Content area
Recently, task-based language teaching (TBLT), like many other pedagogical innovations, has been widely adopted and implemented in numerous language classrooms across Japan. However, in actual classrooms, many teachers still use drills and exercises or rely on the presentation-practice-production (PPP) framework to prevent the "fossilization of students errors". This study aims to compare the effectiveness of PPP and TBLT approaches in Japanese EFL-speaking classes, focusing on accuracy and fluency development. The participants were Japanese EFL students, both male and female, with an average age of 20. They were randomly assigned to the PPP and TBLT groups. Evaluation of learners' completion of the speaking pretest, immediate posttest, and delayed posttest activities in both groups revealed that both approaches had an impact on both immediate and long-term results (one week). In particular, TBLT lessons appeared to be more effective than PPP lessons in improving learners' fluency. However, students in the PPP group outperformed those in the TBLT group in terms of accuracy on both the immediate and delayed posttests.
Abstract-Recently, task-based language teaching (TBLT), like many other pedagogical innovations, has been widely adopted and implemented in numerous language classrooms across Japan. However, in actual classrooms, many teachers still use drills and exercises or rely on the presentation-practice-production (PPP) framework to prevent the "fossilization of students errors". This study aims to compare the effectiveness of PPP and TBLT approaches in Japanese EFL-speaking classes, focusing on accuracy and fluency development. The participants were Japanese EFL students, both male and female, with an average age of 20. They were randomly assigned to the PPP and TBLT groups. Evaluation of learners' completion of the speaking pretest, immediate posttest, and delayed posttest activities in both groups revealed that both approaches had an impact on both immediate and long-term results (one week). In particular, TBLT lessons appeared to be more effective than PPP lessons in improving learners' fluency. However, students in the PPP group outperformed those in the TBLT group in terms of accuracy on both the immediate and delayed posttests.
Index Terms-presentation-practice-production, task-based language teaching, accuracy, fluency
I. Introduction
Japan's Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) launched the "Japan Vision 2020" initiative in 2013, emphasizing the urgent need to develop globally competent individuals with strong language and communication skills (MEXT, 2013). As part of this vision, English education in Japan aims to achieve a balanced development of the four language skills: reading, listening, writing, and speaking. However, despite years of English instruction, many Japanese students continue to struggle with basic communicative abilities, particularly in oral proficiency. This persistent challenge has led to ongoing discussions on effective pedagogical approaches that better support English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners in Japan.
Some researchers (e.g., O'Donnell, 2005) attribute this to the heavy reliance on the grammar-translation method in classrooms. Thus, in response to traditional approaches, communicative language teaching (CLT), also known as the communicative approach, has recently gained popularity among Japanese EFL teachers. These approaches, such as Content-based instruction and task-based language teaching (TBLT), are thought effective in enhancing students' oral competencies. However, in actual classrooms, many teachers still adopt drills and exercises or rely on the presentation-practice-production (PPP) framework to prevent the "fossilization of students' errors". This reliance on established methods, despite the push for more communicative approaches, suggests a potential gap between theory and practice in Japanese EFL education. This gap highlights the need for further research that examines the practical effectiveness of different methodologies in real classroom settings.
Second language acquisition (SLA) research highlights that language learning is a developmental process that cannot be entirely controlled or predicted by teachers (Corder, 1967). To create optimal learning conditions, educators must understand how learners naturally acquire language. This study aims to address this issue by empirically comparing the effects of PPP and TBLT on Japanese EFL learners' speaking performance. By analyzing accuracy and fluency outcomes through posttests and delayed posttests, this research seeks to determine which approach fosters more effective language acquisition in both the short and long term.
The findings of this study offer new insights into the efficacy of instructional methods in Japanese EFL classrooms, contributing to the ongoing discourse on bridging the gap between policy-driven recommendations and classroom realities. By providing empirical evidence on how different methodologies impact learners' oral proficiency, this research has significant implications for improving English language education in Japan. Furthermore, this study builds on recent advancements in SLA and language pedagogy, reinforcing the need for evidence-based teaching strategies that align with the natural process of language acquisition.
II. Literature Review
A. History of Language Instruction
Throughout history, educators have employed various approaches and methods to teach English. Each method was used for a certain period and then replaced by newer approaches. These diverse approaches have ranged from grammar-translation methods, which emphasized explicit grammar rules and translation exercises, to more communicative approaches that prioritize authentic language use and interaction. Other notable approaches include the direct method and the audio-lingual method, each with its own set of principles and techniques. Each approach had different focuses and purposes but shared the same goal: to help language learners achieve better proficiency in their second language (L2). Before focusing on the TBLT and PPP approaches, reviewing the important historical background of language instruction is essential (Gass, 2013; Celce-Murcia et al., 2014; Yule, 2014; Long, 1991; Long & Robinson, 1998).
B. Grammar Translation Method
Grammar translation has long dominated the SLA field. Grammar was viewed as the primary focus in L2 teaching in this method. The mastery of grammar structures was the main task, and its goal was to help students read the classics, translate from LI to the target language, and pass standardized examinations. L2 learning is not designed to nurture students who can use language for communication.
C. Reform Approach
As a reaction to grammar translation, the reform approach was adopted. The teachers' focus was on phonetics. Phonetic training and oral language fluency were emphasized. Teachers taught students phonetics, and learners were expected to establish good speech habits through phonetic training.
D. Direct Method
Unlike the grammar translation method, in which communication was not important, another reaction called the direct method gained popularity. This approach focuses on speaking and listening. Educators believed that an L2 could be acquired in the same way as an LI. They stated that a language could best be taught using it actively in class, so they replaced textbooks in the early stages of learning.
E. Reading Approach
The decline in reading scores among students prompted the adoption of the reading approach. To select the language context, educators preferred a scientific and quantifiable approach in language classes. They argued that focusing solely on speech without a principled selection of content was not effective. Translation is once again a respectable classroom procedure, and reading comprehension is the only language skill that emphasized.
F. Audiolingualism
Several developments have led to the introduction of a new approach called audiolingualism. This approach focused on learning grammatical and phonological structures and prioritizing speaking and listening skills. The theory underlying audiolingualism is structural linguistics, in which language is viewed as a set of structures. Mimicry and memorization of dialogs are emphasized by assuming that language learning involves the formation and performance of habits.
G. Communicative Approach
Communicative Language Teaching has become popular in recent decades. This approach recognizes the teaching of communicative competence as its aims. Advocates of this approach focus on authentic language use in L2 classroom. Their interest is in communication and fluency, and discourse level functions rather than sentence level forms. Teachers view language as a meaning-based system for communication. The goal of language teaching is thought to be the learners' ability to communicate in the target language. Content-based instruction and TBLT are included in this approach.
H. TBLT Approach
TBLT emphasizes engaging learners in authentic, meaningful tasks that mirror real-world language use. According to recent research, TBLT involves learners completing purposeful, problem-oriented, and outcome-driven tasks that promote both linguistic and communicative competence (Mudinillah et al., 2024). These tasks are designed to prioritize meaning, present a communication problem to solve, relate to real-world activities, emphasize task completion, and assess performance based on outcomes (Ellis et al., 2019). This approach contrasts with traditional methods by focusing on the practical use of language in context, thereby facilitating more effective language acquisition.
TBLT focuses on the ability to perform such tasks or activities without explicit teaching about grammatical structures or forms. The primary aim is the creative and spontaneous use of language in meaningful tasks. Thus, TBLT teachers believe that learners learn the language by using it. The belief behind this approach is Long's interaction hypothesis conversational interaction facilitates language acquisition because it connects input (what learners hear and read);internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention; and output (what learners produce) in productive ways (Long, 1996, pp. 451-452). We consider TBLT to be a typical student-centered approach.
I. Presentation-Practice-Production Approach
Unlike TBLT, PPP is often categorized in a traditional, teacher- or textbook-centered. In PPP, language learning is presented in stages: presentation, practice, and production.
According to Ellis et al. (2019), the presentation stage helps learners to "acquire" new linguistic knowledge or restructure knowledge that has been wrongly "represented." In other words, the students' interlanguage is believed to develop as new/appropriate input is explained to them at this stage. According to Skehan (1998), through this method, learners learn effectively in order.
In the PPP approach, the practice stage is divided into two stages: controlled and free. In the controlled practice section, students repeat the target items or forms presented earlier without thinking about when to use them. Gap filling or drilling of the target items exists. In contrast, in freer practice, students are expected to decide how and when to use the items and manipulate them when necessary. At this stage, students are believed to understand a form or item but require further practice. In the production stage, students are expected to be able to decide when and how to use items/forms that have been "learned" through communicative tasks such as role-play. Students are expected to acquire the language during this stage by using it in a natural context or activity. Recent studies have continued to explore the PPP approach in language teaching. For instance, Lakuana and Siojam (2020) found that applying the PPP in English classrooms helped students effectively perform free production activities.
J. TBLT Versus PPP
Some linguists have conducted interesting investigations comparing PPP and TBLT. For example, De la Fuente (2006) conducted research on vocabulary acquisition in Spanish learners by investigating the effects of three vocabulary lessons (one traditional PPP and two TBLT) on the acquisition of basic meaning, forms, and morphological aspects of Spanish words. The pedagogical approach employed did not influence immediate recall of the target vocabulary; however, it did have an effect on long-term retention. The study suggests that TBLT lessons can positively affect the long-time recall of vocabulary items forL2 learners.
Recent research has further explored the relative effectiveness of PPP and TBLT methodologies. Li (2020) examined the ongoing discussion surrounding these two approaches, emphasizing their respective advantages and drawbacks. The findings indicate that PPP provides a structured framework that supports exam preparation, whereas TBLT fosters authentic language use, making it more suitable for real-world communication. The study ultimately suggests that both methods offer valuable benefits, and instructors should select the approach that best aligns with their specific instructional goals.
III. Methodology
A. Research Question
Building on previous studies, the current study investigates and compares the effectiveness of the PPP and TBLT approaches in Japanese EFL-speaking classes, focusing on accuracy and fluency development. The research addresses the following questions:
RQ1: Do PPP and TBLT approaches show any effectiveness in the context of EFL speaking?
RQ2: Do differences exist in accuracy and fluency between PPP- and TBLT-instructed students?
B. Participants
The participants in this study were 37 second-year (aged 19-21) Japanese EFL students from a private Japanese college. They were assigned to two groups-TBLT and PPP-based on their TOEIC L&R scores. The selection of participants was determined by class availability, and while the sample size was limited, it aligns with previous studies examining pedagogical interventions in similar EFL contexts (e.g., De la Fuente, 2006).
To ensure comparability, both groups consisted of A2 (CEFR) level students, with their English proficiency measured through TOEIC scores:
TBLT group: 19 students, TOEIC mean score of 499
PPP group: 18 students, TOEIC mean score of 366
Although the sample size is relatively small, the study aims to provide insights into instructional effectiveness and contribute to discussions on language pedagogy in Japanese EFL classrooms.
In terms of their learning background, all students have a similar educational history: they studied English for six years in junior high and high school, primarily using the grammar translation method and audiolingualism.
C. Data Collection Procedures
Data were collected during the second week of an eight-week course aimed at improving students' speaking skills. The textbook, Hajimete-no TOEIC Speaking, was provided by the school, and both groups were taught by the same instructor to ensure consistency in instructional delivery. The lesson focused on Section 2, "Describing a Picture." Thepretest was administered at the beginning of the class, where students completed a speaking task using a photo from the textbook. The teacher then conducted the lesson following either the PPP or TBLT approach. At the end of the lesson, students performed the same speaking task as a posttest. A delayed posttest was conducted one week later, using the same picture to assess retention. All tests were conducted on the same day to maintain uniformity in conditions. Additionally, as all students followed a fixed curriculum for their first-year studies, their exposure to English outside of class was expected to be relatively uniform, minimizing potential external influences on the results.
PPP group
Pretest (10 minutes) -> PPP lesson (60 minutes) -> Posttest (10 minutes) -^Delayed Posttest (10 minutes/one week after the immediate posttest)
TBLT group
Pretest (10 minutes) -> TBLT lesson (60 minutes) -> Posttest (10 minutes) -^Delayed Posttest (10 minutes/one week after the immediate posttest)
The students were shown a picture and asked to describe it in as much detail as possible. They had 30 seconds to prepare their responses and 45 seconds to speak about the picture. After recording, all data were transcribed and analyzed by the author. Since the coding and rating were conducted solely by the author, inter-rater reliability was not applicable in this study.
Both classes were conducted by the author, and the same section was used but through different methods.
oPPP
Stage 1: Pretest
Stage 2: Lesson
Presentation (20 minutes)
Explanation of the picture description section. The teacher explained the speech outline and effective structure. Introduce grammar functions, new vocabulary/phrases, and their usages. Introduce useful expressions that students can use in this section.
Practice (20 minutes)
Use several photos and presenting model narrations for each photo. Students repeat each sentence and read aloud. After the look-up practice, the students memorize the model narration.
Production (20 minutes)
The students were presented with a new set of photos and asked to describe them within 45 seconds. After the output, they listened to model answers for each photo.
Stage 3: Posttest
Immediately after the lesson, the students took the same speaking test as in Stage 1.
Stage 4: delayed-posttest
One week after the lesson, the students took the same speaking test as in Stage 1.
oTBLT
Stage 1: Pretest
Stage 2: Lesson
Task 1 (20 minutes)
The students were presented with a photo. They brainstormed vocabulary items in pairs. The students made a speech (describing a photo) for 45 seconds (recorded), listened to their speech, and wrote it down. The students, as a pair, studied their own speech, and afterward, they listened to a sample speech. As they listened, they wrote and compared the sample with their own. After studying the sample answer, the participants (in pairs) discussed over their speeches and update if necessary.
Task 2 (20 minutes)
Team Competition Task: The students are divided into 4-5 groups. Two students (representatives) from each group approached the teacher and see the photo for 30 seconds. After studying the photo, they returned to their own group and described as much detail as possible. By listening to two representatives describe a photo, other members of the group drew a picture. After completing the picture, it was posted on the blackboard, and the teacher decides the team that drew the picture most accurately.
Task 3 (20 minutes)
Story retelling: Work on the same groups. One representative approached to the teacher, observed a photo, and listened to the model narration. After listening to the model, the student retells it to the next student, and the next student retells it to the next person. The final member of each group comes in front of the class and does the narration according to whatever he/she hears.
Stage 3: Posttest
Immediately after the lesson, the students took the same speaking test as in Stage 1.
Stage 4: delay ed-posttest
One week after the lesson, the students took the same speaking test as in Stage 1.
D. Data A nalysis
1. Fluency
The total number of words produced by each student for each test was counted as an indicator of overall fluency. Throughout the coding process, filled pauses such as "uh" or "er", repetitions, and false starts are neither treated as errors nor counted as words.
2. Accuracy
To measure students' accuracy, we examined an error-free T-unit /total T-unit ratio. In this study, errors in the use of articles and third person singular are not counted as errors. A T-unit is an independent clause, or according to Hunt (1965, p.20), it is "one main clause with all subordinate clauses attached to it." For example, "I bought a book but it was a wrong one." is counted as two T-units, but "I brought a book whose title was Blue Moon." is counted as one T-unit.
IV. Results and Discussion
Figure 1 shows the fluency mean scores of each class in the pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest. Both groups had improved fluency scores. As for the mean score, both were about the same in the pretest: TBLT M = 24.28 (SD = 5.9), PPP M = 24.72 (SD = 9.62). However, the TBLT class scored higher than the PPP class in the posttest: TBLT M = 61.32 (SD = 11.49), PPP M = 55.56 (SD = 11.97). As for the TBLT class, the mean score dropped by only 3.67 in the delayed posttest, whereas that of the PPP class dropped by 14.62: TBLT M = 57.65 (SD = 9.40), PPP M = 40.94 (SD = 10.43).
Figure 2 shows the accuracy mean scores of each class in the pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest. Both groups also showed improved accuracy mean scores: TBLT Pre M = 0.67 (SD = 0.28)-Post M = 0.91 (SD = 0.09)-Delayed M = 0.81 (SD = 0.21), PPP Pre 0.6 (SD = 0.3 l)-Post M = 0.96 (SD = 0.13)-Delayed M = 0.92 (SD = 0.13). As for the mean score, the PPP class scored slightly higher and retained better than the TBLT class.
The first research question in this study was Do the PPP and TBLT approaches demonstrate any effectiveness in EFL-speaking contexts? The findings indicate that both the PPP and TBLT approaches had observable effects on speaking accuracy and proficiency skills. In large classes, improving speaking accuracy and fluency can be challenging. However, the results showed that both approaches proved to be effective to some extent. The delayed posttest was conducted only one week after the treatment. Thus, further studies are needed to examine the long-term retention ofaccuracy and fluency. This short timeframe for the delayed posttest is a limitation of the current study, and future research should consider longer intervals, such as several weeks or even months, to gain a more comprehensive understanding of retention. Additionally, future studies could explore the impact of other factors on retention, such as learner motivation, learning styles, and the amount of exposure to English outside the classroom.
The second research question was Do differences exist in accuracy and fluency between PPP- and TBLT-instructed students? The findings revealed differences in both achievement and retention between the TBLT and PPP classes. While the PPP group demonstrated greater accuracy in speaking in both short-term and long-term assessments, the TBLT group showed improved accuracy in the immediate posttest but experienced decreased accuracy over the long term. The use of TBLT might have resulted in less focus on accuracy. However, if students notice and address form-related issues during task completion, they may mitigate this lack of attention to accuracy. Addressing this issue may involve providing explicit explanations about the necessity of accuracy or incorporating planned or prompted focus on form. Many researchers, including Nunan (2004) and Skehan (2003), suggest that in communicative approaches like TBLT, students are unlikely to develop high-level L2 skills if they do not pay attention to forms while completing tasks. This focus on form can be integrated in various ways, such as through pre-task planning activities that encourage learners to consider grammatical structures or through post-task feedback sessions that address errors and provide corrective input. Additionally, incorporating explicit grammar instruction alongside TBLT activities could be another effective strategy. It is also important to consider the type of tasks used in TBLT, as some tasks may naturally lend themselves to a greater focus on form than others. For example, tasks that require precise language use, such as giving instructions or making formal presentations, may encourage learners to pay more attention to accuracy.
Notably, the findings demonstrated that TBLT positively affected learners' fluency both in the short-term and long term. In this study, the total number of words produced by students was used to gauge fluency; thus, a higher word count indicated better fluency skills. Nevertheless, the lower fluency rate in the PPP class might stem from students focusing too much on accuracy. This trade-off between accuracy and fluency is a well-documented phenomenon in SLA research. Learners often prioritize one over the other, depending on the task demands and their individual learning styles. Further research could explore how learners' perceptions of accuracy and fluency influence their performance in different pedagogical contexts.
Overall, the results suggest that learners in the PPP approach tend to focus more on accuracy, which may hinder fluency development. In contrast, learners in the TBLT approach showed greater improvement in fluency but struggled with maintaining accuracy. As Takashima (2005) noted, while the communicative approach effectively improves language competency, in environments with limited L2 input, alternative methods are necessary to enhance students' accuracy levels. For example, rather than entirely abandoning the PPP approach in favor of task-based teaching, integrating PPP elements within the TBLT framework could be a viable solution. Alternatively, modifying TBLT to incorporate focused attention on specific features or forms during tasks may also be effective.
V. Conclusion
One of the ultimate goals of SLA research is to understand how learners' skills develop through various activities or approaches. In other words, SLA researchers and language teachers must investigate how teachers' interventions in learners' inner syllabi affect their learning processes. This study compared the efficiency of PPP and TBLT approaches in Japanese EFL-speaking classes in terms of accuracy and fluency development. The overall findings are as follows: (a) The PPP approach effectively improves learners' accuracy, and (b) The TBLT approach effectively enhances learners' fluency. These findings suggest that PPP may be more beneficial for initial stages of learning where accuracy is paramount, while TBLT may be more suitable for later stages when fluency and communicative competence are emphasized.
While the PPP approach tends to encourage learners to focus on accuracy, if the focus is on improving learners' fluency, teachers should consider implementing TBLT lessons. These findings have important implications for EFL instruction, particularly in contexts like Japan, where learners often have limited opportunities for authentic communication outside the classroom. The present study suggests that a balanced approach, incorporating elements of both PPP and TBLT, might be most effective in promoting both accuracy and fluency. For instance, teachers could use PPP activities to establish a solid foundation in grammatical structures and then transition to TBLT tasks to encourage more fluent and spontaneous language use.
While this study provides insights into the effectiveness of PPP and TBLT in EFL speaking instruction, certain limitations should be acknowledged. The sample size of 37 participants is relatively small, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, although efforts were made to control external variables-such as ensuring the same instructor taught both groups and administering the tests on the same day-factors like individual differences in motivation and extracurricular exposure to English could still have influenced the results. Future research with a larger sample size and additional measures to track learners' exposure to English outside of the classroom would be beneficial in strengthening the validity of these findings.
To further investigate the differential effects of PPP and TBLT on learner development, future research could focus on several key areas. Firstly, longitudinal studies are crucial to examine the long-term effects of these approaches on accuracy and fluency retention, and how these effects might vary across different learner groups (e.g., beginners vs.intermediate). Secondly, investigating the impact of different task sequences within the TBLT framework, such as output-first approaches, on learners' complexity, accuracy, and fluency development will provide valuable insights into the nuances of this approach. Finally, exploring learners' perceptions and attitudes towards these different approaches is essential, as learner motivation and engagement play a critical role in language acquisition. This research will contribute to a deeper understanding of how different teaching approaches impact language learning and inform more effective instructional practices in diverse learning contexts.
Appendix
List of Abbreviations
CLT: Communicative language teaching
SLA: Second language acquisition
TBLT: Task-based language teaching
PPP: Presentation-practice-production
EFL: English as a foreign language
TOEIC: Test of English for International Communication
References [1] Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D., & Snow, M.A. (2014). Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Boston: National Geographic Learning.
[2] Corder, S.P (1967). The significance of learners' errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161-170. [3] De la Fuente, M. J. (2006). Classroom L2 vocabulary acquisition: investigating the role of pedagogical tasks and form-focused instruction. Language Teaching Research, 10, 263-295.
[4] Ellis, R. (1988). The Role of Practice in Classroom Learning: AILA review, 5:20-3. [5] Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [6] Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2019). Task-Based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[7] Gass, S. (2013). Second language acquisition: An Introductory course (4th edition), KY: Routledge. [8] Hirano, K. (1988). Research on T-unit Measures in ESL. Bull. Jetsu University Educ, 8(2), 67-77. [9] Hunt, K. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. NCTE Research Report, No. 3. Urbana, IL: The National Council of Teachers of English.
[10] Lakuana, N, & Siojam, S. (2020). The effectiveness of presentation, practice, production (PPP) method in developing students' speaking skill at MA Al-khairaat Luwuk. BABASAL English Education Journal, 1(2), 28-36. https://doi.org/10.32529fteej.vli2.1008 [11] Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, C. Kramsch & R. Ginsberb (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[12] Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press. [13] Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. doughty & J. Williams (Eds.) Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15-41). New York: Cambridge University Press.
[14] Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2013). White Paper on Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Special Feature 1: 2020: Toward a New Growth. Retrieved June 3, 2014, from http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/html/hpab201301/1360652.htm [15] Mudinillah, A., Rahmi, S. & Taro, N. (2024). Task-Based Language Teaching: A Systematic Review of Research and Applications. Lingeduca: Journal of Language and Education Studies, 3, 102-115. 10.70177/lingeduca.v3i2.1352. [16] Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[17] O'Donnell, K. (2005). Japanese Secondary English Teachers: Negotiation of Educational Roles in the Face of Curricular Reform. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 18(3), 300-315. Retrieved August 21, 2014, from https://doi.org/10.1080/07908310508668749 (2014/8/21) [18] Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[19] Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1-14. [20] Takashima, H. (2005). Task-based activities and assessment in English grammar items: 34 practices. Taishukan Shoten. [21] Yule G. (2014). The Study of Language (5th edition), Cambridge University Press.
Miho Tomita (born in Tokyo, April 15) holds an MA in Linguistics from Sophia University (2018), Japan, and a BA in English and American Literature from Keio University, Japan (2007). She is currently a Senior Lecturer at the Department of Business Design, Faculty of Global Business, Showa Women's University, Japan, where she teaches English for Specific Purposes (ESP). Her research interests include second language acquisition, CLIL, TBLT, speaking skills development, CAF, bilingualism, Japanology, and intercultural communication. Ms. Tomita is a member of the Japan Association for Language Teaching (JALT), the Japan Association of Language and Culture (JALC), and the Sophia University Linguistic Society (SULS). Her previous publications include "Dimensions of L2 Oral Language Performance: A Study of Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency Development Over Time," Ahwaz Journal of Linguistic Studies, 2, 1-24.
Copyright Academy Publication Co., Ltd. 2025