i
DECLARATION
I, Nguyen Viet Hung, hereby state that this thesis is the result of my own research
and the substance of the thesis has not, wholly or in part, been submitted for any degree to
any other universities or institutions.
Signature: .....................................
Time: March, 2009.
ii
ABSTRACT
In today’s classrooms, language teaching method is undergoing tremendous
transformations towards the integration of different methods according to the learner and
teacher as well as contextual variables. Language teaching is, therefore, a challenging job
in any country. The purpose of this qualitative case study was to examine how task-based
language teaching supports the emergence of language study, within the context of
northeast university students. More importantly, how TBU teachers know about this
method and their implementation of TBLT in order to improve their teaching quality. The
task-based language teaching provides students multiple opportunities to work for targets
and to learn, both as form and meaning. First, task-based language teaching is useful as it
allows to treat learners as individual with their own needs and interests. Second, it allows
learners to take input from authentic sources which are communicative and
comprehensible data, really relevant to their own needs and interests. Third, the
participants are provided with opportunities to engage in communicative use of the target
language in a wide range of activities. Working in groups or in individuals, students fulfill
tasks in which they visually represent their personal interpretations of the world around.
They focus deliberately on various language forms, skills and strategies in order to support
the process of language acquisition. As teachers, they should conceptualize, research, of
this method so as to fully exploit the potential of the available teaching materials. The taskbased language teaching can create a learning environment in which students interact with
each other as they made sense of and access the available information for communication.
In particular, naturally unconscious learning occurs through threaded discussions and
cooperation when they accomplish tasks. Educators must be responsive to today’s learners.
This study illuminates the expanded possibilities for integrating tasks within the context of
learning and teaching. Findings of the study suggest task integration supports the
emergence of language learning and teaching.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My sincere appreciation is extended to all teachers at College of Foreign Language,
Vietnam National University, Hanoi, especially who taught me methodological subjects
and research methods, such as Mr. Le Hung Tien, Mr. Le Van Canh, and Mrs. Nguyen Thi
Thuy Minh. Those by their interesting lessons and precious suggestions for teaching and
researching engaged me in this field.
My gracefulness is also expanded to all university teachers of TBU for both their
participations into my interviews and their opening classroom doors and inviting me to
stay for my observations and their kind offer of teaching plans.
My deepest thanks go to my supervisor, Mr. Le Van Canh, M.A., for always
bringing out the best in me. Without his wisdom, high expectations, and his unwavering
support for materials, continued guidance, thorough suggestions and corrections, my thesis
could not be completed.
I credit my family in Thai Nguyen for providing me the courage to embark on this
journey and for teaching me to never, ever give up.
iv
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to the true lover of my life, Bui Thi Huong, whom I loved
for years. She with her warm and gentle heart for love was an inspiration to me, and I
could overcome all hardships. She is remembered for her character by everyone with the
talent, intelligence, and beauty. Though we could not be together because of different
inevitable reasons, my affections and thanks from the depth of my heart would go to her
evermore.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION……………………………………………………………….
i
ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………………
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS …………………………………………………..
iii
DEDICATION ………………………………………………………………...
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………
v
LISTS OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………..
viii
LISTS OF TABLES……………………………………………………………
ix
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………….
1
1.1. Rationale……………………………………………………...……………
1.1.1. State of the problem………………………………………………………
1.1.2. Theoretical rationale ……………………………………………………
1
1
1
1.2. Purpose of the Study …………………………...…………………………
1
1.3. Research Questions ……………………………………………………….
2
1.4. Significance of the Study ………………………………………..……….
2
1.5. Limitations of the Study ………………………………………………….
2
1.6. Scope of the study………………………………………………………….
1.7. Organization of the Study ………………………………………………..
3
3
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………..
2.1. Definition of terminology…………………………………………...
4
4
2.1.1. Defining ‘task’ and task-based language teaching……………….
4
2.1.2. Task-based language teaching to learners……………………….
9
2.1.3. Tasks, Actvities and Exercises……………………………………
11
2.1.4. Developments of Task-Based Teaching…………………………
11
2.2. Theoretical Foundations…………………………………………… 15
2.2.1. Theories of language……………………………………………… 15
2.2.2. Theories of language learning……………………………………
16
2.2.2.1. Cognitive theory…………………………………………………. 16
2.2.2.2. Constructivist Theory…………………………………….……..
17
2.2.2.3. Generative Learning Theory………………………………………..
18
2.3. The nature of Task-based Language Teaching…………………...
19
2.3.1. How is TBLT different from other teaching methods?................... 19
2.3.1.1. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)………………………… 20
2.3.1.2. Silent Way……………………………………………………………….
21
vi
2.3.1.3. Experiential learning………………………………………………….. 22
2.3.1.4. Co-operative learning…………………………………………………. 23
2.3.2. Task-based teaching versus other types of teaching instruction 24
models…………………………………………………………………….
2.3.3. Task-based Teaching Framework……………………………….. 25
2.3.4. Task types………………………………………………………….. 29
2.3.5. Materials for Tasks Initiated……………………………………...
32
2.3.6. Syllabus design…………………………………………………….
33
2.3.7. Learner roles………………………………………………………. 34
2.3.8. Teacher roles…………………..………………………………….
34
35
2.4. The importance of understanding teachers’ interpretation of
teaching methodology……………………………………………………
2.5. Teachers’ interpretation of TBLT………………………………… 37
38
2.6. Teachers’ views of teaching methodology and their classroom
teaching…………………………………………………………………...
2.7. Conclusion
40
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY…………………………………………..
3.1. The fitness of case study to the research purpose……………………..
41
41
3.2. Restatement of research questions……………………………………..
43
3.3. Case description and context of the study……………………………….. 43
3.3.1. The setting of the study…………………………………………………..
43
3.3.2. Participants………………………………………………………………
44
3.4. Instruments………………………………………...……………………… 46
3.4.1. Interviews ………………………………………………………………... 46
3.4.2. Observations………………………..……………………………………
47
3.5.3. Teaching plan interpretation…………………………………………….
48
3.5. The procedure: ………………………………………..………………….
48
3.5.1. Interviews………………………………………………………………… 48
3.5.2. Class observation………………………………………………………… 49
3.5.3. Teaching plan interpretation…………………………………………….
50
3.6. Data analysis……………………………………………………………….
3.7. Conclusion ……………………….……………………..
50
50
CHAPTER 4. DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS…………………………. 51
4.1. General overview of the findings………………………………………..
51
4.1.1. Teachers’ conceptualizations of task……………………………….
51
4.1.2. Teachers’ conceptualizations of task-based teaching…………….
53
4.1.3. Teachers’ attitudes toward task-based teaching………………………. 56
vii
4.1.4. Factors affecting the TBLT implementation ……………………….. 57
4.1.5. The reality of teachers’ class teaching………………………….. 59
4.1.6. Teachers’ class teaching implementation…………………………... 61
4.2. Discussions of the findings………………………...……………………..
63
4.2.1. Congruence and incongruence between teachers’ conceptualizations
63
and the composite view of TBLT ………………………………………………
4.2.2. Congruence and incongruence between teachers’ classroom teaching
65
practice and teaching plans with the composite view of TBLT………………..
4.2.3. Consistence and inconsistence between their conceptualization with
66
teaching practices and teaching plans……………………………………….
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS, PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATONS AND
68
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY………………………………..
5.1. Summary of the major points of the study………………………..…….
68
5.1.1. Summary of the study………………………………………………….
68
5.1.2. Conclusions…………………..………………………………………….
68
5.1.3. Pedagogical implications…………………………..……………………
70
5.2. Limitation of the study………………………………………………….
70
5.3. Implications for future research …………………………………………
71
LIST OF REFERENCES………………...……………………………………
I
APPENDICES……………………..…………………………………………..
VII
Appendix A: Interview Questions………….….……………………………….
VII
Appendix B: Schedule of taped Interviews …………………….…………….… VII
Appendix C: Samples of classroom observations……………………………….
VIII
Appendix D: Samples of teaching plans of university teachers……………..….. XIV
viii
LISTS OF ABBREVIATIONS
TBU: Tay Bac University
TBLL: Task-Based Language Learning
TBLT: Task-Based Language Teaching
TST/ TSI: Task-Supported Teaching/ Instruction
ELT: English Language Teaching
ESL: English as Second Language
CLT: Communicative Language Teaching
PPP: presentation-practice-production
TTT: Test-Teach-Test
ESA: Engage-Study-Activate
TM: Teaching method
RQ: Research question
IQ: Interview question
ADTBLTOM: Ability to distinguish TBLT from other methods
AC AT: Ability to conceptualize the advantages of TBLT
AC DT: Ability to conceptualize the disadvantages of TBLT
ACT BLLF: Ability to conceptualize the TBLT framework
(+): Conceptual, positive, mentioned
(-): Non-conceptual, negative, not mentioned
(=): Neutral
Att.: Attitudes
Und.: Understandings
Tim.: Time
Tb.: Textbook
Pre. Preparation
SLP: Students’ language proficiency
NSs: Number of students in class
Fac.: Facilities
Vs.: versus
Exer.: exercise/ act.: activity
ix
LISTS OF TABLES
TABLE 1: Participants’ Profile
TABLE 2: Participants’ conceptualizations of task (Data from IQ2, IQ9)
TABLE 3: Participants’ conceptualizations of task-based teaching
(Data from IQ2, IQ3, IQ 5, IQ6, IQ10, IQ11, IQ12)
TABLE 4: Participants’ attitudes towards TBLT
(Data from IQ2, IQ3, IQ4, IQ 5, IQ6, IQ8, IQ12)
TABLE 5: Factors impacting on extent of TBLT implementation
(Data from IQ2, IQ3, IQ 5, IQ6, IQ7, IQ8, IQ10, IQ11, IQ12, IQ13)
TABLE 6: Participants’ class teaching practice
(Data from class observations)
TABLE 7: Participants’ orientation of teaching instruction
(Data from teaching plan)
TABLE 8: The deviations between teachers’ conceptualizations and their practice
1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale
1.1.1. State of the problem.
Task-based language teaching, like other approaches to language teaching, is
initiated in the west (Ellis, 2003) mainly for adult intermediate learners. It opens new
potential orientations and hopes to the EFL learners and teachers in some aspects of
learning and teaching. The application of this approach depends on a lot of factors, such as
context of teaching, environment or social variables and as the matter of fact the teacher’s
conceptualization. Despite its popularity in Vietnam, this approach remains underresearched, especially how teachers conceptualize it according to their own understanding
and beliefs. In Tay Bac University, English language teachers have been introduced to this
approach, and they often mention the need to use this approach to the teaching of English
to the students in the university. It is quite rational because Ellis (2003) has stated that
task-based language teaching applied in universities is really a great help. However, if the
success of any language teaching method or approach depends on many factors, one of
which is teachers’ understanding and conceptualization of the intended approach, the
investigation of how teachers interpret Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) is an
urgent need. This study was intended to respond this need.
1.1.2. Theoretical rationale
Numerous studies suggest that teachers’ teaching approaches are less affected by
the reserachers’ ideas but more by their conceptualization of the approach (Borg, 2003). In
fact, there has been an emphasis on research into teachers’ understanding, interpretation or
conceptualization of, and attitudes towards, the intended language teaching approach over
the last decades. Such conceptualization and attidues of teachers are shaped by various
contextual and educational factors. This study follows the research paradigm which seeks
to uncover teachers’ psychology and cognition of TBLT in the context of Tay Bac
University.
1.2. Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to investigate teachers’ conceptualization of TBLT and
their actual implementation of TBLT in their classroom. Specifically, the following
objectives were set up for the study:
2
a) to investigate university teachers’ attitudes to TBLT in their teaching context
b) to understand university teachers’ conceptualization of TBLT
c) to find out how university teachers implement TBLT in their own classroom.
1.3. Research Questions
In order to achieve the above-mentioned objectives, the following research
questions were raised:
1. What are the university teachers’ conceptualizations of, and attitudes towards,
task-based language teaching?
2. To what extent do their conceptualizations match the composite view of taskbased language teaching?
3. How do they implement task-based language teaching in their classroom?
In seeking the answers to these research questions, a qualitative case study was
designed and conducted in the context of a university in the mountaineous area of North
Vietnam.
1.4. Significance of the Study
Information obtained from this study will help teacher educators and teacher
researchers to make appropriate decisions on how to introduce TBLT in Vietnamese
contexts. Aslo, it may inform concerned people of how to help teachers to adapt TBLT to
their teaching context by first of all readjust their mindset and attitudes.
1.5. Limitations of the Study
There are several limitations identified in this study. First, the sample size is small
and limited to the context of Tay Bac University. Data collection and analysis focus on
only twelve university teachers which were purposefully selected to yield the most
information for the research questions. Although unique in their own ways, the
participating teachers are all considered highly proficient teachers and familiar with
methodology as almost all of them have just finished subjects of master course and they
are doing theses. This study may help to build knowledge and understanding of teachers’
conceptualization of a method, but so it is unable to generalize the research results to the
variety of universities. The study purpose is only of the benefit of a method at a specific
university, so we are not intended to produce results which can be applied universally.
3
Researcher’s bias may be another limitation in this study. The researcher is an avid
proponent of this method with extensive classroom experience involving learning through
tasks. To minimize the effects of the researcher’s bias, the interviews are recorded
carefully for later data analysis, and the class teaching observations are encrypted with
thorough attention on sheets of paper, and teaching plans of teachers are interpreted
carefully to get triangulate data.
1.6. Scope of the study
What are univerity teachers’view of TBLT and how such a view of TBLT is
implemented in the classroom by TBU teachers of English? The task-based approach itself
is scattered in this scope.
1.7. Organization of the Study
This chapter introduced the study exploring potential of TBLT within the context of
Taybac University. The chapter included an overview of the issues, statement of the
problem, purpose of the study, research questions, significance of the study, limitations of
the study, definition of terms, and organization of the study. Chapter 2 provides a review of
the literature, including a theoretical framework focusing on learning and teaching theory.
Chapter 2 also provides research of issues surrounding the concepts and components of
TBLT.
Chapter 3 describes the methodology through a description of the case study
methodology and research design. An overview of a pilot study that informs the proposed
study and a description of the selected research site and its participants are also included.
In addition, the role of the researcher, the role of the teacher, and the procedures for data
collection and data analysis are discussed through rich description and visual
representations. Chapter 4 presents the results of the study. Finally, Chapter 5 summarizes
the
findings,
discusses
implications
recommendations for further researches.
for
educational
implications,
and
offers
4
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this chapter is to provide an extensive review of the literature as it
relates to the overall perspectives of task-based language learning and task-based language
teaching. First, an overview of the literature concerning the TBLT terminologies, its key
components, its principles, its features, framework for learning and teaching, and its
distinctions with other teaching methods is provided. Next, the theoretical foundations for
the birth and growth of task-based language teaching are discussed, including cognitive
theory of learning, sociocultural perspectives of constructivist theory of learning, etc.
Third, teachers’ interpretation of teaching methodology is mentioned. This chapter is also
designed to explore and identify how teachers’ views of their classroom teaching are.
Lastly, the theoretical underpinnings, review of existing task-based teaching research
bibliography will provide a framework for understanding the concept of TBLT and its
potentials, the methodology and data collection involved in the study, and, ultimately, the
analysis of findings obtained from the study.
2.1. Definition of terminology
2.1.1. Defining ‘task’ and task-based language teaching
Before doing anything else, we need to clarify terminologies; therefore, in this part,
a basic distinction between real-world or target tasks, and pedagogical tasks, and different
perspectives of TBLT is identified and discussed. It is necessary because confusions often
arise in discussions of task-based teaching when different teachers and writers use different
definitions of the term ‘task’. And here is the overview of task definitions.
In the literature, various definitions have been offered that differ widely in scope
and formulation up to a point where almost anything related to educational activity can
now be called a ‘task’. Clearly, in order to prevent the understanding of tasks from
becoming fuzzy and overwhelming, clear definitions of what authors mean when they use
the word ‘task’ are necessary.
Long (1985) defined a task as "… a piece of work undertaken for oneself or for
others, freely or for some reward . . . By 'task' is meant the hundred and one things people
do in everyday life, at work, at play, and in between" (p. 89).
5
Task also refers to a job responsibility or duty that is a specific part of a particular
job that a person is asked to do. For example, the job of an administrative assistant requires
the task of scheduling appointments for the supervisor. Jobs can be "task-analyzed" for
personnel and training purposes (Smith, 1971). This general view of task again implies that
the task is externally imposed on the person from outside.
These three definitions of task defined are what that is called real world or target
tasks, which has features of non-linguistics and even non-technical outcome but the real
mental-oriented outcome that people intend to do everyday. Those may describe the sorts
of things that the person in the street would say if asked what they were doing. (In the
same way as learners, if asked why they are attending an English course, are more likely to
say, ‘So I can make hotel reservations and buy food when I’m in Australia,’ than ‘So I can
master the subjunctive.’). The conclusion of the distinction between target tasks and
pedagogical tasks may refer to Nunan (1989). He supposes that target tasks, as the name
implies, refer to uses of language in the world beyond the classroom; pedagogical tasks are
those that occur in the classroom.
So what are pedagogical tasks? When they are transformed from the real world to
the classroom, tasks become pedagogical in nature Nunan (1989). He states that: “a
communicative task is a piece of classroom work which involves learners in
comprehending, manipulating, producing, or interacting in the target language while their
attention is principally focused on meaning rather than form. The task should also have a
sense of completeness, being able to stand alone as a communicative act in its own right”.
In this definition, we can see that the authors take a pedagogical perspective. Tasks are
defined in terms of what the learners will do in class rather than in the world outside the
classroom. More detailed definition of task-based language approach of his in another
book published in 2001 is the following, cited in Canh (2004): a task-based language
teaching approach is characterized by:
a) An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target language.
b) The introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation.
c) The provision of opportunities for learners to focus, not only on language, but also on
the learning process itself.
6
d) An enhancement of the learner's own personal experiences as important contributing
elements to classroom learning.
e) An attempt to link classroom language learning with language activation outside the
classroom (p.103).
Another definition of pedagogical task comes from Richards (1986): . . . an activity
or action which is carried out as the result of processing or understanding language (i.e. as
a response). For example, drawing a map while listening to a tape, listening to an
instruction and performing a command may be referred to as tasks. Tasks may or may not
involve the production of language. A task usually requires the teacher to specify what will
be regarded as successful completion of the task. The use of a variety of different kinds of
tasks in language teaching is said to make language teaching more communicative . . .
since it provides a purpose for a classroom activity which goes beyond the practice of
language for its own sake. (p.289)
Breen (1987: 23) offers another definition of a pedagogical task: . . . any structured
language learning endeavour which has a particular objective, appropriate content, a
specified working procedure, and a range of outcomes for those who undertake the task.
‘Task’ is therefore assumed to refer to a range of workplans which have the overall
purposes of facilitating language learning – from the simple and brief exercise type, to
more complex and lengthy activities such as group problem-solving or simulations and
decision-making. This definition is very broad, implying as it does that just about anything
the learner does in the classroom qualifies as a task. It could, in fact, be used to justify any
procedure at all as ‘task-based’ and, as such, is not particularly helpful.
More circumscribed is the following from Willis (1996), cited in Willis and Willis
(2001): a classroom undertaking “. . . where the target language is used by the learner for a
communicative purpose (goal) in order to achieve an outcome”. Here the notion of
meaning is subsumed in ‘outcome’. Language in a communicative task is seen as bringing
about an outcome through the exchange of meanings (p.173).
Skehan (1996a), drawing on a number of other writers, puts forward four key
characteristics of a task in a pedagogical aspect:
• meaning is primary
• there is some sort of relationship to comparable real-world activities
7
• task completion has some priority
• the assessment of the task is in terms of outcome.
However, when his book was republished in 1998, he had five keys characteristics
for a task; one more was added. So that she redefined a task as ‘an activity in which:
meaning is primary; learners are not given other people’s meaning to regurgitate; there are
some sorts of relationship to the real world; task completion has some priority; and the
assessment of task performance is in terms of task outcome’.
In the view of Crookes (1986: 1), a task is a piece of work or an activity, usually
with a specified objective, undertaken as a part of an educational course, at work, or used
to elicit data or research.
According to Richards, Platt, and Weber (1985), a task is an activity or an action
which is carried out as the result of processing or understanding language, i.e. as a
response. For example, drawing a map while listening to a tape, and listening to an
instruction and performing a comment, may be referred to as tasks. Tasks may or may not
involve the production of language. A task usually requires the teacher to specify what will
be regarded as successful completion of the task. The use of variety of different kinds of
tasks in language teaching is said to make teaching more communicative… since it
provides purpose for classroom activity which go beyond practice of language for its own
sake” (p.289).
Prabhu (1987), one of the first methodologists raising interest and support for TBL,
considers a task is “an activity which required learners to arrive at an outcome from given
information through some process of thought, and which allowed teachers to control and
regulate that process” (p.12). He deserves credit for originating the task-based teaching and
learning, based on the concept that effective learning occurs when students are fully
engaged in a language task, rather than just learning about language (p.17).
Lee (2000) defines a task is ‘(1) a classroom activity or exercise that has: (a) an
objective obtainable only by interaction among participants, (b) a mechanism for
structuring and sequencing interaction, and (c) a focus on meaning exchange; (2) a
language learning endeavor that requires learners to comprehend, manipulate, and/or
produce the target language as they perform some sets of work plans’ (p.23).
8
Bygate, Skehan, and Swain (2001) view ‘A task is an activity which requires
learners to use language, with emphasis on meaning, to attain an objective’ (p.288).
Finally, Ellis (2003: 16) defines a pedagogical task in the following way: A task is
a workplan that requires learners to process language pragmatically in order to achieve an
outcome that can be evaluated in terms of whether the correct or appropriate propositional
content has been conveyed. To this end, it requires them to give primary attention to
meaning and to make use of their own linguistic resources, although the design of the task
may predispose them to choose particular forms. A task is intended to result in language
use that bears a resemblance, direct or indirect, to the way language is used in the real
world. Like other language activities, a task can engage productive or receptive, and oral or
written skills and also various cognitive processes.
From what mentioned above, we go through many viewpoints about and definitions
of task. The definitions involved a tax, piece of work, everyday activity, job responsibility,
or general activity for learners. While these definitions vary somewhat, they all emphasize
the fact that pedagogical tasks involve communicative language use in which the user’s
attention is focused on meaning rather than grammatical form. However, this does not
mean that form is not important. In second language teaching and learning, task is now
often viewed as a linguistically outcome-oriented instructional segment or as a behavioral
framework for research or classroom learning.
My own view of a pedagogical task is strongly influenced by Willis (1996) and
Nunan (2001) and Littlewood (1981). In my opinion, task-based language teaching
approach is the implementation of pedagogical tasks, which are inspired from the real
world tasks, fitted well to students’ need and interest, and socially contextualized. A task is
goal-oriented, meaning-focused first and form-focused then, contextualized, and
implemented as the basis for teaching and learning. It can enable teacher’s teaching in the
direction of strong form realization of CLT, and help students achieve the reachable and
communicative outcome when they are exposed to authentic and comprehensible input,
then do the task through interactions (in pairs or in small groups) in which their own
experiences of target language are exploited, and lastly access the completeness through
the outcome. My definition refers to the deployment of learners’ knowledge, experience
and skills to express meaning, highlighting the fact that meaning and form are highly
9
interrelated, and that grammar exists to enable the language user to express different
communicative meanings. As Willis (1996) points out: “tasks differ from grammatical
exercises in that learners are free to use a range of language structures to achieve task
outcomes – the forms are not specified in advance” (p.23).
2.1.2. Task-based language teaching to learners
The task-based approach upon which the curriculum is built aims at providing
opportunities for learners to experiment with and explore both spoken and written language
through learning activities that are designed to engage learners in the authentic, practical
and functional use of language for meaningful purposes. Learners are encouraged to
activate and use whatever language they already have in the process of completing a task.
The use of tasks will also give a clear and purposeful context for the teaching and learning
of grammar and other language features as well as skills. . . . All in all, the role of taskbased language teaching is to stimulate a natural desire in learners to improve their
language competence by challenging them to complete meaningful tasks. (David Nunan,
1999: 41)
Task-based teaching can be regarded as one particular approach to implementing
the broader “communicative approach” and, as with the communicative approach in
general. The aim of task-based teaching is to develop students’ ability to communicate and
communication (except in its most simple forms) takes place through using the
grammatical system of the language.
Learners who are not used to TBLT may not at first realise the advantages of it, and
they take some time to understand what is required of them and be persuaded of the
benefit. This may be based on the kind of teaching they have had before and then what
benefit the task make to them. This is the report from Willis (1996) about the advantages
of TBLT after his survey to his learners:
• they gain confidence in speaking and interacting quite soon after a task-based course;
• they enjoy the challenge of doing tasks and find many of them fun;
• they are able to talk about language itself in addition to other topics;
• they can cope with natural spontaneous speech much more easily, and tackle quite tough
reading texts in appropriate way;
• they become far more independent learners. (p.137)
10
Willis also gives out the opinions of teachers and trainers who have just
experimented with TBLT:
• with mix-level classes, a TBLT approach works far better than a PPP one;
• learners bring their own experiences to lessons and often come up with interesting and
original ideas;
• by the end of the course they are often surprised at how much their learners have
achieved. (pp.137 - 138)
In his view, form learner’s position, doing the tasks in pairs or groups has a number
of advantages. Bearing this in mind can also guide teachers in roles of facilitators of
learning.
• It gives learners confidence to find out whatever language they know, or think they know,
in the relative privacy of a pair or small group, without fear of be wrong or of being correct
in front of the class.
• It gives learners experience of spontaneous interaction, which involves composing what
they want to say in real time, formulating phrases and units of meaning, while listening to
what is being said.
• It gives learners a chance to benefit from noticing how others express the similar
meanings. Research shows they are more likely to provide corrective feedback to each
other (when encouraged to do so) than adopt each other’s errors.
• It gives all learners chances to practise negotiating turns to speak, initiating as well as
responding to questions, and reacting to other’s contribution (where as in teacher-led
interaction, they only have a responding role).
• It engages learners to use language purposefully and cooperatively, concentrating on
building meaning, not just using language for display purpose.
• It makes learners to participate in a complete interaction, not just one-off sentences.
Negotiating openings and closings, new stages or changes of direction are their
responsibility. It is likely that discourse skill such as these can only be acquired through
interaction.
• It gives learners more chances to try out communication strategies like checking
understanding, paraphrasing to get round an unknown word, reforming other people’s
ideas, and supplying words and phrases for other speakers.
11
• It helps learners gradually gain confidence as they find they can rely on co-operation with
their fellow students to achieve the goals of the tasks mainly through use of the target language
(pp.35 - 36).
2.1.3. Tasks, Actvities and Exercises
In teaching and method discussions, there exist a lot of various and overlapping
understandings in tasks, activities and exercises. The three terms somewhere else are used
without distinctions. It is worth to clarify the differences here because the knowledge of
this serves much to the understanding of TBLT. At first attempts to distinguish between
CLT and traditional methods of teaching, some of researchers such as Morris et al.
(1996), Nunan (1999), Ellis (2003) and Carless (2004) made a clear cut between tasks as
distinction between tasks and exercises (non-tasks). This clear cut has been on the
journey for a long time to researchers’ minds when they need to conceptualize the
differences between traditional methods which is familiar to most teachers due to the
exploits of non- communicative ‘exercises’ and the new teaching ideas and approaches
adopted and mentioned in CLT which bases on the exploits of communicative
‘tasks’.
Consequently, “this oversimplified division is an obstacle both to conceptual clarity and
to effective implementation” (Littlewood, 2007). Afterwards, it is noticeable that Nunan
(2004) has moved from the two-category distinction in Nunan (1999) to a threecategory framework of ‘tasks’, ‘communicative activities’ and ‘exercises’. According to
him, a task is a communicative act that does not usually have a restrictive focus on a
particular grammatical structure, and has a non-linguistic outcome. An exercise usually
has a restrictive focus on a specific language element, and has a linguistic outcome. An
activity usually has a restrictive focus on one or two language items, but also has a
communicative outcome.
2.1.4. Developments of Task-Based Teaching
This section is to discuss about the history of researches and viewpoints of stages in
TBLT, and then the clarification between the most well-known and favourable TBLT
model and other models of instructions.
TBLT was first applauded by Prabu (1987); however, it was only shaped into
careful framework later by other methodologists. This part is, therefore, to introduce
briefly the historical development of TBLT researches on both the concept and its
12
framework. As noted by Richards and Rodgers (2001) and Willis (1996a, 1996b, 1998), a
task has a natural series of stages, such as preparation for the task (pre-task), the task itself,
and follow-up (post-task). Many second language learner textbooks now follow this
practice. In addition, tasks are often placed into a sequence as part of a unit of work or
study. Sequencing is a major issue in a task-based syllabus. For Swales (1990), tasks are
"…sequenceable goal-directed activities…relatable to the acquisition of pre-genre and
genre skills appropriate to a foreseen or emerging . . . situation" (p. 76, cited in Salaberry,
2001, p. 102). Skehan (1998b) noted that tasks have discernable implementation phases,
for which there should be clear criteria for outcome assessment.
Nunan (2004) argued in favor of units based on topics or themes in which
Halliday's (1985) three groups of macrofunctions are divided into microfunctions, each
linked with certain grammatical structures. Nunan's task-based syllabus contains six stages
per unit:
• schema building,
• controlled practice embedded in a context (unlike traditional controlled practice),
• authentic receptive skills work,
• a focus on form (lexical and/or grammatical),
• freer practice ("communicative activities"), and at last
• the (communicative) task itself.
It is interesting that Nunan, unlike Ellis (2003) and Long (1985, 1991), waited until
the very end of the process to include the communicative task. In Nunan's model, the task
is a culmination of all other work. In this sense, as noted by Feeney (2006), this is not too
far from the PPP format, except that Nunan's controlled practice occurs within more of a
communicative context than is usual with the PPP arrangement. Nunan's focus on form
occurs before both freer practice and the task, whereas Willis's (1996b) model employs a
focus on form after the task.
Long's (1985, 1991) task-based language teaching model presents a focus on form,
which involves meaning, structure, and the context of communication. The model follows
the following sequence of task development, implementation, and assessment/evaluation:
• Needs analysis to identify target tasks
• Classify into target task types.
13
• Derive pedagogic tasks.
• Sequence to form a task-based syllabus.
• Implement with appropriate methodology and pedagogy.
• Assess with task-based, criterion-referenced, performance tests.
• Evaluate program.
In Long's model, tasks are selected based on careful analysis of real-world
communication needs. Such tasks are particularly important-even catalytic-for L2 learning
because they can generate useful forms of communication breakdown (Long, 1985). The
teacher offers some kind of assistance to help the learner focus on form at the point when it
is most needed for communication. This is the moment when meaning meets form. While
not explaining the learner's error, the teacher provides indirect assistance so the learner can
solve his or her own communication problem and can proceed to negotiate meaning still
further. Long (1997) presented the following typical instructional sequence for a "false
beginner" class of young adult prospective tourists.
• Intensive listening practice: The task is to identify which of 40 telephone requests
for reservations can be met, and which not, by looking at four charts showing the
availability, dates and cost of hotel rooms, theater and plane seats, and tables at a
restaurant.
• Role-playing: The learners take roles of customers and airline reservation clerks
in
situations
in
which
the
airline
seats
required
are
available.
• Role-playing: The learners take roles in situations in which, due to unavailability,
learners must choose among progressively more complicated alternatives (seats in
different sections of the plane, at different prices, on different flights or dates, via
different routes, etc.).
In this model, the exact sequence of any given task or set of tasks would depend on
the learners' needs, which shape the goals of instruction.
Ellis (2003b) distinguishes between (a) unfocused tasks (e.g., ordinary listening
tasks or interactions) and (b) focused tasks, which are used to elicit a particular linguistic
feature or to center on language as task content. He cited three principal designs for
focused tasks: comprehension tasks, consciousness-raising tasks, and structure-based
production tasks. Elsewhere (Ellis, 2003a) presents a sequence of tasks for helping learners
14
become more grammatical, rather than for attaining the exlusive goal of mastery. The
sequence includes:
• Listening task, in which students listen to a text that they process for meaning).
• "Noticing" task, in which students listen to the same text, which is now gapped,
and fill in the missing words.
• Consciousness-raising task, in which students discover how the target grammar
structure works by analyzing the "data" provided by the listening text.
• Checking task, in which students complete an activity to check if they have
understood how the target structure works.
• Production task, in which students have the chance to try out or experiment with
the target structure by producing their own sentences.
Johnson (1996), Skehan (1998b), and Willis (1996b) discuss sequencing of tasks
according to methodological task features, such as extent of communication (negotiation of
meaning), task difficulty, and amount of planning allowed. Others have discussed how to
sequence tasks to reflect the developmental sequence of language acquisition. Skehan
(1999) suggested targeting a range of structures rather than a single one and using the
criterion of usefulness rather than necessity as a sequencing criterion.
Salaberry (2001) has argued that a successful task sequence leads learners to: (a)
communicate with limited resources, (b) become aware of apparent limitations in their
knowledge about linguistic structures that are necessary to convey the message
appropriately and accurately, and finally, (c) look for alternatives to overcome such
limitations. Building on the work of McCarthy (1998), Salaberry offers a pedagogical
sequence of four stages, which for the learner would be involvement, inquiry, induction,
and incorporation. For the teacher the corresponding four-step sequence is introduction of
the topic, illustration, implementation, and integration.
It is evident that no consensus yet exists about the best way to sequence tasks or to
sequence elements within tasks. This is one of the key areas of research needed in the field.
However, the writer in this thesis take the model of Willis' (1996a, 1996b, 1998) as this is
the one which is very much advocated by other researchers and methodologists because of
its precise design. Willis' framework consists of the following phases:
15
• Pre-task - introduction to the topic and task.
• Task cycle: task planning; doing the task; preparing to report on the task;
presenting the task report
• Language focus - analysis and practice (focus on form).
2.2. Theoretical Foundations
Methodologically, task-based language teaching represents a realization of the
philosophy of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). Other realizations that could
fairly claim to reside within the CLT family include content-based instruction (Brinton
2003), text-based syllabuses (Feez 1998), project-based learning (Willis, 1996; Moss &
Van Duzer, 1998), problem-based learning, and immersion education (Johnston and Swain
1997). It is also possible to find essentially grammar-based teaching that fit comfortably
within the overarching philosophy of CLT. As the matter of fact, CLT is a broad,
philosophical approach to the language teaching that draws on theory and research in
linguistics, anthropology, psychology and sociology (For a review of the theoretical and
empirical roots of CLT, see Savignon 1993). Consequently, this part is to discuss about
essential philosophies of TBLT as well as CLT, i.e., the functional view, the interactional
view, cognitive theory, constructivist theory, and humanism.
2.2.1. Theories of language
The two most araised and influenced theories of language that lay the base for CLT
and TBLT are functional approach and interactional approach; they are, in turn, discussed
below.
The functional view considers language as a vehicle for expressing functional
meaning. Thus, in this view, the semantic and communicative dimensions of language are
more emphasised than the grammatical characteristics, although the latter are also
included. The target of language learning within the functional view is to learn to express
communication functions and categories of meaning. The Communicative Approach and
the Natural Approach are based on this view.
The interactional view sees language primarily as a means for establishing and
maintaining interpersonal relations and for performing social transactions between
individuals. The target of language learning in this view, thus, is to learn to initiate and
16
maintain conversations with other people. The Communicative Approach is also informed
by this view. (Richards and Rodgers, 1986, pp.16-17)
2.2.2. Theories of language learning
2.2.2.1. Cognitive theory
Emerging in the late 1950s, and beginning to be dominant theory of learning, but
really having powerful influence on instructional practice after the late 1970s, cognitive
psychology was a new meaningful argumentation from psychologists and methodologists,
usually coinciding with names of Chomsky, Jean Piaget and Lev Semenovich Vygotsky,
Ausubel, etc. Through years cognitive psychology has had a considerable influence on
language teaching methodology. There are no methodologies that limit themselves to
cognitivist theories; TBLT is no exception.
Cognitive theories of learning emphasized the role of the mind in actively acquiring
new knowledge. The ideas that Ausubel (1968) presented in his book Educational
Psychology: A cognitive view underlies the cognitivist stance in education. The most
important of these ideas was that learning must be meaningful and relatable to an
individual's cognitive structure if it was to become a permanent part of his or her
understanding of the world. Cognitive teaching treated the learners as thinking beings and
places them at the centre of the learning process by stressing that learning will only take
place when learners find the input meaningful, interesting and relevant to their needs. It
means the learner is an active participant in the learning process, using various mental
strategies in order to sort out the system of the language to be learned, which would rather
emphasizes the internal mental processes of the mind and how they could be utilized in
promoting effective learning than the external behaviour as behaviourism did; learner, in
fact, learns by thinking about and trying to make sense of what he or she hears, sees and
feels. And, as being retrieved from (Canh, 2004: p.39), cognitive psychology is grounded
on the following assumptions:
• People develop at different rates
• Development is relatively orderly
• Development takes place gradually
The basic teaching technique associated with a cognitive theory of learning is the
problem-solving tasks. Thus, the cognitive model of teaching is defined as a model of
17
teaching in which the teacher selects learning tasks according to the learner's
developmental level, and elicits learner reasoning in relation to those tasks.
Also according to (Canh, 2004: p.37 ), the human mind is a rational informationprocessor and accordingly necessary to know how processes such as thinking, attending,
knowing, remembering and problem-solving are working. Task-based approach of
teaching realized the central viewpoint of cognitivism as one of the main philosophies of
this method when TBL involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or
interacting in the target language while their attention is focused on mobilizing their
grammatical knowledge in order to express meaning (Nunan, 1989:10). It certainly
involves learners’ efforts of mental work while they interact with others to complete tasks.
2.2.2.2. Constructivist Theory
Constructivism is a theory about knowledge and learning in which knowledge is
unique to the individual learner and the resulting facet of the individual’s engagement in
the cognitive learning process (Kozulin, 1998). Savery and Duffy (1996) described
constructivism as a “philosophical view on how to come to understand and know” (p. 31).
Cambourne (2002) offered three simplified theoretical propositions of constructivism:
1. What is learned cannot be separated from the context in which it is learned.
2. The purposes or goals that the learner brings to the learning situation are central
to what is learned.
3. Knowledge and meaning are socially constructed through the processes of
negotiation, evaluation, and transformation. (p. 26)
According to Duffy & Cunningham (1996), Constructivism is an educational
philosophy or perspective that encompasses a wide variety of views, theories and
instructional models, which converge on at least two principles: (1) that learning is an
active process of constructing rather than acquiring knowledge; and (2) instruction is a
process of supporting that construction rather than communicating knowledge. Many
constructivists believe that a learner individually interprets their experience, building a
unique internal representation of knowledge (Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy & Perry, 1991).
Generally, constructivism holds that most learning domains are ill-defined (complex),
learning outcomes are largely metacognitive in nature, and that learners are required to
actively participate in the learning process to construct meaningful knowledge rather than
18
acquire a predetermined set of skills in a pre-specified manner. Lastly and most
importantly, constructivism is naturally emerged as the focus of TBLT. Carless (2004)
stated that: “Task-oriented curricular was based on constructivist learning principles and
argued that pupils needed to be involved in developing their own learning. Task-based
language teaching and learning were central to this philosophy”.
2.2.2.3. Generative Learning Theory
Another theoretical model of memory based in neural processing that can lay the
base for TBLT as well as modern language learning and teaching is generative learning
theory. Originally conceived under the cognitive information processing paradigm by
Wittrock (1974), generative learning theory has recently also been applied in technologybased constructivist learning environments, experiment learning, cooperation learning,
problem-based learning, ect. (Grabinger, 1996). The focus of the generative learning
theory model is that the learner is not a passive recipient of information but an active
participant in the instructional experience, constructing knowledge through relating
information in the instructional environment to his or her previous experiences and prior
knowledge (Grabowski, 1996). Correspondingly, the generative learning process requires
the learner to manipulate, interpret, organize or in some active manner make sense of his or
her environment. He or she creates meaning through generative associations between and
among elements in the instructional environment and his or her knowledge base.
Types
of
generative
strategies
diagramming), conceptualization (e.g.
include
organization
(e.g.
summarizing,
explaining/clarifying, creating concept maps,
identifying important information), integration (e.g., creating relevant examples, relating to
prior knowledge, creating analogies and metaphors, synthesizing) and translation
(evaluating, questioning, predicting, inferring) (Grabowski, 1996).
In any form of instructional strategy based in this theory, of primary importance is
presenting the opportunity to construct new meaning from the learner’s interaction with the
instructional environment and understanding of specific content. This is an important
consideration since generative theory dictates that learning is not limited to the
manipulation of existing cognitive structures but can generate new associations for the
learner (Grabowski, 1997). Grabinger (1996) points out this distinction by stating:
19
The concept of generative learning is an extension of the concept of constructing
learning. Students cannot construct their own learning without generating something
through active involvement. (p.675)
Coleman, Perry and Schwen (1997) contend that constructivists are inclined to involve
learners in a generative experience through allocating control of the sequence of instruction
to learners. Hannafin (1992) states that generative environments need to task the learner
with creating, elaborating or otherwise constructing representations of individual meaning.
2.3. The nature of Task-based Language Teaching
2.3.1. How is TBLT different from other teaching methods?
One of the most raised questions of methodologists is the relationship between
communicative language teaching and task-based language teaching. Are the terms
synonymous? If so, why have two terms for the same notion? If not, wherein lies the
difference? The answer is that CLT is a broad, philosophical approach to the language
curriculum that draws on theory and research in linguistics, anthropology, psychology and
sociology. Task-based language teaching represents a realization of this philosophy at the
levels of syllabus design and methodology. Other realizations that could fairly claim to
reside within the CLT family include content-based instruction (Brinton 2003), text-based
syllabuses (Feez 1998), problem-based learning, and immersion education (Johnston and
Swain 1997).
Littlewood (2003) even stated in his article that:
These approaches have been described under a variety of labels: “experiential learning”,
“discovery learning”, “problem-based learning”, “co-operative learning”, the “activity-based
approach”, and others. Underlying all of these approaches is a desire to involve students in some
kind of purposeful interaction with information, objects and/or ideas, often in groups, in order to
develop their skills and knowledge. In the field of language teaching, the approach which is
currently best known in this respect is “Task-based teaching”.
It is, therefore, profitable to make a clear distinction between some of those
methods of language teaching in order for teachers to have the right interpretation of such a
useful method of teaching.
2.3.1.1. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)
20
Task-based teaching can be regarded as one particular approach to implementing
the broader “communicative approach” and, as with the communicative approach in
general, the two teaching approaches have a lot in common, and a little distinction. A great
deal has been said and written about CLT in the last decades, and it is sometimes assumed
that the approach is a unitary one, whereas in reality it consists of a family of approaches.
The basic insight that language can be thought of as a tool for communication rather than
as sets of phonological, grammatical and lexical items to be memorized led to the notion of
developing different learning programs to reflect the different communicative needs of
disparate groups of learners. No longer was it necessary to teach an item simply because it
is ‘there’ in the language. The CLT view of language as action was nicely captured by
Savignon (1993), one of the key architects of CLT, in a state-of-the-art survey article in
which she wrote:
In Europe, during the 1970s, the language needs of a rapidly increasing group of immigrants and
guest workers, and a rich British linguistic tradition that included social as well as linguistic context in
description of language behavior, led to the Council of Europe development of a syllabus for learners based
on functional–notional concepts of language use and . . . a threshold level of language ability was described
for each of the languages of Europe in terms of what learners should be able to do with the language (van Ek
1975). Functions were based on assessment of learner needs and specified the end result, the product, of an
instructional program. The term communicative was used to describe programs that used a functional–
notional syllabus based on needs assessment, and the language for specific purposes (LSP) movement was
launched (Savignon 1993: 37).
Among various realizations of CLT, Task-based language teaching seems to have
the potential to provide foreign language learners with essential conditions for language
learning. TBLT, the realization of strong version of Communicative Approach, is a goaloriented teaching method effective in enhancing student motivation. It can offer English
learners exposure to authentic materials, opportunities to use the target language, and
motivation to learn, which are all considered to be essential conditions for language
learning (Willis, 1996). Moss reported TBLT helped ESL learners develop various skills
because TBLT creates situations where learners need to communicate to get the job done
(Moss & Van Duzer, 1998). The negotiation of meaning occurs when some form of
information exchange transpires for a real purpose thereby making the context of
21
communication as relevant as the content (Harmer, 1996; Nunan, 1998). The
decontextualized communicative activities as in CLT teaching according to the broader
term is no longer available in TBLT tasks. Many of the types of Task-based teaching,
consciousness-raising, and discovery learning activities that are not only intended to
introduce language forms in authentic data but also engage them in truly meaningful and
effective communication such as negotiation of meaning for the task completeness. TBLT
is, therefore, the breaking growth of CLT approach in the routine meeting the desire of
millions of foreign language learners.
2.3.1.2. Silent Way
As mentioned by Canh (2004), “Another contribution of this method is it has led to
the widespread use of problem-solving activities, which paves the way for the subsequent
rise of Task-based teaching” (p.72). The reasons supporting this statement is that this
method was firstly based on the trend towards "discovery learning', which advocated less
learning through transmission and more learning by discovering for oneself various facts
and principles. Secondly, this method emphasizes the independence, autonomy, and
responsibility of learners: “Gattegno believed that learners should develop independence,
autonomy, and responsibility in their learning activity and that the teacher's silence helped
to foster self-reliance and learner initiative” (Canh, 2004: p.71). Teachers rarely provide
new items unless when learners really need it for their communication. If willingless,
teachers model new language items just once and then learners take it to incorporate to
their learning. Nextly, grammatical patterns are taught inductively.
However, this method and TBLT have some differences: First, while TBLT focus
mainly and firstly on meaning and the real communication ability to complete tasks, this
method “adopted a highly structural approach, with language taught through sentences in a
sequence based on grammatical complexity” (Canh, 2004: p.71). Second, as stated by
Richards and Rodgers (1986: p.11), "The indirect role the teacher is required to assume in
directing and monitoring learner performance, the responsibility placed upon learners to
figure out and test their hypotheses about how the language works, and the materials used
to elicit and practice language”, so the teacher is too distant to encourage a communicative
atmosphere as a facilitator and language an adviser. And finally, learners’ errors are
expected as a normal part of learning; the teacher rarely takes the role of a monitor. And
22
accordingly, with this method, only highly motivated learners who are willing to generate
real communication from the rigid structures can make benefit from it.
2.3.1.3. Experiential learning
An important conceptual basis for task-based language teaching is experiential
learning. This approach takes the learner’s immediate personal experience as the point of
departure for the learning experience. Intellectual growth occurs when learners engage in
and reflect on sequences of tasks. The active involvement of the learner is therefore central
to the approach, and a rubric that conveniently captures the active, experiential nature of
the process is ‘learning by doing’. In this, it contrasts with a ‘transmission’ approach to
education in which the learner acquires knowledge passively from the teacher. Experiential
learning has diverse roots in a range of disciplines from social psychology, humanistic
education, developmental education and cognitive theory. The person who pulled these
diverse, though related, strands together was the psychologist David Kolb, who argued for
an integration of action and reflection. In his model (Kolb, 1984), learners move from what
they already know and can do to the incorporation of new knowledge and skills. They do
this by making sense of some immediate experience, and then going beyond the immediate
experience through a process of reflection and transformation. The most articulate
application of experiential learning to language teaching is provided by Kohonen (1992).
In many respects, his model can be seen as a theoretical blueprint for TBLT, as can be seen
from the following list of precepts for action derived from his work.
• Encourage the transformation of knowledge within the learner rather than the
transmission of knowledge from the teacher to the learner.
• Encourage learners to participate actively in small, collaborative groups (I see group and
pair work as important, although I recognize that there are many contexts where class size
makes pair and group work difficult).
• Embrace a holistic attitude towards subject matter rather than a static, atomistic and
hierarchical attitude.
• Emphasize process rather than product, learning how to learn, self inquiry, social and
communication skills.
• Encourage self-directed rather than teacher-directed learning.
• Promote intrinsic rather than extrinsic motivation.
23
Kohonen highlights the fit between experiential learning and other teaching
approaches, such as TBLT, learner-centredness and autonomy: Experiential learning theory
provides the basic philosophical view of learning as part of personal growth. The goal is to
enable the learner to become increasingly self-directed and responsible for his or her own
learning. This process means a gradual shift of the initiative to the learner, encouraging
him or her to bring in personal contributions and experiences. Instead of the teacher setting
the tasks and standards of acceptable performance, the learner is increasingly in charge of
his or her own learning (Kohonen 1992: 37). From those perspectives, it is clear that a lot
of principles of experiential learning are covered in TBLT. Though the two teaching
method are descended from the root, CLT with the philosophy “learning by doing”, TBLT
is higher and more perfectly developed because TBLT not only bases on learners’
experience and the interactions but also the contextualized task exploitation.
2.3.1.4. Co-operative learning
Canh defines cooperative learning, or collaborative learning as a range of concepts
and techniques for enhancing the value of learner-learner interaction. The theory and
practice of cooperative learning is based on the principle that we can learn from each other
as well as from a teacher and that one of the most important tasks of a teacher is to create
sufficient classroom opportunittes for such learning to take place. Viewed this way,
learning is social interaction (2004: p.100).
Some of the similarities between Cooperative learning and TBLT are that they
emphasize the intereaction between learners to solve learning problem and accumulate
linguistic knowledge and skills by doing and discovering; learners are more independent of
their teachers because they can interact to one another to share their experiences,
knowledge and even error correction; and both method engage learners in meaningful
communication and first emphasize on meaning then on form. Canh asserts that
“Cooperative learning teams therefore provide an effective context for the development of
new understanding” (2004: 101).
These two methods, on the other hand, have some differences: while TBLT mainly
focuses the interactions of students on pairs or on small groups, Cooperative learning gives
its heed to large groups or teams; TBLT means implementing tasks as core basis for
learning and teaching, and the interactions between students are the way to get tasks
24
accomplished, Cooperative learning in another way only draws attention to large group
work or teamwork as the central focus which certainly cannot have specific framework for
learning and teaching as TBLT does.
2.3.2. Task-based teaching versus other types of teaching instruction models
As we discussed in 2.1.3 about the sequencing tasks for TBLT, the model proposed
by Willis offers a task cycle and a clear process to reach the goal of communication. This
model can be easily regconised from other types of instructions
First, TBLT opposes strongly the traditional presentation-practice-production (PPP)
teaching/learning cycle which was at one time virtually the only acceptable second
language task sequence. In the PPP cycle, grammar presentation came first (“presentation”
of a language item by the teacher), followed by controlled and less controlled practice (in
the form of exercises) and then by actual production (“production” of the sentences).
Second, TBLT differs from an alternative teaching model to the PPP model TTT (Test-Teach-Test approach) in which the production stage comes first and the
learners are thrown in and required to perform a particular task. This model is more
communicative and learner-centered than PPP.
Next, a different three stage model proposed by Jeremy Harmer (1998) is ESA
model (Engage, Study, Activate). During the engage phase, the teacher tries to arouse the
students' interest and engage their emotions. This might be through a game, the use of a
picture, audio recording or video sequence, a dramatic story, an amusing anecdote, etc. The
aim is to arouse the students' interest, curiosity and attention. The PPP model seems to
suggest that students come to lessons ready motivated to listen and engage with the
teacher's presentation. The study phase activities are those which focus on language (or
information) and how it is constructed. The focus of study could vary from the
pronunciation of one particular sound to the techniques an author uses to create excitement
in a longer reading text; from an examination of a verb tense to the study of a transcript of
an informal conversation to study spoken style. There are many different styles of study,
from group examination of a text to discover topic-related vocabulary to the teacher’s
explanation of a grammatical pattern. In the Activate phase, exercises and activities are
designed to get students to use the language as communicatively as they can. During
activate, students do not focus on language construction or practise particular language
25
patterns, but use their full language knowledge in the selected situation or task. TTT and
ESA models are accepted widely by teachers apposed CLT and learnered-centered
approach.
In addition, a needed clear cut should be done is the distinction between TBLT and
TSI (Task-supported instruction) mentioned by Ellis (2003) when he tried to distinguish
between unfocused tasks (e.g., ordinary listening tasks or interactions) and focused tasks
(which are used to elicit a particular linguistic feature or to center on language as task
content). TSI means incorporating tasks into the curriculum, which may also contain other
types of activities. Accordingly, if tasks are used to support the teaching in which teacher
provides opportunities to use the language for communicative purposes, they belong to
task-supported teaching. This model is in fact the weak form of CLT. TBLT is completely
versus TSI because in the pure form of TBLT, the task is the only unit of the curriculum,
the basis for teaching, and perhaps even assessment. TBI realizes the strong form of
communicative teaching which emphasizes that learner’s language is acquired best through
communication. In a word, the maxim of TSI - ‘learning to use’ versuses the maxim of TBI
- ‘using to learn’ or ‘learning by doing’
2.3.3. Task-based Teaching Framework
Jane Willis (1996) designed precisely the framework for TBLT, which was then
advocated by Richards Frost (2006) including three main phases: pre-task, task-cycle, and
language focus. Pre-task phase is when teacher introduce topic and task, and students get
exposures of linguistic chunks. The task cycle can be subdivided into three task stages,
including task stage, planning stage, and report stage. This is the main task phase in which
students use the target language the most to accomplish task requirements; the fluency and
meaning-focus is main attended. The last phase is language focus, in which teacher, basing
on what learners have done in the previous phase, helps learners to enrich linguistic items
with more focus on accuracy. Here is the thorough discussion of them.
Firstly, we come to discuss the first phase – pre-task phase. The pre-task is usually
the shortest stage in the framework. It could last between two or twenty minutes,
depending on the learners’ degree of familiarity with the topic and the type of task. If there
is a pre-task recording to set the scene, it could take slightly longer. In this phase, teacher
has to do some of the following jobs: 1) Teacher does some advance preparations, in which
26
teacher has to bear in mind the students’ need and interest to decide materials and kind of
tasks to be introduced (activities in course book or designed by teacher), how to introduce
it clearly, what supported visual aids should be brought to class, and what supported
linguistic input should be put in teacher’s talk for students’ exposure. 2) Teacher
introduces the topic of lesson and task’s instruction in a brief and precise way so that
students can know what they will have to do to get the goal. He or she should be sure that
everyone understands the requirement of the task before they engage in task stage. 3)
Teacher uses activities to help students to learn useful words or phrases. Teacher can
encourage students to pool topic-related words and phrases they know already in activities
of teacher-led brainstorming. As students think of words or phrases, teacher writes them on
one side of the board and talks something about them. If the task involves reading or
talking about a text or listening, teacher could pick out some words or phrases that are vital
for general understanding of the main theme. Lots of things should be put into
consideration in this phase, but teacher has to bear in mind that this is not the time to teach
large amounts of new language, and certainly not to teach a specific grammatical structure;
it is to boost students’ confidence in handling the task, and give them something to fall
back on if necessary (pp.41 - 43).
Secondly, the task cycle phase is to offer learners chance to use whatever language
they already know to carry out the task, and then to improve that language, under teacher
guidance, while planning their report of the task. Feedback from teacher can come when
they want it most, at the planning stage, and after the report. Exposure to language in use
can be provided at different points depending on the type of task. Either during other
before task cycle, students might listen to recordings of other people doing the task or read
a text connected to the task topic, and relate this to their own experience of doing the task.
In the task stage, students are usually asked to do the task in pairs or in small groups, while
teacher works as a monitor and a facilitator who can provide helps whenever they need. In
the planning stage of task cycle, students are usually asked to prepare to report to the
whole class orally or in writing how they did the task, what they decided or what they
discovered. This stage, in Willis’ view, attaches teacher as the role of a linguistic adviser,
who is in charge of giving feedback and helping students to correct, rephrase, rehearse so
as for them to draft the written report. The third stage of the task cycle is report stage that
27
is the chance for students to present their reports of the task to the class orally or in writing.
Teacher can choose some groups to choose their representatives to report, and she/he
works as a chairperson to judge their performance and give comments and feedback on the
content and form if needed.
The last phase in the framework is language focus, which allows students to have
close study of some of the specific features naturally occurring in the language used during
the task cycle. By this point, the learners will have already worked with the language and
processed it for meaning, so they are ready to focus on the specific language forms that
carry the meaning. Thus the study of these forms is clearly contextualised through the task
itself. This final phase, which includes analysis and practise components, fulfils the fourth
desirable extra condition for learning-explicit study of language form. Some of the main
features of TBLT are mentioned as follows:
1) Goals and outcomes
One job of course designer and teacher is to select topics and tasks that will
motivate learners, engage their attention, present a suitable degree of intellectual and
linguistic challenge and promote their language development as efficiently as possible.
It is obvious that all tasks have specific objective that must be achieved, often in a
given time. They are ‘goal-oriented’. In other words, the focus is on understanding and
conveying meanings in order to complete the task successfully; learners are using language
in a meaningful way while they are doing tasks. All tasks should have outcome which
should be a little challenging to achieve; it is the way that makes TBL a motivating
procedure in classroom.
2) Meaning before form
An important feature of task is that learners are free to choose whatever language
form they wish to convey what they mean, in order to fulfill, as well as they can, the task
goals.
It would be defective for the purpose if we dictate or control the language forms
that they must use. As the need arises, words and phrases acquired previously but as yet
unused will often spring to mind. If the need to communicate is strongly felt, learners will
find a way of getting round words or forms they do not yet know or cannot remember. If,
for example, learners at a very elementary level want to express something that happened
28
in the past, they can use the base form of the verb, and an adverb denoting the past time,
like I go yesterday, etc.
The teacher can monitor from the distance, and especially in a monolingual class,
should encourage all attempts to communicate in target language. But this is not the time
for advice or correction. Learners need to feel free to experiment with language on their
own, and to take risks. Fluency in communication is what counts. In later stages of the task
framework, accuracy does not matter, but it is not so important at the task stage.
Learners need to regard their errors in a positive way, to treat them as a normal part
of learning. Explain to them that it is better for them to risk getting something wrong, than
not to say anything. If their message is understood, then they have been reasonably
successful. If they remain silent, they are less likely to learn. All learners need to
experiment and make errors.
Language then, is the vehicle for attaining task goals, but the emphasis is on
meaning and communication, not on producing language form correctly.
3) Tasks and skills practice
Some approaches on language teaching talk in terms of four separate skills:
listening, speaking, reading and writing. Skills lessons are principally designed to improve
one single skill and often supplement grammar teaching. Other approaches talks in terms
of integrated skills. With the exception of reading or listening for pleasure, it is rare for
anyone to use one skill in isolation for any length of time. If you are speaking to someone,
you will be both observing their reactions and listening for their responses; as you listen to
them, you will be composing what you want to say next. Writing usually involves reading,
checking and often revising what you have written.
Teachers follow a task-based cycle naturally foster combinations of skills
depending upon the task. The skills form an integral part of the process of achieving the
task goals; they are not being practised singly, in a vacuum.
The task objectives ensure there is always a purpose for any reading and notetaking, just as there is always an audience for the speaking and writing. Carrying out a task
demands meaningful interaction of some kind.
If teacher is aware of learners’ current or future language needs, he/she can select
or adapt tasks that help them to practise relevant skills. Some learners may need English
29
for academic purposes, so tasks involving reading and listening, note-taking and
summarizing are bound to be helpful. Some students may need translating or oral
interpreting skills and tasks can be devised to practise these, for example, hearing a new
item in one language and comparing it with a news summary in the other. For those who
need only to pass a written examination, but also want to socialise in target language, you
could use text-based tasks with written outcomes, and discussion at various points in the
task cycle.
2.3.4. Task types
Many types of second language tasks exist, particularly in the realm of
communicative instruction. Here is a listing of some key task types found in the literature:
problem-solving (Nunan, 1989; Pica et al., 1993; Willis, 1996a); decision-making (Foster
& Skehan, 1996; Nunan, 1989; Pica et al., 1993); opinion-gap or opinion exchange
(Nunan, 1989; Pica et al., 1993); information-gap (Doughty & Pica,1986; Nunan, 1989;
Oxford, 1990; Pica et al., 1993); comprehension-based (Ikeda & Takeuchi, 2000; Scarcella
& Oxford, 1992; Tierney et al., 1995); sharing personal experiences, attitudes, and feelings
(Foster & Skehan, 1996; Oxford, 1990; Willis, 1996a, 1996b); basic cognitive processes,
such as comparing or matching (Nunan, 1989; Willis, 1998), listing (Willis, 1998), and
ordering/sorting (Willis, 1998); language analysis (Willis 1996a, 1996b, 1998); narrative
(Foster & Skehan, 1996); reasoning-gap (Nunan, 1989); question-and-answer (Nunan
1989); structured and semi-structured dialogues (Nunan, 1989); and role-plays and
simulations (Crookall & Oxford, 1990; Richards & Rodgers, 2001).
In addition, task types include picture stories (Nunan, 1989); puzzles and games
(Nunan, 1989); interviews, discussions, and debates (Nunan, 1989; Oxford, 1990; Richards
& Rodgers, 2001); and everyday functions, such as telephone conversations and service
encounters (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Task types also encompass practice with
communication/conversation strategies, learning strategies, and text-handling strategies
(Cohen, 1998; Honeyfield, 1993; Nunan, 1989; O'Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990).
Additional task types can lead to communicative videomaking (Talbott & Oxford, 1989,
1991). For more on various types of tasks, see Bygate et al. (2001) and Yule (1997).
Many task types involve multiple skills and subskills, such as reading a passage for
comprehension and then doing something with the information that has been read, such as
30
answering questions, discussing the information, making a decision, solving a problem,
and expressing how one feels about a given situation. And here is the thorough discussion
of some focal task types proposed by Willis (1996a), who affects the interpretation of
TBLT the most. These tasks are discussed along with the dutifully-designed framework for
task-based language teaching, which is most publicly-discussed by researchers in this field.
1) Listing
Listing may seem unimaginative, but in practice, listing tasks tend to generate a lot
of talks as learners explain their ideas. The processes involved are:
• brainstorming, in which learners draw on their own knowledge and experience either as a
class or in pairs/groups
• fact-finding, in which learners find things out by asking each other or other people and
referring to books, etc.
The outcome would be the completed list, or possibly a draft mind map.
2) Ordering or Sorting
These tasks involve four main processes:
• sequencing items, actions or events in logical or chronological order
• ranking items according to personal values or specified criteria
• categorizing items in given groups or grouping them under given headings
• classifying items in different ways, where the categories themselves are not given
3) Comparing
Broadly, these tasks involve comparing information of a similar nature but from
different sources or versions in order to identify common points and/or differences. The
processes involved are:
• matching to identify specific points and relate them to each other
• finding similarities and things in common
• finding differences
4) Problem-solving
Problem-solving tasks make demands upon people’s intellectual and reasoning
power, and, though challenging, they are engaging and often satisfying to solve. The
processes and time scale will vary enormously depending on the type and the complexity
of the problem.
31
Real-life problems may involve expressing hypotheses, describing experiences,
comparing alternatives and evaluating and agreeing a solution. Completion tasks are often
based on short extracts from texts, where the learners predict the ending or piece together
clues to guess it. The classification ends with case studies, which are more complex, entail
an in-depth consideration of many criteria, and often involve additional fact-finding and
investigating.
5) Sharing personal experiences
These tasks encourage learners to talk more freely about themselves and share their
experiences with others. The resulting interaction is closer to casual social conversation in
that it is not so directly goal-oriented as in other tasks. For that reason, however, these
open tasks may be more difficult to get going in the classroom.
6) Creative tasks
These are often called projects and involve pairs or groups of learners in some kind
of freer creative work. They also tend to have more stages than other tasks, and can involve
combinations of task types: listing, ordering and sorting, comparing and problem-solving.
Out of class research is sometimes needed. Organizational skills and team-work are
important in getting the task done. The outcome can often be appreciated by a wider
audience than the students who produced it.
In real-life rehearsals pairs or groups of students predict, plan and rehearse what
they could say in typical real-life situations (e.g. buying stamps). They then perform their
dialogue in front of the class, and/or record it. Next, they either hear the recording of the
real-life parallel dialogue, or, if they are in an English-speaking area, they go to the place
(e.g. post office) and take notes of what people actually say. If possible, they also take part
in a similar situation themselves (e.g. buy the stamps) with another student taking notes.
Finally, students compare the real-life versions with their own prepared scripts.
Six task types above can be categorized into three types according to the outcome
and the way to reach the goal: closed tasks (that are highly structured and have specific
goals, for example, work in pairs to find seven differences between these two pictures and
write them down in note form in two minutes limited. This instruction is very precise and
the information is restricted. There is only one way of possible outcome and one way of
achieving it) or open tasks (that are more loosely structured, with a less specific goal, for
32
example, comparing memories of childhood journeys, or exchanging anecdotes on a
theme), or middle tasks (that comes between closed and open tasks. Logical problems
usually have a specific goal and one answer or outcome, but learners have different ways
of getting there. Ranking tasks and solving-problems have specific goals too, but each
pair’s outcome might be different, and there will be alternative ways of reaching it.
2.3.5. Materials for Tasks Initiated
The starting points for tasks, according to Willis (1996), can be the following
suggestions in isolation or the combination of them: 1) personal knowledge and
experience, which emphasizes that tasks can base on learners’ or teachers’ personal and
professional knowledge of the world; 2) problems. It means the starting point is normally
the statement of the problem, and then teacher lets students some minutes to think about
the problem so that they can engage better in the task and can interact more confidently in
the task; 3) visual stimuli. This starting point suggests that pictures, photographs, tables,
graphs, etc can be used as basis for different learning activities, such as describing the
pictures for drawing or for arranging, spotting the differences between two pictures, etc.. ;
4) spoken and written texts. Recordings of spoken English, or extracts from video
recordings and reading text can also make good task material. In order to complete all the
tasks related to spoken or reading text, learners have to react to the content and process the
text for meaning; 5) children’s activities. The ground explanation for this starting point is
that children are usually enjoy making things, drawing and coloring, practising magic
tricks, preparing snacks, and doing simple science experiments. If the instructions are
available only in target language, and the necessary materials can only be obtained if they
ask in target language, such activities stimulate a natural need to understand and use it.
Many can be broken down smaller stages, forming a series of tasks, each enriched with
teacher talk in the target language. A review or report on a wall poster afterwards will
stimulate a different variety of target language use.
As stated at the beginning, all the starting points can be correlated in two or more
for the materials of tasks initiated. For example, a text and personal experience are
especially useful in many cases. Also, a questionnaire could deal with a controversial topic,
in which the requirement should be like the way that asks students to read the statements
then discuss each one, saying whether they agree or disagree and giving evidence from
33
their own experience. The questionnaire format gives clear step-by-step agenda to the task,
so it becomes easier to complete satisfactorily. Other tasks can be based on combination of
visual data (photographs, graphs, and diagrams) and personal or professional experience,
while problem-solving tasks are often based on written text, in combination with a map,
chart or table of some kind.
2.3.6. Syllabus design
The design of syllabuses according to the task-based approach is most known as the
‘analytical’ approaches proposed by David Wilkins in a seminal publication in 1976. In the
‘analytical’ approaches, the learner is presented with holistic ‘chunks’ of language and is
required to analyze them, or break them down into their constituent parts. Task-based
syllabuses represent a particular realization of communicative language teaching. Instead
of beginning the design process with lists of grammatical, functional-notional, and other
items, the designer conducts a needs analysis which yields a list of the target tasks that the
targeted learners will need to carry out in the ‘real-world’ outside the classroom. Examples
of target tasks include: taking part in a job interview, completing a credit card application,
finding one’s way from a hotel to a subway station, checking into a hotel. Such approaches
are organized in terms of the purposes for which people are learning language and the
kinds of language that are necessary to meet their purposes (Wilkins 1976: 13).
In addition to task-based syllabuses, we have project-based, content-based,
thematic, and text-based syllabuses. Despite their differences, they all have one thing in
common – they do not rely on prior analysis of the language into its discrete points. Of
course, one needs to exercise judgment when introducing learners to texts and tasks
containing a wide range of language structures. This is particularly true in the early stages
of the learning process.
Task-based approach to syllabus design is much different from traditional
approaches which are concerned with selecting lists of linguistic features such as grammar,
pronunciation, and vocabulary as well as experiential content such as topics and themes.
Such approaches represent the ‘synthetic’ approaches of organizing the syllabus, and
reflect the common-sense belief that the central role of instruction is to simplify the
learning challenge for the student. One way to simplify learning is to break the content
down into its constituent parts, and introduce each part separately and step by step. That is
34
what Wilkins (1976) mentioned about ‘synthetic’ approaches: ‘Different parts of the
language are taught separately and step by step so that acquisition is a process of gradual
accumulation of arts until the whole structure of language has been built up’ (p.2).
2.3.7. Learner roles
By using ‘task’ as a basic unit of learning, and by incorporating a focus on
strategies, students are opened to the possibility of planning and monitoring their own
learning, and begin to break down some of the traditional hierarchies. Richards and
Rodgers (2001) and Scarcella and Oxford (1992) identified possible task roles for learners,
such as group participant, monitor, risk-taker/innovator, strategy-user, goal-setter, selfevaluator, and more. Others (Honeyfield, 1993; Nunan, 1989; Oxford, 1990) have also
discussed learners' task roles. A particularly important learner role in a task situation is that
of task-analyzer. The learner must analyze task requirements and find suitable strategies to
match them.
The learner can take control of the task - that is, be responsible for his or her
performance on the task - by considering the task requirements and employing learning
strategies to accomplish the task more efficiently and more effectively (Cohen 1998;
O'Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford 1990). On the part of the learner, this involves a serious
commitment, motivation, confidence, clarity of purpose, and willingness to take risks
(Dörnyei 2001; Dörnyei & Schmidt, 2001; Honeyfield, 1993; Oxford, 1996; Skehan,
1998b; Willis, 1996a, 1996b, 1998), but these may be dampened by language anxiety
(Arnold, 1998; Oxford, 1998; Young, 1998).
Learning styles are likely to affect choice of strategies for accomplishing tasks (see
Oxford, 2001). Learning styles also make a difference in which tasks are perceived as
difficult by individual learners. For example, face-to-face communication tasks might be
viewed as easier for a person with an extroverted learning style than an introverted learning
style. Learners whose learning style is highly analytic, concrete-sequential, and/or closureoriented might perceive greater ease in accuracy- and form-focused tasks than fluency
tasks.
2.3.8. Teacher roles
Teachers can take many different roles in regard to second language tasks
(Honeyfield, 1993; Nunan, 1989; Oxford, 1990; Scarcella & Oxford, 1992; Willis, 1996a,
35
1996b, 1998). According to Willis, teacher can take the role of an instructor in pre-task
phase, the role of a monitor and encourager in the task stage, the role of a language adviser
in the planning stage, the role of a chairperson in the report stage (p.52). Richards and
Rodgers (2001) and Scarcella and Oxford (1992) mention the following task roles for
teachers: selector/sequencer of tasks, preparer of learners for task, pre-task consciousness
raiser about form, guide, nurturer, strategy-instructor, and provider of assistance. Cultural
and linguistic backgrounds and teaching styles influence the roles teachers feel
comfortable taking (Oxford, 2002; Oxford, Massey, & Anand, 2003; Scarcella & Oxford,
1992). The amount and kind of help provided by the teacher is singled out as a task-related
teacher factor by Honeyfield (1993) and Scarcella and Oxford (1992).
2.4. The Importance of Understanding Teachers’ Interpretation of Teaching
Methodology.
Canh (2004) argues that to understand teaching, we need to go beyond the
classroom to seek answers to the question "Why the interaction between teacher and class
happens that way?" (p.109). He goes further by discussing the appropriateness of teaching
and learning: “....language learning, and therefore language teaching, does not occur in a
vacuum; the larger context is the society within which the language or languages are to be
learned and used” (p.108). The result of teaching certainly depends on a lot of factors, and
the teacher himself/herself cannot be ignored. It is obvious that capitalizing on the nature
of human beings and their prior knowledge for the purposes of enhancing the teaching has
been a continual challenge to educators and researchers those who intend to investigate the
reality of their teaching in order to propose changes which should be made. The teaching
can empower learner-driven experiences and promote cognitive processing if pedagogical
considerations are taken into account. To this point, the majority of class teaching can be
interpreted and the reality is easily made out if the researcher can understand teachers’
interpretation of teaching methodology, so what applications related to the teaching can
originate to the method the teacher chose and how he or she was aware of it because Stern
(1983:27) has asserted "no language teacher - however strenuously he may deny his
interest in theory- can teach a language without a theory of language teaching".
It is not always immediately apparent, everything we do in the classroom is
underpinned by beliefs about the nature of language, the nature of the learning process and
36
the nature of the teaching act. These days it is generally accepted that language is more
than a set of grammatical rules, with attendant sets of vocabulary, to be memorized. It is a
dynamic resource for creating meaning. Learning is no longer seen simply as a process of
habit formation. Learners and the cognitive processes they engage in as they learn are seen
as fundamentally important to the learning process. Additionally, in recent years, learning
as a social process is increasingly emphasized, and sociocultural theories are beginning to
be drawn on in addition to (or even in preference to) cognitive theories (see, for example,
Lantolf 2000). Another distinction that has existed in general philosophy and epistemology
for many years is that between ‘knowing that’ and ‘knowing how’ (see, for example, Ryle
1949), that is, between knowing and being able to regurgitate sets of grammatical rules,
and being able to deploy this grammatical knowledge to communicate effectively. In the
days of audiolingualism ‘knowing that’ was eschewed in favour of ‘knowing how’.
However, now, the pursuit of both forms of knowledge is considered valid goals of
language pedagogy.
As a teacher, having the right conceptualization of teaching methods and
approaches is really important but insufficient to the success of teaching. That is
thoroughly discussed in Canh (2004:92) when he argued:
.........those approaches or methods share the same shortcomings: (1) "They themselves are
decontextualized, dealing with what to teach, how to teach it, and why to teach it that way, but
saying nothing about who teaches it and to whom; when and where it is taught (to use LarsenFreeman’s words, 2000a), and (2) they are intuitively prescriptive and ideological, rather than
being based on empirical data collected from diverse classroom realities. To sum up, all language
teaching methods make the oversimplified assumption that what teachers "do" in the classroom can
be conventionalized into a set of procedures that fits all contexts. We are now all aware that such is
clearly not the case (to use Brown’s words, 1994b).
In short, I take Canh opinion for the importance of understanding teachers’
interpretation of teaching methodology: what is needed is not a method or approach but
more deliberate interpretation of language teaching in terms of educational theory. The
issue is not which method is the best or whether or not a new method is superior to its
predecessor. The issue is how teachers learn to vary their method and approach, and how
they rationalize the method or approach they use. In other words, teachers should be
37
encouraged to move "from ideology to inquiry" (Canh, 2004: 116). And his last
argumentation on this matter can be regarded as the conclusion: “for over thirty years, the
consensus in foreign language teaching community has been shifting towards the
realization that what is used in the classroom is the individual teacher's interpretation of
any given method” (p.108).
2.5. Teachers’ interpretation of TBLT
As we can see from the overview of task-based language teaching, there are a lot of
debatable matters in term of definition, perspectives, features of this approach to learning
and teaching. Although there exists a great number of various interpretation of TBLT and
TBLT, most researchers are unanimous in the following common points: The task-based
approach is to create learners opportunities to experiment with and explore both spoken
and written language through learning activities which are designed to engage learners in
the authentic, practical and functional use of language for meaningful purposes. Learners
are encouraged to activate and use whatever language they already have in the process of
completing a task. The use of tasks will also give a clear and purposeful context for the
teaching and learning of grammar and other language features as well as skills, etc. All in
all, the role of task-based teaching is to stimulate a natural desire in learners to improve
their language competence by challenging them to complete meaningful tasks.
However, the interpretation of teachers, who realize the method and make it alive
and practical, is another matter. There are lots of araising things of interpretations which
cannot be ignored in this discussion. The deviations in teachers’ conceptualizations
between different teachers and between the teacher and the theory of TBLT are natural and
even evitable, that is, what researchers call reinterpretation of a method Carless (2004).
The area of disagreement revolves around the relationship between tasks and
communication. Some teachers and writers do not see this relationship as crucial. They
define a language-learning task as including almost anything that students are asked (or
choose) to do in the classroom, including formal learning activities such as grammar
exercises and controlled practice activities, provided the objective of the activity is related
to learning the language Williams and Burden (1997, p. 168). Ellis (2003b) distinguished
between task-supported teaching (TST), in which tasks are a means for activating learners'
prior second language knowledge by developing fluency, and task-based teaching, in
38
which tasks comprise the foundation of the whole curriculum. Moreover, many other
teachers have a more restricted definition. They exclude activities where the learners are
focusing on formal aspects of the language (such as grammar, pronunciation or
vocabulary) and reserve the term ‘task’ for activities in which the purpose is related to the
communication of meanings (i.e. for what Nunan, 1989, p. 10, calls a “communicative
task”).
In a study published in 1987, David Nunan reported a large gap between the
rhetoric and the reality in relation to CLT. Schools that claimed to be teaching according to
principles of CLT were doing nothing of the sort (Nunan 1987). And the same is true today
to TBLT. When asked to describe what TBLT is and how it is realized in the classroom,
many people are hard pressed to do so. There are two possible interpretations for this. On
the one hand it may partly reflect the fact that, as with CLT, there are numerous
interpretations and orientations to the concept. That multiple perspectives and applications
have developed is not necessarily a bad thing; in fact, it is probably good that the concept
has the power to speak to different people in different ways. On the other hand, it may
simply be a case of ‘old wine in new bottles’: schools embracing the new ‘orthodoxy’ in
their public pronouncements, but adhering to traditional practices in the classroom.
In order to have a sufficient understanding of a teaching method or approach,
teachers need not only be aware of its definition, its underpinned theories but also the
distinction of that method to other methods or approaches which seem to be identical in
many features.
2.6. Teachers’ views of teaching methodology and their classroom teaching
I start the discussion of this point with the statement of Bransford, Brown and
Cockling: Humans are viewed as goal directed agents who actively seek information.
They come to formal education and training with a range of prior knowledge, skills, beliefs
and concepts that significantly influence what they notice about the environment and how
they organize and interpret it. This, in turn, affects their abilities to remember, reason,
solve problems and acquire new knowledge (1999, p.l0). That viewpoint matches well with
what Cuban (1993) mentioned when human agents are teachers; he has argued that "The
knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes that teachers have ... shape what they choose to do in
their classrooms and explain the core of instructional practices that have endured over
39
time" (p. 256). Everybody knows that the main aim of foreign language teaching is to
enable learners to communicate in the target language. Therefore, “to be an effective
foreign language teacher requires a range of skills and knowledge” (Canh, 2004: 126).
Unquestionably, teachers’ view of teaching methodology would very much affect their
classroom teaching, or in the other hand these two factors correlate well with each other.
And accordingly if the researcher wants to investigate the teachers’ viewpoint of teaching
and the methodological appropriateness, the best way is through the observation of their
classroom teaching; whereas, the teaching in classroom can provide the teachers’
viewpoint of a teaching method. Allwright (1988) made the point that: “... We need studies
of what actually happens, not of what recognizable teaching methods, strategies or
techniques are employed by the teacher, but of what really happens between teacher and
class” (p.51).
The teachers in TBU mostly thought that the teaching methodology is extremely
vital to their teaching. They assert to prefer CLT and TBLT as the most used and
favourable teaching approaches whose activities are both motivating and interesting, and
that they generally promote meaningful exchanges and genuine communication in realistic
contexts. The teachers, in addition, believed that implementing CLT and other modern
teaching methods is troubleful because of the large classes and of lacking authenticity on
all counts. Thankfully, they also thought that any deficits in activities and tasks could be
overcome through adaptation or supplementation. Justification for the discrepancy between
these results could be linked once again to the over-whelming and widening influence of
the Communicative Approach and other newer instructional techniques such as task-based
teaching. The aforementioned 'Communicative' backlash against the Grammar-Translation
Approach as well as the increasing popularity of TBLT and consciousness-raising might
have had the detrimental effect of procuring ELT professionals with attitudes that support
an overabundance of authentic communication practice, and this could explain why the
teachers at TBU thought their teaching was not communicative or meaningful enough.
However, the observations of classroom teaching depicted a little different result from their
opinion; learning tasks and activities sometimes did not engage much interaction and
create meaningful communications. The reason might be that some teachers still cannot
drive their teaching from teacher-centered approach to learner-centered approach as their
40
aforementioned desire, so students’ learning is the result of drilling and memorization.
Some other teaching periods showed that teachers could not make use of opportunities to
enhance students learning, which might have done well if things went as what they have
declared. The reason might be that some of them do not understand thoroughly about the
method they think they are applying in their teaching.
2.7. Conclusion
In this chapter the literature on task-based language teaching is reviewed. Various
aspects of TBLT such as the definition, the nature of TBLT and the difference between
TBLT and other language teaching approaches are discussed. In addition, the importance
of understanding teachers’ interpretation of teaching approaches is presented.
As can be seen from this literature review, TBLT has attracted the attention of
second language acquisition and second/foreign language education researchers over the
last two decades, much of the research has been psycholinguistic in nature. What is
commonly documented in the literature is that in TBLT, the ‘task’ is used as the basic unit
of analysis at the levels of goals (syllabus), educational activities (methodology) and
assessment, although assessment is not discussed in this literature review because it is
beyond the scope of the study.
Furthermore, it seems that teachers tend to reinterpret the construct of task-based
teaching according to their own experience and beliefs. Regretably this issue has not been
researched in Vietnam although TBLT has been introduced into schools and universities
for several years. This study is an attempt to look at the question of teachers’
conceptualizations of TBLT as well as the way the use the approach in their classroom.
The next chapter presents the research methodology which is employed in this
present study.
41
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
This chapter is to present research methodology I choose to achieve the aims and
objectives of the study. It gives out thorough explanations of reasons for choosing the
research instruments, and clarifies specific way of getting information through those
instruments.
3.1. The fitness of case study to the research purpose.
A case study is characterized by a bounded, integrated system in which a unit of
analysis or entity (the case) is being studied (Creswell, 1998). However, it is not
necessarily defined by the methods used for investigation, but rather “a choice of what is to
be studied” (Stake, 2000, p. 435). A case study concerns with a detailed exploration of a
single example of, something Gillham (2000). Gillham defines a case study in specific as
follows:
• a unit of human activity embedded in the real world;
• which can only be studied or understood in context;
• which exists here and now;
• that merges in with its context so that precise boundaries are difficult to draw (p.1).
Thus, a case study is used to search for various kinds of evidence in the case setting
to get the best possible answers to the research questions (Gillham, op.cit). Some major
characteristics of its are as follows: (1) it is abstracted and collated; (2) in a case study, the
researcher does not start out with a priori theoretical notions that is derived from the
literature. This means the researcher does not plan in advance ideal or desirable results.
Until he or she gets hold of the data, and gets to understand the context, he or she does not
know what theories or explanations works best or make the most sense.
A case study proceeds from the assumption that people and events cannot be fully
understood if they are removed from the environmental circumstances in which they
naturally occur. In other words, the researcher will not attempt to produce a standardized
set of results that will work across a range of settings, but rather study issues in relation to
circumstances of which they are part. This study addresses human and social issues within
a natural setting. The researcher is further concerned with process rather than specific
outcomes or products.
42
According to Mc Donough & Mc Donough (1997: 204), the study of a case is not
only a qualitative undertaking, nor does it present a medial perspective in between
quantitative and qualitative terms. Where, for example, researchers need to study large
scale trends, cases will often be selected on the basis of random sampling and the statistics
submitted to data analysis and later interpretations. It is this characteristic of the case study
that lays reasons for its use in this study. However, the weight of discussion on case study
is on interpretive approaches, and since teachers have access to certain kinds of data,
resources and timing, naturalistic case study is "in tune with their reality for reasons of
practicality as well as principle" (Mc Donough & Mc Donough ,1997: 204).
Mc Donough & Mc Donough (op.cit.) claims that:
Teachers spend their working lives dealing in different ways with individuals, and they need to
understand those 'cases', not in the first instance to build theories and search for broader patterns, but to
understand their learners' behaviors, learning styles, language development, successes, failures, attitudes,
interest and motivation (p.212).
Another unanimous discussion is that case study should be defined as a research
strategy, an empirical inquiry that investigates a phenomenon within its real-life context.
Case study research means single and multiple case studies, can include quantitative
evidence, relies on multiple sources of evidence and benefits from the prior development
of theoretical propositions. Case studies should not be confused with qualitative research
and they can be based on any mix of quantitative and qualitative evidence. Single-subject
research provides the statistical framework for making inferences from quantitative casestudy data. This is also supported and well-formulated in (Lamnek, 2005): "The case study
is a research approach, situated between concrete data taking techniques and
methodological paradigms."
This study aims to get the university teachers' responses to teaching methodology in
general and to task-based approach in a particular in a specific university to know reality of
their teaching and their conceptualization of teaching methodology and TBLT, which will
enhance my own understanding and to share that understanding with others who may then
carry out parallel work of their own, and perhaps to adjust the teaching methodology in
appropriateness-oriented direction if possible. This purpose of the study stimulates me to
design the study as a case study.
43
3.2. Restatement of Research Questions
1. What are the conceptualizations and attitudes of university teachers towards taskbased language teaching?
2. To what extent do their conceptualizations match the composite view of taskbased language teaching?
3. How do they implement task-based language teaching in their classroom?
The answers of these questions would provide the reality of TBU teachers’
teaching, their conceptualization of teaching methodology and TBLT, and the feasibility of
applying this teaching approach in the available context.
3.3. Case description and context of the study
3.3.1. The setting of the study
Tay Bac University (TBU), located in Son La, is one of the six provinces in the
North-West of Vietnam with the number of about 6,000 students. Its mission is mainly
teacher training; besides, there exist 30 % of the students specialising in different subjects
such as information technology, agronomy, forestry, economics, etc.
Teachers of English at TBU are mainly newly-recruited; the most senior of them is
10 years teaching. Most of them have been doing the MA course in applied linguistics and
English teaching methodology. The number of teacher of English is 15, who have to be in
charge of teaching seven classes of students majoring in English, and other thirty classes of
non-major English students.
With regard to students, there are from 50 students to 130 students in each class,
which seem to be over exceeded in comparison with other universities’. However, it is a
little bit luckier for teachers of English when each class of major English students is
organized with the number of from 40 students to 60 students, which is much fewer than
classes of other professions.
Unlike other universities, students at TBU have less or no exposure to authentic
English. In the era of information technology, lots of universities in Vietnam are teaching
all subjects in English. The location of TBU, quite isolated from developed areas, is not
convenient to regional and international interactions, and accordingly reduces the
opportunity of acquiring foreign languages.
44
As far as the teaching of English is concerned, methodological renovation is one of
the primary focuses of the university and the Department in an attempt to raise the quality
of English language teaching. The major orientation for renovation is the advocacy of
TBLT. However, this orientation is largely verbal rather than being institutionalized by
means of an official policy or curriculum renewal. This may lead to the variation in
understanding about TBLT among the teachers of the Department.
As mentioning to the course books selected for English teaching in TBU, most of
them are non TBLT- based ones. In skills, course books are mainly skill-based and
teachers usually lead their teaching according to what the course books instruct. Except for
the set of course books including three books named “Tactics for listening” and the set of
“Cutting edge” for listening skill, and “Discussions A-Z” for speaking skill, no other
course books selected are TBLT –based. Other names of course books for skills can be
listed as follows: “Let’s talk1, 2, 3”, “New interchange1, 2, 3”, “Speaking extra”,
“Cambridge for fluency speaking” for speaking; “Let’s listen”, “Listen first”, “Listen for
it”, “Extra listening”, “Listening and speaking” for listening; “Concept and Comment”,
“Strategic Reading 1, 2, 3”, “Journeys-Reading 3”, “Practical faster reading”, “Effective
reading” for reading; “Journey 1, 2”, “Written word”, “Academic Writing”, “Writing
Academic English”, “Academic writing Course” for writing. In subjects of linguistic
theory, such as grammar, lexicology, phonetics and phonology, methodology, all course
books are non TBLT designs; moreover, in teaching teachers get used to lecturing to get
the knowledge loads through to their students, which can be called textbook-oriented
teaching.
3.3.2. Participants
I use case study as an investigative technique to probe deeply into the teachers’
viewpoints and actions, thereby helping me to understand the implementation from
their perspectives. I selected the participants for the study based on the following
relevant attributes: young and capable teachers in their late 20s or early 30s, openminded in responding to questions of my interview, confident enough in their teaching to
be observed in the classroom, professionally motivated to take part in the study,
cognisant of the study’s demands and willing to participate on that basis. Table 1 below
will provide a brief contextual background about university teachers involved in the
45
study.
TABLE 1
Teacher
Gender
Cam
Female
Teaching
experiences
8 years
Quyt
Female
8 years
Mit
Female
3 years
Dao
Female
3 months
Nho
Female
5 years
Hong
Female
4 years
Mo
Female
5 years
Man
Female
10 years
Chuoi
Male
5 years
Dua
Female
9 years
Participants’ Profile
Qualifications/ training
She both finished the bachelor course and master
course majoring in English in Hanoi University.
Her master professionalism is in ELT
methodology.
She graduated her bachelor course of English
translation from Hanoi University. Now she is
writing her thesis for the master course of ELT
methodology.
She graduated her bachelor course of English for
education from College of Foreign Languages,
Vietnam National University, Hanoi. Now she is
also writing her thesis for the master course of ELT
methodology.
She is a newly- recruited teacher who has just
graduated her bachelor course of English for
education from College of Foreign Languages,
Vietnam National University, Hanoi for 5 months.
She got her bachelor degree of English for
education from College of Foreign Languages,
Vietnam National University, Hanoi 5 years ago,
and then started her teaching career immediately at
TBU. Now she is also on the way of accomplishing
her thesis for the master course of ELT
methodology.
She finished her bachelor course of English for
education in College of Foreign Languages,
Vietnam National University, Hanoi. Now she is
also writing her thesis for the master course of ELT
methodology.
She got her bachelor degree of English for
education from College of Foreign Languages,
Vietnam National University, Hanoi 6 years ago,
but worked as a translator for a year before taking
the teaching job at TBU. Now she is also writing
her thesis for the master course of ELT
methodology.
She got her irregular bachelor degree of English for
education from College of Foreign Languages,
Vietnam National University, Hanoi in 1998, and
led her teaching at TBU from that time.
He got his bachelor degree of English for education
from College of Foreign Languages, Thai Nguyen
University 7 years ago, but he started his teaching
in a secondary school in his homeland for 2 years
before he was offered a job in TBU in 2003. Now
he is also writing his master thesis majoring in
applied linguistics.
She finished the bachelor course of English for
education in 1999, and taught English for TBU just
after that. Then she did her master course majoring
in ELT methodology in Hanoi University. And she
is now taking the role of a vice-dean of the
department.
Teaching
skills/
subjects in charge
She is in favour of
speaking skill and
translation.
Her subjects in
charge are reading,
writing,
and
translation.
She
usually
teaches speaking
and phonetics.
She is now mainly
in
charge
of
teaching
non
English
major
students and a
little in translation.
She
is
much
favoured
to
speaking skill.
Her
teaching
subjects
are
reading
and
English
culture
and literature.
She is interested in
teaching writing
skill
and
background
of
English-speaking
countries
She
teaches
reading skill.
His subjects in
charge are writing
and grammar.
Her
favorable
subjects
are
speaking,
methodology,
lexicology,
and
ESP for teachers.
46
Teacher
Gender
Chanh
Female
Teaching
experiences
1 year
Chanh
Female
1 year
Xoai
Female
9 years
Continued
Qualifications/ training
She is a newly- recruited teacher who has just
graduated her bachelor course of English for
education from College of Foreign Language,
Vietnam National University, Hanoi for about a
year..
She graduated her bachelor course of English for
education from College of Foreign Language,
Vietnam National University, Hanoi. Now she is
also writing her thesis for the master course of
applied linguistics. And she is now the dean of the
department.
Teaching
skills/
subjects in charge
She
teaches
writing.
Her interest is in
listening
and
grammar.
(Note: Table 1 introduces the teachers who participated in the study. H o w e v e r , a ll names are pseudonyms)
To accomplish the objectives of this study, in the first phase, 12 teachers of TBU
mentioned above were interviewed about different aspects related to TBLT. The
participated were chosen randomly without any previously fixed criteria. They were
explained that their responses to the interview were anonymous. This was to secure the
most honest and accurate responses from the participants.
In the second phase, some of the teachers will be asked for the permission of class
observation, which is for the researcher to get information about the reality of their
teaching. The classes observed are mainly classes of English major students, as in teacher’s
interviews, most of teachers say that they make effort in teaching methodology renovation
in classes of English major students. In other classes, they cannot apply new teaching
methods, but the traditional ones – mainly Grammar Translation. The reason for the choice
of English major students for new teaching methods application, in teachers’ views, is that
these students have had good background of English; they are, therefore, believed to have
more ability to be succeeded. English non-major students, in their view, have very limited
experience and background knowledge of English because their study of English is mainly
for their examinations.
3.4. Instruments
This part is used to introduce the reason why the research tools fit the purpose of
the study. It is also about the advantages and disadvantages of these instruments.
3.4.1. Interviews
Interviewing is an effective research instrument to get real statistics of any aspects
in life as it is more natural than questionnaire or some of the other instruments. With the
same planned questions, the answers of interviewees may be much various, optional,
unpredictable, and different from methods that let the answerers graph on paper sheets. It
47
can provide realistic information for later thought. Therefore, it may be used as the primary
research tool or in an ancillary role as a checking mechanism to triangulate data gathered
from other sources.
According to Mc Donough & Mc Donough (1997: 181), interviewing has three
applications in classroom research, i.e. (1) to focus on a specific aspect of classroom life in
detail; (2) to know teacher-pupil discussions in class which provides the diagnostic
information; (3) to improve the classroom climate. Nunan (1992) adds the following uses
to interviews: (1) needs analysis; (2) program evaluation; (3) individual case studies; (4)
mini-surveys (within institution).
This study fits well with these uses of interviews: - it is to investigate one specific
aspect of classroom life, i.e. teacher' exploitations of learning tasks as well as their
knowledge of teaching methodology and application ability; – to know teacher-pupil
discussions in class, i.e. for the researcher to have the diagnostic information; - and it is
actually a mini-survey within a particular university.
However, interviewing has its own fails: - it is difficult to control interviewees’
answers and the time; – it is a variety in answers, which requires more efforts and dealing
of the researcher in the later phase of the study (interpreting phase); – it is the interviewee
who may talk over time but does not focus on the core points. The researcher, therefore,
must be sensitive, active and tackful in the way of arousing question and eliciting answers.
In spite of all advantages and disadvantages mentioned above, interviewing is
profitable to this case study as the final aim of this study is to find out the teachers'
attitudes towards teaching methodology, and their conceptualization of a specific teaching
method - TBLT. The advantages outweight the disadvantages in such a case.
3.4.2. Observations
Classroom observation was conducted in order to bolster the qualitative and
quantitative results, i.e. to clarify the validity of the interview answers of the teachers
participated. As Hopkins (cited in Mr Donough, J and Mr Donough, S. 1997: l01)
describes, "Observation is a pivotal activity with a crucial role to play in classroom
research".
This study is really suitable to use of classroom observation since it has inevitable
advantages: - it is helpful tool to the researcher to investigate in the previous interview in
48
one specific aspect or the whole load of teaching and learning in class, i.e. teacher'
management, facilitation and monitor of class for learning tasks made use of; – to
investigate their knowledge of teaching methodology through what teachers do in class,
and the involvement of students on tasks; – to know the way of cooperations and
interactions between students and students and between teacher and students through the
task process; - observers know what they need to note, so it requires more efforts and
dealing of the researcher in the analysis phase.
Classroom observation, however, has some disadvantages. The teaching is timecontrolled, so it may not be easy for the observer to take notes all necessary aspects in
classroom life. Another unfavourable effect of this research tool is that it is not very much
but a little observer-biased. The researcher, therefore, must preplan what they are going to
take note so that he or she can be active in the observation.
It is no matter what disadvantages are mentioned, classroom observation fits this
case study because the researcher gets aware of all disadvantages and anticipates all
difficulties, so he plans well for what he is going to focus in his observation. In addition,
the advantages of classroom observation fits well the final aim of this study and outweights
the disadvantages.
3.4.3. Teaching plan interpretation
The interpretation of participants’ teaching plan is use as an additional tool useed
by the researcher in this study to make out the reality of class teaching of university
teachers. It, therefore, cannot be a major instrument but supported one to make the data
interpretation become more triangulate. The reason for this is that teaching plan is the
intentions for the class teaching.
3.5. The procedure:
This part is to introduce the way data were collected through implementing chosen
instruments.
3.5.1. Interviews
Twelve university teachers were chosen randomly for the interview. The interview
was a structured one in which the "agenda is totally predetermined by the researcher, who
works through a list of set questions in a predetermined order (Nunan 1992: 149).
49
According to Nunan (ibid.), "the type of interview one chooses will be determined by the
nature of the research and the degree of control the interviewer wishes to exert" (p. 149).
Only volunteer teachers (n=12) were interviewed in their mother tongue
(Vietnamese) for about 10-30 minutes during the office hours of the researcher from
October 1st to October 20th, 2008. It is not of naturalistic inquiry by nature; therefore,
interviewees were asked 13 questions (see appendix A). Since the purpose of the interview
was to have firsthand information. Moreover, the interviews took place in an informal
atmosphere, so that they felt free to express themselves. The researcher recorded the
conversations during the interviews since the interviewees felt completely comfortable
talking on tape. Thirteen main questions constructed for the teachers are presented in
appendix B. Interview questions focus on TBU teachers of English about their perceptions
and attitude to teaching methods in general and TBLT in specific. All interviews were
recorded and kept secretly by the researcher.
All of the teachers stated that their main objective was to be better in the teaching
of English. However, they failed in discussing about teaching methods they are applying,
in identifying either specific method which they preferred to implement, or their strengths
and weaknesses. Ten of the teachers interviewed stated that they did not have a specific
awareness of TBLT. Furthermore, they claimed that they have used this task-based
teaching regularly. One even expressed some indignation that he should not be responsible
for the awareness of methodology: “How dare I evaluate my teaching methodology. I am
not the teacher of methodology, but the one of grammar. What are about the teachers of
that subject?” Nevertheless, all of them stated that they had a self-perception of some new
teaching methods in all aspects. Only one of the students claimed that she never heard any
about this method, and she does not know anything about the nature of this method.
3.5.2. Class observation
The observation was conducted in several English periods with different classes of
major English students in Tay Bac University. Among the classes I observed, there was
one class of second year students, two classes of third year students, and one class of forth
year students. I acted as a non-participant observer and made notes of the classroom
procedures. These notes were then transcribed and analysed to assess teachers’ teaching in
50
the classroom in terms of task involvement of students and the way tasks are exploited by
teachers.
The researcher constructed an observation form as follows:
Teacher's name:
Date:
Lesson:
No. of students:
Furniture arrangement:
The surroundings:
Time
Teacher’s activities
Student’s activities
Comment
Observations indicated that most of the learning tasks listed in the observation form
were not mainly created for pair and group works but to some extent for individuals. The
pre-task stage is most done by teacher, but the post-task stage is usually neglected. Also,
there was an atmosphere of security and friendship in each lesson, exhibited by the fact
that students seemed to be enjoying the activities and willing to participate. The lessons
seemed to be well-organized and demonstrated a variety of activities.
3.5.3. Teaching plan interpretation
In order to have a deeper understanding of the class teaching reality, the researcher
asked for the teaching plans from participants; seven participants offered their teaching
plans with enthusiasm. These notes were then carefully commented and analysed to assess
teachers’ teaching intentions before classroom in terms of subject/skill, and then teaching
methods.
3.6. Data analysis
Data analysis was accomplished by using a personal computer and many hours of
meticulous reading and rereading of all written material. Interview tapes were transcribed
and systemically coded within appropriate ways. In addition, other available documents
were scrutinized and systematically filed for use. These procedures allowed for
identification and analysis of all data related to the elements of university teachers’
teaching in class and their understanding of TBLT.
51
3.7. Conclusion
In this chapter, the research methods used in the present study as well as the
rationale of using the chosen research method are discussed. Instruments used for data
collection are interviews and classroom observations. This study is therefore a single
qualitative case study by nature. In the following chapter, the data analysis and major
findings are presented.
52
CHAPTER 4. DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the findings and to give out
recommendations concerning the results of this study. The chapter begins with a summary
of findings in tables, and then a discussion of central issues emerging from the findings
oriented after following research questions:
1) What are the conceptualizations and attitudes of university teachers towards
task-based language teaching?
2) To what extent do their conceptualizations match the composite view of taskbased language teaching?
3) How do they implement task-based language teaching in their classroom?
4.1. General overview of the findings
Owing to the research instruments (interview, class observation and the
teaching plan interpretation), the writer now presents the findings in terms of six
themes which emerged from the data: university teachers’ conceptualizations of
tasks, university teachers’ conceptualizations of task-based teaching, their attitudes
to TBLT, factors affecting the TBLT implementation, the university teachers’
conceptualizations of teaching methodology, and their class teaching intention and
implementation.
4.1.1. Teachers’ conceptualizations of task
Understandings are defined as “the ability to articulate the principles of taskbased teaching and an awareness of the implications for classroom practice” (Carless,
2003). Karavas-Dou- kas (1995) shows that teachers in her study of the implementation
of a communicative approach in Greek secondary schools exhibited incomplete
understanding of the innovation which they were adopting. In the Korean context,
Li (1998) also reported that misconceptions about the nature of communicative
approaches to language teaching were a barrier to their implementation. Clark et al.
(1999) found similar evidence that Hong Kong teachers had unclear conceptions
about task-based teaching and learning, and this hindered its implementation.
Understandings were revealed principally in the interview data. In RQ2, they
were asked, ‘What is your understanding of the term task?’. The overview of
answers for this question is in table 2 below.
53
TABLE 2
Participants’ conceptualizations of task
(Data from IQ2, IQ9)
Teacher
Cam
Quyt
Mit
Dao
Nho
Hong
Mo
Man
Chuoi
Dua
Chanh
Xoai
Different understandings of task
Definitions of task and example of task
Task is learning ‘task’ designed to help the learners to learn. E.g. in
speaking, she gives out topic, then exchange information in teacherstudent interaction, then students discuss in pairs/groups, then teacher
calls representatives to make presentations, at last teacher concludes the
discussion matter.
Task is a specific requirement of each unit or skill in which students have
to deal with. E.g. in reading skill, in pre-task stage, she introduces topic
trial marriage, and then she asks her sts to discuss to find out their own
opinion of trial marriage. She lets them read a text about the trial marriage
in some countries, after that she asks them to do the follow exercises in
the books. In post-task, she requires her students to write about their own
opinion.
Task is learning ‘task’ scattered to students. E.g. Non major English
students: she divided the long reading passage into three passages, and
divided the class into three groups. Each group read a passage. Then she
asked them to exchange to one another, or asked them to work in groups
of three to answer the same questions.
No answer. (She declared that she didn’t study about TBLT and she was
favoured with other teaching methods, so she couldn’t give out the
definition).
Example of a task: she usually presents the general knowledge then asks
students to apply in specific exercises.
Tasks are ‘learning tasks’ (nhiem vu hoc tap) which has goal and outcome
in order for learners to develop knowledge and skills. E.g. in listening
skill: she asked her students to listen to a news on BBC, then asked them
to design that piece of listening into a kind of listening exercise, in which
students had to transcribe the sound into tape script and design questions.
Tasks are ‘learning tasks’ given to students to help teacher get the goal of
teaching. E.g. in reading skill: in pre-task, she asks students to brainstorm
about the topic and then follow the design of the reading text.
Tasks are ‘learning tasks’ (nhiem vu hoc tap). E.g. in writing skill: she
gives out the topic, then asks students to work in groups to discuss about
the topic to exploit the related ideas. Students are then required to make
an outline for the writing.
No answer. (She declared that she didn’t study about TBLT; therefore,
she couldn’t give out the definition). No example.
Tasks are ‘learning tasks’ (nhiem vu hoc tap) given to students to prepare
at home and then present it in class. E.g. in grammar: he asks students to
answers his questions at home and he asks them to present in class the
following period.
Tasks are ‘learning tasks’ (nhiem vu hoc tap) which has goal and outcome
in order for learners to develop knowledge and skills. E.g. in speaking
skill: she asks students to work in groups at home to do some mini
project, shows them the exact web address and asks them to search for
information to do the project. She asks groups to perform in class the next
period.
Tasks are learning activities that teacher designs to help students to do so
that they can get some specific knowledge and skill. E.g. in writing skill:
she teaches about essay writing. She lets students to discuss about the
topic first and then lead her teaching according to the framework in the
course book.
Tasks are communicative learning activities in which students use the
language to complete; tasks are in specific context. E.g. a shopping task,
in which students are asked to use the language to drive the bargain in
order to buy it in the most suitable price.
Types of tasks
Not sure about it
Brainstorming,
classification,
chain,
matching,
comparison,
difference
listening, listing,
ordering, problemsolving, comparing
No answer
Not mentioned
Creative task
Closed
tasks,
opened tasks
No answer
Not mentioned
Teaching
tasks
training
Not clear
Not classified
54
As can be seen from the table above, most of teacher share the same uncertainties
concept of tasks. Their view of a task for TBLT is common in that “tasks are learning
activities” which is something like “a task is a task” because they did not make any
distinctions for the uniqueness of the concept so that tasks can be different from other
terms, such as activity or exercise. The definition of tasks like that is simply the translation
the term from English into Vietnamese when they were interviewed in Vietnamese. They
did not clarify existential features of a task, such as the goal, the input, the context, the
process, and the outcome. Only some of them regard some features of a task in TBLT
theory, i.e., in the description of Nho’s Mo’s, and Hong’s, the mentions relate to the goal
and outcome. My analysis is that this is a rather vague definitions with the
reference to objectives, not distinguishing tasks from exercises or worksheets which
would also contain objectives. I suppose that as ignorant-methoded teachers, they are
still coming to terms with the meaning of the notion of task and with what they were
perceived by tasks designed of the course books they have taught.
However, the examples of tasks have more matches than their definitions with the
theory of tasks in TBLT orientation. From the extracts in table 1 above, almost all
participants’ examples refer to the introductions of topics in the first phase, and then the
way of interacting between students to complete tasks in second phase. Some examples
have goals and objective concerns.
4.1.2. Teachers’ conceptualizations of task-based teaching
Conceptualizations of TBLT were in the interview data as in table 3 below.
All data needed to interpret the conceptualizations of participants that were
mentioned by them are presented.
TABLE 3
Participants’ conceptualizations of task-based teaching
(Data from IQ2, IQ3, IQ 5, IQ6, IQ10, IQ11, IQ12)
Teacher
Cam
Quyt
Mit
Dao
Nho
Hong
Mo
Man
Chuoi
Constituents of TBLT conceptualization
Understand
the Tasks
vs. ACAT
ACDT
concept ‘TBLT’
exer./ act.
+
=
+
+
=
+
+
=
=
=
+
+
=
=
+
=
=
+
+
=
=
ACTBLTF
ADTBLTOM
=
=
=
=
=
-
=
+
=
=
=
-
55
Teacher
Dua
Chanh
Xoai
Continued
Constituents of TBLT conceptualization
Understand
the Tasks
vs. ACAT
ACDT
ACTBLTF
concept ‘TBLT’
exer./ act.
=
+
+
=
=
=
+
=
=
=
+
=
+
=
(Note: conceptual: (+), neutral (=), non-conceptual (-))
ADTBLTOM
+
=
+
The table shows that, five participants did not have any concepts matching
the theory of TBLT. Besides that seven of them had reluctant ideas about
concepts of TBLT. No one defined TBLT well. As for participants who could not
have right concepts of TBLT, their definitions were somewhat identical to the
way they defined tasks. An example from the conceptualization of Chuoi is that:
In my teaching, it is due to the subjects, I can teach in class or I can give students learning tasks
to work at home. Then I will ask them to present in class the next periods. I think this way is very
effective, and it is suitable to theoretical subjects.
My interpretation is that because he does not pay attention to teaching methodology
he may not understand the question clearly and he consider using tasks in teaching as
homework or at home projects.
Man, in her discussion, could even not give out any concepts of tasks or TBLT; she
said that she did not study about this method so she could not have any understandings of
it. This is the only zero interview data output case about conceptualization of tasks. The
reason is that she is the least inferior teacher in qualifications of the faculty.
As mentioned to seven participants who had unclear answers, they seemed to have
the same connotations of answers about this matter. Mit’s understanding is one example:
In my opinion, TBLT is an approach based on tasks. Teachers give out tasks which consist of
linguistic elements teachers want to teach.
Such understanding is accepted but not enough, because she did not mention any
thing a bout the real-life context for task processing and did not propose the goal as well as
outcome.
In the second criterion, the ability to distinguish tasks and exercise or activities, the
convergence in the unconceptualization of this raising matter was found. Only Xoai can
did this distinction when she stated:
56
In fact, when mentioning exercise, they are known as the function of drilling a specific grammatical
pattern or a linguistic item; whereas, tasks have clear communicative purposefulness, and the context for
task process.
In the other category, the ability to distinguish TBLT with other teaching methods,
most of them gave out mid-ranged answers. The statement of Quyt is an example:
Teaching takes TBLT approach helps learners expand linguistic ability of learners better than CLT.
If in TBLT, teachers can give out clear specific and positive instructions to learners, the benefit can be
emerged. CLT focuses much on the process than TBLT
The conceptualization above is common to most participants when they were asked to
distinguish TBLT with other methods; another common stereotype is that they most made
comparison with CLT. The explanation for that nature is CLT and TBLT are new and
much-cared teaching methods, they might have read somewhere else about these
methods; however, the conceptualization of each teacher might expand in various
directions as stated by Ho & Wong (2004: xxxiv) about how CLT has been
implemented in different ways in East Asia, ‘with the term almost meaning
different things to different English teachers’. The same may be true to teachers in
TBU with TBLT.
On the contrary with the majority’s fall of distinctions between TBLT and other
methods, there were three well-done answers. Xoai’s perspective is illustrated by following
quotation:
Tasks are goal-directed, and have clear outcome; otherwise, other approaches take another way to
fill learner’s gaps of knowledge and skills. In TBLT, learners are directed to the goal, and they have their
own approach to gain it according to their prior knowledge; however, they are not alone but facilitated
by teachers.
In the category “ability to conceptualize the advantages and disadvantages of
TBLT”, the majority had the right conceptualization. However, the right conceptualization
scale of advantages is higher than that of disadvantages. My analysis is that the advantages
and disadvantages of any things are easier to state when people think about them;
moreover, the two questions of the interview seeking for these ideas were made in the
middle of the discussion when they all knew more about the matter after a long duration of
discussion.
57
At last consideration on the issue, the conceptualization of the TBLT framework,
most did not have the right understanding. Most of them supposed that the framework and
sequence of tasks share the similarities with skill-based teaching procedures which are
meant by pre, while, and post, but they could not describe the things teacher and students
should do in each stage. This may lead from the fact of lacking materials of this approach
in order for them to sharpen their understanding to get the sufficiency.
4.1.3. Teachers’ attitudes toward task-based teaching
In addition to their understandings, the interview data also gauged the teachers’
attitudes toward task-based teaching. Attitudes are defined as ‘‘the interplay of
feelings, beliefs and thoughts about actions’’ (Rusch and Perry, 1999, p. 291). In
the Greek study referred to above (Karavas- Doukas, 1995), teachers’ attitudes and
beliefs about the learning process were, to a large extent, incompatible with the
principles
of
the
innovation.
Not surprisingly, this reduced the extent
of
implementation of communicative teaching in the classroom. Table 4 below shows
the respondences about teachers’ attitudes toward TBLT with detailed criteria.
TABLE 4
Participants’ attitudes towards TBLT
(Data from IQ2, IQ3, IQ4, IQ 5, IQ6, IQ8, IQ12)
Teacher
Attitudes towards TBLT
Practicality
Supported
Interest of other
in TBU
context
teachers
+
+
=
+
=
+
=
=
=
=
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
=
=
=
=
=
+
=
+
+
+
=
+
+
(Note: positive: (+), neutral (=), negative (-))
Effectiveness
Cam
Quyt
Mit
Dao
Nho
Hong
Mo
Man
Chuoi
Dua
Chanh
Xoai
+
+
+
=
+
+
+
=
=
+
+
=
The data about attitude showed that of the two teachers, Nho and Hong was the
most positively oriented (very positive) toward task-based approaches. Cam, Mo, Dua,
and Chanh were at the second rank in their positive attitudes. Dao, Man, and Chuoi were
the least positively oriented. Dao and Man declared that they did not study about the
method so could not have any understandings to state out; Chuoi, on the other hand, is
uncared much about teaching methodology as he claimed so the result is understandable.
58
In general, we can state that overall teachers expressed tentatively positive views
towards task-based teaching and that they were beginning to develop more positive
sentiments in thinking of applying. In their opinion, TBLT is very effective, quite
practical in TBU, suitable to the culture and context of the university, and attracted
by teachers.
4.1.4. Factors affecting the TBLT implementation
Through interview questions, participants mentioned eight factors affecting the
implementation of TBLT. I list all of them in table 5 despite that they were mentioned with
a high or a low frequency.
TABLE 5
Factors impacting on extent of TBLT implementation
(Data from IQ2, IQ3, IQ 5, IQ6, IQ7, IQ8, IQ10, IQ11, IQ12, IQ13)
Teacher
Cam
Quyt
Mit
Dao
Nho
Hong
Mo
Man
Chuoi
Dua
Chanh
Xoai
Att.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
Factors impacting on extent of implementation
Und.
Tim. Tb.
Pre.
SLP
NS
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
(Note: mentioned: (+), not mentioned: (-))
Fac.
+
+
-
The reality come from the table is that factors relating to teachers
(understandings, attitudes, preparations) were discussed the most, in which the
understandings about the method of teachers took the first rank. This interpretation proved
that conceptualization is an important factor, facilitating the implementation of taskbased teaching in classroom. Dao, the one who declared to have no understandings of
TBLT, stated that:
The application of TBLT, in my opinion, is affected very much by the understandings of the
method. I think there are not many of our teachers having enough understandings of this method.
Coinciding with the factor of teachers’ understandings are teachers’ attitudes,
teachers’ preparations. Most teachers said that using TBLT took much time to prepare
before the teaching. And also in class, teachers should have taskful control of the time so
that the process can be beated well with the aim of teaching.
59
Besides factors referring to teachers, other non-teacher factors discussed are the
time in class, the textbook, the facilities, the learners’ proficiency, and the number of
students in a class.
Only Xoai mentioned about the textbooks, she said:
…. Another difficulty is the text books. Because this approach is quite new, not all the text books
are designed in TBLT direction….
Her mention also responds well to what she discussed about TBLT in
aforementioned questions. It proved that she has a good conceptualization of TBLT today,
which helps her recognize there are a few types of textbooks designed well in TBLT
direction available.
About the proficiency of students, no one can deny the affect of this factor;
if learners have a little bit high proficiency, the task cycle will progress with right beat and
much more benefit will be created through task doing. Li (1998) points out that
Korean teachers in her survey perceived that the low language proficiency of their
students was a barrier to the implementation of the communicative approach.
Similarly, Greek teachers perceived that young, inexperienced, beginning students
are not capable of responding to the demands of a communicative
approach
(Karavas-Doukas, 1995). Mit and Nho, in their discussions about main factors
facilitating or inhibiting the implementation of task-based approaches, stated a common
view related to learners.
The factors of learners such as the proficiency or the number of students in a class (number of
students in TBU is normally crowded) affects very much to the implementation. (Mit)
….. in my view the applicability depends on the students’ proficiency; we can apply this method if
students are at elementary level. (Nho)
My viewpoint to this factor can be cited from Carless (2003). He stated that:
…… more able pupils have a greater capacity for doing tasks for the following
reasons. Firstly, higher ability pupils may be able to carry out a wider range of tasks on
different topics. Secondly, they may need less time on pre-task presentation and drilling of
language items and may be able to complete assigned tasks more quickly, thereby creating
more time for additional tasks. In other words, they may have the capacity to complete the
60
syllabus more quickly thereby facilitating the time available for task-based teaching.
4.1.5. The reality of teachers’ class teaching
The introductory comments of teachers’ class teaching which somehow let out
the conceptualizations of teaching methodology are presented in table 6 below. The
data in the table are most covered and briefest ones from the class observations. The
inquiries emerged take vital roles in supporting the discussions on teachers’
conceptualizations of TBLT.
TABLE 6
Teacher
Subject
Teacher’s
instruction
type
ESA
Cam
speaking
Quyt
reading
Skillbased
Mit
lexicolo
gy
TBLT
ESA
Dao
translati
on
PPP
Nho
speaking
TBLT
Hong
reading
Testbased
Mo
writing
Between
PPP and
TBLT
&
Participants’ class teaching practice
(Data from class observations)
Class teaching practice
Brief remark of lesson procedure
In the first phase, the teacher tried to arouse the students' interest and
engaged their emotion to the topic “difficulty”. In the second, The
learning tasks were mainly followed the course book. Those activities
focused on language (or information) and how it was constructed. In the
last phase, Activate, students were required to do a project which was
designed to get students to use the language as communicatively as they
could. Students did not focus on language construction or practise
particular language patterns, but used their full language knowledge in
the selected situation or task.
Teacher followed closely the activities designed by the course book.
Students had to read the text about “food” to answer questions available
in skimming and scanning strategies. The reading includes three stages:
pre, while, and post; however, it is not TBLT at all.
The lesson had a lot of different learning activities with different
terminologies and nature of lexicology. Therefore, the teaching combined
TBLT and ESA. Some of the learning activities followed TBLT: Teacher
did the pre-task to make students to get familiar with the topic and
understand the task goal, then she asked them to do the task in group and
went on the planning and report stage; however, a little has been done in
post-task phase. Some activities followed ESA.
She led her teaching in traditional way: learning tasks are rather goaldirected, but the way of interaction between students is neglected; the
interaction between teacher and students is not good; the atmosphere is
stressful almost of the time; a lot of content of the lesson is above
students’ head; students are never engaged in the discussions, so there is
no chance for them to exchange ideas.
Teacher taught a lesson about “environment” in TBLT. At first she help
her students to brainstorm ideas about the topic and gave necessary
facility to initiate tasks. In task cycle, she asked each groups discuss
about one subtopic, and then reported to the whole class. In general, she
mainly pays her focus on students speaking; however, she does not take
use of good chance to deal with the post task stage.
Teacher completely followed reading task in IELTS test. Teacher mainly
paid her focus on students’ reading to have the answers for the designed
questions in the book, and paid no attention to communication purposes.
She did not take use of good chance to deal with the post task stage.
Teacher led her teaching in some way like between TBLT and
Audiolingual Method underpinned by behavourist psychology: the model
of an essay was given first, and then students did some activities
individuals to sharpen their skill of writing an essay; and then she
61
Teacher
Subject
Teacher’s
instruction
type
Between
PPP and
TBLT
Mo
writing
Man
reading
Skillbased
Chuoi
grammar
PPP
Dua
speaking
TBLT
Chanh
writing
Between
ESA and
PPP
Xoai
TBLT
Continued
Class teaching practice
Brief remark of lesson procedure
explained the way the way to write it. Lastly, she asked students to write
their own essay. The learning tasks were rather goal-directed, but the way
of interaction between students was neglected; the interaction between
teacher and students was not good; the atmosphere was stressful almost
of the time; some content of the lesson was above students’ head;
students were not engaged in the discussions very much, so there was no
chance for them to exchange ideas.
Teacher completely followed the course book. She mainly paid her focus
on students’ reading to have the answers for the designed questions in the
book, and paid no attention to communication purposes of learning tasks
and the interactions between students. She did not make use of good
chance to deal with the post task stage.
He taught grammar in traditional way. Tasks were used but not in TBLT
model; it was TST model instead. First, the lesson did not focus on a
topic or a theme; many of unchained grammatical chunks were taught in
a period. He did not take use of good chance for communication; he
focused completely on structure and accuracy.
Teacher led her teaching rather successfully in TBLT approach: the same
topic was kept through the lesson, and the learning went through three
phases despite that she did too many task cycle with a high speed. At
first, she set up the topic (Health and Beauty), the task and gave input (a
little grammar and pronunciation). Then she asked students did a lot of
different task cycle related to the topic. At last, she wrapped up and dealt
well with the post task. In general, her teaching has some following
remarkabilities: the communicative atmosphere in class was good
(students were active and concerned very much to the lesson; they are
free to express themselves); teacher and students made a good rapport;
teacher paid her attention to the way students interact with one another
(she prefered to organize pairwork and groupwork); teacher mainly
focused on meaning and then fluency; some communicative objectives
are achieved.
The teaching could not be regarded to any specific instruction model; it
was somewhat between ESA and PPP. Teacher engaged students to the
learning theme “Comparison and Contrast essay” by asking them to look
through some models and answer questions at the first phase. Then she
taught them knowledge of the theme, and also presented the exact way to
write such an essay. At last, students were asked to write an essay, using
things they had been taught. In teaching, teacher did not pay much
attention to the way that students cooperated to complete the learning
tasks: in individuals, in pairs, or in groups. She designed learning task
which are not much communicative and contextualized.
Teacher leads her teaching rather successfully in CLT approach and taskbased: the same theme was alerted in the whole lesson; the learning went
through three phases; and there were more than one task cycle. At first,
she set up the topic (Personality), the task with clear goal and outcome,
and she worked well as a facilitator when providing them supported
linguistic chunks on time (some words and a little grammar). Then she
asked students did some task cycle related to the topic. At last, she
wrapped up and dealt well with the post task. In short, good points which
she has made are: the learning activities are topic-based, content-based,
and task-based, tasks are from pre-communicative language practice to
communicative language practice and to authentic communication. The
communicative atmosphere in class is good: students are active and
concerned very much to the lesson; they are free to express themselves.
Teacher mainly focuses on meaning and fluency firstly and then
accuracy. Communicative objectives are achieved. Teacher gives
feedbacks for corrections, but a proper complement. The task progress
beats well with students’ capacity.
62
The table revealed that the classroom teaching practice is in the overlapping
scene: the notions and procedures of traditional teachings are alternative with modern
ones. This result, though it does not respond in harmony with the current changes of
ELT in the world, makes a relative mark in the change of ELT of teachers in TBU in
the direction of accessing and using new teaching methods to exploit potentials of
learning and teaching under the urgency of today education.
The picture depicted the classroom teaching methodology drawn from table 6 is
animated; the instruction types are from PPP to ESA to skill-based to test-based and to
TBLT. The first consideration is scattered for PPP which is a traditional ELT method,
which is still preferred by Dao (a novice teacher) and Chuoi (teacher of grammar who
is an ignorant teacher of ELT methodology. He stated: ‘I do not understand much
about this method and its framework because I think it is the job of teacher in charge
of teaching methodology’), and by some others as the alternative method to other
methods. The ESA and TBLT model is mainly used in isolation or in combination by
teachers who are in charge of speaking or listening (three of them used TBLT in
isolation, and two used it in combination with other methods). To listening skill,
teachers responsible of this skill used skill-based teaching. It means they followed
closely the design in the coursebook; this took them no effort to design learning tasks
and got avoidance of time consumption. This is mentioned by Carless (2003) in his
research that: “I believe task-based teaching requires more thought, imagination and
planning than simply following the set text”
4.1.6. Teachers’ class teaching implementation.
Teaching plans retrieved from some participants are the additional data added
in our discussion in order for us to have a triangulate perspective of the fact. I could
not have all participants’ teaching plans for the reason that some of them did not get
used to making handwriting of their teaching in advance so they could not offer me
despite their kind-hearted wants. I had seven teaching plans in all. However, they are
able to be fruitful enough to my study.
TABLE 7
Participants’ orientation of teaching instruction
(Data from teaching plan)
63
Teacher
Subject
Teacher’s
instruction
type
Between
Skillbased and
PPP
Quyt
reading
Mit
speaking
TBLT
ESA
Hong
reading
ESA
Mo
writing
PPP
Man
reading
Skillbased
Chuoi
writing
PPP
Dua
speaking
TBLT
&
Class teaching practice
Brief remark of lesson procedure
Teacher still keeps close trace to the activities designed by the course
book. There are some familiar reading activities such as selecting the best
definition of the italicized word, writing a synonym, description, or
definition of the italicized word, matching exercise, word formation. In
each task, teacher sets up the task, gives out her explanations, and then
students will do the tasks. The learning tasks are in fact noncontextualized and non-communicative.
I evaluate that the teaching plan combines TBLT and ESA. Some of the
learning activities followed TBLT: Teacher intents to introduce the topic
“judging by appearance” the pre-task to make students to get familiar
with the topic and understand the task goal, then she asked them to do
some task cycle in pairs or groups and the required them to report; the
post-task phase, however, is not planned to deal properly with. Some
activities follow ESA: teacher engages students to the topic, and then
teach them about the language, and last let them use.
Her kind of teaching plan can be judged as ESA. At first phase, she
intents to introduce topic ‘Population’ and do some asking-answering
tasks with students, which helps to engage her students’ interest and
brainstorm the related ideas. In the second phase, she plans to ask to read
the passage to do some activities: 1) gap information activity to train
skimming skill “Read for the main ideas” (students will be asked to work
in groups of 3. Each of them read one paragraph, and then discuss to
exchange the general idea of the whole passage); 2) “Read for details” to
train intensive reading skill. They will be asked to read paragraph 2 and
then answer some questions; 3) Read for reference and vocabulary
expanding. Students will work in groups to find out the answers for
questions in the course book. In the last phase, she asks each group do
the summary then present in turn. Lastly, she asks them to write an essay
to express your ideas about the question: “What should we do to reduce
pollution?”
Her kind of teaching plan can be judged as PPP. At first phase, she
intents to introduce the topic and then teaches about way of constructing
and writing an opinion essay. In the second phase, she asks students to do
some activities individuals to sharpen their skill of dealing with different
parts of the essay. Lastly, in the third phase, she asked students to write
their own essay.
Teacher intents to follow the course book which designs lessons to
sharpen students’ ability of different reading skills. There are no contexts
for message getting through. Her attention is the students’ ability to
complete the load of lesson and answer the designed questions in the
book; the interactions between students are not stated.
His teaching procedure is as follows: First, he hands out three models of
informal letters; he asks them to read those letters and answer five
questions followed for comprehension. In second phase, he will give out
eleven questions in total and ask students to answer. Then he will help
them to answer those questions; the answers of such questions are key
points for what he wants to teach. In the last phase, he asks his students
to write a similar letter at home. This plan of teaching seems to match the
ESA model.
Her teaching plan shows her interest in TBLT. Almost all learning
activities are task-based: teacher gives out models in reading passages
about a problem, then she pre-teaches some key linguistic items (a few
words and little grammar) for input. In the next stage, she intents to let
students work in groups of four. Each one raises his/her problem and the
others give solution. After that they have to report to the whole class in
the last stage.
64
After investigation the teaching plans of volunteer participants, some important
issues can be extracted out as follows: 1) the instruction types are not changed much in
comparison with the result reported from the observations; 2) TBLT is mainly
preferred in speaking teaching; 3) the participants who were reported to be TBLT
preference in observations keep their intention in their mind for next teachings
revealed in their teaching plans; 4) skill-based teaching is one again found in the
lesson plans of reading skill; 5) writing skill is the only one treated by PPP in isolation
and by same teachers as in observations.
4.2. Discussions of the findings
In this part, I will discuss three main issues based on data that I have just made the
short introductory presentation in last part. All the phenomena, the divergence or
convergence in conceptualizations of participants will be highly investigated for acceptable
interpretations.
4.2.1. Congruence and incongruence between teachers’ conceptualizations of
task-based teaching and the composite view of TBLT
This part is to discuss about the real conceptualizations of university teachers of the
method appeared from the interview and the incongruence between teachers’
conceptualizations and the most advocated theories of TBLT.
A main first impression of data presented was the clear distinction made between
the attitudes and the conceptualizations teachers participated in my study: though the
concept of ‘task’ and TBLT is unclear, so too is the distinction between tasks and
exercises which teachers are asked to operationalize, the attitudes toward TBLT persist
a high scale. This is not an abnormal the teaching profession. Carless (2004) reports, from
his own study and also citing other sources, that teachers in Hong Kong have difficulty in
interpreting tasks and that their conceptualizations do not usually coincide with that
proposed by the theory and curriculum documents
It was found from the reality that the conceptualizations of teachers about tasks and
TBLT are in an unwanted direction that the authority of the university and the leaders of
the faculty are trying to shift the conceptualizations and applications of teachers from
traditional teaching methods with teacher-dominance into modern and plausible teaching
methods with learner-centered maxim.
65
The most persuasive definition of TBLT which was stated by Chanh can only have
some congruence with the definitions under notions of methodologists in this field. She
expressed her definition of TBLT that
In my opinion, TBLT means teachers give out learning material before starting the teaching and let
them have time to think about. This teaching method mainly bases on some activities or tasks scattered
to students on the purpose that after students complete those tasks students reach a new level of a
knowledge field or skill.
The statement above fits the maxim of TBLT that is the learning and teaching
basing on tasks. That means task is a core active factor which affects the around factors
such as the teachers or the learners. However, the teaching using tasks as mentioned by
Chanh is something like TST (task-supported teaching) stated by Ellis (2003b) because she
did not mention purposeful contexts where students can learn and use English for
meaningful communication and the priority of task completion (Skehan, 1996a).
All data emerged from the interview and class teaching observation can be
extracted out with some misconceptions of teachers about tasks and TBLT as below.
1) Tasks are anything that the students are tasked with in the classroom.
2) Any activity that involves speaking is a task
3) Any activity that involves pair work is a task
4) Any assignment at home or with the word create in it is a task.
5) Learners need to have mastered all the vocabulary and grammatical structures that
are required for completion of a task before they can do this task in class.
6) Mastery of new vocabulary and patterns or demonstrated comprehension of a text
can serve as the observable product of a task.
7) Tasks are always global activities; they can serve to improve target language
fluency, but not accuracy in the use of specific language features.
8) Tasks are not related to the lessons in the course. “It is impossible to create tasks
that focus on the current material.”
9) Tasks can only be used for teaching speaking. Reading and listening cannot be
taught through tasks.
These incongruence and misconceptions may be the challenges that English teacher
at TBU face in attempting to implement TBLT in their classroom practice.
66
4.2.2. Congruence between teachers’ practice of task-based teaching and
teachers’ teaching plan with the composite view of TBLT
In this part, my intention is to use data from classroom teaching and teaching plan
analyses to compare them with the composite view of TBLT, proposed by well-known
and most cited writers.
With regard to the teaching practice, that the brief description of teachers’ teaching
has been made in table 6 shows a lot of congruence between their teaching and the
composite view of TBLT framework proposed by Willis (1996a), the most widely
accepted teaching model of TBLT. There were five teaching practices following TBLT, in
which three of them accepted it as the unique teaching model, two others combined TBLT
with other models. We should only discuss the teaching practices with TBLT to answers
the question ‘To what extent is the teaching practice in classroom congruent with the
theory?’
Dua, Xoai and Nho made the majority of congruence between the practice and the
theory. They focused on the same theme through the lesson, and they managed the class to
go through three phases. Most of the teachings consisted of more than a task cycle. They
usually start their lesson by setting up the topic in the first phase. Then they asked
students to carry out some task cycle. At last, they asked their students to report or make
presentation. However, a little has been done in the post task phase. They did not exploit
the last phase for language focus with analysis and practice. In three teachers, only Dua
usually pre-teaches key words and provide aids on linguistic items in the first phase. She
always starts her lesson with a reading passage for input equipment; other teachers usually
start lessons with asking and answering about the ideas related to the topic. It can, thereby
without doubt, be concluded that Dua is the teacher most understandable of this method.
Then Nho and Xoai rank the second in the consistence between their knowledge and the
method’s theory.
Other teachers, on the contrary, made a lot of incongruence between the teachings
and the theory of this method. Four of them practised their teaching with PPP models; the
others took ESA and skill-based.
In short, there is a big gap between the teaching practice of university teacher in
such a case and the theory of the newly-attracted teaching method which they have been
67
intended to approach to enhance the learning and teaching of English in TBU.
On mentioning the teaching plans, the fewer portions found were in the gap
between their intended teaching practice and the theory. According to table 7, there is
only one participant oriented their teaching matching the theory of TBLT (Dua), and
another one planned to used TBLT in combination with another method. The other
teachers’ teaching plans were in other teaching models which have a little match with
TBLT.
Thus, at this point, it can undoubtedly and safely be stated that both the classroom
teaching practice and the teaching orientation presented in teaching plans can urge us to
come to the firsthand interpretation that the conceptualizations of university teachers in
both theory and practice at TBU are in the uncertainty and unqualified to meet the need of
ELT methodology innovation according to this method.
4.2.3. Consistence and inconsistence between their conceptualization (Interview)
with teaching practices and teaching plans
Hargreaves (1989) has asserted teachers' thoughts, beliefs and assumptions have
powerful implications for the change process, and for the materialization of the
curriculum policy into curriculum practice. This part is, thus, to compare the
conceptualizations of teachers with what they did in their classroom. What is consistence
between their conceptualization and their implementation? And what is the deviation
between them?
Table 8 below provides the brief overview.
TABLE 8
The deviations between teachers’ conceptualizations and their practice
Teacher
Cam
Quyt
Stated teaching method
from interview
CLT
TBLT
Mit
Dao
Nho
Hong
Mo
Man
TBLT
Not stated
TBLT & CLT
TBLT
TBLT & CLT
Not stated
Compared research results
Classroom teaching
Orientation for teaching
practice instruction
instruction in teaching plans
ESA
X
Skill-based
Between Skill-based and
PPP
TBLT & ESA
TBLT & ESA
PPP
X
TBLT
X
Test-based
ESA
Between PPP and TBLT
PPP
Skill-based
Skill-based
68
Teacher
Chuoi
Dua
Chanh
Xoai
Stated teaching method
from interview
A little TBLT
TBLT
TBLT
TBLT & CLT
Continued
Compared research results
Classroom teaching
Orientation for teaching
practice instruction
instruction in teaching plans
PPP
PPP
TBLT
TBLT
Between ESA and PPP
X
TBLT
X
(Note: X = no teaching plan offer)
In the first place, the comparison between the number of some teachers who
declared to use TBLT in their teaching and what they did in their classroom shows that
there is a rather consistence between the cognition and practice. They implemented what
they believed to be effective to their teachings. Dua is an instance; her routine from theory
to practice is quite linear and unanimous. She is the only participants getting the most
convergent answers among three times of investigations by the researcher with three
different research instrument devices. Besides that Mit, Nho, Mo, and Xoai rank the
second place in the unanimity between what they had stated and what they did in their
teachings.
In the other hand, there are inconsistencies between the declarations of some
teachers who claimed to prefer TBLT with their classroom teaching practice and their
orientation in their teaching plans. Quyt, Hong, Chanh are three teachers who had much
deviation between the stated teaching method and the teaching instruction. All of these
three teachers sang the same song when stated that ‘……… I usually use tasks and apply
TBLT, I found it very effective………..’. The reason explaining for this fact in my
analysis is that these teachers misunderstand the using of tasks in teaching with TBLT.
The tasks they used are, in fact, in the care of TST. Another evidence for my view is that
the conceptualizations of these three teachers about tasks and TBLT, presented in table 2
and table 3, proved that they did not interpret these two terms correctly.
It appears that the type of responses that emerged within interview may strongly or
partly be influenced by their moulded wanting in the orientation of applauding the method
in innovation. The mixed research use is, therefore, necessary in the case study.
69
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS, PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATONS AND
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
5.1. Summary of the major points of the study.
5.1.1. Summary of the study
The research consisted of a case study in TBU. The purpose of the building level
research was to use mixed methods to explore the attitudes and conceptualization of TBLT.
The study was also founded on a concern about how teachers imbed tasks in their teaching
in the direction of TBLT and their ability in meeting the needs of ELT currency in general
and the reality of classroom teaching practice in particular. All those mentioned issues are
for the benefit of exploiting the potentials and feasibility of TBLT in near future in the rush
of ELT methodology innovation. The study is, therefore, in hopes of drawing implications
for policy formation of EFL teaching renovation.
Data collection devices consistent with mixed methods and multiple sources
included: the interviews for firsthand conceptualizations of TBLT, the observations for the
reality of class teaching practice, and the teaching plan interpretations for in-depth
information about the teaching fact of TBU teachers. I began analysing the qualitative
data when hunches emerged during the data collection process and later more
systematically analysed the data using reduction and synthesis.
5.1.2. Conclusions
The following mentions are considerable briefest conclusions of research questions:
• The last answer for RQ1 ‘What are the conceptualizations and attitudes of
university teachers towards task-based language teaching?’ is ELT imbedded with
tasks have been done in TBU, but the conceptualizations of teachers are not
sufficient. The number who has remarkable understandings of this method theory
takes only one third in spite of the fact that the attitudes of teachers about the
method is really positive and the ELT innovation drew the attention to this method
• With regard to RQ2 ‘To what extent do their conceptualizations match the
composite view of task-based language teaching?’, a little consistence and a big gap of
deviation were found.
• As for RQ3 ‘How do they implement task-based language teaching in their
classroom?’, the truth that the conceptualization and cognition of teachers orient what they
70
do in classroom repeated one again. The concetualizations of TBLT deviated toward the
direction of TST resulted in the practice in the same direction.
The reasons why most teachers’ definitions of tasks and TBLT go somewhere in
the middle of the range of the concept and the reasons of incongruence between teachers’
conceptualizations and the theory on TBLT comes as follows:
1) The lack of materials causes the fact that they do not have deep understandings
of teaching methodology in general
2) The insufficiency of TBLT knowledge is more serious as there are no books of
TBLT in our library. The really short overview of this method in two or three pages in a lot
of ELT methodology books can only help them to verbal something about the advantages
of this method. That is why no teacher can have right mention about the framework of
TBLT. When they were asked what they usually do in while-task all of them stated that the
learners do the task, and what they often do at the post-task most of them refer to the
summary. When they were asked about the teaching of grammar, the answers were really
diverse: some said TBLT teaching according to TBLT requires much grammar because
this method mainly focuses on the accuracy (Hong and Quyt - teachers of reading skill,);
Dao said grammar could be introduced in the first phase; Mo and Nho said they never
introduced grammar because, in her opinion, grammar was not the target of tasks so it has
no connection to the teaching according to TBLT. Chanh, a teacher of writing skill,
claimed that she usually taught in while-task phase.
3) The urgency of innovation in teaching methodology in TBU did not focus
teachers in a specific method but modern language teaching methods, in which TBLT is
mentioned coinciding with CLT. This decision, made not long ago, could not mould
teachers’ conceptualizations toward any specific method so the reluctances in
interpretation understandable. Most of them can discuss verbally about modern teaching
methods but may not study to find out the advantages of methods to form policy for
actions.
4) Some teachers who are in low proficiency of both language and language
teaching methodology employ traditional classroom teaching experience often find it
difficult to implement task-based teaching and also other modern teaching methods in their
71
classrooms. They do not see language as a tool and their students as language users, but
rather as just learners of a language.
5) It is not surprising that the lack of complete consensus in the field about what
constitutes a task, the abstract nature of some task characteristics presented in the literature
result in a whole range of misinterpretations and misconceptions about the nature and role
of TBLT.
5.1.3. Implications
From the fact discussed above, some following implications should be put into
consideration.
1) The university should provide the faculty more teaching equipment and
documents of ELT methodology in order for everyone to study and have deeper
understandings of teaching methodology in general and TBLT in particular.
2) The research on ELT methodology should be encouraged and drawn attention to
so as to enhance the ability of trial, application, and accessment of new teaching methods.
3) The leaders of the faculty should ask the authority for permission of organizing
periodical conferences about workshops of ELT researches and applications that teachers
in the faculty have done, especially the teaching method that the innovation is aimed at like
TBLT.
4) It is important to mention an important caveat that concerns the terminology of
TBLT. Therefore, in addition to responding and explaining the above misconceptions to
faculty members, it is also important to examine the benefits of task-based pedagogy. This
may convince teachers that TBLT allows students to function as ‘language users’ in the
real world and perform a wider range of language functions which correspond with the
goals of proficiency-oriented language teaching.
5.2. Limitation of the study
Although much of researcher’s efforts were made to identify the university
teachers’ conceptualization of TBLT, including both the consistence and inconsistence at
TBU, their implementations of TBLT in classes, there exist some limitations in this thesis.
• Firstly, the discussion of thesis only focuses on some main points towards three
research questions, while in the interview they voiced a lot of issues related to the teaching
and learning at TBU. We can not have enough time, and persistence to cover all the aspects
72
emerging from the interviews and class teaching in the field of ELT. May those diverse
inquiries be discussed in other researches?
• Secondly, the thesis would be more satisfactory if it was the combination of both
qualitative and quantitative research; however, due to the limit of participants, the
researcher could not carry out the questionnaire survey, which might be better at
quantifying some of the points.
• Next, the result of this research is fruitful for only a specific context which is the
teaching and learning foreign language at TBU. Except for the place, we could not
generalize to expand the study success to make any applications to another place, and no
hypotheses were formulated as part of the design.
• Moreover, if the researcher could carry the follow-up interviews after the
observations of teachers’ in their classes to seek for more in-depth information about their
attitudes and cognitions when they did some of the activities or techniques in class.
• Lastly, if the participants could have given more teaching plans, the
conceptualization of teaching practice would have become clearer because there was the
correspondence between the teaching class and the teaching intention shown in the
teaching plans.
5.3. Implications for future research
Researchers have made significant strides in this field. However, it will be
important to keep focusing on what is meant by "task-based second language teaching and
learning." The term can evoke many different images, depending on which theorists and
models are involved and on various and locations in which such teaching occurs. We have
seen many variations and possibilities above. The definitional and conceptual question,
• What do we mean by Task-based teaching?" can be broken down and elaborated as a
series of questions:
• What are optimal or at least relevant types of task-based teaching to fulfill different
learning goals of diverse students of different ages, genders, mother tongue backgrounds,
cultural backgrounds, backgrounds, needs, learning styles, interests, and occupations?
• What are the most relevant criteria for sequencing tasks in task-based teaching? Do these
criteria differ by any of the factors just listed?
73
• With a focus on form, does a given sequence of tasks work better, or should tasks be
spontaneously
determined
based
on
evident
learner
needs
at
the
time?
• How does the ordinary teacher find (or create) a task-based syllabus that fits the authentic
language needs of his or her students?
• Can an off-the shelf task-based syllabus ever work for multiple age groups in diverse
settings in different parts of the world?
• How much does cultural background influence the acceptability of different task types,
input, and sequencing?
From these questions and from the whole thesis, it is clear that task-based teaching
and learning as a field is an exciting field that is experiencing much ferment at this time.
Task-based teaching and learning potentially offer great riches if explored by teachers in
their dual roles as instructor and action researcher. Professional researchers can provide
additional answers to the questions raised here. The answers will enhance the teaching and
learning of languages around the world. The ultimate beneficiaries will be the students
whose needs will be more fully met if the questions are clearly raised, explored, and
answered.
I
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Allwright, R. L. (988. Observation in the Language Classroom. London: Longman. 2. 2.
2. Arnold, J. 1998. Affective language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Barnhart, R.K. 1988. Dictionary of etymology. Edinburgh: Chambers.
4. Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L. & Cocking, R. 1999. How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
5. Breen, M. 1987. “Learner contributions to task design” in C. Candlin & D. Murphy
(eds.): The Second Language Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Breen, M. 1989. “The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks” in R. K. Johnson
(ed.): The Second Language Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Brinton, D. 2003. Chapter 10: Content-based instruction. In D. Nunan (ed.), Practical
English Language Teaching. Hong Kong: Higher Education Press, 199-224.
8. Bygate, M., P. Skehan, and M. Swain. (eds.). 2001. Researching pedagogic Tasks,
Second Language learning, Teaching and Testing. Harlow: Longman
9. Borg, S. (2003). "Teacher cognition in language teaching: a review of research on
what language teachers think, know, believe, and do". Language Teaching,
36(2), 81-109.
10. Canh, L.V. 2004. Understanding Foreign Language Teaching Methodology. Hanoi:
Nha xuat ban Dai hoc Quoc gia Ha Noi.
11. Carless, D. 2003. Factors in the implementation of task-based teaching in
primary schools. System, 31, 485–500.
12. Carless, D. 2004. Issues in teachers’ reinterpretation of a task-based innovation
in primary schools. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 639–662.
13. Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. 1990. The calla handbook: Implementing the
cognitive academic language learning approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company.
14. Cohen, Andrew D. 1998. Strategies in learning and using a second language. Reading,
MA: Addison Wesley Longman.
15. Clark, J., Lo, Y.C., Hui, M.F., Kam, M., Carless, D., Wong, P.M., 1999. An
Investigation into the Development and Implementation of the TOC
II
Initiative With Special Reference to Professional Com- petencies, Professional
Development and Resources: Final Report. Hong Kong Institute of
Education, Hong Kong.
16. Coleman, S. D., Perry, J.D. & Schwen, T.M. 1997. Constructivist instructional
development: Reflecting on practice from an alternative paradigm. In C.R. Dills &
A. J. Romiszowski (Eds.), Instructional Develo pment Paradigms. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
17. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
18. Crookes, G. 1986. “Tasks classification: a cross-disciplinary review” Technique
Report No. 4. Hololulu: Center for language classroom Research, Social Science
Research Institute, University of Hawaii.
19. Cuban, L. 1993. How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms:
1890-1990 (2nd ed.) New York: Teachers College Press.
20. Dörnyei, Z. 2001. Teaching and researching motivation. London: Longman.
21. Dörnyei, Z. and Schmidt, R. (eds.). 2001. Motivation and second language acquisition.
Manoa:
University
of
Hawaii
Press.
22. Doughty, C. and T. Pica. 1986. ‘Information gap tasks: do they facilitate second
language acquisition?’. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 305–25.
23. Duffy, T. M. C., D.J. 1996. Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery
of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Educational
Communications and Technology (pp. 170-198). New York: Simon & Schuster
Macmillan.
24. Ellis, R. 2003b. Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
25. Feeney, A. 2006. Review of Task-based language teaching (2004) by David Nunan.
ELT Journal, 60(2), 199-201.
26. Feez, S. 1998. Text-based Syllabus Design. Sydney : NCELTR.
27. Frost, Richard. “A Task-based approach.” British Council. BBC World Service.
7 Feb. 2006.
(http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/methodology/task_based.shtml)
28. Foster, P. and Skehan, P. 1996. The influence of planning and task type on second
language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299-323.
III
29. Gillham, M. 2000. Case Study Research Methods. London: Continuum.
30. Grabinger, R. S. 1996. Rich environments for active learning. In D. H. Jonassen
(Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology.
New York: Simon Schuster McMillan.
31. Grabowski, B. L. 1996. Generative Learning: Past, present & future. In D.H.
Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and
Technology. New York: Simon Schuster, McMillan.
32. Grabowski, B. L. 1997. Mathemagenic and Generative Learning Theory: A
comparison and Implications for Designers. In C. R. Dills, and A.J.
Romiszowski (Eds.), Instructional Development Paradigms. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
33. Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward
Arnold.
34. Hannafin, M. J. 1992. Emerging technologies, ISD and learning
environments: critical perspectives. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 40(1), 49-63.
35. Hargreaves, A. 1989. Curriculum and assessment reform. Toronto: Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education Press.
36. Harmer, J. 1998. How to Teach English. Harlow, Essex: Addison Wesley Longman.
Longman.
37. Ho, W. K. & R. Y. L. Wong. 2004. Prologue. In Ho & Wong (eds.), xxx–xxxvi.
38. Honeyfield, J. 1993. Responding to task difficulty. In M. Tickoo (Ed.), Simplification:
Theory and practice (pp. 127-138). Singapore: Regional Language Center.
39. Ikeda, M. and Takeuchi, O. 2000. Tasks and strategy use: Empirical implications
for questionnaire studies. JACET Bulletin, 31, 21-32.
40. Johnson, K. 1996. Language Teaching and Ikeda, M. and Takeuchi, O. (2000).
Tasks and strategy use: Empirical implications for questionnaire studies.
JACET Bulletin, 31, 21-32.. Oxford: Blackwell.
41. Karavas-Doukas, E., 1995. Teacher identified factors affecting the implementation
of an EFL innovation in Greek Public Secondary Schools. Language, Culture
and Curriculum, 8 (1), 53–68.
IV
42. Kohonen, V. 1992. Experiantial Language Learning: Second lanuage learning as
cooperative learner education. In David Nunan (eds.). Collaborative Language
Learning and Teaching. Cambridge: CUP.
43. Kozulin, A. 1998. Psychological Tools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44. Lamnek S. 2005 Qualitative Sozialforschung. Lehrbuch. 4. Auflage. Beltz Verlag.
Weihnhein, Basel, 2005
45. Lantolf, J. 2000. ‘Second language learning as a mediated process’, Language
Teaching, 33: 79-96.
46. Lee. J. 2000. Tasks and Communicating in Language Classrooms. Boston:
McGraw-Hill.
47. Li, D., 1998. ‘‘It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine’’. Teachers’
perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South
Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 677–697.
48. Littlewood, W. 1981. Communicative language teaching. Cambridge: CUP.
49. Littlewood, W. 2007. Communicative and task-based language teaching in East
Asian classrooms. Lang. Teach, 40, 243–249.
50. Long, M. 1985. “A role for instruction in second language acquisition: task-based
language teaching” in K. Hystelstam and M. Pienemann (eds.): Modeling and
accessing Second Language Acquisition. Cleverdon: Multilingual Matters.
51. Long, M. 1985. Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass and C.
Madden (eds), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, Mass: Newbury
House.
52. Long, M. 1991. ‘Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology’.
In K. de Bot., R. Ginsburg, and C. Kramsch S (eds): Foreign Language research
in cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
53. McCarthy, M. 1998. Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
54. Mc Donough, J., & Mc Donough, S. 1997. Research Method for ELT. London: Anold.
55. Moss, D., & Van Duzer, C. 1998. Project-Based Learning for Adult English Language
Learners. ERIC Digest. Washington DC: National Clearinghouse for ESL Literacy
Education, ED427556.
56. Morris, P., R. Adamson, M. L. Au, K. K. Chan, W. Y. Chan, P. Y. Ko, A. W. Lai, M.
V
L. Lo, E. Morris, F. P. Ng, Y. Y. Ng, W. M. Wong & P. H. Wong (1996). Target
oriented curriculum evaluation project: Interim report. Hong Kong: Faculty of
Education, University of Hong Kong.
57. Nunan, D. 1989. Designing tasks for communicative language. Cambridge: CUP.
58. Nunan, D. 1992. ‘Socio-cultural aspects of second language acquisition’ Cross
Currents, 19: 13-24.
59. Nunan, D. 1999. Second language teaching and learning.Boston, MA: Heinle
& Heinle.
60. Nunan, D. 2003. The impact of English as a global language on educational policies
and practices in the Asia-Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 589–613.
61. Nunan, D. 2004. Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
62. O'Malley, J. M. and Chamot, A.U. 1990. Learning strategies in second language
acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
63. Oxford, R. L. 1990. Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.
Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
64. Oxford, R.L. (ed.) 1996. Language learning strategies around the world: Crosscultural perspectives. Manoa: University of Hawaii Press.
65. Prabhu, N. S. 1987. Second language Pedagogy. Oxford: OUP. Pica, T., Kanagy, R.
and Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second
language instruction and research. In G. Crookes and S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks
and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9-34). Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
66. Richards, J., J. Platt, and H. Weber. 1985. Aproaches Longman Dictionary of Appied
Linguistics. London: Longman
67. Richards, J. and T. Rogers. 1986. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: CUP.
68. Salaberry, M. 1997. ‘The role of input and output practice in second language
acquisition’. Canadian Second Language Review. 53: 422 – 51.
69. Salaberry, R. 2001. Task-sequencing in L2 acquisition. Texas
Papers in Foreign Language Education, 6(1), 101-112.
VI
70. Savignon, S. 1993. ‘Communicative Language Teaching: State of the Art’. In S.
Silberstein (ed.).
71. Scarcella, R.C. and Oxford, R.L. (1992). The tapestry of language learning: The
individual
in the communicative classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
72. Skehan, P.1996a. ‘A framework for implementation of task-based instructions’.
Applied Linguistics. 17: 38-62.
73. Skehan, P.1998. Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
18, pp. 2 68-286.
74. Smith, D. 1971. Task training. In AMA Encyclopedia of Supervisory Training,
581-586.
New
York:
American
Management
Association.
75. Stake, R.E. 2000. ‘Case studies’. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds). Handbook of
Qualitative Research 2nd Edition. London: Sage. 435-486.
76. Swales, J. 1990. Genre Analysis. Cambridge: CUP.
77. Talbott, V. & Oxford, R.L. (1989). Task-based learning through the ESL video variety
show. Papers in Applied Linguistics, 2, 73-82.
78. Talbott, V. & Oxford, R. (1991). Creating a video variety show: Student-generated
simulations. Oxford, R.L. (1990). Using and learning languages through
simulations, Part II. Simulation and Gaming: An International Journal of Theory,
Design, and Research, 21(1), 73-4.
79. Tierney, R.J., Readence, J.E. and Dishner, E.R. (1999). Reading strategies and
practices: A compendium. 5th ed. New York: Allyn & Bacon.
80. Wilkins, D. 1976. Notional syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
81. Williams, M. and Burden, R.L.: Psychology for Language Teachers: A Social
Constructivist Approach (esp. chapter 8). Cambridge University Press, 1997.
(Eds.), Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. (pp. 52-62). Oxford:
Heinemann.
82. Willis, J. 1996a. A flexible framework for task-based learning. In J. Willis and D.
Willis, J. 1996b. A Framework for Task-Based Learning. Harlow, Essex:
Addison Wesley Longman. Longman
83. Willis, J. 1998b. Task-based learning? What kind of adventure? Retrieved April 22,
2005 from http://langue.hyper.chubu.ac/jp/jalt/pub/tlt/98/jul/willis.html
84. Willis, D. and J. Willis. 2001. Task-based language learning. In R. Carter and D.
Nunan (eds.) The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other
Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Provides a sound basic
VII
introduction to task-based language teaching.
85. Wittrock, M. C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist,
11(2), 87-95.
86. Yule, G. 1996. Referential Communication tasks. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Interview Questions
Appendix B: Written Transcript of Taped Interviews
Appendix C: Classroom observations
Appendix D: Teaching plan of university teachers
Appendix A: Interview Questions
1. In term of ELT approaches, what do you think teachers in your department are good at
doing?
2. What do you understand by a task-based approach to teaching? What is your
understanding of the term task? Do you employ tasks in your teaching? If so, what kinds,
and how effective are they?
3. What do you think make task-based teaching different from other teaching approaches?
4. How well do you think teachers in your department understand task-based teaching?
5. What do you think are positive elements of task-based teaching?
6. What do you think are negative elements of task-based teaching?
7. How culturally suitable do you think task-based teaching is for your department
(students)?
8. To what extent is task-based teaching implemented in your department?
9. Can you give an example of task you have carried out with your students?
10. What do you do in the post task stage of task cycle?
11. How do you see the relationship between task-based teaching and grammar?
12. What are the main issues in classroom implementation of tasks?
13. What do you think are the main factors facilitating or inhibiting the implementation of
task-based approaches in your department?
Appendix B: The schedule of Taped Interviews
Survey Questions and Interviewee Responses for university teachers’
conceptualization of Task-based Language Teaching
Teacher
Cam
Quyt
Mit
Dao
Nho
Hong
Mo
Man
Chuoi
Dua
Gender
Female
Female
Female
Female
Female
Female
Female
Female
Male
Female
Time
November 5th, 2008
November 5th, 2008
November 5th, 2008
November 5th, 2008
November 5th, 2008
November 5th, 2008
November 5th, 2008
November 6th, 2008
November 6th, 2008
November 6th, 2008
VIII
Chanh
Chanh
Xoai
Female
Female
Female
November 6th, 2008
November 6th, 2008
November 6th, 2008
Appendix C: Samples of classroom observations (two samples in twelve)
TEACHING OBSERVATION SHEET 1
Observer: Nguyen Viet Hung
Teacher’s name: Cam
Subject: Speaking
Lesson: Difficulties
Date: November 19th, 2008
Class: class of English, course 47th
No of student: 40
* Furniture arrangement: Students sit in horizontal lines
* The surroundings: 1) students have seats casually in 4 or 5 or 6 in a table; 2) teacher and
students with relaxed feelings;
* Course book: A-Z discussion.
Full note of teacher’s and students’ activities:
Time
Teacher’s activities
Student’s activities
Comments
15h
- Talk about their own
- This activity is
A. Warm up
50’
- Asks students to talk about difficulties in front of the
good for students to
their own difficulties in
class
brainstorm the ideas
front of the class.
- Some difficulties they
related
to
the
give out are:
forthcoming lesson,
Earn money
- It als creates easy
Learn some skill
- Teacher writes students’
feeling to students
Full gap between 2 genrations
answers on the blackboard.
with the next lesson.
Lose weight
Find a job
Keep fit
Find a partner to live with
- Gives comment and some
corrections (if any).
- Talks about sollution for
each difficulty.
15h
57’
16h 5’
B. New lesson
1. Countries
- Asks Sts to read the chart
in the text book and decide
what problem given is the
most difficulty for them to
deal with.
- Calls on some students to
talk about reason they
choose.
- Gives comments and
sollutions
for
those
difficulties.
2. Brainteasers?
- Listen and take notes
- The instruction of
teacher
in
this
activity is clear,
helpful
and
sufficient.
- Listen and take notes.
- Study the chart and
decide.
- They mainly work in
individuals,
sometimes
some of them gather
together in pairs for
exchange of ideas.
- In this task,
teacher’s instruction
is clear and helpful
too.
Students
are
attracted
to
teacher’s questions
and answer with
- Give reasons to explain their enthusiasm.
for their choice.
- Teacher gives
proper complement.
- Teacher does not
- Listen and take notes.
work quite well as
facilitator
and
monitor.
IX
16h 6’
16h
10’
- Asks Sts to look through
the task and study one by
one.
 the 1st part
- Asks students to study
situation
and
answer
question “why nine times
out of ten the man goes to
Mahattan?”
- Aks students for answers.
- Give comments, checks
and gives correct answer.
- Teacher does not
- Study the situation and ask students the way
answer the question.
to cooperate to
complete the task:
in individuals, in
pairs, or in groups.
- Present answers.
- Teacher does not
- Listen to the teacher and elicit other to raise
check.
questions to student
speaking for further
 the 2nd part
discussions.
- Aks students to read - Read the situation and
situation and answer the answer question
question “How did the
donkey get across? How?
Do you give up?”
- Three students raise hand
- Asks for aswers.
to speak out their ideas.
- Teacher listens to students’
answers, and comments
about them one by one.
Then she writes down some
important
ideas
on
blackboard. She explains the
contents of words or phrases
she has just written.
16h
15’
- Study the task.
- The most
answer:
persuasive - Teacher does well
in the role of
He didn’t get across the river chairperson, and she
because he is a donkey, he never gives
a
proper
eat carrot.
feedbacks
and
complements.
- Others take important
notes.
- Study the 3 questions and
 The 3rd part
answer.
- Study 3 questions and
answer.
a. What goes on four feet, then
two feet, then three but the more
feet it goes on the weaker it be?
b. What does Fridays come before
Thursday?
c. What is it that no-one wishes to
have, yet which no-one wishes to
lose?
- 5 students are asked to
- Asks students for answers. stand up and talk about
Teacher
gives
out their ideas in individuals.
feedbacks and comments for - The most persuasive
corrections and ideas of answer:
a. A people or a person
students’ performances.
b. In dictionaries
c. It is Bald
16h
18’
 The 4th :question.
- Asks students to think and
anwer the question “What
are the plurals of these
words:
Child,
datum,
mouse”.
- 3 students stand up and
talk about their answers in
individuals.
- The most favourable
16h
22’
16h
25’
X
Teacher
gives
out answer:
Children
feedbacks and comments for
Data
corrections and ideas of
Mice
students’ performances.
- Two students are asked to
stand up and talk about
 The 5th question: Asks
their ideas in individuals.
students to answer question
- Phuong’answer:
“How many planets are 1. Mercury 2. Venus
- It is not correct
there? Can you name 3. Earth
when Phuong says
4. Mars
them?”
Pluto is a planet.
5. Jupiter
6. Saturn
7. Uranus 8. Neptune
Pluto is no longer
- Teacher shows her 9. Pluto
consisdered to be a
approval
to
Phuong’s
planet.
answer.
Teacher
gives
out - Listen to teacher and their
feedbacks and comments for friends and take notes.
corrections and ideas of
students’ performances.
- Look through the project - In this task,
3. Project
- Asks students to look and practise.
teacher’s instruction
through the projects below
is clear and helpful
and decide what project in
too.
difficult for them to do
- Teacher asks students to
- Teacher does not
interview
their
nearby
work quite well as
friends using the questions
facilitator
and
in the hand out.
adviser.
- Present answers.
- After 5 minutes, teacher Hang’s answers:
Hijack a plane because they
calls some students to report afraid of the height.
the result of their interview.
Find and interiew the oldest
- Teacher listens to reporter.
Gives
comments,
corrections and solluting
suggestions.
man in the world because they
don’t know who he is and they
can’t speak his own language
well.
Dub an American film in their
own language because they
know well about American and
their culture.
16h
35’ (It
- Listen and take notes.
is the
C. Homework
end
- Asks students to prepare
time of the left lesson.
the
period)
- Teacher works
well as a
chairperson.
- Teacher should
keep the time
correctly to have
enough time to
summarize the
lesson and give
students thoroughful
direction for their
study at home.
General Comments:
- Type of instruction: ESA
- Teacher leads her teaching rather successfully in CLT approach:
+ The communicative atmosphere in class is good: students are active and concerned very
much to the lesson; they are free to express themeselves.
XI
+ Teacher and students make a good rapport.
+ Teacher mainly focuses on meaning and fluency; some communicative objectives are
achieved.
- Teacher does not pay much her attention to the way students interact with one another.
- Teacher gives feedbacks for corrections, and proper complements.
- The time for each task is a reasonable. Therefore, it is good to exploit more
communication in discussions, and teacher can take well the role of monitor and
chairperson.
- The learning tasks are mainly followed the course book.
- Teacher should keep the time correctly to have enough time to summarize the lesson and
give students thoroughful direction for their study at home.
TEACHING OBSERVATION SHEET 2
Observer: Nguyen Viet Hung
Teacher’s name: Quyt
Subject: Reading
Date: November 10th, 2008
Lesson: Unit 8 – Students won’t give up
their French fries
Class: Class of English, course 47th
No of student: 40
* Furniture arrangement: Students sit in horizontal lines
* The surroundings: 1) students sit in in 4, 5 or 6 in a table; 2) teacher and students are in
relaxing feelings.
* Course book: Selected Reading
Full note of teacher’s and students’ activities:
Time
Teacher’s activities
Student’s activities
Comment
14h
- This activity is
A. Warm up
15’
- Teacher steps into class, - Some students listen to good for teacher and
takes a seat, greets the class, teacher, others do chatting students to break the
and then chats with students.
with teacher.
ice before the
forthcoming lesson.
However, it is better
if the chat relates to
the following lesson.
B. New lesson: THE
STUDENTS WON’T GIVE UP
THEIR FRIEND FRIES
14h
20’
I. Pre - reading
* Asks Sts to look through 3
questions in the text book,
think about the answers to
these questions.
- After some minutes, teacher
asks students to answer
questions one by one.
* Asks Sts to answer
question: “Do you have a
healthy diet? Why or why
- Listen to teacher’s
instructions and request,
then do the task.
- Read questions and think
about the answers.
- Answering teacher’s
questions in individuals. 6
students are pointed to give
answers.
- Some students calls out
their answers.
- Giang’s answer:
- It will help
students to activate
their mind to the
field they are going
to study.
- The task is rather
opne.
- Teacher does not
ask students work in
not”
- Teacher shows her most
approbation with Giang’s.
* Teacher asks students to
work in pairs to read the title
of the article and guest what
the article will be about.
* Teacher asks students to
answer below questions in
front of the class according to
the fact.
• Where do most students in your
college or university eat?
• What does a typical meal consist
of?
• What do students eat between
meals?
• Are they generally concerned
about health and nutrition while
they are in college? Why or why
not?
14h
35’
14h
40’
- Teacher comments students’
answers.
II. While - reading
- Teacher asks students to
skim the text.
- Teacher goes round the class
to see them doing the task,
giving
facilitations
if
necessary.
- After 5 minutes, teacher
stops the class: The time is up,
now we check the answers.
1. Understanding the text
A. Multiple choice.
- Asks students to circle the
two best answers each items
given in the textbook.
- Asks students to present
their answers in front of the
class together to check correct
answers.
- Teacher conducts the
checking by asking eliciting
questions: In the first
question, who chooses...
A/B/C/D, raise your hand,
please!
- Teacher asks student the
reason they why they answer
the question:
Why do you choose....?
XII
Unhealthy diet.Because
they don’t eat on time and
not enough nutrition.
- Work in pairs and study.
- 2 students raise hands to
give answers: The article
will be about a healthy diet
and nutrition.
individuals, pairs or
groups.
- It is good for
students’ later study
phase.
- Five students give out
their answers:
- Quyen’s answers:
+ They eat at home or at
restaurent
+ It consists of rice, vegetable,
soup, meat, etc
+ They eat nothing.
+They are’t conserned about
health and nutrition because they
don’t want to know and noone
gives them any knowledge about
health and nutrition.
- Work in individuals to
skim the text.
- Some asks teacher for
help with words and
expressions.
Teacher’s
comments are not
sufficient to the
case.
Teacher’s
instruction is clear,
and students do the
task well.
- Stop reading.
- Students think about the
answers and make their
choices.
- With each question, two
students stand up, give their
choices.
- They explain the reason
for their choice.
- Teacher does not
ask students work in
individuals, pairs or
groups.
- Teacher does not
complement much.
Also, she does not
correct
errors
thoroughly.
- Teacher works
quite well as a
facilitator and an
adviser.
XIII
Do you know how…………?
- Teacher gives out the
correct answers.
Answer:
1.a, c
2.a, b
3.c, d
4.a, b
5.b, c
6.b, d
14h
50’
- It is somehow like
teacher-centred
teaching.
B. Consider the issues.
- Asks students to work in
pairs and answer the 3
questions given in the text
book.
- working in pairs is
- Listen to teacher’s suitable to this kind
instructions and request, of learning activity.
then do the task.
1. According to the article, some
experts.....disagree?
2. Considering the wide variety of
food ...Why or why not?
3. In lines 94-96,...this problem?
- Work in pairs to answer
questions.
- Asks students to answer.
- Gathers ideas and suggests
the most answers.
- Teacher shows her most
approbation with Tung.
- Give answers.
2. Reading skill.
Scaning for specific
information
A. Scan the text to find
specific information.
- Asks Sts to scan the text on
pages 87-91 to find the
specific information.
- Teacher asks students
whether they finish the
reading task or not.
- Teacher lets them continue
to do the task.
- Asks for answers and check
in front of the class together.
- Teacher writes down correct
answers on blackboard.
* Answer:
1. Debra Lee-Cadwell.
2. > 13 gram
3. Net nutrition
4. 144 carloies
5. Pizza
- Listen and take notes.
Tung’s answer:
1. They agree because it can
make Sts confuse to choose food
2. They don’t have chance to eat
well because there are variety of
food can make them curious and
they will eat alot.
3. Because the avalability of
nutritional information does little
or nothing influences students’
eating habits.
- Teacher does not
manage the class
well in this task.
Some students are
distracted from the
pair discussions.
- This is simply a
kind of closelyfollowed
course
book
exercise
without
any
adaptions to make it
more
communicative and
Answer
teacher’s contextualized.
- It is little teacherquestions in individuals.
centred.
- Scan the text and find the
specific information.
- Answer, check together
and take notes.
XIV
B. Scan the Web to find
specific information.
- Asks students to scan the
web given in the text book to
find specific information and
fill them in blanks with
suitable information.
- Teacher asks students
whether they finish or not.
- Asks for answers and check
in front of the class together.
- Teacher writes down correct
answers on blackboard.
* Answer:
1. fruits and vegetables
2. 5 or more serving
3. 2010
4. NIC and Product for Better
Health Foundation.
- Listen and take notes
15h
- Scan the Web and
practise.
Answer
teacher’s
questions in individuals.
- Others check and take
notes.
III. Post - reading
- Homework: Teacher asks
students to prepare the rest
part of the lesson.
- Teacher ends up the lesson.
- Teacher does not
make use of post
task phase; giving
homework only is
not sufficient.
General Comments:
- Instruction type: skill-based
- The teaching is more teacher-centred than learner-centred.
- Teacher does not pay much attention to the way of interaction between students.
- The warm up has no relationship with the content of the reading.
- Teacher has no instruction and no summary.
- Teacher completely follows reading tasks in the course book.
- Teacher mainly pays her focus on students’ reading to have the answers for the designed
questions in the book, and pay attention to communication purposes.
- She does not make use of good chance to deal with the post task stage, which is good for
reinforcements and accuracy.
- Teacher gives a little feedback for complements and corrections.
- Teacher does not complement much, only say ‘yes’ or ‘OK’ for good answers.
- Teacher does not work quite well as a facilitator and an adviser.
Appendix D: Samples of teaching plan of university teachers (two
samples in seven)
TEACHING PLAN
Teacher 2: Mit
Lesson: judging by appearances
I. Objectives
II. Exponents
XV
III. Methods
- Communicative approach
IV. Teaching aids
- Speaking 3
- Handouts
V. Time: 2 periods
VI. Procedure
1. Activity 1: Warm up
- Show pictures of some people with different styles to the sts. Ask them to give comments
on their appearances and any inference about their personalities from those appearances.
2. Activity 2: Shall I bother?
- Ask sts to fill in the questionnaire individually, then move around and make an interview
with some friends.
- Ask some sts to report their interview and give comments on the interview results.
- Group work: sts discuss the questions:
 Do you think it is very important to have a good appearance?
 When is it important to make a special effort for appearances?
3. Activity 3: All you really need is a big smile
- Ask sts to add some more factors which may be important for appearance. Write on
board the expressions they add.
- Group work: sts discuss and choose the 3 most important factors for these people: a
politician, a teacher, a salesperson, an MC, a lawyer.
4. Activity 4: Appearances can be deceptive
- Ask sts to pick a number (written on a piece of paper). Each number corresponds to a
statement. Sts then decide the statement is generally true or generally false.
5. Activity 5: Changing appearance
- Pair work: sts list as much as they can the ways of changing or disguising appearance.
(Wearing make-up; straightening the hair, having the hair curled, wearing wig, wearing
jewellery, wearing glasses, tattoo (xam), wearing mask, having plastic surgery and
liposuction, wearing special clothes…)
- Ask sts qs:
 Have you ever tried to change your appearance?
 Reasons for the change?
 Was it a good or a bad change?
Pair work: sts talk about their experiences of changing appearance then report the
funniest and the most terrible experience.
6. Activity 6: I just can’t stand
- Ask sts to add their own comments about the particular appearances they dislike. Then
explain why.
XVI
XVII
XVIII
All you really need is a big smile!
1. Here are some factors which may be important for
appearance. In groups, add any others that you think are
important.
Clean hair
Clean clothes
Clean shoes
New clothes
Fashionable clothes
Informal clothes
Bright jewellery Expensive jewellery
One piece jewellery of only
A big smile
A friendly expression
A serious expression
A straight back
A relaxed attitude
Bright eyes
White teeth
Strong shoulders
Long legs
Dimple cheek
Others:………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………
2. Choose the 3 most important factors for these people
A politician
A teacher
………………. …………………. ………………..
………………
A salesperson ………………
…………………
………………
…………………. ………………..
A lawyer
………………. …………………
……………….
An MC
………………. …………………
………………..
TEACHING PLAN
Teacher 3: Hong
Lesson: Population
I. Teaching aims:
-
Students practice their reading skill to fasten their reading speed
-
Students enrich their vocabulary and
knowledge about population and
environment
II. Exponents : a reading text taken from internet
III. Teaching methods : the interaction between the teacher and the students
IV. Time:
45 x 2= 90 mins. approx.
V. Aids: Textbook, board
VI. Procedure
A. Pre- reading (15mins)
XIX
B. *Purposes: students get involved into the topic discussed in the reading passages
and they know what they are going to read
* Activities: Guiding questions
 Can you make a sentence to describe the population in the world today?
 Which countries have the biggest population in the world?
-
China, India, America, etc.
 Which parts of the world have the highest birth rate? Are they all over
population?
-
Africa, South- East Asia, etc.
 What are the disadvantages of over population?
-
Poverty, hunger, low living standard, low education, illness, pollution, social
evils, pressure on the government, etc.
 How does over population affect the environment?
-
make natural resources exhausted
-
cause environment pollution
-
cut down trees and forests
 Do you think the rich countries or the poor ones impact more on our
environment?
* Introduce the reading passage
B. While- reading
1. Read for the main ideas (10 mins)
1.1. Purposes: students practice speed reading and get the main content of the reading
passage
1.2. Activities:
- Divide students into 3 groups, ask group 1 skim through para.1-3, group 2 do the
same with para.4-6 and the last group read quickly para.7-10 with 5 mins.
- After skimming, ask each group to talk about the main ideas of the paras. they’ve
read, write the students’ answers on the board
+ Para. 1-3: current population in the world and explains why huge increase in
population is taking place
+ Para. 4-6: we are living on a finite planet but we haven’t saved it at all
XX
+ Para. 7-10: man’s effects on the balance of nature and advice how to behave to
the environment
-
Ask students to combine the individual ideas to find out the general ideas of the
whole passage: the relationship between human being and the environment and
human is making bad effects on their nature.
2. Read for details (25 mins)
2.1. Purposes: help students understand clearly about the text and have the skill to
exploit the reading text
2.2. Activities
- Ask students to read para.2 only individually then answer question 1,2 in
Comprehension Questions
+ Question 1: ask students to look at the number and the following sentence to
draw the conclusion of the figure
(d)
+ Question 2: ask students to read the whole paragraph, find out the topic
sentence and the supporters then answer the question
-
(c)
Have students continue to read the para.3 only
+ Question 3: have students answer the question and explain for the choice
(b)
+ Question 4: ask one student to paraphrase the sentence “eighty or even
ninety… normal life span for human” into a simple sentence then answer the question
-
Have students read the para.4
+ Ask students to pay attention to the number and answer question 5, explain by
doing the count on the board
(b)
- Ask students to read para.8, find out the main idea, topic sentence and the supporters
to understand the author’s purposes, answer question 7
(a)
- Let students read para.9 then ask: what’s the function of this paragraph? What’s the
reality shown in it? and ask for the answer of question 6
(a)
- Have students’ attention on the last para. and ask them what the function of this
paragraph is, the main idea then answer the question 8
(c)
3. Read for reference and vocabulary expanding (20 mins.)
XXI
3.1. Purposes: students learn the way of using word in a text and enrich their
vocabulary
3.2. Activities:
- Ask students to work in groups as divided; they can discuss and exchange
information with each other to deal with questions 9 to 16. in 10 mins. Teacher goes
round the class to see how well each group works and help them with some difficult
word or structures.
- Ask for the answers and explanations, do the correction
- Keys: 9.a, 10.d, 11.d, 12.a, 13.b, 14.c, 15.a,16.a
C. Post- reading (20 mins)
-
Have some students to read out the passage once and ask each group do the
summary then present in turn.
-
Homework: “What should we do to reduce pollution?” Write an essay to express
your ideas.