A Study on Classroom Management

- A Paradigm Shift from PPP to OHE -

Yoshinori Miyamoto

Ryugasaki 1 st Senior High School

Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan

December, 1997
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1 THE PPP PARADIGM AND ITS PROBLEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2 THE OHE PARADIGM AND ITS PROSPECTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3 EFFECTIVE CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES INVOLVING THE OHE PARADIGM. . 7

4 PRACTICAL CLASSROOM TASKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0

4.1 BRIEF TASKS ON PRONUNCIATION ................................................................................. 10

4.2 INFORMATION GAP - COMPLETE THE DRAWING ............................................................... 11
4.3 TEXT -BASED TASKS..................................................................................................... 12
4.4 DATA DRIVEN LEARNING ............................................................................................. 15

CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................... 18

APPENDIX ‘LESSON 8 JAPANESE SCHOOL’ IN SPECTRUM ENGLISH

COURSE I ............................................................................ 19

1
Introduction
41 students and a teacher in a class. This is an ordinary scene in Japanese upper public
secondary schools. Although the number of students in a classroom has been decreased from
over fifty to around forty in half a century, this class size is still very large for one teacher to
manage. In this situation, teacher-centered, lecture-style instruction, which has been used for
many years seems an effective and secure way of teaching. As far as language teaching si
concerned, however, many teachers think that this style is not preferable, because it is difficult to
manage student-centered activities, which are believed to be crucial in language teaching. Most
of language teachers now believe that the purpose of language teaching is to foster students’
communicative competence rather than deliver knowledge on the target language to students.
Therefore, our concern is how we should manage this large class so that students have many
chances to be exposed to real language use and use the target language to communicate with each
other in order to improve their communicative competence without catering only for lecture style
instruction.
When we look closely at teacher-centered, lecture style lessons, we will notice that the PPP
(Present, Practice, Produce) paradigm is dominant. First, some target language elements are
presented by the teacher. Then students practice them so that they become used to the particular
language elements, mostly grammatical or lexical ones, and use them perfunctorially. Finally,
students are given an opportunity to use what they have learned in the class “freely”. The
procedure seems very neat and well-organized and conveniently manageable for the teacher in a
large-size class. However, this approach which is based on now-outdated behaviorism idea is not
considered effective in language teaching, and is discredited especially among teachers who are
exploring Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). Questioning the role of grammar rule in
language teaching, Lewis (1996: 11) insists:

One methodological conclusion is inevitable - any paradigm based on, or remotely resembling,
Present - Practise - Produce (PPP) is wholly unsatisfactory, failing as it does to reflect either
the nature of language or the nature of learning. It is not sufficient to suggest that such a
paradigm represents one of a number of ways in which language is learned; the fact is the
PPP paradigm is, and always was, nonsense. The element of the language which may be
susceptible to PPP teaching is not more than a tiny and peripheral part of the language needed
for communicative language use.

The PPP paradigm is so dominant that many communicative language teachers are teaching
under the influence of it unconsciously. Littlewood (1981) , who is an early advocate of CLT, is
also under the influence of this paradigm as Willis (1990) argues.

2
 On the other hand, some scholars, especially advocates of Task-Based Learning (TBL) or
Task-Based approach, which is one approach of CLT, claim that language teaching should involve
OHE (Observe-Hypothesize-Experiment) in some way, as a replacement to PPP teaching.
In this paper, I would like to consider the OHE paradigm and try to find an effective
classroom management for English class in Japan, where there are many restraints, such as
national curriculum, use of authorized text books, entrance examination to universities and colleges,
cultural background, and so on. What I am going to present is an idea in which PPP elements
and OHE elements are mixed and supplement each other. First, I would like to discuss the
problems of the PPP paradigm referring to the argument of Willis (1996). Next, I would like to
introduce the OHE paradigm and consider its prospects in English teaching. Then I would like to
give some ideas on the classroom management based on the OHE paradigm, especially
emphasizing the value of pair or group activities. Finally, I would like to show practical
classroom activities which I have actually used in my classroom.

1 The PPP paradigm and its problems

As PPP restricts ‘free’ language use of students for the most part, teacher can control
students with less efforts than the kind of class where ‘free’ language use is encouraged. In a
large-size class, it is a must for the teacher to control students so that each student can participate
in the lesson without being disturbed by few students who have lost interest in the class.
Therefore, it is a very important job for the teacher to get all students in the class involved in the
activities, which facilitate the language use without being disturbed by such students. When
creating a new way of classroom management, student-centered elements and teacher-control
should be well-balanced.
As mentioned earlier, a PPP teaching methodology has been dominantly used in classrooms as
a classroom management technique, especially for large classes. It is a secure and comfortable
way for teachers to keep their students in control. This is one reason for the popularity of this
paradigm. As far as teachers follow this paradigm, they are more likely to control their students
and make the classroom procedure neat and organized. Today, however, this paradigm and
teacher-centered classroom management is questioned by many scholars and teachers. In
language classes where people’s expectation is to develop communicative competence of the
target language, student-centered classroom management and some ideas different from the PPP
paradigm are needed to replace it or at least supplement it.
Willis (1996: 134) summarizes that the aim of a PPP lesson is ‘to teach a specific language
form - a grammatical structure, or to realize a particular function or notion’. She explains several
problems of the PPP paradigm as follows.

3
 l Sometimes learners manage to do the task or role play at the production stage without
using the target form at all. This may be because their own developing language systems
are not yet ready to cope with its use or because they don’t need the new pattern to
express the meanings they want. They can, after all, use what language they like at the
‘free’ stage.
l Sometimes they tend to overuse the target form, and make very stilted and unnatural
conversation, e.g. What will you do tomorrow? Tomorrow I will go to my aunts’ house.
I will go by bus. I will see my cousins. I will play football with them. Learners who
do this are probably still ‘in practice mode’ - they are trying to display control of the new
form rather than express their own meanings. They are not actually concerned with
communication.
l PPP gives an illusion of mastery as students can often produce the required forms
confidently in the classroom, but once outside, or in a later lesson, they either do not use
them at all or use them incorrectly.

She then shows a diagram to illustrate the deficit of the PPP paradigm.

Exposure(restricted) Presentation Instruction

of single 'new' item Instruction
Exposure(restricted) Practice Use(restricted)
of new item:drills,
excercises, dialogue practice
Exposure Production Use(free or partly
restricted)
Activity, role play or task to
encourage 'free' use of language

Willis(1996:135)

As you can see from the chart above, language exposure and language use are likely to be
restricted in the PPP paradigm. It is now widely believed that students need to be exposed to the
target language and use it as much as possible in order to develop communicative competence.
However, even though the ‘Production stage’ is meant to encourage ‘free’ use of language,
students are very likely to restrict the use of it to what they have just learned in the ‘Presentation
stage’ and ‘Practice stage’. For example, when the target item of the lesson is ‘present
progressive’, the teacher at first explains how the sentence with present progressive is built, how

4
the meaning is different from the other sentence types, and so on. Then students are given a
chance to drill ‘present progressive’ and try to get used to it. After the practice, students are
requested to use the target structure freely. However, the experience of language is limited to
‘present progressive’. Therefore, it can be said that the most serious problem of the PPP
paradigm is the restriction on the learner’s experience of language. Lewis (1996: 16) says:

For a long time language teaching has gone in diametrically the wrong direction - the PPP
paradigm was a travesty, for philosophical, psychological, ideological and methodological
reasons. It suggested that languages were best learned by limiting the language to which
learners were exposed and practising it intensively. In fact, the direct opposite is probably
the truth - it is the quality and quantity of the input to which learners are exposed which is the
single most important factor in their progress. This challenges the present generation of
EFL coursebooks, and suggests much more extensive use of resource banks of tapes, texts
and video, maximizing both the quality and, equally importantly, quantity of language to which
learners exposed.

In addition, the PPP paradigm is derived from the behaviorists’ view on learning; that is, if
you practice the target item by repetition, you can master it. The saying, practice makes perfect
is now discredited in language teaching. Willis (1996:135) says, “By relying on exercises that
encourage habit formation, it may actually discourage learners from thinking about language and
working things out for themselves.”

2 The OHE paradigm and its prospects

Lewis (1996) argues that there are three elements in language. Firstly, language is essentially
social, which means language is acquired from outside. Secondly, not all language to which
learners are exposed produces measurable acquisition. Learners cannot always produce what
they formally ‘learnt’ in the lesson. On the other hand, decision-making process is an essential
element in the learning process. Thirdly, language is successfully acquired only when it is
available for spontaneous, original personal use with other people. He suggests the OHE
(Observe-Hypothesize-Experiment) paradigm as a solution. It does not replace PPP but leaning
should involve a constant cycle of OHE elements.
In the OHE paradigm, instead of giving students prescribed grammar rules, which often
contain over-simplified, misleading rules, students need to be exposed to the target language as
much as possible both in quantity and quality. They should have chances to observe the target
language so that they can get accurate perception of actual language use. Students will

5
hypothesize rules based on their observation through a cognitive decision-making process. Then
students experiment what they have hypothesized and see if their idea is right or wrong. The
teacher’s role is to give students appropriate materials and opportunities to facilitate a constant
cycle of OHE elements. Students are supposed to learn for themselves rather than from the
teacher. It will develop learners’ self-learning skills.
Willis (1996) is an advocate of Task-Based Learning, in which OHE elements are involved.
She describes three essential conditions of language learning: ‘Exposure’ to a rich but
comprehensible input of real spoken and written language in use, ‘Use’ of the language to do
things, ‘Motivation’ to listen, read, speak and write language. She adds one desirable condition:
‘Instruction’ in language (Willis 1996: 11). Instruction helps students learn language, although it
is not a primary method. She says that all these conditions are included in TBL. Here is a TBL
framework.

Pre-task
Exposure Introduction to topic and task Instruction

Task cycle
Exposure Use(spontaneous)
Task
Exposure Instruction(as needed)
Planning
Exposure Report Use(planned)
(planned)

Exposure Students hear task recording or read text

Language focus Instruction

Exposure Analysis and practice: Use(restricted)

Exposure Review and repeat task Use(spontaneous)

Willis(1996:135)

Both fluency and accuracy are not ignored in the lesson. With a lot of exposure to the target
language, spontaneous use of the language is encouraged. This helps develop language fluency.
On the other hand, particular language elements are focused in the lesson, so that students should
pay attention to the accurate use of the language. This is very important because too much
emphasis on fluency at the expense of accuracy leads learners to fossilization. If students are not
consciously focusing on the accuracy of the language use, their English is more likely to become
non-standard and this may deprive learners of their opportunity of business promotion. Of
course, too much emphasis on accuracy will also hinder the development of learners’
communicative competence of the target language.
TBL encourages the use of pair or group activities, which are called ‘Tasks’. By doing
various kinds of tasks, students get a lot of opportunity to be exposed to the target language.
Tasks are also good chances for the learners to observe the language use, hypothesize the rules

6
behind it and experiment to see if their hypothesis is right. When properly used, TBL will
effectively involve a constant cycles of OHE elements.
TBL, however, has some drawbacks in the classroom situation in Japan. Firstly, as the
class-size is very large, it is not easy to manage the English lesson only in TBL framework.
Secondly, students are too much accustomed to the lecture-style instruction. They may not get
used to the new style. It sometimes happens that English is the only lesson where pair or group
activities are used. Thirdly, some students prefer individual learning and pair or group activities
are demotivating for them. Therefore, the OHE paradigm should not be an absolute approach of
language lesson, though it should present a lot of effective teaching ideas. A well-balanced point
should be found somewhere between the OHE paradigm and the PPP paradigm, preferably a little
closer to the former.

3 Effective classroom management strategies involving the OHE paradigm

This chapter suggests effective classroom management strategies which involve the OHE
paradigm in Japanese upper secondary schools.
Some of the characteristics of English class in Japanese upper secondary schools are as
follows:
lLarge class-size. The average number of students is 41.
lMostly mono-lingual students.
lStudents tend not to show their own ideas during the lesson.
lStudents are accustomed to teacher-centered lecture style.
lVery few opportunities to use English as a means of communication in daily life.
lVery limited exposure to the natural use of English in daily life.
lMostly non-native teachers teach English, although Assistant English Teachers (AET), who
are native speakers of English help non-native teachers in some classes.
lEnglish is considered to be a very important subject in entrance examination to universities
and colleges.
lStudents are accustomed to memorizing what are presented in the class, not creating
something new or unique for themselves.
lStudents are accustomed to bottom-up learning process, because the national curriculum is
written in a grammar syllabus.
lStudents are requested to use textbooks authorized by the Ministry of Education, Science,
Sports and Culture. They contain more or less unnatural text, because of the limitation and
selection of words and phrases, a grammar-syllabus-based curriculum, and many limitations
due to the price and the format.

7
 These elements show that a PPP approach conveniently suits the current situation, while OHE
elements are rather difficult to be used in class. Firstly, with more than 40 non-native,
mono-lingual students in the class, non-native teachers, who have linguistic deficit as Medgyes
(1994) points out, will surely find it is far easier for them to use Japanese rather than English to
convey what they have in mind to the students. Students know what they hear from the teacher
is not real English but Japanese version of English. I don’t want to deny there are many fluent
English-speaking Japanese teachers of English, but they will never become a native English
speaker who can make intuitive judgements on the appropriate and natural use of English as long
as they live and teach English in Japan. At most, they are native-like speakers of English.
Secondly, a PPP approach is convenient to adopt in the lesson because teachers can predict what
kind of language elements they may need to explain in the class and prepare for them beforehand.
On the other hand, they can hardly predict what they will be asked to answer in a lesson which
involves the OHE paradigm. This situation is very difficult for non-native teachers.
OHE cycle should be used as much as possible by changing the teaching procedure and
classroom management style, even if PPP elements cannot be completely eliminated. Elements
of the OHE should be properly implemented in the classroom in order to foster learners’ insight
into the nature and use of language. This will also help develop their self-learning skills.
To do effective classroom management, firstly, the teacher needs to explain the approach to
the students in plain words before and during the lesson so that they feel comfortable with the
different classroom management from the other classes. They will feel very uncomfortable when
they are forced to dive directly into the OHE paradigm simply because they are too much used to
the opposite way of learning. They are not presented with ‘important elements’ but they are
asked to find something out of the lesson for themselves. After the explanation of the
significance of the new approach, they should be exposed to the new way little by little.
Secondly, the teacher should try to involve communicative tasks in the class which are interesting
and motivating. Thirdly, especially for lower graders, the teacher should encourage
collaborations among students and have them do tasks in pairs or groups. They will surely learn
something from their colleagues. Pair or group activities will be a good driving force to make the
classroom more communicative and help establish OHE cycles. Finally, and most importantly,
the teacher should arrange student-centered lesson, which will encourage them to learn for
themselves. The teacher’s role should not be a lecturer but a facilitator.
Now I would like to illustrate how I manage pair or group activities in English class.
For pair activities, I ask students to make pairs like this, though this arrangement makes one trio.
Before doing any task, I make sure who is A, B, and C so that all students are involved in the task.

8
 teacher

B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
C

Next, I would like to show my group activity management. I usually ask students to make
groups of 6 to 7, that makes 5 groups of 7 and one group of 6 with 41 students. That’s because
there are 5 rows of 7 students and one row of 6 students in my class and it is easy to make such
groups. Then I allot roles of A, B, C, D, E, F, and G to each students in each group, which
means there are 6 As, Bs, Cs, Ds, Es, Fs, and 5 Gs in the whole class. Next, I may ask the As
to be moderators, Cs to be reporters, and Es to be secretaries. In different tasks, I allot
moderators, reporters and secretaries to different students. By allotting roles in activities,
students are more likely to express their own ideas during the lessen. Those who are less active
in group will have a chance to lead initiatives when particular students are likely to play prominent
role during the activity.

teacher

G A
F B
E C
D A
G B
F C
E D
G A
F B
E C
D A
G B
F C
E D
G A
F B
E C
D A
F B
E C
D

It is very important for the teacher to put students in order during pair or group activities, even
though the activities should be student-centered. Students always need detailed instructions from
the teacher so that they can be very active during the tasks and do them successfully. Therefore,

9
I made a rule of “Clap and Attention.” When I want to tell students something important, I clap
my hands and get their attention. I also don’t hesitate to use Japanese which is the native
language to both students and me. Without clear understanding of what they are going to do in
the task, you cannot expect better results. During the activities, I observe how and what each
group is doing and give students advice if I am asked questions or if I find it necessary. The
good balance between student-centered, free activity and teacher control is crucial in making the
classroom active and rewarding for students to participate in.

4 Practical classroom tasks

Tasks within the OHE process should not be something special to do. The tasks should be
used in daily lessons. In this chapter, several types of communicative tasks are discussed.
Firstly, effective tasks to improve students’ English pronunciation is illustrated. Non-native
Japanese teachers of English can improve students’ English pronunciation in pairs. Secondly, the
procedure of information gap type tasks are discussed, which are being increasingly used in the
classroom. The procedure should be designed so that it involves OHE cycle. Thirdly,
text-based tasks are examined. The use of texts, both spoken and written, should be reevaluated
because texts are the basic materials in the classroom. Texts should be effectively used in the
classroom. Lastly, the value of lexical elements is examined and one way of analyzing lexical
elements, which is named Data Driven Learning, is illustrated.

4.1 Brief tasks on pronunciation

It is very difficult for non-native teachers to teach English pronunciation in class. Their
pronunciation is not authentic. At best their pronunciation is native like. The pronunciation of
non-native Japanese teachers of English is likely to contain vowel sounds where vowel sounds
should not be contained because of the characteristic of the pronunciation of Japanese language.
In this situation, students are not likely to learn what is considered standard English pronunciation,
whether it is American or British. To supplement this deficit, the use of authentic materials or the
help from the Assistant English Teacher (AET) should be made the most of. Students should be
exposed to native speakers’ authentic pronunciation as much as possible and given a chance to
improve their pronunciation by comparing it with that of their colleagues’ and/or their own.
Therefore, the teacher’s role as a non-native speaker of English, is to give help to students so that
they can improve their pronunciation for themselves, by having them observe the pronunciation of
native speakers of English, make hypothesis on how to pronounce better, and to experiment with it.
Non-native teachers know the differences between English and Japanese, how to improve
pronunciation, and the difficulties of improving pronunciation, so they can give good advice to the

10
learners. Only to have students imitate the pronunciation of Japanese teachers of English is of no
help.
As it rarely happens that speakers say one particular word without any context, it is natural to
use a sentence in context to practice pronunciation. The material can be either spoken or written
text if it is recorded or read aloud by native speakers of English. It is possible to use a
conversation between a Japanese teacher of English and an AET. In that case, the focus should
be given to AET’s pronunciation. At first, it is important to give students a context where the
target sentence appears. Students listen to the discourse several times so that they fully
understand the situation. Then, you choose a particular sentence in that discourse. By
focussing on the particular sentence, students imitate the pronunciation of the sentence. Next
you ask them to be in pairs and do “slow, medium, or fast” practice, which I learned from Dr.
Richard Cauldwell at the University of Birmingham. As order Bs to pronounce the target
sentence in “slow”, “medium,” or “fast” speed and Bs follow As’ directions. This is very
interesting and motivating for this is a very communicative activity. By varying the speed of the
utterance, students try to say the sentence in better pronunciation. In addition, the students who
are ordering the speed have opportunity to observe the partners pronunciation and the observers
can improve their pronunciation based on the result of it in their turn.
After “slow, medium, or fast” session, you may focus on a particular pronunciation of the
word in the target sentence. One interesting idea is to do “right or left” activity, which I devised.
If you would like to focus on the difference between /r/ and /l/ sound, for example, As say the
word “race” or “lace” and Bs raise right hand when they think what As have pronounced is
“race”, and they raise left hand when they think As have pronounced is “lace”. If the speaker
finds his or her partner has heard what he or she has intended to say, he or she gets one point.
Students will try to get as many points as possible and through this process they will learn how to
pronounce the word properly. Then Bs do the same thing as As have done. After the practice
you can choose some students, have them pronounce the word and have the AET listen to
evaluate the pronunciation. To make pronunciation practice more interesting, it is a good idea to
use tongue twisters once in a while, though you should remember they are artificial.

4.2 Information gap - complete the drawing

Information gap type tasks, which are often used in English class, are considered very
effective to foster communicative competence. Among the information type tasks many teachers
have explored the use of pictures. For example, one student has a complete picture, while the
other student has the same picture with something missing. The student tries to find the missing
information by communicating in English with the student who has the complete picture. Here
what is called “Complete the Drawing” task is discussed as an example.

11
 In the PPP paradigm, students are supposed to use things presented by the teacher and
hopefully use them freely, but their language is limited. Although you can predict what kind of
grammar and lexical elements students are likely to use in the task, it is very difficult to teach
everything before the task. The teachers who are accustomed to the PPP paradigm may think
that their students may not be able to complete the drawing by listening to the information which
their partners give them because of the lack of the knowledge about the grammar and lexis which
should be used in the task. However, even if you presented students every single item which
might be used in the task, they may seldom or never use them as they are taught because knowing
things and doing things are completely different.
However, OHE cycle takes it for granted that the learners will make efficient use of trial and
error so that they may finally improve their communicative competence. The learners will
discover something during the task process. First, they are given the direction of the task. This
task is done in pairs. As tell Bs details of the picture which As have. The picture which Bs
have contains a lot of items to draw. By listening to As’ explanation, Bs have to complete the
drawing. Students are asked to do the task without being given any explanation of grammatical
or lexical elements which may be helpful in the task. When they do the task, they will find it very
difficult to accomplish the task and also, most importantly, what they need to know and do to
complete the drawing. Then they are given a chance to observe native speaker’s performance.
Students are given another incompleted picture. AET tells the whole class the details of the
picture, and students complete the drawing. In the next stage, the third picture is given and Bs
tell details of it to As and As complete the drawing. By doing this cycle at least twice, students
will learn how to tell the location and the shape of the items they have to draw and also how to
negotiate with their partners. They will learn a lot more through the task process: lexis, grammar,
pronunciation, and so on. They will improve their communicative skills, especially speaking and
listening.

4.3 Text-based tasks

Texts are basic materials for the language class, which give learners a lot of exposure to the
target language. By texts, I mean both spoken and written. Scholars, teachers, businessmen,
and ordinary people have claimed that English education in Japan should be changed so that
students can develop their communicative competence in English. Teachers, especially those
who teach English in lower secondary schools, have been making efforts in making English class
more communicative. However, Japanese teachers of English or Japanese people in general are
too obsessed with spoken language. This trend is not good for English education. Teachers
should make the most of various kinds of texts, both spoken and written, so that students can get
well-balanced exposure to English as a whole.

12
 It is also very important to consider the quality of texts. English textbooks authorized by the
Ministry of Education, Science, Sports ,and Culture in Japan contains many unnatural texts. The
textbooks are written to illustrate particular language elements, not to communicate information.
Therefore, teachers should supplement textbooks with authentic texts and explore discoursal
features in them in order to improve reading skills. As teachers are requested to use authorized
textbooks in Japan, teachers should supplement it with authentic texts as much as possible.
However, as teachers use authorized textbooks in English class and cannot always use various
kinds of authentic texts, it is very important to consider what teachers can do with less authentic
texts.
Willis (1996) illustrates some basic ways to design communicative tasks based on reading and
listening texts or video extracts. She shows various kinds of text-based tasks (Willis, 1996: 75):

Designs for text-based tasks

Prediction tasks from headline and early text
from selected parts of text
from pictures or video with/without words or sound track
Jumbles jumbled sections of text
jumbled key points of a summary
jumbled pictures from a series
Restoration tasks identifying words/phrases/sentences omitted from or
added to a text
Jigsaw/split information tasks Each student in a groups reads/hears a different part of a
whole text or researches an angle of a them. These are
then combined to form a whole.
Comparison tasks two accounts of the same incident/event
a diagram/ picture to compare with a written
account/description
Memory challenge tasks After a single brief exposure to the text, students
list/describe/write quiz questions about what they can
remember to show other pairs

These ideas can be used not only for authentic texts but also less authentic texts, although there
are some difficulties. For example, there exist some texts in authorized textbooks in which
characteristics of more than two genres of texts are mixed together. ‘Lesson 7 Beatrix Potter
and Peter Rabbit’ in Legend English course I (1997) is an example. It starts with a brief
explanation of the Lake District which seems taken from a tour guide book, then it changes to the

13
biography of Beatrix Potter, and suddenly changes to the famous story of Peter Rabbit. We may
not be able to design a good text-based task with this particular text. However, in many other
texts we can find some natural discoursal, lexical, or grammatical features and design text-based
tasks if not very good.
Here is an example of text-based task procedure using ‘Lesson 8 Japanese School’ in
Spectrum English Course I (1997, see Appendix ). This textbook contains texts relatively true to
the original texts. ‘Lesson 8 Japanese School’ is taken from a newspaper for students. It is
originally written for communicative purpose, not to teach particular grammatical or lexical
elements. There are only minor changes of a few words from the original, so on the whole the
text is very close to authentic. Therefore, this is a good text to use for text-based tasks.
There are three stages, pre-reading task stage, reading stage, and post-reading stage or
analyzing stage. In the pre-reading task stage, I have my students to expect what they are going
to read in the text. This helps students gets some clues to understand the text. In the second
stage, students actually read the text for the meaning. To facilitate reading process, I use jumbled
text. In the last stage, I have them express their own ideas so that their understanding can be
deepened. In addition, I have them to analyze the text in detail.
As a pre-reading task, I ask students about their time table of a week and to fill in a time table
sheet with English subject names in groups. I would like to raise their awareness about the
Japanese school system so that they can compare their own system with the American later. I
ask the students to list what they know about the American school in groups. If possible, I ask
them to discuss what they would like to know about the American school.
Next I give students a reading task. During the reading stage, students understand what the
text is about by focussing discoursal features. Without reading the text in the textbook, I ask
them to construct the jumbled text in groups. This is not a difficult task, but what I want them
to do is to discuss what made them reconstruct the text in the right order. The keys are the
‘macro patterns’ of the text and ‘discourse markers’(McCarthy and Carter: 1994). Students
will find general-specific pattern. The text starts with the explanation of the writer’s situation.
It says that he found five differences between the Japanese school and the American school.
Then the text illustrates these differences one by one. Finally the writer concludes the text with
his evaluation of the Japanese school system. Students will also find discourse markers such as
‘The first’ in the second paragraph, ‘also’ in the third paragraph, ‘Third’ in the forth paragraph,
‘Fourth’ in the sixth paragraph, and ‘What I most noticed about my Japanese high school’ in the
eighth paragraph play very important roles in this structure. They will also realize the importance
of the lexical phrase, ‘however’, and ‘for example’.
As a post-reading task, I ask them to write a brief essay on which school system is better in
English individually and have some students report back in front of the whole class. I also ask

14
them to fill in the Japanese translation hand-out which is mentioned in Miyamoto (1996) to analyze
the text in detail.
In this example, OHE elements are involved all over and no PPP elements are involved.
However, after doing this procedure, I focus on the grammatical elements and use PPP teaching
so that they may cope with examinations, which requires a lot of memorization. Using the PPP
also keeps students from being discouraged by the OHE teaching, although this only gives them a
feeling of security that they learned something in the class.

4.4 Data driven learning

Recent research on lexis has shown us that lexical phrases have a great value in language
teaching. As Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992: xv) say, lexical phrases are a prefabricated language
unit and “this unit serves as an effective basis for both second language and foreign language
teaching.” Willis (1990) illustrates how he wrote Collins COBUILD English Course based on the
lexical syllabus. Lewis (1993: 89) further explores the value of lexis and suggests that “Language
consists of grammaticalised lexis, not lexicalised grammar.” He insists “lexis is the core or heart
of language.” Therefore, it is important to focus lexical items in the classroom. However, in
Japan, where students try to cram in as many words and phrases without considering the nature
of them in detail to prepare for the entrance examination, lexis are not closely studied by the
students. More interesting methods are needed to focus on lexis. DDL is one possible idea.
I learned Data Driven Learning (DDL) from Tim Johns in Monbusyo Japanese Secondary
School Teachers Program 1994-5 at the University of Birmingham. By observing the computer
processed data, students observe lexical patterns and make hypothesis on them. Tim Johns
introduced participants to a computer program called MicroConcord and its corpus data and let us
use them. The program processes language corpus data and shows the result in KWIC (Key
Word In Context) format. This format makes it easier to identify which word is more likely to
co-occur with which. There are several computer programs which can process data into KWIC
format. I use TXTANA by Akasegawa (1997) and Corpus Wizard by Hamaguchi (1997) to
process the data. I think TXTANA is one of the best programs to analyze English texts. The
Project Guttenberg data, Classic Library (1993: Andromeda Interactive Ltd.), TIME ALMANAC
1990s (1994: Softkey International Inc.) and such CD-ROM based data or the data on the Internet
are available to be processed.
Here is a example of KWIC format data. I processed JOHN F. KENNEDY'S INAUGURAL
ADDRESS January 20, 1961 (Department of State Bulletin, February 6, 1961 in Project
Guttenberg) with TXTANA focussing ‘in’ and sorting the data alphabetically on the first right
word from the key word.

15
l friends. United, there is little we cannot do i n a host of co-operative ventures. Divided, there
-- to convert our good words into good deeds -- i n a new alliance for progress -- to assist free me
Let both sides unite to heed i n a l l corners of the earth the command of Isaiah -
n states, the United Nations, our last best hope i n a n age where the instruments of war have far out
ear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year i n a n d year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tri
gress -- to assist free men and free governments i n c a s t i n g off the chains of poverty. But this pea
ack the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join i n c r e a t i n g a new endeavor, not a new balance of po
The world is very different now. For man holds i n h i s mortal hands the power to abolish all forms
light struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing i n h o p e , patient in tribulation" -- a struggle agai
have been granted the role of defending freedom i n i t s hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink fro
he life of this administration, nor even perhaps i n o u r lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.
unleashed by science engulf all humanity i n p l a n n e d or accidental self-destruction.
re fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join i n t h a t historic effort?
them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere i n t h e Americas. And let every other power know th
All this will not be finished i n t h e first one hundred days. Nor will it be finis
first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished i n t h e first one thousand days, nor in the life of
To those people i n t h e huts and villages of half the globe struggli
be finished in the first one thousand days, nor i n t h e life of this administration, nor even perhap
I n t h e long history of the world, only a few genera
rting their own freedom -- and to remember that, i n t h e past, those who foolishly sought power by ri
generation of Americans -- born i n t h i s century, tempered by war, disciplined by a
ear in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient i n t r i b u l a t i o n " -- a struggle against the common en
the new and the weak -- and to enlarge the area i n w h i c h its writ may run.
I n y o u r hands, my fellow citizens, more than mine,

As the corpus data is very small, it is very difficult to say something from this data. However,
if you search a particular word in a large corpus and sort the data, you can surely find some kind
of lexical patterns.
To apply DDL to my English class, I encourage students to use computers and to process the
data on their own. Unfortunately my school does not offer computer use to the students. In
cases where students did not find computer access, I processed the text in my computer at home
and printed the result. Then I had students analyze the data in groups of 6 or 7. After one
analyzing session, I asked each group to report the result of the observation in front of the whole
class.
DDL can also be used to process the text which students have already read in the classroom.
This allows students to compare the processed data in KWIC format with the text and exam
lexical phrases closely to find some lexical patterns and collocations. This procedure can be
included in the text-based task procedure.
In many cases, grammar education takes lecture style format and students acquire passive
roles, but in DDL, students are given very active roles. They observe the data, try to find some
lexical patterns and hypothesize about different rules. By consulting dictionaries and grammar
books, they determine if their hypotheses are true or not. If their hypotheses are true, they
reinforce the rules through study. This activity raises awareness of the importance of lexical
patterns or lexical phrases, collocations, and grammar itself.

16
Conclusion
A paradigm shift from PPP to OHE is a big innovation in Japanese English class. Many
teachers think it is too idealistic and not practical. Despite the reluctant attitudes , OHE is a very
natural learning cycle. Although it is very difficult to adopt the OHE cycle in the Japanese
classrooms, I believe it is worth trying. Willis (1996: 148) says:

In fact, for the teacher who has just introduced and set up a task-based cycle for the first time,
the biggest challenge of all is possessing the strength of mind to stand back with confidence,
and to let learners get on with their own learning.

Two problems remain to be examined. One problem is about pair and group activities. For
students in lower grades, group work is very effective in involving them and making the
classroom active and interesting. Seniors who have to prepare for the entrance examination to
universities and colleges find this approach unattractive, even though it is helpful for the exam.
Secondly, this is only a trial on my own. As Jennings and Doyle (1996:177) point out, “the
management of student learning and the management of staff development are not independent but
interdependent systems...” They tried to manage the innovation involving all the staffs of their
institution. I am now trying to make the most of OHE cycle in my situation on my own, but to
make my approach more effective, my colleagues in the English department need to be involved.
Fortunately, my colleagues are very tolerant and they understand my approach. I would like to
prove the effects of the use of OHE cycle so that they may adopt the approach in their classroom,
share the experience and find more effective methods based on this paradigm.

17
Bibliography

Eiichi, Suzuki, Snowden, Paul, et al. 1997. Legend English I New Edition. Tokyo: Kaitakusya.
Hoey, Michael. ed. 1993. Data, Description, Discourse. London: HarperCollins Publishers.
Lewis, Michael. 1993. The Lexical Approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications
Lewis, Michael. 1996. ‘Implications of a lexical view of language’ in Willis, Jane and Willis,
Dave ed. 1996.
Littlewood, William. 1981. Communicative Language Teaching An introduction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, Michael. And Carter, Ronald. 1994. Language as Discourse. Essex: Longman.
Miyamoto, Yoshinori. 1995. ‘Materials and Tasks in Aural/Oral Communication A’ in Projects:
Japanese Secondary Teachers Program 1994-95.
Miyamoto, Yoshinori. 1996. ‘Effective Ways to Improve Reading Skills’ in Kenkyu Syuroku
No.25. Society of High School Education, Ibaraki Prefecture.
Medgyes, Peter. 1994. The non-native teacher. London: MACMILLAN PUBLISHERS LTD.
Rossner, Richard. and Boitho, Rod. ed. 1990. Currents of Change in English Language
Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nattinger, James, R, and Jeanette S. Decarrico. 1992. Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nolasco, Rob, and Arthur, Lois. 1990. ‘You try doing it with a class of forty!’ in Rossner,
Richard. And Bolitho, Rod. ed. 1990.
Toshio, Shiozawa, et al. 1997. Spectrum English Course I. Tokyo: Kirihara.
Willis, Dave. 1990. The Lexical Syllabus. London: Collins Cobuild.
Willis, Jane. 1996. A Framework for Task-Based Learning. London: Longman.
Willis, Jane and Willis, Dave. 1988, 1989. Collins Cobuild English Course 1, 2, 3. London:
Collins Cobuild.
Willis, Jane and Willis, Dave. ed. 1996. Challenge and Change in Language Teaching.
Oxford: Heinemann.

Software
Andromeda Interactive Ltd. 1993. Classic Library.
Akasegawa, Shiro. 1997. Txtana.exe.
Hamaguchi, Takashi. 1997. Corpus Wizard 16.
Scott, Mike and Johns, Tim. 1993. MicoroConcord.
Softkey International Inc. 1994. TIME ALMANAC 1990s.
Walnut Creek CDROM. 1996. Project Gutenberg.

18
Appendix ‘Lesson 8 Japanese School’ in Spectrum English Course I
Japanese School
An American Student’s View

When I attended a Japanese high school last July, I was impressed with what I saw. At first many
things seemed different, but I soon got involved in my new life. I learned to study and play like my
Japanese friends. While the Japanese school teaches almost the same subjects that I study in America,
five differences stood out for me.
The first was the school uniform. While some private and church schools in America have uniforms,
they are not common. I preferred wearing my Hawaiian T-shirt and green shorts to be cool and different,
but I quickly got used to the white shirt and black slacks. It was good to feel like one of the group,
because my blond hair and 185 cm height already made me stand out.
I was also impressed with the school’s cleanliness and the students ’ pride in it. I asked my friends,
“Why do you have to wear slippers in school?” They replied, “To keep it clean.” I said, “But it’s
already so clean,” and they said, “That’s why.” I was very surprised to see students cleaning their
classroom after school.
Third, in Japan the students remain in one classroom almost all day, with the teachers moving about.
In America, my schedule is different and unique nearly every day. Almost no one goes to the same
classes. Since my school is large, I have to run to get from one classroom to another in a 5-minute break.
Being together all the time, my Japanese classmates got to know each other very well.
Fourth, my homeroom class in Japan included students of a wide range of abilities. The
academically talented students helped the weaker ones in the classroom. You can see the same thing
on the playing field. The better students helped those who were not so good at sports.
However, in America, sports teams are generally chosen by skill, and academic courses by ability.
For example, I am in a high-level math class that actually gives me college credits for next year. The best
math students are there too, and the competition is strong. The individual members of the class do not
want to be held back by others not so good at math.
What I most noticed about my Japanese high school, however, was the great respect shown by
students toward their teachers. The teacher controls the class, usually standing in front of the students
and lecturing to them during the lesson. The students pay keen attention.
My American classes are more informal. In my social studies class, for example, there are often
discussions that include the teacher as another member of the group. In the English class sometimes
we sit in a circle to talk about a book we are reading. The teacher may say nothing, grading the
students on how much they participate, what they add to the discussion, and their leaderships of it.
While American methods are often successful, the Japanese educational system that produces the
most literate people in the world surely has some lessons to teach the U.S. I think I saw some of those
lessons in Japanese classrooms.

19