1. Introduction

As Nunan (1991) points out, despite the huge amount of research which has been done in SLA and applied linguistics, surprisingly there are as yet comparatively few investigations which describe and analyze the processes involved in developing materials for the classroom. One example of such an investigation is that of Richards (1989), although even here the starting point was the final product i.e. a classroom lesson, from which the principles were derived.

In this paper, the designing of a set of materials is analyzed from a teachers viewpoint. First, decisions about the roles of syllabus and methodology are discussed, followed by a look at the principles involved in lesson planning. Finally, a working lesson plan and appropriate materials are presented, and problems that may occur in the classroom while using them are discussed.

2. The learners

Before proceeding, it is first necessary to clarify for who the lesson plan was to be developed for. The learners in this study were Japanese 1st year university students majoring in science. Although all had studied English for 6 years through junior and senior high school, the level of the students was generally poor estimated at beginner to low intermediate. Prior to entering the university, the students had mostly encountered only grammar translation methods for the study of English, and as a result the students saw English as only a tool for manipulation and motivation to study English any further was quite low.

3. Designing the syllabus

In any discussion on materials and the principles on which they were based, it is inevitable that the subject of syllabus and methodology is discussed. Here, however, immediately a problem arises as in the literature there is a great deal of confusion as to what these two concepts actually refer to. To solve some of the confusion, the two major types of syllabus, what White (1988) describes as Type A and B, are looked at below.

3.1 The Conventional Syllabus - Type A

In a traditional setting, dating predominantly to the late 70’s, the distinction between syllabus and methodology was quite clear. Type A syllabuses stated the content of a course and the way that content was to be graded, whereas methodology was concerned with how that content was to be taught. Materials in this setting, were very often the end product and included for example, drills, grammar manipulation exercises and so on. This was clearly a view strongly influenced by a theory of language, namely that language acquisition was seen as a set of accumulated entities.

In effect, as Breen (1984) describes,

Unhappy with the methodology which went with Type A syllabuses, towards the end of the 70’s teachers began adopting a quite new perspective on the target language. With this shift also came a new style of teaching often called simply, communicative teaching. Rather than seeing language acquisition as a set of accumulated entities, the focus of communicative teaching was more the learners themselves, and the way they learned a language.

Here, the design of the course began in a sense at the beginning with an evaluation of learner needs. From this, activities or tasks which activate innate learning processes in learners would be developed and systematically combined to form a syllabus. In this setting, it clearly became difficult to maintain the distinction between syllabus and methodology, and as a result the Type B syllabus took on a quite new form.

Since then, much research has gone into developing methods for assessing learner needs, as illustrated in the work of Munby (1978). However, as White (1988) describes, perhaps in the end too much focus on the learner has resulted in teachers forgetting about the context in which they have to teach, and the constraints which are inevitably attached. Indeed, Munby himself states that such constraints should be ignored until syllabus content based on learner needs has been decided. Clearly, however, in the words of White himself,

4. From Needs Analysis and Means Analysis to Syllabus Design

Here, as the more communicative Type B syllabus fitted in with the author’s own views of language and learning, a syllabus based on Brumfit’s definition was chosen to be the foundation on which to design materials for the EFL classroom. It was first necessary, therefore, to conduct a needs and means analysis as described by White.

The needs of learners have, to date, commonly been assessed using two procedures. One has been to analyze target language which learners are likely to be exposed to. More commonly perhaps, surveys of learner preferences combined with teachers’ own experience and intuitions have provided the basis for a needs analysis. Here, the second method was used to assess the learner needs of the students in question.

First, a survey was designed based on those of Nunan and Barton (1985) and Willing (1988) and translated into the native language of the learners. This was then distributed to the students and the responses given combined with the teacher’s own experience and intuition to form a list of objectives and preferred methods for study. The original survey can be seen in Appendix B.

As part of a means analysis, it was first important to know what resources were available. This was assessed by talking with colleagues and the university administration. It was found in particular that talking to the administration uncovered many resources which were relatively unknown to the majority of the staff at the university. For example, specific rooms could be reserved which had moveable chairs and tables, ideal for pair and group work. Cultural constraints were also considered as part of the means analysis, and were assessed through a study of the Japanese education system. This knowledge was found to be vital when considering methodology to be discussed below.

Based on the needs and means analysis, an overall syllabus plan was drawn up and used as a basis for materials design. Clearly, it is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss in detail the entire syllabus but a brief outline has been included in Appendix C for benefit of the reader.

5. Guiding Principles for Methodology

When communicative teaching first arrived, many thought that tasks alone would be sufficient in order to stretch the learners interlanguage. Since then, however, the work of Skehan (1994) and others have caused teachers to re-evaluate task-based methodology. Skehan describes in his paper, how successful language development involves passing through stages of lexicalisation and syntacticisation to a final stage of relexicalisation. Task based methods, however, rely on a lexical mode and so if no place is made for language focused activities learners will tend to fossilize at an early stage in development.

In order to improve on the task based approach, therefore, Skehan offers four suggestions.

The framework developed by Willis was thought to be particularly suitable for the context here. Japanese university students have been exposed heavily to traditional teaching methods and therefore, are likely to resist dramatic change. In Willis’ model, the components of the traditional classroom are still present although in a different order and with different objectives. This, was likely to reassure many of the learners.

Also associated with task-based learning and again particularly suitable here was the idea of pair and group work. In a Japanese university context, it is not uncommon to find classes of over 50 students, and so working in groups gives each learner an opportunity for speaking, and eases the problems of classroom management. Evaluation of students’ aural/oral proficiency also becomes a possibility by assessing entire groups rather than individuals.

One final decision was to use the target language for the medium of instruction where possible. Willis (1992) describes how this kind of language, or ‘outer language’ is truly authentic in that it is used for a real communicative purpose. By adopting, therefore, the target language as the ‘outer language’ of the classroom many more opportunities for real communication in the classroom setting could be provided.

6. Description of a working lesson plan and associated materials

Based, therefore, on a Type B syllabus with the modifications described by White, and using a task-based methodology within the framework of Willis and Willis, a lesson plan and materials were developed. See Appendix D.

6.1 Stage 1

Although it is uncommon to find as part of a lesson plan an activity requiring the teacher to arrive early, here it was felt to be a major element of the lesson. By arriving early, the teachers is able to freely socialize with the learners, providing opportunities for real communication in a non-threatening, ‘out-of-class’ setting. By carefully controlling aspects of the discourse, during this time learners can also be encouraged to actively use previously learnt material in a more natural setting.

Finally, by arriving early to class and showing a willingness to talk and interact with the learners, the teacher can be a role model for the students, illustrating many aspects of Rubin’s (1979) ‘good language learner’. This dedication on the part of the teacher can often be one of the most motivating forces for learners.

6.2 Stages 2-3

Sequencing of task-based syllabuses tends to be of 3 different kinds, story based, situationally based, and topic based. Here, with only 13 lessons per term, it was decided that a topic based course, would be most suitable. Based on the needs analysis of students, therefore, the topic of sports was chosen for the lesson here.

In Willis and Willis’ model, the pre-task is used primarily for introducing language which will be used in the main task phase. Here, however, it was felt that more weight needed to be placed on the pre-task phase to carefully guide learners to a point where they would feel confident in attempting the main task of the lesson. This would be particularly important in early lessons when the students would be unfamiliar with the task-based methodology.

It is also important to note the skills necessary to complete the tasks. In the first pre-task only verbal responses are necessary whereas in the second pre-task, a combination of verbal skills and listening skills are necessary for successful completion.

6.3 Stages 4 - 7

As described by Willis, one of the main benefits of this model is the careful control of language styles which are necessary to complete each stage. Rather than just concentrating on lexis, by moving the learners through the reporting stage, and finally onto a controlled practice stage, they can be made to focus more on accuracy which as Skehan above points out is crucial to language development.

It is worth noting here, however, that the report element was brought forward and the planning stage omitted. This was because the outcome of the task here was relatively simply. Students have been known to prematurely look at their partners data and so by moving the reporting stage forward, the students would have no time to find the answers from others, thus providing a reason for listening to the answers of other students. For more complicated tasks however, the format would remain in the original form.

One final point to mention here is the need to learner generate or provide all the answers and ‘model’ question forms during the analysis stage. Japanese students and perhaps all students in the world, like to know the ‘right’ answers to problems and often the right way to solve problems. By guaranteeing that the answers will provided in this stage, learners will feel more willing to concentrate in the task phases on outcomes knowing that ‘mistakes’ will be corrected later.

6.4 Stages 8 - 9

Again, in the learner preference survey, students expressed a desire to improve listening skills in the classroom. Students in Japan have quite a lot of exposure to listening activities which test an ability to extract specific information from say a dialogue. However, less exposure has been given to skills to extract the gist of the discourse. The aims, therefore, of the last part of the class was to develop these skills.

As in the pre-task phase of the class, here two linking tasks are used to guide the students in developing the target listening skills. First, an inauthentic dialogue is played on tape to the students and questions given which can only be successfully answered if both listening for gist and listening for specific information skills are used. Criticism has often been made of the use of inauthentic dialogues, however, here the aim is to acoustomize the students to these kind of listening tasks.

Authentic language is used though in the second task which also introduces the target culture to learners. This was also strongly requested on the learner preference survey. Commonly, listening tasks exposing learners to authentic language have often been composed of recording of native speakers taking part in an authentic communicative event, for example, recordings of natives performing similar tasks as the learners. (Willis and Willis, 1988). McDonough (1993) however, points out that despite the language being authentic on such tapes, the setting certainly is not. Understanding of dialogue relies not only on the sound of voices, but also visual clues and facial expression are essential. Therefore, the last task here utilizes perhaps the best source of authentic language available, the teacher himself. In this way, the students experience not only authentic language, but also the customary clues provided by the speaker which assist understanding.

7. Evaluation of the lesson plan produced

Clearly, the lesson plan given above requires heavy demands on the part of the teacher to prepare familiar and interesting materials for the students before class, and to creatively adapt them as the situation sees fit during the lesson period. Many teachers, with tight schedules and few resources would therefore find this rather impractical.

A second but related problem concerns learners. Many learners feel a need to have a textbook in class and may become disorientated if there isn’t some kind of concrete record of the events which take place in the class. This can be helped perhaps by supplying the learners with revision sheets before or after the lesson. Of course, this would place an even greater burden on the teacher though.

A more serious problem is concerned with learners adjusting to the task-based methodology. Despite the inclusion of guiding elements such as focused to unfocussed task phases, it can still often take many lessons before students feel at ease with the new style of learning. In the limited time that most university classes are set around, in view of this the adoption of such a methodology needs to be seriously considered.

8. Conclusion

Here, the development of a classroom lesson plan and associated materials was described in relation to the larger aspects of foreign language in Japan. As can be seen from this discussion, the progress made since early forms of task-based methodology were first proposed have been great. There is, therefore, a constant need for a teacher to consider his or her own methods and lesson planning in view of this research.

9. References

Breen, M. (1984). ‘Process syllabuses for the language classroom’. In General English Syllabus Design, e.d. Brumfit, C.J.. Pergamon

Brumfit, C. J. (1984). ‘Function and structure of a state school syllabus for learners of second or foreign languages with heterogeneous needs’ , in General English Syllabus Design (British Council ELT Docs. 118), ed. Brumfit, C. J. . Pergamon /British Council.

McDonough, J. and Shaw C. (1993). Materials and Methods in ELT. Blackwelll.

Nunan D. and Burton J. (1985) Using Learner Data in designing Language courses:Workshop guide. Adelaide: National Curriculum Resource Center.

Nunan, D. (1988). Syllabus Design. Oxford.

Nunan, D. (1991). Language Teaching Methodology. Prentice Hall.

Nunan, D. (forthcoming). ‘Task-based Syllabus Design: Selecting Grading and Sequencing Tasks’

Richards, J. (1989). ‘Profile of an effective L2 reading teacher. Prospect., 4(2), 13-29.

Rubin J. (1979). ‘What the ‘Good Language Learner’ can teach us.

White R. (1988). The ELT Curriculum - Design Innovation and Management. Blackwell.

Willis J. (forthcoming). ‘Task-Based Learning’

Willing K.(1988). Learning Styles in Adult Migrant Education. Nat. Curriculum Resource Centre.

Appendix A - Brumfit’s Definition of Syllabus

I. A syllabus is a specification of the work of a particular department in a school or college, and it may be broken down into subsections which will define the work of a particular group or class

II. In practice, it is often linked to time - semesters, terms, weeks, or courses which are tied to these. But this link is not essential, and may be counter-productive in that the time is teacher-based rather than learner-based. But a syllabus must specify a starting point, which should be related to a realistic assessment of the level of beginning students, and ultimate goals, which may or may not be realized by the end of the course, depending on the abilities of learners and their progress in a particular course.

III. A syllabus must specify some kind of sequence of events, even though the criteria for sequencing will be of two kinds and not simply be the result of a ‘natural’ or systematic presentation of the material.

i) sequencing intrinsic to a theory of language acquisition, or to the structure of specified material relating to language acquisition;

ii) sequencing constrained by administrative needs: of material which is necessary for the course but which can, in principle, be regarded as usable at any point during the program, for example, certain kinds of cultural information.

IV. A syllabus is a document of administrative convenience (hence III, ii above) and will only partly be justified on theoretical grounds. Hence it will be negotiable and adjustable, enshrining the most useful experience of the past in order to ease the workload of the present.

V. A syllabus can only specify what is taught; it cannot organize what is learnt. It can, methodologically, allow for opportunities for acquisition and/or learning, but such opportunities cannot be spelt out in detail as they will reflect the personalities of learners and the continuing relationships established as the class progresses.

VI. Not to have a syllabus is to refuse to allow one’s assumptions to be scrutinized or to enable different teachers to relate their work to each other’s. It is consequently an essential feature of work in a democratic profession or as part of a democratic education.

Appendix B - Survey of learner preferences (English version)

Answer the following (1= no: 2=a little: 3= yes: 4= the best)

1) I want to study English reading 1 2 3 4

2) writing 1 2 3 4

3) listening 1 2 3 4

4) speaking 1 2 3 4

5) grammar 1 2 3 4

6) vocabulary 1 2 3 4

7) pronunciation 1 2 3 4

8) idioms 1 2 3 4

9) I want to study in class on my own 1 2 3 4

10) in pairs 1 2 3 4

11) in small groups (3-4) 1 2 3 4

12) as a whole 1 2 3 4

13) I want to study only outside class 1 2 3 4

14) I want to study using conversations 1 2 3 4

15) questions and answers 1 2 3 4

16) games 1 2 3 4

17) surveys 1 2 3 4

18) I want to study English Conv. to get a credit 1 2 3 4

19) to get a better job 1 2 3 4

20) to speak to foreigners 1 2 3 4

21) so I can travel abroad 1 2 3 4

22) to understand foreign movies 1 2 3 4

23) to understand foreign books 1 2 3 4

24) to understand foreign music 1 2 3 4

25) Other

26) I want the teacher to correct all my mistakes. 1 2 3 4

27) I want other students to correct my mistakes. 1 2 3 4

28) I want the teacher to give me all the answers 1 2 3 4

29) I want to find the answers for myself 1 2 3 4

30) I want to have a textbook 1 2 3 4

31) I want to write everything down 1 2 3 4

32) I want to have homework 1 2 3 4

33) I want to know what we will study the next week so I can prepare.

1 2 3 4

34) When I do listening, I want to see the text 1 2 3 4

35) When I do listening, I want to understand every word

1 2 3 4

36) I want to hear English at native speaker speed 1 2 3 4

37) I want to hear English at a slow speed 1 2 3 4

38) I want to learn English from a native speaker Yes No

If yes, why?

39) I want to learn English from a Japanese teacher Yes No

If yes, why?

40) Other preferences or desires for this class

Appendix A (2) - Survey of learner preferences (Japanese version)

Initial Survey - Second Term 1995 Name

下記のアンケートに答えなさい（１＝いいえ：２＝少し：３＝はい：４＝絶対）

1) 英語で学びたいことは？ 読解 1 2 3 4

2) 筆記 1 2 3 4

3) 聞き取り 1 2 3 4

4) 会話 1 2 3 4

5) 文法 1 2 3 4

6) 語彙 1 2 3 4

7) 発音 1 2 3 4

8) 熟語 1 2 3 4

9) 授業での学び方は？ 一人で 1 2 3 4

10) ペアで 1 2 3 4

11) 少人数のグループで 1 2 3 4

12) 全員で 1 2 3 4

13) 授業以外で学びたい 1 2 3 4

14) 学び方は？ 会話で 1 2 3 4

15) 質疑応答で 1 2 3 4

16) ゲームで 1 2 3 4

17) アンケートで 1 2 3 4

18) 英会話を学びたい理由は

単位を取るため 1 2 3 4

19) 良い就職のため 1 2 3 4

20) 外国人と話すため 1 2 3 4

21) 海外旅行のため 1 2 3 4

22) 外国映画を理解するため 1 2 3 4

23) 洋書を理解するため 1 2 3 4

24) 洋楽を理解するため 1 2 3 4

25) その他の理由

26) 講師に誤りを全部訂正して欲しい 1 2 3 4

27) 他の学生に誤りを訂正して欲しい 1 2 3 4

28) 講師から答えを全て教えてもらいたい 1 2 3 4

29) 自分で答えを見つけたい 1 2 3 4

30) 教科書を使いたい 1 2 3 4

31) 全ての授業内容を書き留めたい 1 2 3 4

32) 宿題を出して欲しい 1 2 3 4

33) 予習のため、次回の授業の内容を知りたい 1 2 3 4

34) 聞き取りをする時、テキストを見たい 1 2 3 4

35) 聞き取りをする時、全ての単語を理解したい

1 2 3 4

36) 練習する時、ネイティブスピーカーの早さで英語が聞きたい

1 2 3 4

37) 練習する時、ゆっくりした英語を聞きたい 1 2 3 4

38) 毎週、グループを変えて練習したい 1 2 3 4

39) ネイティブスピーカーから英語を学びたい はい 　いいえ

はいと答えた場合、なぜ？

40) 日本人の講師から英語を学びたい はい　いいえ

はいと答えた場合、なぜ？

41) 後期にどのような話題について話したいですか。

42) 他の意見

Appendix C - Syllabus Outline

I. Description

English Conversation Class

Average 40-50 students

1st year Japanese university students majoring in science

II. Time constraints - 24 classes of 90 minutes per week

Student proficiency at start of course - beginner to beginner/intermediate

Initial goals (which may or may not be realized)

1) To adjust students to an aural/oral language learning environment which involves speaking in English to native Japanese

2) To show language to be a vehicle for communication

3) To provide language and functions necessary for interacting with the teacher and understanding instructions in the target language

4) To enable students to express their feelings and ideas in a variety of situations where Japanese may encounter native speakers

5) To contextualize previously learnt grammar and vocabulary

6) To motivate students to study English inside and outside the classroom, and after the course has finished

III. Sequencing of course - Topics based directly relating to student needs and interests

Activities - Tasks, dialogues, listening for content and gist, problem solving, controlled practice, opportunities for real communication, pronunciation practice

Sequencing of activities - complexity of language, complexity of task, familiarity of subject matter, focused or unfocussed

IV. Evaluation

Attendance (30%) (as specified by university administration)

Oral, Aural and written tests (40%)

In class assessment based on task outcomes and learner behavior (30%)

Appendix D Outline of Lesson Plan

STAGE 1

Teacher arrives early

Target language is used to socialize with incoming learners.

Target language is used to negotiate with learners about table layout, room heating, and other aspects of classroom management

STAGE 2 - Opening pre-task

New topic introduced - Sports

Learners asked to brainstorm the names of sports and the names given to people who do those sports. e.g. boxing-boxer, football-football player

Pronunciation practice is given here to correct commonly occurring mistakes due to so called ‘katerkanerization’ where English words adopted into the Japanese language acquire a Japanese style pronunciation.

C-R techniques used to generate from the learners a possible rule for forming a link between the vocabulary items. (___er, ___ player).

Possible exceptions generated by learners e.g. Karate, Kendo.

STAGE 3 - Secondary pre-task

Learners asked to form groups of 8 to 10 to take part in a quiz on sports.

Within groups, learners attempt to answer questions posed by the teacher.

Discussion is permitted but each learner is only allowed to supply an answer once.

Questions designed to incorporate vocabulary generated in stage 2, and provide key phrases and question types likely to assist learners in completing stage 4. No explicit teaching of these structures is given, although the benefit in listening to the types of question given, is suggested.

Example questions

1) Who is the fastest 100m runner in the world?

2) When did you first see a baseball game?

3) How many times has the Japanese football team won the World cup?

STAGE 4 - Main task

Information gap exercise based on profiles of two famous Sumo wrestlers.

Task to be completed in pairs and students instructed that they will be asked to present to the class their findings.

Example data to be retrieved:

Profile of Akebono

Stable name - Azumazeki

Nationality - American, (Hawaii)

Age - 26

Date of birth - May 8th, 1969

Height - 204 cm

Weight - 224 kg

Number of tournament titles - 8

Current rank - Yokozuna

Date of entry into Makuuchi - September, 1990

Current problems - becomes too nervous before a fight, loses rhythm after losing

STAGE 5 - Reporting to the class

Learners present the findings from stage 4.

Class as a whole accepts or rejects the proposed answers.

Possible question forms used to extract missing information is offered by learners and written on board

STAGE 6 - Analysis

Questions offered by learners analyzed.

Students and teacher work together to refine student generated questions.

STAGE 7 - Controlled practice

Students work in pairs asking and answering set questions.

Questions designed to require personal responses from learners.

Students who are responding to question, instructed to only listen to their partner and respond accordingly.

Learners repeat the process after switching roles.

Example questions:

1) Which sport do you think is difficult to learn?

2) Which baseball player, or the past or present, do you admire most?

3) Have you ever played gateball? If no, why not?

STAGE 8 - Focused listening exercise

Inauthentic dialogue based on the topic of sport played through a tape recorder.

Students respond to questions written on the board testing listening for gist and specific information skills

Dialogue:

A: What a great Sumo competition

B: Yeah, I didn’t think Akebono was going to win this time.

A: I know. Wakanohana looked very strong, and so did his younger brother.

B: They’ll probably both be popular Yokozunas someday.

A: Yes, they certainly are talented. There’s just one thing I don’t like.

B: What’s that?

A: Well, the Hanada brothers don’t have to fight many of the top wrestlers. It doesn’t seem fair.

B: Yes, but they do have to fight the Hawaiians.

A: That’s true. You know, if I were a Sumo wrestler, I think I’d want to belong to Konishiki’s stable.

B: Why’s that?

A: I’d never have to fight him. Can you imagine that guy falling on top of you during a tournament? I don’t know if I’d ever get up again.

Questions:

1) Which three Sumo wrestlers are mentioned on the tape?

2) Who won the Sumo competition?

3) Are both the Hanada brothers Yokozuna?

4) What doesn’t the first speaker like about the Hanada brothers?

5) Whose stable doesn’t the first speaker want to be in? Why?

STAGE 9 - Unfocussed listening exercise

Teacher talks freely about sports in his native country, at native speed.

Visual clues provided by teacher through body movements and diagrams on the board.