Los lugares de la ciudad portuaria y su ecología

This section reports on student perspectives on the ways the teachers ran the pre-task phase. Like the teachers, the students were able to articulate clear opinions on the value of a pre-task focus on language forms. Indeed, students had strong, internally consistent but contrasting opinions about all three forms of language practice.

The findings show that two thirds (36/54) of the students expressed a preference for doing the task in their own way without any model, language input or structured

communication activities. Interestingly, whether the students viewed pre-task language practice as constraining, facilitating or neutral, they tended to hold parallel attitudes towards modelling (and structured communication activities). The students who held the ‘constraining’ view valued creativity in task performance as seen in the comments below (student identity code in brackets).

(22) With vocabulary or structures provided, psychologically we tend to use

these words, or think in ways that can use these words, so our thinking is constrained. Without them, we can think further with diverse creative ideas.(TQB-12H)

(23) For me, it is not good to teach vocabulary or structures before I do the task;

it should not be too early. It should be done after I have done the task. From my own experience, if I am corrected certain errors after I have used them in my talk, I will remember them better. So, I prefer to do the task freely, and later the teacher can correct the words that students used incorrectly. (LVT-10C)

Overall, the students were able to articulate well thought through positions on how they preferred to carry out communicative tasks. Contrary to findings that learners might not see much relevance in oral communicative tasks in EFL contexts (McDonough, 2004; Pham, 2007), the students here appeared to be well aware of the value of these tasks

and how to make the best use of them for language learning. In this way, they added more ‘learning value’ to tasks (Crabbe, 2003, 2007).

With regards to pre-task modelling, the majority of students saw it as constraining and inhibiting:

(24) In my opinion, there should not be a model of task performance, because

students tend to rely on it, thus affecting their ability to be creative in language use. For the teenagers’ age, creativity is quite big; the only problem that we face is limited vocabulary to express all that we want to mean. However, this problem is not hard to solve. We can always ask peers and the teacher. (BDH-12G)

(25) Without a model, students will have to think in more positive and broader

directions. A given model inhibits students from thinking further, and this is very likely to lead to moulding, everybody will do the task in the same way. The imagination of each individual is different, so I believe, without a model we will have a variety of talks (performances), and this is motivating and fun. (LBN-11E) Students’ opinions here contrast with the positive value placed on pre-task language modelling by students in quasi-experimental studies (Kim & McDonough, 2011). This suggests that greater attention be given to students’ perceptions in the TBLT literature.

Littlewood (2004, 2007) argues that structured communication activities offer teachers in Asian contexts a way to gradually introduce TBLT. However, such general advice addressed to teachers to solve a teaching problem was not universally supported by the perception of this group of Asian learners of effective learning. Indeed, most students in the current study held an opposing view. For example:

(26) Why not give us this final task right away, no need to do those activities; it’s

too framing, it’s like a pre-determined path to follow. It’s constraining and boring. (NTLC-12H)

(27) In those early activities, there’s nothing to talk about, just matching ideas and

(28) I think just let students do the main task and not do this activity. No need to

form questions and answers like this before doing the final communicative activity. It’s boring. (LMT-10B)

In contrast to the students discussed above, 12/54 students expressed a need for pre- task modelling and language (and structured communication activities) as in the following comments:

(29) I need the basic thing, (like a model of task performance) from which to

expand my talk. In this way, I speak better. (LHT-10B)

(30) My vocabulary is limited, so with some words or structures given, I can use

them when needed. So it’s easier. (LAD-12H) A smaller number (6/54) expressed a neutral position:

(31) With some vocabulary or a model provided, those who want to be creative, they

can at their own wish; and those who cannot create something new nor want to take risks can use what was provided to help them move on with the task. In my case, I always think of new ideas and thus I rarely use the vocabulary or model provided. It is like the teacher gives you a pen, whether you use it or not is up to you; as long as you still write something in the end. (DTT-10A)

(32) Modelling is just a suggestion. We still have the right to be creative and do

the task in our own way. The teacher does not force us to follow the model. (QTHG-12I)

Overall, these comments from students reflect the value they placed on creativity and on the learning space needed to maximise the benefits from task-based learning. What some teachers did and believed was facilitative of student task performance, was in fact viewed as constraining by many students.

Interestingly, the student voice in the current study challenges earlier views of Vietnamese cultural values such as the notion of “classroom as family”, in which students responded, as a whole group to teacher questions (Kramsch & Sullivan, 1996; Sullivan, 2000). In fact, the student voice in this study supported the challenge that Phan (2004) made against the notion that cultural values (e.g., Confucianism) constrain the

implementation of communicative tasks in Vietnamese university contexts. The data also undermines stereotypical views of Asian students as passive receivers of knowledge (e.g., Cortazzi & Jin, 1996; Flowerdew & Miller, 1995; Pennycook, 1998). Indeed, the students, as the findings have shown, voiced their desire to have space to take an active role in seeking knowledge for themselves. Littlewood (2000) in a survey on students from eight Asian countries found that students were not ‘passive’ as preconceived. Indeed he found that Asian students do want to be active and independent in learning. As Butler (2011) argues, “it is thus potentially misleading to overemphasise the role of traditional cultural values (such as Confucian values) in shaping Asian classroom practices at all grade levels across Asia” (p.40).

In this study it is students voicing what they experienced as inhibiting or facilitating in task-based teaching that alerts us to the ways pre-task pedagogic actions can thwart or enhance their engagement and learning. Clearly how learning opportunities are viewed is “more a matter of how those present affectively interpret them” (Allwright, 2005, p.22). Importantly, all the learners’ perspectives reported here should be situated in the context of the rehearsal-performance model they followed. In the performance where students displayed their work to others, it is reasonable that they would prefer freedom to be creative so as to have different performances. The notion of performance once again emerged as crucial in affecting learners’ orientations towards learning

opportunities through task work.