Category: Hebrew Language Instruction (Fall 2005)

Prof. Aryeh Wohl was the Educational Director of Israel’s Center for Educational Technology for thirty years. He is the Senior Editor and writer responsible for the Open University of Israel courses on Literacy. Prof. Wohl taught at Ben Gurion and Tel Aviv Universities; was an international consultant for the Jewish Agency, specializing in language and teaching methodology; has written and/or produced more than fifty learning programs for elementary and high schools; and consults for Jewish schools. He is semi-retired and is presently the Chairperson of the Division of Humanities at Talpiot Teachers College in Jerusalem.

The following is an abbreviated version of the article. To see the full-length version, click here.

It is well documented, both in academic literature and in anecdotal reports, that the teaching of Hebrew as a second or foreign language (S/FL) is under-effective. The obstacles involved include the lack of appropriate teacher training, texts, professional literature, central agency support and continuity. In addition, many of the methods currently in use rely on dry, rote learning, which students find boring. In this paper I present the rationale for, significant features of, and application of a new, flexible paradigm for curricula and methodology in language learning.

The Old Model: Teacher-Centered Instruction

The traditional instructional model favors teachers who like conformity and prefer to maintain a set of standard, repetitive activities under their control. To them it is easier to be in command of a class when they plan the organization of the lesson, determine what materials are to be used (especially if it's a book that they have used repeatedly), and are the central foci of the lesson. When teachers orchestrate class behavior, maintaining total authority, the goals are clear cut, the products expected are tangible and easy to grade, and accountability is simple. Learning focused on rules (such as grammar and translation) is the norm.

In this teacher-centered model, sometimes called "PPP" (teacher Presentation, student Practice, and student Performance), grammar is presented in manageable pieces, syntactical structures are discussed, and vocabulary, often out of context, is assigned for memory, drill and practice. The teacher presents information linearly, calls for focused drills, carefully corrects each error, prepares worksheets and then executes simple language exams mirroring those worksheets.

Woodward (1996) notes that PPP is the standard approach presented in most teacher-training institutions. As a result of its broad acceptance, it has become more difficult to create change and suggest creative models for teaching language.

In addition to believing in the PPP paradigm, teachers like it because the method is conducive to planning a ‘neat’ lesson with distinct phases; it enables them to orchestrate the behavior in the classroom; and it is easy for them to use existing materials while maintaining clear goals and objectives. Because the PPP model focuses on accuracy, it has few accountability problems and the products are tangible and easily assessed.

But, as Lewis (1996) states:

Skill-based learning, he goes on to say, is not subject to a linear sequence of lessons. To help students learn a skill such as a foreign language, he suggests, the teacher does not have to “know what is being learned at any given moment.”

The teacher-centered PPP paradigm, focused on rote recitation and the "memorize and drill" routine, does not provide real language for communication. PPP assumes that speaking skills will develop naturally after there has been sufficient work with grammar. This stiff, prescriptive approach, what Wajnryb (1989) calls a “straitjacket model" to learning, does not conform to what we know today about language acquisition.

A New Model: Task-Based Communicative Method

Communicative methods, developed in the latter part of the last century, challenged formulaic language learning. They were also a reaction to the belief that learning the grammar of a language will result in the ability to use the language. Communicative experiences can be devised in different ways, but the common underpinning of all communicative approaches is that they are based on 'function' (what the language is used for) rather than 'form' (correct grammar structures). Lessons are organized around communicative objectives framed within different contexts, and aimed at learners performing tasks that will encourage them to use the language and function interactively.

I would like to focus on one particular communicative model, which has particular relevance to the teaching of Hebrew. Willis and Willis (1996) present a three-phase 'task-based' learning cycle revolving around a central activity. The activity can be any task that the teacher would normally assign for any subject: holidays, Jewish family life, tzedakah, etc. The task is completed in three phases. In each phase, the language used to present the facts and move the lesson is Hebrew.

First is the Input Phase, in which the teacher models possible language for an activity (which can include pre-recorded conversations, films, etc.). This introductory phase allows for the priming and practice of mental operations that will be necessary in order to succeed in the task later. The cognitive and linguistic readiness makes the task easier for the students, who become used to the sounds, phrases, and music of the language used. This then becomes the prior knowledge the students will later use while completing the task activity. The Input Phase provides valuable cognitive and linguistic scaffolding.

Initially, it is valuable when the task and its purpose are planned jointly by teacher and students. Teachers introduce the background, prepare resources (pictures, books, models, videos, music, etc.) to introduce the content, and explain the task. As the student comprehension of the task increases, the cognitive load is eased, allowing for the linguistic load to be increased. Teachers model performance of the task while first explaining it in the students' mother tongue, and then repeat the task in Hebrew, using simple sentences and repetition along the way. In this manner, prior knowledge is activated as new vocabulary is introduced in context, and the introduction of new phrases can be accompanied by explanations as the language is being modeled.

Subsequent to the Input Phase is the Rehearsal Phase, in which the students work in small groups. Each group engages in the same activity using as much language as is possible, usually using language that they can easily access. At this stage there is little concern with accuracy, as the learners are encouraged to use language they know or have just heard. Simultaneously, non-verbal language such as pantomime, gestures, pictures, etc. is encouraged. Willis (1993) reminds us not to pressure learners to "…conform to specific structures…. since that will cut back on using …cutting edge and riskier language structures." Teachers move around the room and assist with the conversations. Feedback is given, but error correction is not the focus.

The greatest pressure imposed on the students will be on completing the task and being able to get their message across, meaningfully, coherently and as fluently as possible. At this stage neither accuracy nor complexity are factors. Fluency is primary and little language correction is employed. Students are already working on achieving their communication needs.

Teachers can raise or lower the level of the language task by adding more visual or other aids to assist in task completion. The teacher can also fine-tune the class by asking students to be more careful, listen more actively, ask sharper questions, etc. to get them to extend the communication, solve the problem, or do the task. The language is spontaneous and exploratory, with a focus on communicating meaning. (Note: Other language specialists suggest mixing the phases, sometimes starting with fluency and sometimes with accuracy.)

In the second phase, the teacher plays a background, supporting role as the students explore various modes of communication – linguistic and paralinguistic – using Hebrew, pantomime, pictures, etc. Planning for the third phase, in which the students "report" or present their findings, requires that the initial task be broken into separate components (as in the Jigsaw method of cooperative learning), so that each group contributes to the overall project.

In the last phase, the Performance Phase, the students perform the task in front of the class in the target language. This “public” performance calls for real-time fluency, improved accuracy, and some complexity. The students have had opportunities to plan, practice, pay attention to linguistic elements, and execute communication with better control of the language. The learners reflect on their task and on the language required to explain and perform the task in front of an audience. They initiate self-direction and analyze their language structures for clarity. Language internalization begins when they select the 'right' words and phrases preparing for the presentation.

During this phase students become increasingly aware of their communication needs and try to use the best of their language in order to achieve a comprehensible output. They begin reflecting about what they can or cannot do, and what they need to learn. They search their memories for more linguistic features they might be able to retrieve, ask questions, listen, and learn from others in their group. They become concerned about effective communication. The fact that learners have the time to review, repeat, rehearse and revamp the way in which they use the language adds to the natural fluency in all three task stages. In the public performance, the students are rehearsed and the presentation is recorded. The focus shifts to clarity, fluency, accuracy and perhaps complexity. At this stage the students welcome teacher and peer correction. As the year progresses, language growth and enrichment, as well as a broader linguistic repertoire, can be anticipated (Schmidt, 1994).

Issues in Task-Based Methodology

Task-based methodology still presents us with questions. How can we be sure that the learner will get all of the language structures he needs to communicate? How can we take into account the needs of different learners?

Task-based methodology, which often focuses on problem solving, increases learner interest and motivation to complete the task. The task provides direction, although we cannot control what eventually remains with the learner. The three phases of interaction provide a graduated performance pattern, and add incentive to successfully complete the task and perform well. As a result, those linguistic forms necessary for the successful completion of the task are modeled and practiced in the activity; function and form are balanced with function taking precedent. The language “surrounding” the task, as Willis (1996) notes, "…is more likely to be incorporated into actual language use.”

The learner's involvement and self-direction assist in the integration of the language information. When pleasure, satisfaction, and interest are all part of the learning process, there is a greater likelihood of successful language internalization as learners are driven to try harder for effective communication. Despite fears that learners might internalize each other's errors, there is overwhelming evidence that task-based learning is conducive to better S/FL learning.

Task-based methodology also offers the opportunity for differentiated instruction, as students work with different thinking and learning styles. Teachers will need to concern themselves not only with defining the tasks to be done and the language structures to introduce, but also with creating a flexible range of activities that can meet the needs, interests and capabilities of each student. When students find activities that meet their levels of ability and interest, learning is easier and more successful. Teachers have to present a rainbow of approaches to allow for using student strengths and weaknesses.

Since the goal of task-based learning is to develop communicative competence rather than encourage the learner to know about the target language, a number of principles must guide the selection of activities. First, the tasks should be as close to real-world activities as possible. Second, they should be activities in which the students have an interest, preferably those they suggest themselves. Concerning groups of early childhood learners who may not be as ready to recommend real world tasks, Prabhu (1987) and Willis (1996) suggest that the teacher, after discussions with the students, develop a list of topics based on the children’s interests.

Certain activities lend themselves as language tasks, including listing, ordering, sorting, comparing, problem solving, sharing personal experiences, and creative tasks. For the early childhood and day school population, the standard Jewish Studies curriculum for customs and holidays provides a valuable framework into which all of the above operations can be accommodated in creative and interesting ways, without great effort by the teacher. Integrating the children's personal experiences with their Jewish studies curriculum generates relevance for the task-based Hebrew language activities. Of course, integration of Hebrew language and Jewish studies also frees up more time for learning both.

Since the goal of task-based learning is communication, meaning is primary; language becomes the vehicle through which learners accomplish their goals. The language used facilitates the task. The spotlight is on the activity and the language is an integral part of that activity.

Task–based activities assist and amplify student motivation, enabling learning. Cognitively, task-based activities offer a familiarity with the content of the activity, are supported by prior knowledge, are usually concrete with real-world referents, and can be presented by the teacher with a minimum of reasoning operations. The task eases the development of the thought process. Teachers may determine the pupils' activities based on the cognitive level of their students, thus providing for differentiation while teaching the second language.

Task learning can generate exciting, meaningful and enjoyable class interactions that will facilitate Hebrew language learning. Task learning has great potential in solving the second/foreign language conundrum. It offers many of the foundational elements of good learning: curiosity, inventiveness, flexibility, creativity, play, vibrancy, wisdom, imagination, and joy. But it is not only the use of interesting activities that make for effective Hebrew language learning. When teachers, modifying their own discourse, give time for student responses, change phrases and break down complex sentences, and allow students time to think before answering, they alleviate class tensions and anxiety. The improved classroom interactions help to build an environment conducive to learning.

References

Lewis, M.(1996). “Implications of a lexical view of language.” In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.) Challenge and Change in Language Teaching (pp. 10-16). Oxford: Heinemann.

Prabhu, N.S. (1987). Second Language Pedagogy. (OUP).

Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in second language learning. In Applied Linguistics, Vol.11. (pp.17-46).

Wajnryb, R. (1989). "Is PPP passé?" In Tea News. Autumn 89.

Willis, J. & Willis, D. (1996). Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. Oxford: Heinemann.

Willis,D. (1993). Syllabus, corpus and data-driven learning. In IATEFL Conference Report: Plenaries.

Willis, J. (1996). A flexible framework for task-based learning. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.) Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. Oxford: Heinemann.

Woodward, T. (1996). Paradigm shift and the language teaching profession. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.) Challenge and Change in Language Teaching (pp. 4-9). Oxford: Heinemann.

Language and the ‘good lesson’ are organic, holistic concepts, where success of the whole is much more than the success of the apparent parts. Focusing on the discrete, apparently manageable language items, the teacher has control over what is being taught. But this control is only illusory.