listen by using a gesture (raising their right hands) which is one of the forms of non-linguistic resources. This reduces cognitive load of producing language for the beginner learners.

Sub-Activity II- In Join It

Figure 1.7

Then, in groups, the pupils are asked to join the sound cards to form a word. Next, the pupils blend the word.  This is carried out in the form of a competition as the group that finishes the first will be awarded points. This is an interesting activity.

However, to make this activity more challenging especially for pupils with higher level of proficiency, they can be asked to form other words that end with /u/ː (ue) sound such as queue, menu and flu; and /ɔː/ (aw) sound for instance jigsaw, seesaw and coleslaw. Teacher has to make some preparation of all the other possible words that pupils may produce. This is also more enriching even though it does not fulfill all the defining criteria of a task as again this activity only focuses on linguistic component and not pragmatic use of language.

 

Sub-Activity III- Beware the Claw

Figure 1.8

For the next sub-activity, the pupils are asked to pick a card. They flip the chosen card, read and segment the word. These are to create the pupils awareness on how these phonemes appear in words. This is similar to Sub-Activity II above but in reverse. This is also a group work activity and marks are awarded for correct answers.

This activity reinforces what they have done earlier in Sub-Activity II but poses more challenges as it is more difficult especially to pupils with low level of proficiency. It is a good move to do this as group work as it will promote peer scaffolding.

Sub-Activity IV- Reading a Phonic Text

Figure 1.9

Subsequently, the pupils are to read a phonic text aloud with the phonemes learnt earlier highlighted in red. This is very illuminating especially for the weaker pupils. Even better, this reading activity could be made more meaningful by inserting a pre-task stage. This can be done by asking the pupils to identify the words with the different phonemes and list them in two separate columns. Pupils with lower level of proficiency will benefit from this if they are still not clear about the two phonemes even after doing four activities prior to this.

Sub-Activity IV- Bingo

Figure 1.10

As a reinforcement activity, the pupils are asked to read a phonic text and identify words with ue and aw in a short text. The pupils will be made aware of how these phonemes appear in sentences in a short text. Then, the pupils play Bingo using the words from the preceding sub-activities. This can be regarded as an enrichment activity with higher level of difficulty.

Points to Ponder

All the five sub-activities in this phonemic awareness activity discussed above are related and address the same linguistic components at different level of difficulty. However, this activity is not task-like as it does not meet all the defining characteristics of a task. It only involves linguistic components and no use of pragmatic language.  Despite this one has to acknowledge the importance of phonological awareness in reading development. Many research studies in the United States, Canada and United Kingdom (Adams, 1990; Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998 as cited in Gersten & Geva, 2003) show that instruction in phonological awareness enhances growth in reading and spelling.  With appropriate instruction in phonological awareness, non-native speakers of English learn as rapidly as native speakers of English (Geva, 2000; Thompson, Vaughn, Hickman-Davis, & Kouzekanani, 2003 as cited in Gersten & Geva, 2003). Therefore, it is crucial that teachers implement the phonemic awareness meaningfully as to facilitate acquisition of basic literacy skills of the young learners.

 

Activity 4: Reading

Figure 1.11

The learning standard for this activity are

2.2.3 Able to read and understand simple sentences in linear and non-linear texts.

2.2.4 Able to read and understand a paragraph of 5-8 simple sentences.

In this activity, the pupils are to solve riddles. Clues are given in the pictures. Then, the pupils are asked to create similar riddles on other animals.

 

Points to Ponder

For pupils with low proficiency level, teacher may need to insert a pre-task stage to help these pupils with unfamiliar words such as desert, hump and horns. This can be done by explaining to pupils what they are or get them to label these in the picture in pairs. The latter requires higher involvement from the pupils since they would have to either guess the meaning using contextual clues or negotiate meaning of these words with their partner or look up the meaning in the dictionary. To ensure that the pupils are able to do at least one of these strategies, teacher needs to enlist the help of better students by putting one in each pair. Higher involvement in searching for the meaning of words promotes retention (Laufer & Hulstjin, 2001).

This activity satisfies all the criterial feature of a task as follow

       (1).       The workplans are to solve riddles and create similar riddles on other animals.

       (2).       The primary focus is on meaning since the pupils are required to create riddles using their own words.

       (3).       This activity is indirectly related to real-world task of solving problems.

       (4).       The skills involved are reading and writing.

       (5).       These are cognitively challenging tasks.

       (6).       The communicative outcomes are the answers to the riddles and the riddles created.

This activity is highly task-like. Yet again, how this activity is implemented in the classroom will determine the extent of its ‘taskiness’ and how engaging it can be. Solving these riddles is a closed task i.e. there is one answer for each riddle. So, the pupils will have a sense of security knowing that they could strive to get the correct answers. On the other hand, creating similar riddles is more complex and requires highly demanding cognitive operations. Hence, it is important to pair or group mixed ability pupils together. To ensure everyone’s active participation, roles need to be assigned to each pupil in the group. Teacher also needs to insert a post-task stage for groups to share their answers to the riddles and the riddles they created. This could be done in the form of a competition so everyone’s interest and attention during this plenary session could be maintained.  This problem solving activity also promotes higher order thinking skills.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Activity 5: Reading

Figure 1.12

The learning standard for this activity is

2.3.1 Able to read simple texts with guidance:

b) non fiction

In this activity, teacher asks WH-Questions while reading to test understanding- for example,

·         Where do camels live?

·         Why are camels useful?

This is to give meaningful input to the pupils.  The pupils then are asked to find more interesting facts about the animals in the text from the internet.

Points to Ponder

This is a highly task-like as this activity meets all the criterial features of a task as follow

(1) The workplan requires Ps to select useful information from the internet.

(2) This is a meaning focused activity

(3) The tasks are artificial but they can lead to real-world communication when pupils search for interesting facts about the animals on the internet and take down notes.

(4) The primary skill involved is reading.

(5) Meaningful and challenging cognitive processes involved when the pupils identify and select useful and relevant information about the animals.

(6) There is a definite communicative outcome in the form of notes taken about the animals.

In order to get pupils to surf the internet for information, there must be proper infrastructure such as a computer lab that is equipped with sufficient number of computers and good internet connection. All national primary schools in Malaysia are equipped with these facilities. However, technical support and maintenance must be made available constantly. If conducting activity involving the use of internet poses many problems or constraints to the teachers, they may just skip this part and this lesson will be less meaningful.

Another constraint is pupils’ ability to understand materials on the internet. Year two pupils (mostly 8 years old) especially in rural areas and the urban poor areas lack exposure to the English language and the use of internet. If this is the situation, teachers may need to improvise by providing a lot of simplified meaning-focused input offline. It can still be highly task-like if the pupils are asked to process input given by teachers in mixed-ability groups. It must be meaning-focused with a clearly defined communicative outcome. It must also satisfy other criteria of tasks such as pragmatic use of language and the involvement of meaningful cognitive operations.

Newton (2009: p. 3) proposes conditions for meaning-focused input to be successfully understood by the learners as follow

1.      Most of the content the learners read is already familiar to them.

2.      The learners are interested in the input and want to understand it.

3.      Only a small proportion of the language features are unknown to the learners.

4.      The learners can gain some knowledge of the unknown items using contextual clues and background knowledge.

5.      There are large quantities of input.

These can be useful guidelines for teachers in providing input to the pupils.

Activity 6: Writing

The learning standard for this activity is as follows

3.1.1 Able to write in neat legible print:

a) words

a) phrases

b) simple sentences

Figure 1.13

Points to Ponder

Based on a mind map about goat, pupils are asked to complete sentences by filling in the blanks with words from the mind map. Then, they are asked to produce a similar mind map on other animals.

(1)   The workplan requires pupils to create a mind map on other animals.

(2)   The focus is clearly on meaning since the pupils are given the freedom to choose the animals they like and use their own words in the mind map.

(3)   This is an artificial activity but the kind of language it produces may correspond to that found in normal communication such as giving interesting information about something, in this case, animals.

(4)   It is a writing activity.

(5)   There is a meaningful cognitive process when pupils need to select important information to be included in the mind map.

(6)   There is a definite communicative outcome of the activity that is a mind map.

This activity displays all the features of a task. Therefore, it is highly task-like.

For pupils with low level of English proficiency, teacher may need to do this in the form of an information transfer as to scaffold pupils’ gap in their vocabulary about other animals. Pupils can be given a short text on other animals and teacher can get them to form a mind map based on the text. This can be pair work or group work. This is still highly task-like as the focus is still on meaning and it fulfils all the other criteria of a task.

Activity 7: Language Arts

Figure 1.14

The learning standards for this activity are

4.1.2 Able to sing action songs and recite jazz chants with correct pronunciation, rhythm and intonation.

1.1.1 Able to listen and respond to stimulus given with guidance:

b) instrumental sounds

c) body percussion

These are the prescriptions for this activity as stated in the textbook (the small print in green at the bottom of the page).

-           Sing to the tune “A Dog Named Bingo”.

-          Sing stanza four with (clap)- (clap)- (clap)- B-I, stanza five with (clap)- (clap)- (clap)- (clap)-I and stanza six with (clap)- (clap)- (clap)- (clap)-(clap).

-          Use musical instruments- for example, tambourines, castanets and/or triangles to replace the clapping actions.

Points to Ponder

This is a language arts activity that does not require any language production. The pupils are to sing the song with correct pronunciation, rhythm and intonation; and to use musical instruments. This activity is not task-like as it does not involve pragmatic use of language.

(1)   There is no workplan in TBLT sense that there is no pragmatic processing of language in order to achieve a clearly defined communicative outcome.

(2)   The focus is on pronunciation.

(3)   This lesson is not related to real-world communication.

(4)   The skill involved is speaking as the focus is on speaking (pronunciation).

(5)   It is cognitively undemanding.

(6)   There is no definite communicative outcome. 

This seems like a fun activity for young learners. However, this does not make much sense in terms of learning a language. There is no useful information about the cow in the song. This can be made more meaningful if the pupils are asked to perform in groups the same song but with different animals and to add meaningful information about the animal such as the most significant feature of the animal that is distinct from other animals. The group that can think of the most bizarre animal with its special feature will be the winner. For instance, iguana changes its colour according to its mood

Results and Discussion

Skill	Activity	Criterial Features of a Task						Level of Taskiness			Possible Modifications to Reshape as Task
		1	2	3	4	5	6	Highly Task-Like	Less Task-Like	Not Task -Like
		Workplan	Meaning-focused	Real-World  Tasks	Four Skills (L,S, R, W)	Cognitive Processes	Communicative Outcome
Listening and Speaking	Activity 1 Recite the poem and discuss the picture.	√	√	√	√	√	X				Reshaping this activity into task by creating a clearly defined communicative outcome (A correctly labeled picture)
	Activity 2 Introducing animals and their young one and associating these animals to their sounds Complete sentences about farm animals Complete a puzzle by finding words of young animals.	√	X                     X	X	√	X	X				Getting pupils in groups to list useful products from each animals and then present at plenary session in the form of sentences in post task stage.
Phonemic Awareness	Activity 3 Introducing the phonemes /uː/ for ueand /ɔː/ for aw followed by activities to show how these sounds appear in words and sentences.	X	X	X	√	X	X				This cannot be reshaped into a task since there is no pragmatic use of language and it only involves linguistic component i.e. phonemes.
Reading	Activity 4 Solving and Creating Riddles	√	√	√	√	√	√				These activities satisfy all the defining criteria of a task.
Reading	Activity 5 Read about interesting facts on animals and surf the internet for more interesting facts.	√	√	√	√	√	√
Writing	Activity 6 Filling in blanks based on a mind map on animals and create similar mind map on other animals	√	√	√	√	√	√
Language Arts	Activity 7 Sing a song	X	X	X	√	X	X				Asking pupils to perform the same song but with different animals in groups. The group that can think of the most bizarre animal will be the winner.
Frequency  of criterial features in tasks		5	4	4	7	4	3				The least represented feature of a task is the presence of a clearly defined communicative outcome.

The findings of the analysis show that the principles of Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) exist in the design of primary Level 1 Year 2 textbook activities. This leads to the next question that is, what are the opportunities does the textbook offer teachers who would like to draw on TBLT principles in their teaching? One important insight gained from this analysis is the textbook offer a viable starting point for teachers interested in TBLT. Even though, there are only three highly task-like activities out of the seven activities analyzed, the other activities in the unit have the potential to be reshaped as tasks. The three highly task-like activities involve reading and writing skills. This defies the assumption that TBLT only involves speaking activities and this corroborates with Willis & Willis (2007).

The least represented feature of a task in all of the activities analysed is the presence of a definite communicative outcome. Without definite communicative outcomes, activities are not conclusive. The communicative outcome helps pupils to display their understanding of what they have learnt and it is a useful tool to assess learners’ achievement. This will provide evidence to the pupils’ mastery of the skills taught and ease teachers’ burden in implementing the School-Based Assessment. School-Based Assessment is an ongoing assessment of pupils’ achievement based on the learning standards stated in the curriculum effective 2011 (Official Portal of the Examination Board, Ministry of Education, http://web.moe.gov.my/lp/).  Having a definite communicative outcome in doing a task is important for the reason that it encourages learning by doing that leads to effective and meaningful learning.

The ranking of the criterial features of a task that exist in the activities provide useful guide on how to reshape these activities to become more task-like.  One way of doing this is by enhancing the least represented features of a task in the textbook activities. Firstly, is to include a clearly defined communicative outcome in the design of the activities.  This has been demonstrated a few times in the analysis. This will make learning more meaningful and conclusive. The presence of definite outcomes in classroom activities will also facilitate the assessment of pupils’ performance and the achievement of KSSR learning standards. Ultimately, the aim of KSSR that is to equip pupils with basic language skills to enable them to communicate effectively in a variety of contexts that is appropriate to the pupils’ level of development will be realised.

Secondly, the textbook activities can be made more challenging by creating gaps that require meaningful cognitive processes such as problem-solving, comparing and contrasting, brainstorming and evaluation of information gathered from the internet or other sources such as identifying important ideas.  These will make the activities more engaging. However, modifications need to be made to address contextual issues that exist in the classrooms. If the pupils’ linguistic resources are very limited, a lot of scaffolding is required. This may be time consuming but in the long run, the pupils will benefit as at this stage (primary level) the basic foundation of the language is formed. Once the strong foundation of the language is formed, the pupils’ linguistic abilities will develop profoundly over the years until they complete secondary and tertiary education. The pressure to cover the syllabus before the exam is a major constraint but there is also a pressing need to let the pupils learn rather than trying to teach everything in great detail. As Willis & Willis (2007) point out rather than spending a lot of learning time teaching grammar and pronunciation aiming to achieve native-like mastery, it is wiser to spend more time letting the pupils learn the language by using the language themselves.

Thirdly, the activities need to include real-world communication. This can be done by designing workplans that entail pragmatic language use and include experiences that the pupils can relate to their personal lives.

Conclusion

This textbook analysis provides useful guides to teachers on how to make informed decisions to reshape textbook activities to be more meaningful and engaging. This will facilitate language acquisition that leads to communicative competency of their young learners. The vital part in this process is the teachers. For teachers to use these materials effectively from a task-based perspective, requires innovation and creativity. The teacher is thus the critical ingredient in bringing the textbook to life.

References

Adams, R.& Newton, J. (Eds.). (2009).Asian Journal of English Language Teaching.
	Special Issue: Task-based Language Teaching in Asia: Innovation in Research and Practice (Vol. 19). Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.
Barnard, R. & Nguyen, G. V. (2010). Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT): A
	Vietnamese Case Study Using Narative Frames to Elicit Teachers’ Beliefs. Language Education in Asia, Vol. 1: 77-86.
Chan, S. & Tan, H. ( 2006). English for Mathematics and Science: Current Malaysian
	Language-in-education policies and practices. Language and Education, 20(4) 306-322. Curriculum.
Curriculum Development Division (2011). Standard Document of Primary School
	Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
	Press.
Gersten, R. & Geva, E. (2003). Teaching Reading to Early Language Learners. Educational
	Leadership/April 2003: 44-49
Laufer, B. & Hulstjin, J. (2001). Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition in a Second Language:
	The Construct of Task-Induced Involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22/1: 1-26.
McGrath, I. (2002), Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching, Edinburgh:
	Edinburgh University Press.
Ministry of Education (2008).  Supplies Act 2008
Nambiar, Radha M. K. Noraini Ibrahim & PramelaKrish. (2008). Penggunaan strategi
	pembelajaran bahasa dalam kalanganpelajarTingkatanDua. Journal e-Bangi, 3(3), 1-17
Newton, J. (1993). Task-Based interaction among adult learners of English and its role in
	Second Language Acquisition. Unpublished PhD thesis. Victoria University of wellington, New Zealand.
Newton, J.  (2001). Options for vocabulary learning through communication tasks.
	ELTJournal, Vol. 55/1, 30-37.
Newton, J. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL Listening and Speaking. New York: Routledge
Nor Hashimah Jalaludin, Norsimah Mat Awal&Kesumawati Abu Bakar.( 2008). Themastery
	of English language among lower secondary school students in Malaysia: A linguistic analysis. European Journal of Social Sciences, 7 (2), 106-119.
Normala Othman & Mohamed Ismail Ahamad Shah (2013). Problem-Based Learning in the
	English Language Teaching, Vol. 6, No. 3, 125-134.
NormaziahChe Musa, Koo, Y. L & HazitaAzman (2012) Exploring English Language Learning
	and Teaching in Malaysia. GEMA OnlineTMJournal of Language Studies, 12 (1), 35-51
Richards, J. (1993), „Beyond the textbook: the role of commercial materials in language
	teaching‟, RELC Journal 24.1:1-14
Saadiyah Darus& Kaladevi Subramaniam. (2009). Error analysis of the written English essays
	of secondary school students in Malaysia: A case study. European Journal of Social Sciences, 8 (3), 483-495.
Suria Binti Mohd Yasin, Selajothi a/p M. Selladurai & Norehan Binti  MohdNooh (2012).
	Textbook:English  (SekolahKebangsaan) Year  2. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka
Suria Binti Mohd Yasin, Selajothi  a/p M. Selladurai &Norehan Binti MohdNooh (2012).
	Activity Book:English (SekolahKebangsaan) Year  2. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa danPustaka
Textbook Division, Ministry of Education official website, http://www.moe.gov.my/bbt/
Willis, J. (1996) A Framework for Task-based Learning. London: Longman
Willis, D. & Willis, J. (2007) Doing Task-based Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press