exploring the use of tasks in teaching grammar to grade 10 students in hanoi.nguyen ngan ha.qh.20
TRANSCRIPT
1
VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI University of Languages and international Studies
faculty of English language teacher education
NguyÔn ng©n hµ
Exploring the use of tasks in teaching grammar for grade 10 students in Hanoi:
an action research
submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of bachelor of arts (TEFL)
Hanoi, May 2011
VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI University of Languages and international Studies
faculty of English language teacher education
2
NguyÔn ng©n hµ
Exploring the use of taskS in teaching grammar for grade 10 students in Hanoi:
an action research
submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of bachelor of arts (TEFL)
supervisor: TrÇn thÞ lan anh, ma.
Hanoi, May 2011
ACCEPTANCE
I hereby state that I: Nguyen Ngan Ha, from 07.1.E1, being a
candidate for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (TEFL) accept the
3
requirements of the College relating to the retention and use of Bachelor’s
Graduation Paper deposited in the library.
In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper
deposited in the library should be accessible for the purposes of study and
research, in accordance with the normal conditions established by the
librarian for the care, loan or reproduction of the paper.
Signature
Date: …………………………..
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Had it not been for the valuable help that I have received during the
implementation, this thesis would have remained a dream. First and foremost,
I owe my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Ms. Tran Thi Lan Anh, who has
given me continuous support to complete the writing of this thesis as well as
in carrying out the challenging research that lies behind it.
Secondly, I would like to gratefully acknowledge the support of Ms. Le
Hong Nhung and Administrative Board of Cao Ba Quat High school, who
gave me a precious opportunity to apply tasks in teaching grammar. I also
appreciate the enthusiastic participation of every student in class 10A12, Cao
Ba Quat high school in my lessons. Without them, my thesis could not be
completed.
My special thanks are also sent to all teachers of CLC Division, ULIS
for providing me with valuable background knowledge on English teaching
methodology and Research methodology. I would like to show my gratitude to
many of my friends who shared their experiences of the thesis writing
endeavor with me.
Last, but not least, I thank my family for giving me unconditional
support and encouragement to pursue my interests.
5
ABSTRACT
The study was to investigate students’ attitude towards task-based
grammar lessons and the extent to which these lessons could motivate students
in the Vietnamese high school context. The action research procedures were
used to study the processes and outcomes. In this study, tasks were applied in
teaching grammar for fifty grade 10 students in Cao Ba Quat high school.
Data from Cycle One were analyzed and used to make improvements for
Cycle Two. Data were collected through teacher’s observation sheets,
questionnaires, post-tests and interviews. The results of the research indicated
that students were more motivated by task-based teaching in grammar lessons
than the traditional approach. There were some factors of a task-based lesson
that have created these changes such as real-life goals, group work activities
or useful materials. Finally, a suggested frame-work of a task-based grammar
lesson has been drawn with some pedagogical implications so that a
successful application of tasks can be made in the similar settings.
6
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Table 1 - Willis’ framework of task-based teaching approach ............. 21
Table 2 - Seven principles of task-based language teaching ................. 23
Table 3 - The classification of English level of participants ................. 29
Table 4- Research tools ......................................................................... 34
Table 5 - Data collection procedure ...................................................... 38
Table 6 - Students’ opinion about the practice of language skills ........ 42
Table 7 - The results of post-tests of unit 12 ......................................... 49
Table 8 - The results of post-test of unit 13 .......................................... 49
Table 9 - Students’ assessment on tasks ................................................ 55
Table 10 - Results of two post tests of Unit 14 and 15 ......................... 63
Table 11 - Students’ opinions about the usefulness of tasks ................. 67
Table 12 - Frame work of task-based teaching in grammar lessons ..... 73
7
LIST OF CHARTS
PAGE
Chart 1- Approaches in teaching grammar before the integration
of task ................................................................................... 41
Chart 2- Students’ interest in grammar lessons without using
tasks ...................................................................................... 42
Chart 3 – Students’ interest in grammar lessons with the use of
task ....................................................................................... 50
Chart 4 - How classroom’s atmosphere changed with the use of
tasks ....................................................................................... 52
Chart 5 - Effectiveness of task-based grammar lessons in
supporting students’ grammar acquisition ........................... 53
Chart 6 - English skills practiced in grammar lessons with the
use of task ............................................................................. 54
Chart 7- Students’ interest in task-based grammar lessons ................. 64
Chart 8 - Changes in classroom atmosphere of task-based
lessons .................................................................................. 65
Chart 9 - Effectiveness of task-based teaching in comparison
with the old method .............................................................. 66
Chart 10 - English skills practiced in grammar lessons with the
use of tasks ........................................................................... 67
Chart 11 - Levels of students’ motivation ............................................ 69
8
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
Figure 1 - A framework for analyzing communicative tasks ............... 17
Figure 2 - Steps in an action research cycle according to Kemmis and
McTaggart (1988) ................................................................ 33
9
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
GTM Grammar Translation Method
CLT Communicative Language Teaching
EFL English as Foreign Language
ESL English as Second Language
TBLT Task-based Language Teaching
PPP Presentation- Practice- Production
10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS PAGE Acknowledgement ............................................................................. i Abstract .............................................................................................. ii List of tables ....................................................................................... iii List of charts ...................................................................................... iv List of figures ..................................................................................... v List of abbreviations .......................................................................... vi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. The statement of problem and rationale for the study ............... 1 1.2. Aims of the study ....................................................................... 3 1.3. Research questions ..................................................................... 4 1.4. Significance of the study ........................................................... 4 1.5. Scope of the study ...................................................................... 5
1.6. Organization of the study .......................................................... 5
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Key concepts .............................................................................. 7 2.1.1. Grammar ............................................................................ 7 2.1.2. Approaches to grammar teaching ...................................... 9 2.1.3. Task .................................................................................... 12 2.1.4. Task-based language teaching ........................................... 19
2.2. Related studies ........................................................................... 23
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY
3.1. Research design ......................................................................... 27 3.2. Participants and research settings .............................................. 29
11
3.2.1. Participants ......................................................................... 29 3.2.2. Research settings ............................................................... 30
3.3. Materials .................................................................................... 31 3.4. Action research cycles ............................................................... 31 3.5. Data collection ........................................................................... 34
3.5.1. Research tools .................................................................... 34 3.5.2. Data collection procedure .................................................. 38
3.6. Data analysis .............................................................................. 39
CHAPTER IV: ACTION RESEARCH CYCLE ONE
4.1. Introduction .................................................................................. 40 4.2. Planning ........................................................................................ 40
4.2.1. Current situation reflected in the questionnaire 1 ................. 40 4.2.2. Lesson plans ......................................................................... 43
4.3. Action and observation ................................................................. 44 4.3.1. Unit 12 .................................................................................. 44 4.3.2. Unit 13 .................................................................................. 47
4.4. Reflection ..................................................................................... 49 4.4.1. Students’ scores in the post tests .......................................... 49 4.4.2. Students’ attitudes towards the use of tasks ......................... 50
4.5. Changes for Cycle two ................................................................. 56
CHAPTER V: ACTION RESEARCH CYCLE TWO
5.1. Introduction .................................................................................. 58 5.2. Planning ........................................................................................ 58 5.3. Action and observation ................................................................. 59
5.3.1. Unit 14 .................................................................................. 59 5.3.2. Unit 15 .................................................................................. 61
5.4. Reflection ..................................................................................... 62
12
5.4.1. Students’ scores in the two post tests ................................... 62 5.4.2. Students’ attitude towards the use of tasks ........................... 63 5.4.3. Student-motivating factors of task-based grammar
lessons ..................................................................................... 68
CHAPTER VI: SUGGESTIONS FOR THE SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION OF TASK IN GRAMMAR TEACHING
6.1. Frame-work of task-based teaching in grammar lessons ................ 73 6.2. Implications of using tasks in grammar lessons ............................. 75
6.2.1. Tasks are activities with real-life goals ................................ 75 6.2.2. Tasks encourage students to reach and show an
outcome ................................................................................... 76 6.2.3. Tasks should help students practice other English
skills ........................................................................................ 76 6.2.4. Tasks encourage students to interact in English .................. 77 6.2.5. The position of grammar instruction in a task-based
grammar lesson ....................................................................... 77
CHAPTER VII: CONCLUSION
7.1. Summary of important findings ...................................................... 78 7.2. Limitations of the study .................................................................. 79 7.3. Suggestions for further studies ....................................................... 80 7.4. Conclusion ...................................................................................... 80
REFERENCES .......................................................................................... 82
APPENDICES ........................................................................................... 87
13
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, the reasons for conducting research will be mentioned.
Besides, the aims, research questions, the scope and significance of the study
will also be stated clearly. Lastly, there is an overview of the organization of
the paper.
1.1. The statement of problem and rationale for the study
In the book “How to teach grammar”, Thornbury (1999, p.21) states
that “the history of language teaching is essentially the history of the claims
and counterclaims for and against the teaching of grammar”. Indeed, the
position of grammar instruction depends on different methods and approaches
to language. For example, teachers who are in favor of Grammar-Translation
Method (GTM) start lessons with an “explicit statement of the rules” followed
by translation exercises. In the meantime, deep-end Communicative Language
Teaching (CLT) rejects both grammar-based syllabus and grammar
instruction. The choice of teaching methods seems to be dependent on a
particular context of language teaching and differs from country to country.
According to Hinkel & Fotos (2002), in regions where English is studied as a
foreign language (EFL), GTM is still being used as a primary method of
English instruction. In these classrooms, English is learned through translation
into the native language and memorization of grammatical rules and
vocabulary.
Within the current context of Vietnamese educational system, where
English is also learned as a foreign language, grammar learning and teaching
play an important role because of the wash-back of examinations in which
grammar is one of the focuses. Meanwhile, with improvements in the national
14
educational system, the traditional grammar instruction or GTM has been
gradually changed into CLT approach with less emphasis on grammar in the
English program for high school students. Like other English skills such as
reading, writing, speaking and listening, grammar should be taught with the
new approach.
However, CLT is a “broad, philosophical approach to the language
curriculum” (Nunan, 2004, p.10) with weak and strong versions of different
contents and methodology. While the weak version “stresses the importance
of providing learners with opportunities to use their English for
communicative purposes”, the strong one emphasizes the acquisition of
language through communication. In other words, the weak interpretation of
CLT is “learning to use” English and the other is “using English to learn it”
(Howatt, 1984, p.279). PPP is the methodology used to teach language
contents of the weak version and task-based teaching belongs to the strong
one. Task-based teaching can be seen in another way in which CLT is
considered as a big family with different realizations and task-based teaching
is one of them (Nunan, 2004).
A task as an educational activity is defined as “a piece of classroom
work which involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or
interacting in the target language while their attention is primarily focused on
meaning rather than form” (Nunan, 1989, p.10) or “activities where the target
language is used by the learner for a communicative purpose (goal) in order to
achieve an outcome” (Willis, 1996, p.12). According to Long & Norris
(2000), task-based teaching is an attempt to get benefits of a focus on meaning
while dealing with shortcomings of grammar accuracy through the use of a
focus on form. Task-based teaching has been used widely in many countries
15
since 1970s (Hinkel&Photos, 2002) because it provides students with freedom
of language control and chances to have “genuine communicative interaction”.
With the consideration to the context of Vietnamese high schools where
there is a need of teaching English grammar communicatively, task-based
teaching can become a good option. Firstly, according to Thornbury (1999),
task-based teaching seems to be appropriate with learners having grounding in
basic grammar and vocabulary. Indeed, high school students are in this case
have been taught English in secondary schools before entering upper grades.
Secondly, task-based teaching works well with mixed ability groups since task
achievement does not depend on having a specific level of ability (Thornbury,
1999). This feature of task-based teaching matches the current context of
Vietnamese non-English specialized high schools, where English level of
students varies considerably. Moreover, with practical effectiveness of
communicative tasks in English lessons, task-based teaching is expected to
bring significant improvements in the approach to grammar lessons of
Vietnamese high schools. Finding the way to integrating tasks with grammar
teaching and exploring the contribution of task-based teaching towards
grammar lessons are what the current study-“Exploring the use of tasks in
teaching grammar for Grade 10 in Hanoi- An action research” searched for.
1.2. Aims of the study
The study is to explore the use of tasks in grammar lessons within the
current context of Vietnamese educational system. Because task-based
teaching is new to both teachers and learners in high schools where the
traditional method with much emphasis on grammar not communicative
competence still exists, tasks should be adapted and made suitable with the
current situation. The purpose of this paper is to find a proper way to integrate
16
tasks in teaching grammar for 10th form students and explore the usefulness of
tasks in motivating and improving the grammar acquisition of students.
1.3. Research questions
The study is conducted to answer three specific questions:
a. What is the attitude of students toward task-based teaching in
grammar lessons?
b. How can task-based language teaching motivate students during
English grammar lessons?
c. What factors contribute to the successful application of tasks in
teaching grammar to Vietnamese students?
1.4. Significance of the study
In the first place, students and teachers of high schools in Hanoi are
those who directly benefit from the information of the research. English
teachers, especially those who have never had an intention of integrating tasks
to grammar teaching before will have a new look at the methodology of
grammar teaching. The study hopes to be a sample or suggestion for them to
develop tasks in grammar lessons as well as in other English skills lessons.
The limitation of this study and problems during the application of tasks will
be valuable for English teachers so that they can conduct task-based English
periods more smoothly and successfully. For students, the new method is
expected to bring a lively and interesting environment for grammar lessons in
which students can benefit directly. They can experience a different way of
learning grammar in and have more inspiration with grammar.
In the second place, the study is expected to be useful for further studies
of the same topic in the future.
17
In general, students, teachers and researchers are those who are likely to
benefit from the study.
1.5. Scope of the study
As stated in the previous part, the research targeted at 10th form students
only as they were identified as “newcomers” who have been much influenced
by the teaching methods of English teachers at high schools. Besides, the
study was restricted to 10th form students studying at high schools in Hanoi.
Moreover, the research was conducted to explore the use of task in
grammar teaching in class. It means that other skills such as reading, listening,
writing and speaking were not covered in this study.
1.6. Organization of the study
The study contains seven chapters:
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Literature review which presents the background theory
underlying the issue, including definitions and relevant
knowledge around key concepts, followed by a review of
related studies in the same field.
Chapter 3 Methodology defining the methodology of the research
including features of the participants, contexts, research
instruments, data collection and data analysis procedure.
Chapter 4 Action research Cycle One, which discusses findings and
analysis in the first cycle.
Chapter 5 Action research Cycle Two, which discusses findings and
analysis in the second cycle.
18
Chapter 6 Implications and suggestions for the successful
application of tasks in grammar teaching
Chapter 7 Conclusion which summarizes significant findings,
highlights contributions of the research, and puts forward
practical suggestions for future research as well as address
notable limitations.
19
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter is to present the background theory underlying the issue,
including definitions and relevant knowledge around key concepts, followed
by a review of related studies in the same field.
2.1. Key concepts
2.1.1. Grammar
Since first being defined, grammar has caused a number of confusions
because the word “grammar” depicts different meanings. According to Mario
Pei in the Glossary of Linguistic Terminology (1966, p.108), “grammar is that
part of the study of language which deals with forms and the structure of
words (Morphology) and with their customary arrangement in phrases and
sentences (Syntax)”. Supporting this definition, Huddleston (1988)
emphasizes the components of grammar which are morphology and syntax.
Morphology deals with forms of words while syntax deals with the ordering of
the words to form sentences. The same concept can be seen in the definition of
Nunan (2003). However, “syntax” and “morphology” are respectively
expressed by the structure of a language and the way in which units such as
words and phrases are combined to produce sentences in the language.
Chomsky (1959, p.13) also suggests another definition of grammar that is “a
grammar can be regarded as a device that enumerates the sentences of a
language”.
Five types of English grammar which may be used in the context of the
EFL classrooms are mentioned by Bourke (2005): traditional prescriptive
grammar, structuralist applied grammar, modern descriptive grammar,
Chomskyan generative grammar and Hallidayan systemic functional grammar.
20
Bourke (2005, p.86) describes traditional prescriptive grammar as “lays
down the norms of correct usage”. Traditional grammar is said to be
inaccurate and subjective. Prescriptive grammar rules sometimes bear little
relation to modern English usage. In other words, Medina (2010, p.2) claims
that this type of grammar is based on “the prestige language, dialects of a
community”. The second type of grammar is structuralist applied grammar.
Bourke (2005, p. 87) points out that structuralist grammar viewing language
as “a taxonomy of set structure or patterns, which act as templates for the
generation of any number of sentences on the same pattern” has a long lasting
and harmful effect on the teaching of English. The problem of this type is that
the English syllabus focuses mainly on syntax. The structural inventory is
derived not from the learners’ needs but from the grammarian’s analysis
(Bourke, 2005). The audio-lingual method was an approach to language
teaching based on structuralist linguistics and behaviorist learning theory.
Nowadays, prescriptive grammar has been replaced by modern
descriptive grammar which describes actual usage rather than enforces
arbitrary rules (Chomsky, 1959). Descriptive grammar is focused in a
particular language within a speech community, and tries to create rules for
common utterances which they consider grammatically correct (Medina,
2010). It describes real English in examples taken from real context of English
use and are not made up as in traditional grammars (Bourke, 2005).
The last two types of grammar which are generative grammar by Noam
Chomsky and the systemic-functional grammar by M.A.K. Halliday have an
important contribution to the study of grammar (Medina, 2010). According to
Chomsky (1959), a generative grammar formalizes an algorithm that generates
valid strings in a language and is a description of how to write a language. It is
21
focused on language acquisition in general, not to describe specific languages.
While Chomsky approached grammar from “a mentalist perspective” (Bourke,
2005, p.92), Halliday approached it from a social perspective. Bourke (2005)
mentions Hallidayan systemic functional grammar with its basic claim that is
the use of English decides the form of it for a specific purpose. He emphasizes
the practical use of grammar under the view of Halliday and asserts that
grammar is a tool for making meaning. However, this type of grammar is also
said to be “messy and complex” (Bourke, 2005, p.93).
In brief, it may be said that “language without grammar is not possible
and it would be chaotic” (Medina, 20101, p.6). Moreover, it would be also
impossible to teach and learn a language properly without using grammar.
2.1.2. Approaches to grammar teaching
It seems that since the appearance of language teaching, language
teaching approaches and methods have always been developed with the desire
to find effective language pedagogy (Hinkel&Fotos, 2002). It is also true to
grammar teaching; however, until now, there may be no single best approach
that would be applied in all situations to the diverse types of learners a teacher
can encounter. “Grammar teaching” is still a variable term with a number of
definitions and the role of grammar differs from methods to methods. This
difference depends on the way each method and approach answers the
questions “should the method adhere to a grammar syllabus?” and “should the
rules of grammar be made explicit?” (Thornbury, 1999, p.20).
- Grammar-Translation (GTM): According to Thornbury (1999), this
method focuses on grammatical analysis and translation. Grammar-translation
courses follow a grammar syllabus and lessons with an explicit explanation of
the rule, followed by exercises involving translation into and out of mother
22
tongue. This method can provide students with good knowledge of grammar
and translation but they can hardly apply it into communication. More
importantly, grammar-translation method emphasizes the dominant role of
grammar.
- Audiolingualism: Audio-lingual method derives its theoretical base
from behaviourist psychology, which considered language as simply a form of
behavior, to be learned through the formation of correct habits. The
Audiolingual syllabus includes a graded list of sentence patterns which forms
the basis of pattern-practice drills, the distinguishing feature of
Audiolingualism. This method “dismissed the study of grammar or literature
as the goal of foreign language teaching.” (Richards & Rogers, 1986, p.35)
- Communicative language teaching (CLT): Communicative
Language Teaching began in Britain in the 1960s as a replacement to the
earlier structural method, called Situational Language Teaching. The primary
aim of the CLT is to prepare learners for meaningful communication, and
errors are tolerated. It is a learner-centered approach to language teaching in
which grammatical knowledge is argued to be only one component of
“communicative competence”. It is defined as “knowing how to use the
grammar and vocabulary of the language to achieve communicative goals, and
knowing how to do this in a socially appropriate way” (Thornbury, 1999,
p.18). However, Thornbury (1999) also mentions that different version of
CLT emphasized different roles of grammar. The shallow-end or weak version
of CLT considers grammar one of the main components of the syllabus of
CLT courses. Nevertheless, grammar is hidden under the cover of “functional
labels” such as: asking the way, talking about yourself, making future plans.
(Thornbury, 1999, p.22). When the deep-end or strong version of CLT is
23
developed, grammar-based syllabuses and grammar instruction are totally
rejected from this version. This version has a leading proponent who was N.S.
Prabhu, a teacher of English in Southern India. With his project, he designed a
syllabus of tasks in which no formal grammar instruction was used and the
successful completion of tasks was the lesson objectives. This project was
then considered “the predecessor of what is known as task-based teaching”
(Thornbury, 1999, p.22). However, task-based teaching allows the revival of
grammar under the concepts of “focus on form”.
- Focus on form: In the view of Hinkel&Fotos (2002), a purely
communicative approach which does not include explicit grammar teaching or
correct, despite its positive aspects, still has limitations. Firstly, it is because
explicit grammar can not be used in this approach, grammatical competence
essential for communication may not be attained merely through exposure to
meaningful input. Moreover, advanced proficiency and accuracy in spoken
and written production are just gained when the instructed learning is required.
In order to address these limitations, “focus on form”, a new approach with
the combination of formal grammar instruction and communicative language
use was developed. While only teaching grammar forms does not produce
communicative competence and the neglect of grammar instruction in
communicative syllabus causes “fossilization and classroom pidgins”
(Hinkel&Fotos, 2002, p.5) , the integration of these two approaches has been
proved to have help learners able to recognize the properties of target
structures in context and develop accuracy in their use (Fotos&Ellis, 1991).
24
2.1.3. Task
a. Task definition
The term “task” is approached from various aspects, so it has a variety
of definitions. It can be defined as simply as Long (1985) stated:
[a task is] a piece of work undertaken for oneself or for others, freely or for some reward. Thus, examples of tasks include painting a fence, dressing a child, filling out a form, buying a pair of shoes, making a airline reservation, borrowing a library book, taking a driving test, typing a letter, weighing a patient, sorting letters, taking a hotel reservation, writing a cheque, finding a street destination and helping someone across a road. In other words, by “task” is meant the hundred and one things people do in everyday life, at work, at play, and in between.
(as cited in Nunan, 1989, p.5)
However, this definition makes the term irrelevant to linguistics or
language teaching. The outcome of examples that Long (1985) gives may not
relate to language and also involve language use at all. For example, people
can do the task “painting a fence” without talking anything. And such tasks
like “borrowing a library book” or “sorting letter” do not need to have a
linguistic outcome. Therefore, the word “task” in this study is a
communicative task and meant to relate to language teaching and learning.
While there has been no common definition of tasks, similar features still
exist. From these features, a classification of “task” definitions has been
suggested by Kris Van den Branden (2006). He raises three basis questions
guiding curriculum design and based on that to group available definitions.
According to him, in order to build a second language curriculum, the
designers have to answer three questions: What is the goal of the lesson that
learners have to reach? How to design class activities to help learners reach
that goal? And how to assess and follow up students’ learning process and
25
outcomes? When using “task” definitions to answer these questions, Branden
has found that most of the available ones tend to answer the second question
and only few are relevant to the first one. These few definitions have one point
in common which is “task are goal-directed activities”. From these definitions,
Branden (2006) offeres a new one which refers to tasks as language learning
goals:
A task is an activity in which a person engages in order to attain an object, and which necessitates the use of language. (p.4)
With the analysis of definitions which relate to his second question such
as those of Richards, Platt& Weber, 1985; Krahnke, 1987, Breen, 1989,
Branden does not give out a specific definition for “task” but his analysis is
enough for a clear view of “task” in language teaching and learning. In the
first place, task should be a life-related activity. The necessity of a close link
between classroom and the outside world is emphasized. In the second place, a
communicative task should facilitate meaningful interaction and provide
opportunity for the leaner process meaningful input and produce meaningful
output. In other words, tasks should drive the learner to act as “a language
user” not “a language learner” (Branden, 2006, p.6).
Besides Branden’s viewpoint, other definitions have been stated clearly.
Nunan’s (1989) is one of the most popular pedagogical definitions of a
classroom task:
[a 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 on form. (p.10)
While Nunan pays his attention to the meaningful use of language
during the implementation of tasks, Willis (1996, p.53) emphasizes another
26
feature of task which is its goal when defining that task is “a goal-oriented
activity in which learners use language to achieve a real outcome”. According
to him, the most important characteristic of a task is that learners are required
to complete an activity with a specific target and after the completion of task,
an outcome should be visible. By mentioning “a real outcome”, Willis also
agrees with Nunan’s definition that language use in task should be the
refection of language use in the outside world.
Tasks are different from other approaches in a number of ways in
providing learners with purposeful learning experiences. Willis (1996) views a
task as “a label for various activities including grammar exercises, practice
activities and role plays” (p.23). Moreover, tasks should “focus on meaning
and form and encourage learners to view language learning as a purposeful
experience” (Hui, Oi-lin & Irene, 2004, p.34)
While there had been no clear agreement on the common definition of
“task”, Jane Willis and Corony Edwards (2006) suggests five features of a
communicative task which are also standards to justify tasks designed during
the implementation of this study. A task must be (1) an activity (2) having a
real-life goal with (3) a clear outcome (4), using any or four languages skills
(5) and having real-world language use. It is also necessary to distinguish
“task” used in this research with other activities. Activities which are not
counted as tasks require learners to do exercises applying language patterns
they have just been taught, for example, a transformation exercise, drilling
exercises or acting out dialogues.
b. Task types
When designing tasks for any language lesson, a teacher has a number
of choices to make in terms of the type of task. The classification of tasks can
27
be different depending on the perspectives of the linguists or researchers.
Some classifications are general and others are more specific. According to
Willis (2006), there are many ways to define types of tasks based on different
aspects of task. For example, Nunan (1989) suggests two big types of task:
real-world tasks and pedagogical tasks. Whereas, Willis (1996) lists six types
of tasks of TBLT in her A framework for task-based learning, which are:
listing, ordering and sorting, comparing, problem solving, sharing experience
and creative tasks. From easy to difficult, these six types of tasks all reveal the
recognition process of students. The tasks in TBLT should be “comparable to
real life which might help students accomplish the tasks and show their
communicative competence in classroom teaching and real life situations”.
(Willis, 1996, p.149). Meanwhile, other people can divide tasks according to
types of topic, cognitive processes, language skills required or the outcome of
the task.
According to Nunan (1989), real-world tasks provide learners with
chances to use language in the world beyond the class while pedagogical tasks
require students to do things which unlikely happen in the real life. In fact, it
is ideal if a teacher can design suitable real-world tasks for his/her lesson.
However, it is unusual for real-world tasks not to be adapted so that they can
be suitable with students’ level, classroom conditions or syllabus. For
example, a piece of news for high school students might be re-recorded at a
lower or played many times until they can catch the information. In the real
life, this is impossible. Therefore, in order to increase learning opportunities in
the classroom, Nunan (1989) thinks of the transformation from real-world
tasks into pedagogical tasks. Nevertheless, the distinction between two types
of task is not always clear. It is easy to distinguish a real-world task like “the
learner will listen to a weather forecast and decide whether or not to take an
28
umbrella and sweater at school” and a pedagogical one like “the leaner will
listen to an aural text and answer true or false questions”. However, as Nunan
(1989) mentions, there are tasks which are in principle authentic but seem not
to happen in the real life (for example, a speaking task for children, “Making a
formal introduction”). In the mean time, there are pedagogical tasks having
real-life context such as “listening to an aural text and write a sentence
restating the gist”. Therefore, it is possible to say that there is no clear
criterion to differentiate real-life task and pedagogical task.
In the meantime, there are six types of tasks listed by Willis (1996,
p.149) which relate to the recognition process of learners:
(1) Listing: Including brainstorming and fact-finding. The outcome of
this task is a completed list or draft mind-map. Listing tasks help train
students’ comprehension and induction ability.
(2) Ordering, sorting: Including sequencing, ranking, categorizing and
classifying. The outcome of tasks is a set of information ordered and sorted
according to specific criteria. These types might foster comprehension, logic
and reasoning ability.
(3) Comparing: Including matching, finding similarities or differences.
After the completion of tasks, students will have the appropriately matched or
assembled items, or the identification of similarities and/or differences. This
type of task could enhance students’ ability of discretion.
(4) Problem-solving: Including analyzing real situation, analyzing
hypothetical situations, reasoning, and decision-making. The outcome might
be solutions to the problem. The tasks can help foster students’ reasoning and
decision-making ability.
29
(5) Sharing experience: Including narrating, describing, exploring and
explaining attitudes, opinions, and reactions. The outcome usually can be
largely social. This can help students to share and exchange their knowledge
and experience.
(6) Creative tasks: Including brainstorming, fact-finding, ordering and
sorting, comparing, problem-solving and many others. The outcome might be
end product which can be appreciated by a wider audience. Students can
cultivate their comprehensive ability of solving problems with their ability of
reasoning, logical and analyzing.
In this research, tasks which are designed to use in grammar lessons are
only pedagogical tasks according to the classification of Nunan (1989).
c. Task components
The introduction of task components given by Nunan (1989) will be the
focus of the current research. According to him, a task should include six
components:
Figure 1. A framework for analyzing communicative tasks
Goals may be “a range of general outcomes (communicative, affective
or cognitive) or may directly describe teacher or learner behavior” (Nunan,
1989, p.49). They can be stated clearly in each lesson or not and a task may
have a variety of goals.
TASK
Goal
Input
Activities
Teacher
Learner
Settings
30
“Input refers to the data that form the point of departure for the task”
(Nunan, 1989, p.53). Input for communicative tasks comes from a number of
sources and it is not easy to count and classify all types of input. They may be
authentic materials like letters, newspaper, drawings, invoices, menus, etc.
They may also be provided by teachers or textbooks and even learners
themselves. Input with or without authenticity is totally not the big matter
because the matter lies in the creation and combination of input materials so
that they can provide learners with optimal learning opportunities.
Activities are what learners will actually do with the input during the
task implementation. According to the Bangalore Project (as cited in Nunan,
1989, p.66), there are three principal activity types which are information gap,
reasoning gap and opinion gap. Moreover, activities can be divided into more
detailed types such as: questions and answers, dialogues and role-plays,
matching activities, communication strategies, pictures and picture stories,
puzzles and problems, discussions and decisions (Pattison, 1987).
Roles refer to the part that learners and teachers are expected to play in
carrying out learning tasks. Different approaches have different roles of
learners and teachers. In task-based learning and teaching, teachers are
believed to perform two main actions: motivating the learners and supporting
them to perform task (Branden, 2006). Learners have an active role and they
should contribute to the lesson as well as receive new knowledge (Nunan,
1989).
Settings are “the classroom arrangements specified or implied in the
task, and it also requires consideration of whether the task is to be carried out
wholly or partly outside the classroom” (Nunan, 1989, p.91). Referring to
“settings”, it is necessary to differentiate between “mode” and “environment”.
31
As introduced by Nunan (1989), “mode” is the way that the learner will take
actions in the task. It can be an individual or a group basis. “Environment”
refers to the location of the language learning process.
2.1.4. Task-based language teaching
a. Definition of task-based language teaching
For the past 20 years, task-based language teaching (TBLT) has drawn
attention of second language acquisition researchers, curriculum developers,
educationalists and teachers world wide. While PPP is considered the
methodology used in the weak version of CLT, tasks has a dominant role in
strong version of CLT (Ellis, 1999). In another view, task-based teaching is
regarded as a particular realization of CLT. It is a teaching method in which
tasks is the center and the aim of task-based learning is to make language
classroom approximate to the target language environment, develop students’
ability to communicate.
Nunan (1999, p.24) defines task-based language teaching as “an
approach to the design of language course in which the point of departure is
not an ordered list of linguistic items, but a collection of tasks”. In other
words, in task-based language teaching, tasks become the center of the course.
Without emphasizing the establishment of a task-based course, Richards and
Rogers (2001) have given a more basic and simple definition of task-based
language teaching as “an approach based on the use of tasks as the core unit of
planning and instruction in language teaching” (p.223). In this definition, tasks
are also the focus but they are mentioned in the role of a language teaching
device. Ellis (2003) clarifies the meaning of TBLT by identifying its aim of
engaging learners in authentic language through the completion of tasks to
acquire new linguistic knowledge and proceduralize their existing knowledge.
32
However, TBLT is not a definite method that teachers must follow
systematically. Skehan (1996) distinguishes task-based approach into two
forms – strong and weak ones, “[a] strong form sees tasks as the basic unit of
teaching and drives the acquisition process. A weak form sees tasks as a vital
part of language instruction but as embedded in a more complex pedagogical
context” (p.36). While tasks in the strong form of task-based approach are
“communicatively oriented”, in the weak form, they are “structure oriented”.
Skehan (1996) notes that the weak form of task-based instruction which
facilitates language knowledge and performance “is clearly very close to
general communicative language teaching” (p.39). He affirms the necessity of
tasks in the weak form while accepting the focused instruction to precede or
follow those tasks. Tasks in this form are roughly comparable to the
production stage of PPP method.
The definition of “the weak form” by Skehan (1996) is likely to similar
to what Ellis (2003) calls “task-supported language teaching” in which tasks
act “as a means by which learners can activate their existing knowledge of the
L2 by developing fluency” (Ellis, 2003, p.30). In task-supported language
teaching, focused tasks are defined as “have two aims; one is to stimulate
communicative language use as with unfocused tasks, the other is to target the
use of a particular, predetermined target feature in meaning-centred
communication” (Ellis, 2003, p.65). These tasks are incorporated into
traditional language-based approaches to teaching. For example, the PPP
approach makes use of focused tasks in the final stage of a sequence of
learning activities that begins with the presentation of a pre-selected linguistic
form followed by controlled practice. Learners are made aware of the
linguistic focus and the task serves to provide opportunities for learners to use
the pre-selected language item in free production.
33
However, in this research, attention to form occurs in interaction and
students were not made aware that a specific form was being targeted. They
chose to use it so as to convey the meanings they wanted to. In other words, in
this study, the task comes first and serves a diagnostic purpose. Task-based
language teaching used in the current research can be understood as “the weak
form” of this approach according to the classification of Skehan (1996).
Nevertheless, “task-based” will be the only term used in this study.
b. The framework of task-based language teaching:
The most popular framework of task-based teaching is designed by
Willis (1996). She provides the procedures of task-based language teaching
into three stages (Table 1) and this is also the framework of task-based
teaching used in this study.
Table 1. Willis’ framework of task-based teaching approach
Stages Content
Pre-task Introduction to topic and tasks
Task-cycle
Task
Planning
Report
Language focus Analysis
Practice
(Willis,1996)
34
At the first stage - Pre-task, teachers play an important role because
they will provide necessary background, knowledge and procedure, help
students get familiar with the topic and the task.
At the second stage, there are three small phases which are task phase,
planning phase and report phase. In the task phase, students will carry out the
task, in pairs or in groups, while teachers are supervisors and monitors helping
students complete the task. Before coming to the report phase in which
learners are required to present the results of their task phase work to the
whole class, they have to be sure that they have had a good preparation by the
planning phase. In planning phase, students will prepare for the report and
rehearse what they will say.
The language focus stage includes two small phases: analysis and
practice. This is the stage in which language knowledge will be revised or
taught and activities are designed to help students practice what they have
learnt through the task.
c. Principles for task-based language teaching
Nunan (2007) suggests seven principles for task-based language
teaching and they are criteria for the researcher while designing and
conducting grammar lessons with the use of tasks.
Principle Content
Principle 1: Scaffolding
It means that students need support from teachers to complete tasks. Teachers should provide “a supporting framework within with the learning can take place” (Nunan, 2007, p.35)
Principle 2: In a lesson, one task should be built on the foundation of previous task.
35
Task dependency
Principle 3:
Recycling
“Recycling language maximizes opportunities for learning and activates the “organic” learning principle.” (Nunan, 2007, p.36)
Principle 4:
Active learning
Learners should be active during the lesson and use the language they are learning.
Principle 5:
Integration
There should be clear relationships between linguistic form, communicative function and semantic meaning in the lesson.
Principle 6:
Reproduction to creation
“Learners should be encouraged to move from reproductive to creative language use”. (Nunan, 2007, p.37)
Principle 7:
Reflection
It is necessary for teachers to provide chances for students to show what they have learnt.
Table 2. Seven principles of task-based language teaching
2.2. Related studies
Task-based is not a new approach in teaching methodology and its
effectiveness in enhancing students’ communicating ability has been studied
by a number of researchers. Both researchers and teachers attempt to seek for
practicality in every aspect of language teaching and learning. It seems that it
is possible to apply task-based teaching in any skill, reading, writing, speaking
and listening with various purposes. For example, task-based writing activities
could be a good way to improve reading comprehension, which was the
finding of Tilfarlioglu and Basaran (2007) in their experimental study.
While there is still a lot of controversy in whether or not should
grammar be taught as other skills, task-based approach finds it own way in
grammar teaching to make grammar lesson becomes easier and more
36
interesting, especially in countries where English is taught as second or
foreign language. However, there are not many studies which have been
conducted about applying task in grammar teaching.
Zhu (2007) is among those who started studies on teaching grammar
with the integration of task-based teaching. In the study “Integrating task-
based teaching approach into grammar teaching”, with the supposition that
teaching English grammar in China traditionally made students get bored with
the studies, he designed tasks in class based on the theory of task-based
approach, especially the framework for task-based learning proposed by Willis
(1996) including three stages: Pre-task, Task-cycle and Language focus.
However, in the research, the type of communicative tasks was not specified.
Basic knowledge on tasks and task-based approach was provided but the
features of tasks used in teaching grammar were not clearly stated. These
features were just simply demonstrated through his description of task cycle
and small examples. However, in his own study, Zhu carried out grammar
lessons integrating tasks as a new approach to grammar teaching at school and
received positive reaction from students. Group work was proved to make the
tasks and the overall lesson easier and more interesting. The researcher also
showed advantages when applying tasks in grammar teaching. For example,
students’ ability to communicate was improved clearly and they could get
much meaningful language input. An effective way to improve grammar
teaching was explored quite successfully in Chinese schools where the
situation of English teaching and learning is quite the same as in Vietnam.
Also studying task-based grammar teaching, Cuesta (1995) did not have
any particular model of tasks for grammar lesson but she dug deep into the
benefit of task-based in teaching and learning grammar. The study did not
37
deny the difficulties when applying task-based approach in L2 classes with
limited- English ability students. However, it pointed out that when grammar
was engaged in collaborative discourse, task-based grammar would provide
learners with a richer source of language and proceduralize grammar in real-
lifer language use. Like Zhu, Cuesta did realize the outstanding profit of task-
based in teaching grammar which is the combination of grammar and real-life
language and situation, so learners have more chance to communicate but still
acquire grammar successfully.
Another valuable study named “Designing and testing effective
grammar-focused communicative tasks” was conducted by Alison Mackey &
Akiko Fujii (2007). As its name, this research studied the effectiveness of
grammar-focused communicative tasks. Although a model of task-based
language teaching in grammar was not mentioned, the use of communicative
tasks with the focus on grammar is of great value to research as a reference in
designing tasks. Its remarkable feature is that the data were collected both
from ESL and EFL classes, which brought a broader and more comprehensive
view on the use of tasks for grammar teaching. The researchers intended to
use explicit presentation of grammar and they were successful when the
quality and reaction of students towards this approach were much positive.
However, this presentation was separated from tailor-made communicative
tasks. It means that communicative tasks were used as practice activities
besides traditional ones, so it is easy to understand that the findings of this
study could only prove that tailor-made communicative tasks were effective
and feasible when they were involved in corrective feedback.
In brief, related studies have proved a promising future of task-based
approach in grammar teaching although an agreement on the same format of
38
tasks has not been reached. This affirms that task-based approach for grammar
teaching can be accessed and applied in different ways. With the same
objectives as these studies, this research attempt to find a feasible type of task
for grammar teaching in EFL classes as well as the most proper way of
integrating task in grammar lessons. However, it is expected that a model or a
framework for teaching grammar through tasks will be established as the
study is completed.
39
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY
In this chapter, the, selection of participants, research instrument, data
collecting and analyzing procedures are systematically discussed. Before that,
the research approach of this study is clarified.
3.1. Research design
The research design of this study is action research. The idea of doing
action research can be traced back to Kurt Lewin, a social psychologist and
educator whose work on action research was developed throughout the 1940s
in the United States. Action research is defined as “a process in which
participants examine their own educational practice systematically and
carefully, using the techniques of research” (Ferrance, 2000, p.1). This kind of
research is said to base on three assumptions:
1. Teachers and principals work best on problems they have identified for themselves.
2. Teachers and principals become more effective when encouraged to examine and assess their own work and then consider ways of working differently.
3. Teachers and principals help each other by working collaboratively. 4. Working with colleagues helps teachers and principals in their
professional development. (Watts, 1985, p.118)
Action research is considered a typical research of teaching and learning
because it is undertaken in a school setting. Recently, action research has
gained popularity in ELT. Different from other types of research, it can be
evaluated as “practical research” because of the involvement to “people
working to improve their skills, techniques, and strategies. It is not about
learning why we do certain things, but rather how we can do things better”
40
(Ferrance, 2000, p.3). The practice of action research is visible and seen to
hold great value as a tool for professional development (Ferrance, 2000).
Brown (2005) suggests that:
“Teachers will learn most effectively and change behavior in circumstances where there is personal engagement in identifying a practical concern as the focus of the research, designing the study, taking action, collecting evidence, formulating conclusions and feeding these back to practice.”
(as cited in Songsiri, 2007, p.50)
Regarding the features of action research, Setyanigrum (2010) states
that action research is interactive, multiple-focused, interrelated, formative,
concrete, rigorous, solid inquiry that strives to build for the individual teacher
a sophisticated theory of learning, and radically integrated with practice.
Whereas, Richards (2005, p.171) mentions some more detailed characteristics
of action research which are improving teaching and learning in schools and
classroom, being conducted during the process of regular classroom teaching,
being small-scale and intended to help, resolving problems rather than simply
be research for its own sake and carried out by teachers.
With the consideration of the features of action research, the researcher
was convinced that this was an appropriate method to use in exploring the use
of task in grammar teaching for Grade 10 students. To monitor the outcomes
and evaluate them, observations, questionnaires, interviews and post-tests
were used. The details of instruments as well as procedure of the research will
be mentioned in the next parts of this chapter.
41
3.2. Participants and research settings
3.2.1. Participants
The scope of the study is grade 10 students in Hanoi. However,
participants of the research are 50 students in one class whose major is natural
science at Cao Ba Quat high school. Students in this class have a wide range
of English proficiency. Grammar is taught more than other four skills
(reading, listening, writing and speaking). Based on the average mark in
English of 50 students, the researcher classified students in groups A, B, C,
and D. The result of classification can be seen in the following table:
No. Level of English
proficiency Mark
Number of
students
1 A 8.5 – 10 8
2 B 7.0 – 8.4 23
3 C 5.5 – 6.9 14
4 D <5.5 5
Table 3. The classification of English level of participants
Despite learning all four skills in class besides grammar and
pronunciation, grade 10 students almost focus on grammar because of the
wash-back effects of the graduation exam and University entrance exam on
English. Mastering grammar patterns should be considered their current goal
of learning English as foreign language. Therefore, a focus on formS is what
they are more familiar with than a focus on meaning.
42
3.2.2. Research settings
This research was carried out with Group 10A12 in Cao Ba Quat high
school, where the medium of instruction is English and Vietnamese and
students study English as a foreign language. With the innovation in English
textbooks and curriculum, all four skills are taught besides grammar but it is
grammar that is of the most importance. In each unit, reading skill comes first,
and then listening, speaking, writing. Language focus which includes
pronunciation and grammar is the last part. Each period is in 45 minutes. As
there are three English periods per week, grammar is taught every two weeks
in 30 to 35 minutes besides 10 to 15 minutes of teaching pronunciation. The
selection of grammar structure to teach does not depend on teachers but is pre-
decided by the textbooks so the content of each English grammar lesson is the
same in every class.
Task-based language teaching used in this study was the weak form of
the approach where tasks are “a vital part of language instruction, but […] are
embedded in a more complex pedagogic context” (Skehan 1996, p. 39). Tasks
were required to be completed by the teacher without noticing students to
grammar contents of the lesson. After the completion of tasks, grammar points
were presented and followed by controlled practice with exercises. The
reasons for using this form of task-based approach were similar to what
Hinkel& Fotos (2002) explain for their viewpoint that purely communicative
tasks can be impossible in EFL classes. In the first place, due to the limitation
of access to communicative target language, EFL learners cannot receive
enough communicative input to acquire uninstructed target language forms.
Secondly, EFL learners are said to have no real-world needs for specific
communicative functions in the target language. In the context of this study,
43
the goal of high schools students is to pass English exams, especially the
graduation and entrance exams to university. Therefore, for most of them, the
real-world goal is to master grammar structures and attain the accuracy in
using them. With these conditions, the use of tasks in grammar lessons did not
reject the explicit of grammar instructions. Tasks were designed and assessed
with criteria given by Willis (1996). Her frame work in which the explicit of
grammar instructions was in the language focus was also applied.
3.3. Materials
The text book used to teach during the study is Tieng Anh 10 for
English non-specialized students. However, it is only considered a source of
reference to the curriculum and the teaching contents. There was a wide range
of adaptation of the textbook during the implementation of this research. The
teacher based on required teaching contents to find materials and exercises for
students. With the integration of tasks, other types of materials have been
used, especially authentic ones such as English newspaper, magazines, radio
recordings, films. These materials can be used to illustrate at all three stages of
a lesson: the pre-task, task cycle and language focus.
Besides materials served for interactive activities in structure-based
tasks, students need materials to practice drilling exercises with the purpose of
passing examinations. These are tailor-made materials which the teacher
collected and revised to suit the content of each lesson.
3.4. Action research cycles
Burns (2010) suggests four steps of a cycle in each action research:
Planning, action, observation and reflection. Based on that, the researcher
designed her own cycles of this study which included four steps:
44
- Step 1- Planning: At this step, problems that had occurred during
previous grammar lessons were identified through observation. Moreover, a
survey was delivered to investigate students’ attitude towards current grammar
lessons and their assessment on the quality of these lessons. From this survey,
the researcher re-defined the problems of grammar classes. After that, a
hypothesis was drawn that students found grammar lessons not interesting
enough and these lessons did not provide students with adequate opportunities
to practice other skills which are important to improve their English
competence. After the formation of the hypothesis, lesson plans and strategies
were designed to solve problems.
- Step 2 - Action: At this step, the researcher acted as planned. Students
and the teacher together performed the plan. Grammar lessons were taught
with the application of tasks.
- Step 3 - Observation: Some instruments such as questionnaires,
interviews, post tests and observation were used to collect data on the effects
of actions and opinions of students about changes in the grammar lessons or
task-based approach.
- Step 4 - Reflection: At this point, the researcher basing on data
collected reflected on, evaluated and described the effects of task-based
approach in grammar teaching in order to make sense of what had happened
and to understand the issue more clearly. At this step, changes in action were
decided and applied in the next cycle.
The illustration of these four steps was shown in Figure 2:
45
Figure 2. Steps in an action research cycle according to Kemmis and
McTaggart (1988)
In this research, there were two cycles which included all four above
steps. For the first cycle, the researcher or teacher taught two grammar lessons
and each lesson took up 30 minutes with the integration of tasks. Two units
involved in this cycle were Unit 12 and Unit 13 in the textbook Tieng Anh 10.
After each lesson, students had to do a post-test to check their understanding
of grammar structures that had just been taught. After two lessons,
questionnaires were delivered to investigate students’ attitudes and
assessments towards changes in grammar lessons. Following the collection
and analysis of data, the tasks and teaching method were revised to improve
the program for the next cycle.
In the second cycle, with improvement and changes from the previous
cycle, the teacher taught two units: Unit 14 and 15 with the same steps as the
first one. After the data collection, an evaluation of the final outcomes and
suggestions for further studies were made.
46
3.5. Data collection
In this part, the employed instruments and collection procedure will be
explained clearly.
3.5.1. Research tools
In action research, there is a range of observation and non-observation
methods commonly used (Burns, 2010). Two major questions underlying
these instruments are: What do I need to see? (Observation) and What do I
need to know? (Non-observation). The following table shows the choice of
research tools in this study:
Table 4. Research tools
Observation Non-observation
Self - observation Interviews
Questionnaires
Post-test
With this study, self-observation, questionnaires, interviews and post-
tests were fully employed. The combination of these instruments was expected
to generate valid and reliable data.
a. Observation
Burns (2010, p.67) appreciates observing and describing as key factors
in action research. Collecting data through observation in this type of research
is considered to make familiar things strange because the teacher as well as a
researcher will have to discover what he has never consciously noticed before.
Among different modes of observation, this research chose “self-observation”
as its instrument. Classroom’s activities observed would be noted down in the
47
observation notes which had been designed readily (See Appendix 4). The
researcher noted what she recognized by herself during the lessons. Her
description and comments on the lessons were then compared to data collected
from students’ questionnaires and interviews in order to evaluate whether
there is a similarity between teacher’s thought and students’ opinions.
b. Questionnaires:
Nunan (1989) states that through using questionnaires, one can inquire
into any aspect within teaching or learning process. Teachers use
questionnaires to have reliable data so they can derive conclusions from such
data. Moreover, questionnaires is a device to ensure the quality of data as
when the participants respond to the same questions in the same way, the
answers become more reliable. Also, from reality, the researcher found it time
and effort saving to conduct questionnaire surveys among a large number of
students. This is also the advantage that interviews can not have. According to
Dornyei (2007), questionnaires can bring three types of information: factual or
demographic which describes interviewees and their background; behavioral
which shows what they do or did in the past; attitudinal which focuses on
finding attitudes, opinions, or beliefs of interviewees (as cited in Burns, 2010,
p.91).
In this study, there were three questionnaire papers which had been
carried out and mostly collected attitudinal information from students. The
questionnaire 1 (See Appendix 1) was delivered to fifty participants before the
application of task-based teaching in grammar lessons. This questionnaire was
designed to investigate students’ attitude toward grammar and grammar
lessons and their assessment on the effectiveness of these lessons. Through
this survey, they showed their concept of the importance of grammar in
48
English learning and in comparison with other four skills (reading, speaking,
listening and writing). Besides, students also gave comments to many aspects
of current grammar lessons such as teacher’s way of giving grammar
instruction, classroom activities, or atmosphere. Especially, this survey aimed
to figure out the effectiveness of grammar lessons before the application of
tasks in the view of students. This questionnaire helped the researcher define
the current situation of grammar lessons, strong and weak points of the
teaching methodology to develop a proper form of task-based grammar
lessons.
The questionnaire 2 (See Appendix 2) was delivered to the same
participants after the completion of integrating tasks into grammar teaching in
Cycle One. In this cycle, this questionnaire was done by students to help
researcher answer questions: What is the attitude of students towards task-
based teaching? What are strong and weak points of lessons with the
application of tasks? From the results of this questionnaire, necessary changes
would be made for Cycle Two.
The questionnaire 3 (See Appendix 3) was delivered at the end of Cycle
Two. This was not only to investigate students’ attitude towards and
assessment on grammar lessons in Cycle Two but also the whole process. The
results of this questionnaire helped researcher explore the effectiveness of
task-based teaching in grammar lesson based on students’ opinion. The
answer for the first research question would mostly be drawn from this
questionnaire.
c. Interviews
Interviews are a classical way in research to conduct a conversation that
explores the focus area of the study. In this study, semi-structured interviews
49
were a useful source of collecting data and valuable “follow-up” for the
questionnaire 3 delivered at the third step of Cycle two. The results collected
from this interview were used to mainly answer the second question of this
study: How can task-based teaching motivate students in grammar lessons?
While structured interviews are those which “closely allied to the
questionnaire” (Leedy, 1997, p.199), semi-structured interviews are both
structured and organized but also more open. According to Burns (2010),
semi-structured interviews can enable the researcher to make some kinds of
comparisons across participant’s responses but still ensure individual diversity
and flexibility. Therefore, the research will get deeper opinions or ideas for
her focus matter and so gain richer information.
During the interview with each student, every question and answer as
well as statements were recorded and taken note by the researcher. Despite
having guiding questions, the interviewer with a notice of the characteristics
of high school students carried out the interview in the form of informal talks.
An informal talk like a chat between friends made students more comfortable,
so their sharing was more open, frank and reflected their true opinion and
attitude towards the new lesson.
d. Post-tests
In the study, it is necessary to realize whether task-based teaching is
effective in helping students acquire grammar patterns in class or not.
Therefore, the researcher designed post-tests (See Appendix 8) to evaluate
students’ understanding and memory of grammar structures after each period
with the application of task-based approach. That was the only objective of
post-tests in both cycles. Due to the influence of objective factors such as
students’ mood or classroom’s atmosphere, it is impossible to compare the
50
results of post-tests with previous results that students had gained before the
use of tasks. Therefore, researcher had no intention of basing on post tests to
compare the effectiveness of task-based teaching with the conventional
method. These post-tests took five minutes to complete and were designed
relating to the content of the lesson. Every participant had to do this test.
3.5.2. Data collection procedure
The following table is the summary of the data collection procedure in
this study:
No. Research instruments Steps/cycle to use
1 Questionnaire 1 Step 1 – Cycle 1
2 Questionnaire 2 Step 3 – Cycle 1
3 Questionnaire 3 and Interview Step 3 – Cycle 2
3 Self -observation Step 3 – Cycle 1 and 2
4 Post-tests Step 3 – Cycle 1 and 2
Table 5. Data collection procedure
In this research, the questionnaire 1 was used to provide data about
students’ attitude towards and assessment on grammar lessons without the use
of tasks. It was delivered before the use of tasks in grammar teaching or the
first step of Cycle One. The observation sheets were collected after each
lesson when tasks were applied in the second step of each cycle. The post
tests were done by students and collected after each period of grammar lessons
to check students’ understanding of the content that had just been taught. The
questionnaires 2 and 3 and interviews were to investigate students’ attitude
51
towards the new method. However, after Cycle One, no interview was
conducted.
3.6. Data analysis
Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to analyze data
collected in the study.
Mechanical counting had to be performed to render specific statistic.
These numbers were then put in charts and graphs for better illustration and
explanation. This step also made that study more concise and scientific. This
method was employed to analyze data from questionnaires and results of post-
tests.
Qualitative methods were helpful when the researcher analyzed data
from the interviews and observation notes. Facial expressions were read and
languages used were taken into consideration too. As it is almost impossible to
put these types of information into charts or graphs, the researcher often
quoted the interviewees’ ideas to support the points or extracted from notes of
the observer.
52
CHAPTER IV: ACTION RESEARCH CYCLE ONE
This chapter is aimed to report what had been done during Cycle One
of the study. The data collected from students’ interviews, questionnaires and
post tests are analyzed and some changes for Cycle Two will be recommended
in this section.
4.1. Introduction
This cycle is considered an introduction of task-based teaching applied
in grammar lessons for the first time to discover changes in the class and
students’ attitude towards grammar learning. Before the integration of tasks, a
questionnaire had been delivered so that a general view of grammar teaching
and learning at the high school could be achieved. This chapter is organized
the procedure of the cycle including four steps: planning, action, observation
and reflection.
4.2. Planning
4.2.1. Current situation reflected in the questionnaire 1
Questionnaire 1 (See Appendix 1) were delivered to students in class
10A12 to investigate the general situation and clarify students’ attitude
towards grammar lessons
a. A normal grammar lesson procedure
When being asked to describe the typical procedure of the traditional
grammar lessons, 90% of students (45 out of 50) said that their teacher often
explained grammar rules before giving examples. Doing drilling exercises was
the last step of a lesson. This procedure of grammar lessons matched the
53
“deductive approach which starts with the presentation of a rule and is
followed by examples in which the rule is applied” (Thornbury, 1999, p.29).
Chart 1. Approaches in teaching grammar before the integration of task
The deductive approach to language teaching “is traditionally associated
with Grammar Translation Method” which has had a bad press (Thornbury,
1999, p.29). In the viewpoint of Thornbury (1999), GTM lost teachers’
interest partly because of the use of mother tongue in explaining grammar
points which limits opportunity for students to practice the target language.
Moreover, drilling exercises used in the lessons only involve reading and
writing skill and little attention is given to speaking and pronunciation.
Besides, the use of deductive approach had some possible disadvantages. For
example, Thornbury (1999) claims that the presentation of grammar at the
beginning of a lesson may caused displeasure to students, especially younger
ones but encourage a teacher-centered style. It is this style that reduces
students’ interaction and involvement in the lesson. In addition, explanation is
mentioned as a less effective way in helping students memorize grammar
points. In brief, the normal procedure of grammar lessons before the use of
tasks with the deductive approach had shown its own limitations and it was
necessary for the teacher to seek for another method to overcome these
disadvantages.
DeductiveapproachInductiveapproachOthers90%
10%
54
b. Usefulness of grammar lessons
In the questionnaire 1, students were required to evaluate their interest
in lessons without the use of tasks. The following chart shows the results of
this question:
Chart 2. Students’ interest in grammar lessons without using tasks
The chart shows that only four out of 50 students were interested in
English grammar lessons. Moreover, grammar lessons were even boring to
40% of them, which presents the necessity of increasing students’ motivation
towards grammar lessons.
Table 6 - Students’ opinion about whether they have opportunities to
practice other English skills in grammar lessons
Statements Agree Disagree Neutral
I do not have many chances to practice other
English skills in grammar lessons 30 16 4
In terms of lessons’ effectiveness, 16 students claimed that these
grammar lessons were not effective and useful for their English learning in
VeryinterestingInteresting
Normal
Boring
Very boring
50%
40%
8% 2%
55
general. Nevertheless, the majority (75%) of students still agreed that these
lessons were effective to some extent. However, when being asked about
whether grammar lessons provided them with a variety of opportunities to
practice other skills such as writing, listening, reading and speaking during
these lessons, 60% of the students said “no”.
In general, grammar lessons were acceptable to most students in terms
of helping students improve their English grammatical knowledge. However,
students were not really motivated in these lessons. Moreover, opportunities
for them to practice other English skills (writing, reading, listening and
speaking) were not sufficient.
4.2.2. Lesson plans
Lesson plans with task-based approach were designed to gain three
objectives:
- Maintain or increase the effectiveness of grammar lessons
- Raise students’ motivation and interest in grammar lessons
- Provide chances for students to practice other English skills.
In this cycle, two units (Unit 12 and Unit 13 of Tieng Anh 10) were
selected. Lesson plans with the integration of task were designed to match the
objectives of each unit and included all three steps of a task-based frame-work
(by Willis, 1996): pre-task, task cycle and language focus. The following is
the description of tasks used in Unit 12 and 13. Lesson plans and related
materials can be found in Appendix 7.
56
* Unit 12: Wh-questions
Task: Students are required to work in groups of four and provided
with a passage about the band “The Beatles”. With that information, students
will make a quiz about this band. Each member of groups will have to think
and discuss with the others to finalize the quiz. After discussion, some groups
will present their outcome by using this quiz to ask other groups.
* Unit 13: Articles: a/an/the
Task: In this task, students work in groups of four to design an ideal
house so that it can prevent itself from damage by earthquakes and tsunami as
what happened in Japan in March 2011. They then will draw that house.
Finally, some groups will present their ideas before the class before the vote
for the most impressive one. In this task, teacher provides a list of new words
relating to houses and buildings so that it is easier for students to express their
ideas.
4.3. Action and observation
4.3.1. Unit 12
* Pre-task
- Introducing the topic: Teacher asked students about the theme of this
unit (Music). After that, students were provided with a picture and guessed
who were in the picture. The answer for the picture, “The Beatles”, was also
the topic of the task.
- Pre-task language activity: Students were asked to read through the
handout about “The Beatles” and tried to understand new words listed at the
end of the passage. This step, after that, was realized to be difficult for
57
students as most of them were not able to understand English explanation of
new words. However, the problem was not raised until the task-cycle stage.
- Giving task instruction: At this step, the teacher gave the requirement
of the task that was students worked in groups of four or five to design a quiz
about The Beatles for the collective activity at the weekend. After that, they
would go the stage to present their outcomes. The teacher explained that
students should write questions based on given information and note down the
answer and that the quiz should include at least four questions. Finally, some
sample questions were provided by the teacher so that students could design
the quiz based on the examples.
* Task-cycle
- Task stage: At this stage, the teacher acted as a monitor. The class was
divided into groups of four or five. In their groups, students chose information
that they found useful for their quizzes. Good students in each group were the
most active during this step. They read the information quickly and designed
quizzes without much problem. However, because this was a group activity,
other members of the group were still involved in the task. Even though they
could not design question themselves, they observed the others with attention.
The teacher went around and observed groups completing the tasks.
Sometimes, comments on questions or encouragements were given to groups.
During this stage, an unexpected problem occurred when students could
not understand the meaning of new words because they were explained in
English. Therefore, teacher, instead of just going around and observing, went
to each group and asked whether her students met difficulties with new words
or not. At this time, teacher realized that she did overestimate her students’
58
ability. New words which were asked by students were explained again in
Vietnamese so that students had more time on the main task.
- The planning stage: At this stage, the teacher acted as a language
adviser. After stopping students discussing, teacher gave students three more
minutes to revise their quizzes and prepare for presentation. Each group would
have chance to give out three questions. While students were preparing, the
teacher went around and gave corrective feedbacks on the quiz in terms of
grammar, word choice.
- The report stage: Due to time limitation, there was only three minutes
for presentation; therefore, one group was called to read out their questions
and other students raised their hands to answer. Before that, teacher required
students to face down their handout so that they could not find information but
had to recall it. While the presenting group was giving out their quiz, teacher
wrote down those questions on board in order that students could realize the
common structures of Wh-questions. Some questions were:
- How many members are there in the Beatles? Who are they?
- When did they “die”?
- What are names before the name “the Beatles” ?
The teacher let students ask and answer as if they were in a small game
without the interference of teacher. Therefore, this part involved most of
students and the atmosphere of the lesson was extremely relaxing and the
atmosphere of the class became more lively and motivating.
59
* Language focus
- Corrective feedback: After the report stage, the teacher drew students’
attention to questions on the board and asked students to give comments.
Correction for these questions was made before the next step.
- Language analysis and practice: From samples, students were asked
to draw the common structure of Wh-questions. The second handouts on some
popular questions were delivered to students. In the last minutes of the lesson,
the teacher instructed students to do drilling exercises. These exercises were
then completed at home.
4.3.2. Unit 13
* Pre-task
- Introducing the topic and context: The time when the lesson plan was
designed coincided with the news that caught attention of all people in the
world: Earthquakes and tsunami destroyed Japan. Therefore, the teacher
decided to attach the context of the task in Unit 13 with that real-life event.
The context was “Japanese people need an ideal house which can protect
them from natural disasters such as earthquake and tsunami. Let’s design
such houses for them”.
- Pre-task language activity: The teacher gave students a list of word
relating to houses and buildings. Students were asked to guess the meanings of
some popular words.
- Giving task instruction: The teacher gave an introduction of the tasks
more specifically: Students were required to work in pairs to discuss and draw
the house that they thought suitable with the context. Before the task-cycle
60
stage, the teacher suggested students some topics to discuss about (Where was
the house? What was it built from? What was it advantages?).
* Task-cycle
- The task stage; Drawing was an activity that could raise the
atmosphere of the classroom. Every student was extremely excited to
complete the task because drawing brought them the feeling of being relaxing
not studying. Moreover, with the attachment to the real life event, their
activity became authentic and more meaningful. Pair work made students
more active and work harder than when they were in groups of four or five.
However, drawing was both advantageous and disadvantageous. Some
pairs was distracted by drawing and paid more attention to this activity than
discussion. Therefore, the teacher always had to remind them to discuss and
prepare to present their ideas to the class.
- The planning stage: After ten minutes, students had two more minutes
to prepare for their presentation. The teacher encouraged students to draw an
outline of their presentation.
- The report stage: Three pairs were called to be on stage to present. A
number of interesting ideas about an ideal house with beautiful drawings were
raised. Finally, all of the class voted for the most impressive house. This part
made students more excited and relaxed.
* Language focus
- Corrective feedback: The teacher gave comments on students’
presentation especially the use of articles.
- Language analysis and practice: The teacher gave some rules of using
articles correctly. Exercises were delivered to students to practice at home.
61
4.4. Reflection
4. 4.1. Students’ scores in the post tests
After each lesson, in order to assess students’ understanding of what
had been taught, students were required to do a post test. The following table
shows the results of two post-tests in Cycle one:
Table 7. The results of post-tests of unit 12
No. Marks Number of students Percentage 1 9-10 21 42% 2 7-8.9 20 40% 3 5-6.9 9 18% 4 0-4.9 0 0%
Table 8. The results of post-test of unit 13
No. Marks Number of students Percentage 1 9-10 25 50% 2 7-8.9 16 32% 3 5-6.9 9 18% 4 0-4.9 0 0%
From the tables, it can be seen that the minimum score of each test was
not lower than five, which indicates that students could understand the lesson
but the level of understanding varied among fifty students. Half of students
performed well in the test with the score ranging from nine to ten. Only 18%
of students in both tests got marks under seven. Hence, the results of two post
tests reveal the effectiveness of task-based lessons in helping students
understand grammar knowledge. However, findings collected from the post
tests were not to compare the effectiveness of the new with the conventional
method. The results of these post tests only aimed to prove that the integration
62
of task in grammar teaching had an outcome. Indeed, it can be said that
learning has resulted from TBLT. This was also the findings of Mackey’s
(1999) research. Similar to this research, his study has not compared TBLT
with other forms of instruction. Thus, he emphasizes that TBLT works but not
that it is more effectiveness than explicit instruction.
4.4.2. Students’ attitudes towards the use of tasks
a. Students’ interest
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Veryinterested
Interested It does notmatter
Bored Very bored
Chart 3. Students’ interest in grammar lessons with the use of task
Among 50 students doing the questionnaires, there were 27 students
liked changes in recent grammar lessons and half of them showed great
interest in these lessons. Only seven students thought that these changes were
unimportant and one student did not like them at all. However, 100% of the
students agreed to continue learning with task-based teaching method in the
next lessons when being asked “Do you want to continue learning English
grammar with these changes?”.
63
Four reasons given for the interest in theses changes were synthesized
from students’ opinions in the questionnaire:
- Students did not think that they were learning but joining a game.
Therefore, the atmosphere was relaxing and they seemed not to be forced to
learn. They were able to understand the lesson more easily. This reason
indicates that students learned grammar by doing tasks and grammar points
were acquired “incidental rather than intentional” (Ellis, 2009, p.2).
- Swan (1985) states that in TBLT, even in the strong form, “students
should be exposed to appropriate samples of language and given relevant and
motivating activities to help them learn” (p.9). Indeed, activities that students
did in the tasks were valued as “interesting and creating a great deal of
motivation” for students to learn English grammar. A student wrote
“students can practice English grammar through activities, which made the
lesson less dry and boring”.
- Willis (1996) emphasizes that exposure, use and motivation are
essential conditions for language learning and task-based approach engage
learners in real interaction and fulfill the above conditions. Tasks used in this
cycle required students to work in pairs and groups so the interaction among
students increased. It was interactions that made students more motivated. In a
questionnaire, a student explained his interest in task-based lessons with the
reason that “the lessons were very interesting. All members in the class
interacted with each other more and there seemed to be no distance”. This
reason is emphasized by Zhu’s (2007) finding that “teaching activities
designed according to the theory of task-based approach could arouse
students’ interest in the group work” (p.53). Moreover, he affirms that group
work made the tasks more interesting and much easier while grammar was no
64
longer difficult and boring. It is similar to students’ opinions in the
questionnaires.
- Students shared that it was the relation of tasks and the real life that
increased their interest in the lesson. This advantage of tasks in the relation
with the real life was proved by the research of Rahman (2010). Learners in
this study “got involved in the tasks, because the tasks were giving the feeling
of real-life situation” (p.9) and they found the experience intrinsically
interesting.
b. Changes in class atmosphere
The following chart shows students’ opinion towards how classroom’s
atmosphere changed with the use of tasks.
Chart 4. How classroom’s atmosphere changed with the use of task
The chart indicates that all of the students realized changes in the class
atmosphere after the application of task-based teaching in two units.
Moreover, there were 80% of them recognized the significant improvement in
the atmosphere. These results match teacher’s observation during the grammar
lessons and are emphasized by students’ comments in the questionnaire after
Changed clearly
Changed but notclearlyNo change
Changed to bemore boring
9%
81%
81%
19%
65
Cycle one. A student’s opinion was that “the lessons have been changed. The
atmosphere was more lively and interesting. I did not feel bored as usual”.
Changes in the classroom atmosphere show that greater motivation and
interest had been raised in every student. This finding was supported by Zhu’s
(2003) research on the same field. He finds that the task-based grammar
lessons became easier and more interesting. Changes in classroom atmosphere
are also mentioned as one of task-based approach benefits in the research of
Ruso (2007) on the influence of this approach on EFL classroom.
c. Students’ grammar acquisition
According to Thornburry (1999), a task-based lesson tends to engage
students more than a grammar-based one and offers a deeper language
process. Moreover, a task-based approach, by offering the learners an
opportunity to make meanings for themselves, “seems to replicate more
closely natural acquisition approaches, in which accuracy develops out of
fluency” (p.134). Ritchie (2003) states that input could become intake in task-
based lesson when students are given the chance to notice the form. In fact,
these viewpoints can be seen through students’ reflection on their grammar
acquisition supported by tasks when nearly 70% of students agreed that the
new approach helped them understand grammar structure better than the
previous one:
Chart 5. Effectiveness of task-based grammar lessons in supporting students’
grammar acquisition
Yes, better
Yes, the same
Yes, but lesshelpfulNot at all
68% 18%
14%
66
d. The practice of language skills
Ellis (2003) supposes that tasks, like other language activities, “can
engage productive or receptive and oral or written skills” (p.64). In other
words, the integration of language skills in tasks is encouraged. Moreover, one
of features to ensure an activity to be a task suggested by Edwards & Willis
(2005) is that it “uses any or all of the four language skills in its
accomplishment” (p.19). Therefore, despite focusing on form, task-based
grammar lessons were supposed to be able to improve students’ language
skills. It has been proved by the collected result that almost all of the students
stated grammar lessons did provide chances for them to practice other English
skills.
Chart 6. English skills practiced in grammar lesson with the use of tasks
However, skills were not used with equal frequency in these lessons.
With group work or pair work, the interaction among students was
increased so it is possible for speaking to be the most practiced skill by the
majority of students (80%). Listening skills ranked the second with
approximately 40% of students reporting that they could use this skill during
the lesson. Reading and writing were believed to be practiced in grammar
periods by about 20% of students.
0
20
40
60
80
100
Listening Speaking Reading Writing None of skills
67
e. Tasks used in grammar lessons
Table 9. Students’ assessment on tasks
No. Statements Agree Disagree Neutral
1 Tasks given by teachers suitable with
my English level 36 3 11
2 Tasks given by teachers useful for the
use of English in real life 47 1 2
3 Tasks were easy to understand and
carry out 50 0 0
From the table, it can be seen that 36 of the students thought tasks were
suitable with their English ability. Moreover, the feasibility of tasks was
confirmed by all of the participants, which might be one of factors increasing
students’ motivation. According to Boekaerts (2002), the suitability of tasks
can become a potential factor to motivate learners. It is claimed that “students
are more interested in doing activities for which they have the necessary
competence” (p.12). In addition to supporting students to learn grammatical
knowledge, the application of tasks in grammar lessons was appreciated by
94% of the participants in developing their daily English. In other words,
tasks used in this cycle showed one of advantages of task-based language
teaching, which is “provides chances for learners to experience practical use
of English according to their needs” (Hui, Oi-lin & Irene, 2004, p.19).
68
4.5. Changes for Cycle Two
From students’ reflection and teacher’s observation, some changes were
subjected to make in Cycle Two. Besides maintaining advantages of tasks and
other aspects of the lesson, the teacher would make some improvements to
better the lessons.
* Time for doing exercises in the language focus step
Despite appreciating the use of tasks in classroom, some students
stressed the need for drilling exercises. A student had shared in the
questionnaire when answering the question “Do you think the new method
helped you to acquire new grammar knowledge?”
I think we lacked time for practicing grammar structures at the end of each lesson. So I hope that we can have more time for exercises.
In a grammar lesson, there were only 30 or 35 minutes for a task, from
the pre-task to language focus. Therefore, the maximum time for the language
focus stage, in which grammar points were presented and drilling exercises
were delivered to students, was 10 minutes. In the mean time, grammar
lessons without the use of tasks could spend almost all 30 minutes for
grammar presentation and drilling exercises. Hence, it would have seemed
unreasonable if a sudden change in a lesson like this had not caused any
influence on students in learning grammar. It would even have been more
absurd if all students had got used to the new method after only two lessons.
Therefore, a little change in time allocation might be a good choice. Instead of
paying attention to the presentation of grammar points, teacher would spend
more time in giving examples and instructing students to do exercises as a tool
69
to help them consolidate what they have learnt. However, time allocation for
three stages of a lesson would not be changed.
* Clearer instruction
In Cycle One, it was observed that students had to spend some minutes
to ask other friends what they had to do because teacher spoke English at a
high speed and the instruction was explained once at a time. Hence, in the
Cycle Two, the teacher would pay more attention to her speed while giving
instruction, especially instruction of tasks in each lesson. Instructions would
be separated into steps so that it would be easier for students, especially those
who were not good at English, to understand. Say-Do-Check strategy would
be the main way of giving instruction.
* Vocabulary pre-teaching
In Cycle Two, the provision of vocabulary would be added in order that
students could carry out the task smoothly. In Cycle One, an unexpected
problem had happened when students did not understand the explanation of
new words in the handout on “The Beatles” because the explanation was
written in English. The teacher would avoid this matter by providing
vocabulary in advance with Vietnamese translation. It would save more time
for doing tasks.
70
CHAPTER V: ACTION RESEARCH CYCLE TWO
This chapter is aimed to report what had been done during Cycle Two
of the research. Data collected are analyzed and discussed to answer research
questions.
5.1. Introduction
After completing Cycle One and defining some changes, the teacher
continued Cycle Two. In this cycle, four basic steps were remained: planning,
action, observation and reflection. Findings and reflections of the two cycles
will be considered as the final results of the research and used to answer
research questions raised at the beginning of the study.
5.2. Planning
* Unit 14: “will” vs. “be going to”
Task: Students work in groups of four to five. They have an amount of
money to prepare for their mothers’ birthday. They have to discuss and make a
plan so that their mothers can have a wonderful birthday party. Students are
provided with a list of words that relates to birthday and party. The language
focus stage aims to help student differentiate the use of “will” and “be going
to”. Moreover, it can raise awareness of the differences between two tenses
(simple future and near future) while they are talking or writing.
* Unit 15: Defining and non-defining relative clause; “although”
Task: This task is similar to the task in Unit 12. Students work in pairs
to discuss and design a quiz. However, this quiz is about other friends in the
class. After the quiz is completed, some pairs will read out their quizzes and
the whole class will guess who is being talked about. In this task, the teacher
71
gives some examples of the quiz’s pattern which uses structures or grammar
points that students are going to learn in the lesson. Moreover, some words to
describe people’s appearance are provided. This task helps students write
sentences with relative clauses and get used to the structure with “although”.
5.3. Action and observation
5.3.1. Unit 14
* Pre-task
- Introducing the topic and context: The teacher asked some questions
to lead in the introduction of the lesson’s topic and context such as “Have you
ever had a party for your mother? In your mothers’ birthday what did you
do?” By answering these questions, students understood that the topic was
about “mother” . The teacher gave more details about the context: Mothers’
birthday was coming and students were preparing for birthday parties.
- Pre-task language activity: The teacher required students to
brainstorm words related to birthdays and parties before providing vocabulary
about them.
- Giving instruction: Requirements of the task were presented at this
step. Students worked in groups of four or five. Each group had a certain
amount of money that they had saved for their mother’s birthday. In fact, each
group picked up a paper prepared by teacher to know how much money they
had saved. This amount ranged from “no money” to “200,000 VND”. With
that money, members of a group would discuss with the others and decide
what they were going to do with the money for their mothers’ birthday party.
72
* Task-cycle
- The task stage: Students had ten minutes to discuss in their groups to
make a plan. Some groups caught the paper with “no money” were put into
difficult situation, which made them even more eager to draw a perfect plan.
As observed by teacher, this task involved every member of the group and was
made to be easier by a handout with a draft outline of the party (e.g. time,
place, guests, things to prepare). This handout aimed to drive students’
discussion into the right way.
- The planning stage: After 10 minutes, each group had two more
minutes to summarize their discussion and prepare to present their ideas. The
teacher went to groups and reminded them to follow suggestions in the
handout with the use of right tenses.
- The report stage: Three groups were called to present their ideas. The
representative of the first group which had saved no money was a bit shy so
she only read out loud what was written abruptly. No full sentences were
made during the presentation. After her speech, the teacher had to remind
students of the use of tense when talking about future plan and the necessity of
presenting in full sentences. The next two representatives were better when as
they talked about their plans smoothly and even remembered to use “be going
to” when describing the plan. However, most of the time, “will” and “be going
to” were mixed.
* Language focus
- Corrective feedback: The teacher summarized students’ presentation
and gave comments on their performance. Moreover, there was an emphasis
on the use of “will” and “be going to” .
73
- Language analysis and practice: By relating to what students had
done in the previous step, the teacher asked students to differentiate “will” and
“be going to”. Students’ understanding was then consolidated by doing
drilling exercises.
5.3.2. Unit 15
* Pre-task
- Introducing the topic: The teacher introduced the topic directly to
students: Classmates.
- Pre-task language activity: A handout with words relating to
describing appearance was delivered to students. They would base on the
pictures and guess the meaning of words. The teacher asked students explain
all the meanings before the introduction of tasks.
- Giving task instruction: The task of this lesson was similar with the
one in Unit 12. In this task, students worked in pairs and made quizzes about
their classmates based on the description of their appearance. Questions were
replaced by clues in the form of “This is the person who ….”; “She is the one
who …”; “Although she…., ….” to ensure that grammar points in this unit
were integrated in this task. The teacher gave each pair a handout so that they
could write down the clues based on given examples.
* Task-cycle
- The task stage: After forming pairs, students did not meet any
difficulties in designing the quiz. However, the teacher seemed to be too hasty
to ask students to make the quiz by giving clues or statements as in the
examples. Therefore, most of pairs did not pay attention to the examples and
made questions like “Who is called “potato” in our class?” or” Who has the
74
longest hair in our class?” As a result, teacher had to go to each pair and
reminded them to do as examples. This took a considerable amount of time
because students had to spend time to listen to the teacher again and rewrite
their quizzes. After 10 minutes, most of pairs had come up with a quiz.
- The planning stage: The teacher required students to stop designing
and finalize their quiz before presentation.
- The report stage: Some pairs were called to go to stage and read out
their quizzes. However, each pair was allowed to give only two clues. This
stage was made to be a small game that motivated all students.
* Language focus
- Corrective feedback: Comments on quizzes in terms of content,
language and grammar were given by the teacher. Besides, the teacher
reminded students of the difference between defining and non-defining
relative clauses that they had made mistakes about during the task cycle.
- Language analysis and practice: The teacher asked students to
differentiate the two types of relative clauses and the use of “although”.
Drilling exercises were finally practiced.
5.4. Reflection
5.4.1. Students’ scores in the two post-tests
After learning grammar with the use of tasks, all students were required
to do a post-test which took about five minutes. The results of post-tests
reflected how students understood and acquired new grammar contents of the
lessons. The accepted level of understanding was at least mark 5. The
following table illustrates the results of two post tests of Unit 14 and 15.
75
Table 10. Results of two post tests of Unit 14 and 15
Unit Unit 14 Unit 15
Mark 9-10 7-8.9 5-6.9 0-4.9 9-10 7-8.9 5-6.9 0-4.9
Number of
students 20 27 3 0 19 16 15 0
Percentage 40% 54% 6% 0% 38% 32% 30% 0%
There was no student getting marks under 5 in both tests which was a
positive sign. As for the post test of Unit 14, more than a half of students got
scores higher than 7 and only three of them got mark 5. However, for Unit 15,
there was a big change in the score range. The number of students having
marks under 7 increased to 30 percent, equally to those who got mark from 7
to 8.9. Nevertheless, the largest portion belonged to students who could gain
more than 9 in the post test. The results of the two post tests once again
emphasized the effectiveness of task-based teaching in helping students
understand grammar points of each unit, which had been shown in Cycle one
and supported by other researchers (Mackey,1999).
5.4.2. Students’ attitude towards the use of task
a. Students’ interest
In response to the question “Do you like recent changes in the grammar
lessons?”, most of the students showed their interest in learning with the use
of tasks. This result is illustrated in the following chart:
76
Chart 7. Students’ interest in task-based grammar lessons
After two more lessons with the application of tasks, students showed
more interest in changes of the grammar lessons, which was proved by 60% of
students were “interested” in these changes and 30% of them felt “very
interested”. The number of students having positive attitude towards task-
based lessons in this Cycle has increased in comparison with Cycle One. In
the first cycle, only 14 students were “very interested” and 27 students were
“interested” in grammar lessons.
The reasons that students used to explain for their opinions were similar
to those collected in the first cycle. For example, in this cycle, students still
appreciated interesting and useful activities or increased interaction through
group work and pair work. Besides, a new reason offered by students might be
useful for assessing the success of task-based lessons. Students claimed that
they liked these lessons because they were active in interacting with other
friends and “could communicate themselves and wanted to communicate”.
This is supported by Like Ruso’s (2007) findings, in which students
appreciated the tasks because they found more chances to speak. Moreover,
his students admitted that they benefited from the course after the application
of tasks. These findings have been in line with the viewpoint of Murphy
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Veryinterested
Interested It does notmatter
Bored Very bored
77
(2003, p.354) that “tasks should therefore involve learners in reflecting on the
way in which they carried them out, as well as on the language they used,
thereby helping them the develop autonomy”.
b. Changes in class atmosphere
Change clearly
Change but notclearlyNo change
No, even worse
Chart 8. Changes in classroom atmosphere of task-based lessons
There were 37 students appreciating the use of tasks in grammar lessons
with the emphasis on the effectiveness of the lessons in making them more
excited about activities in class. The results of questionnaires matched
students’ opinions in the interview. Student 3 said that “the atmosphere of the
class was very motivating” and she had no fear of learning grammar. Student
9 emphasized it was the relaxing atmosphere that engaged him in discussion
and “wanted to talk rather than listen to others”. These assessments indicate
that task-based teaching had changed the classroom atmosphere in a positive
way. This finding shares with the view of Zhu (2003), Akbarnetaj (2005),
Ruso (2007) that tasks create a comfortable, cooperative and non-threatening
74%
22%
4%
78
atmosphere of the classroom. Even the least confident students who normally
refuse to speak in public wish to have public performances.
c. Grammar acquisition
Chart 9. Effectiveness of task-based teaching
in comparison with the old method
The chart shows that 35 students in the survey agreed that the use of
task helped them to understand grammar structures of the lesson better than
the conventional method. Among the rest 30% of the students, 26% confirmed
the efficiency of task-based teaching but emphasized the similar effectiveness
of the two methods. These data reveal the efficiency of tasks in helping
students acquire grammar knowledge or task-based teaching does work
Mackey (1999).
d. The practice of language skills
Similar to Cycle one, Cycle two reflected the effectiveness of tasks in
improving students’ language skills. According to students’ opinion, all four
skills were used in task-based grammar lessons.
Yes, better
Yes, the same
Yes, but lesseffectiveNot at all
70%
26%
4%
79
Chart 10. English skills practiced in grammar lesson with the use of tasks
Speaking was still a skill that most of students thought that they had to
use it in grammar lessons when it was the main device of students’
interactions while completing tasks. Listening ranked the second with about
60% of students’ agreement.
e. Tasks used in grammar lessons
Table 11. Students’ opinions about the usefulness of tasks
No. Statements Agree Disagree Neutral
1 Tasks given by teacher are useful for the
use of English in my daily life.
40 2 8
2 Tasks are interesting and motivate me to
learn English grammar
43 1 6
3 I became more active in grammar lessons 38 3 9
According to the results collected in the questionnaire, tasks used in
grammar lessons have made considerable changes in students’ attitude
towards English studying. 43 students, equal to 86%, agreed that tasks in class
inspired them better in learning English grammar. This is also the findings of
0
20
40
60
80
100
Reading Writing Listening Speaking None of skills
80
Hui et al. (2004) which refer to TBLT as a tool to increase learners’
motivation to learn English. Moreover, the application of tasks in grammar
lessons created opportunities for students to be more active in class with 76%
of students. It may be because the changes in the role of teacher and learners
(Nunan, 2004).
Nunan (2004, p.1) states that task-based language teaching strengthens
the principle that “the linking of classroom language learning with language
use outside the classroom”. In this study, it is proved by the confirmation of
40 students that tasks did improve their daily English. Hui et al. (2004) also
emphasized that TBLT provided students with more opportunities to use their
English, not only learn English.
In brief, results of questionnaires and interviews reflected positive
attitudes of students towards task-based grammar lessons. They were more
interested in changes as they had opportunities to communicate naturally.
Activities brought a comfortable and exciting atmosphere of the classroom.
Moreover, students appreciated the effectiveness of task-based lessons in
helping them both acquire grammar knowledge and practice language skills.
Changes in grammar lessons brought changes in students. They realized that
they were more active in joining activities and more excited about
communicating with each other. With the learner-centered approach, students’
autonomy was improved in grammar lessons. Finally, students emphasized the
practicality of task-based lessons in activating their daily English through
tasks.
5.4.3. Student-motivating factors of task-based grammar lessons
In order to answer the second question of the research “How can task-
based language teaching motivate students during English grammar
81
lessons?” , results from interviews with students and questionnaires of both
cycles were analyzed and discussed.
The following chart shows the level of students’ motivation raised by
the use of tasks.
Chart 11. Levels of students’ motivation
As indicated in the chart, tasks used in the grammar lessons were
claimed to be able to motivate students in these lessons. More than a half of
the students found these tasks very motivating. 40% of them supposed that the
use of tasks could motivate them to some extent. Some factors reflected
through the interviews might be the reason for increasing motivation of
students.
* Interactions during the lessons
Sano, Takahashi& Yoneyama (1984) praise the usefulness of
interactions as “the most essential factor in successful language learning”
(p.171). In fact, the use of task in grammar lesson has not only changed the
atmosphere of classroom but also students themselves. It was the interaction
that erased the feeling of being forced to study of students and “installed” in
Very motivating
Motivating
SlightlymotivatingNot quitemotivatingNot motivatingat all
54
26
16
4%
82
their mind the thought of being chatting or playing game with friends. The
relaxation while studying had great contribution to the natural acquisition of
new knowledge. Student 1 and 3 shared:
“While doing tasks, I listened to my friends’ talking. That’s funny. I like to talk to them.” “I felt freer to raise my opinion. I was more active in learning grammar. Actually, I did not feel that I was forced to learn grammar or vocabulary.”
The students’ reflection indicates that task-based teaching used in both
cycle had “an emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the
target language” (Nunan, 2004, p.1). When students thought they were not
learning grammar but still acquired it, they were studying it incidentally rather
than intentionally (Willis, 2009). Besides, “a task-based approach to learning
implies the notion of learning by doing” (Ellis, 2003, p.54). Indeed, while
students completed the tasks, they were learning grammar in the most natural
way.
* Pair work and group work
A clear change that students could easily recognize in task-based
grammar lessons was the use of pair work and group work. They quickly saw
the benefits of cooperative learning.
“Working together is, of course, funny” “All members participate in the task and work together. The atmosphere was
lively. I could understand the lesson easily”
In pairs or groups, students help themselves and the other to complete
the tasks, through which they learn grammar. It is mentioned by Dornyei
(2001) that cooperative learning helps them to reach their goal at their own
pace. Students’ response to the effectiveness of pair work and group work also
match Kohn’s (1992) view of collaborative learning that collaboration is more
83
effective than competition as a means of promoting effective learning.
Moreover, cooperative learning has the ability to motivate students during the
lesson. Brecke & Jensen (2007) state that in a cooperative atmosphere,
students are motivated without a sense of obligation. Motivation is also
sparked by giving students shared responsibility. The benefit of cooperative
learning in task-based lessons of this study was similar to Zhu’s (2007, p.53)
findings which emphasize that “task-based approach can arouse students’
interest in the group work. Group work makes the tasks more interesting and
much easier”.
* Tasks with relation to the real life
Motivation of students can be created by tasks which were not too
difficult or strange to them. Students agreed that tasks used in grammar
lessons were “close to their real life”. A task with relation to the real life does
not only create a sense of familiarity between students and tasks but also
encourage students to activate their daily English. Richards & Rogers (2001)
affirms that one strength of task-based approach is that a real-life task is
motivational because of “the elicitation of authentic language, diversified
formats and operation, inclusion of physical activities, learners’ own
experience and use of a variety of communication styles” (p.229)
* Useful materials make students excited
Useful materials used in task-based grammar lesson did not mean that
they contained a full theory of grammar but they provided students with
information that they lacked in the real life. Students would find more eager to
complete the task if they knew that they could learn something other than just
grammar. Student 7 said that:
84
They [materials] were very useful and made me more interested in the lessons. I could know what I had not known before. If you had not provided it, I could never have discovered that information.
In brief, task-based teaching had been proved to be effective in
motivating students in grammar lessons. There was more than one aspect of
the task that was able to draw students’ attention and interest. Firstly, high
schools students would like to work in groups where they felt more confident
and active. The interaction among students also encouraged the natural
grammar acquisition. Secondly, a task with the context and goal close to real
life could be powerful because students showed their interest in what they
were familiar with. Lastly, high school students are those who were ready to
learn more than what they are required. Useful materials with practical
information could be a decisive factor in motivating students.
85
CHAPTER VI: SUGGESTIONS FOR THE
SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION OF TASK IN GRAMMAR
TEACHING
In this chapter, some implications and suggestions that have been
drawn after the implementation of the study will be presented. The focus of
these implications and suggestion is the way to make task-based teaching
possible in grammar teaching within the context of Vietnamese high school.
6.1. Frame-work of task-based teaching in grammar lessons
According to Willis (1996), the task-based teaching approach includes
three stages: pre-task, task cycle and language focus. During the
implementation of the action research, teacher as well as researcher had tried
to maintain this frame-work in each lesson. The suggested frame-work for
task-based teaching used in grammar lessons is explained in the following
table:
Table 12. Frame work of task-based teaching in grammar lessons
Stage Name of stage Content
1 Pre-task
This stage takes up about 5 minutes. This stage
includes:
a. Introducing the topic and context: Topic and
context should be close to real-life.
b. Pre-task language activity: At this step,
teacher provides students with necessary
vocabulary or knowledge to carry out tasks.
86
c. Giving task instruction: A detailed instruction
of the tasks will be given at this step. For high
school students with limitation in English
proficiency, it is essential for teacher to give slow,
clear instruction with the checking of their
understanding. Moreover, at this step, teacher can
give model of the tasks or samples as a support for
students. Besides, samples may include grammar
points of the lesson, which will be useful for the
next stage.
2 Task-cycle
Teacher and students spend about 15 minutes at
this phase. There are three stages:
a. The task stage: Students work in groups or
pairs to complete the task. It is unnecessary for
teacher to interfere while students are working in
groups or pairs. However, a close observation is
needed because teacher should make sure that
students are going in the way that teacher has
planned. Teacher also gives help and
encouragement while students are doing tasks.
b. The planning stage: Students can spend about
two to three minutes to finalize their outcome,
note down important details for presentation.
Teacher can give some suggestions or brief
comments for their preparation.
87
c. The report stage: After discussion, students
will attain a certain outcome and they are eager to
show it off. Therefore, some minutes for
presentation will be useful in improving the
atmosphere of the class. As observed in grammar
lessons, atmosphere was always relaxing
whenever students presented their ideas or
outcomes of the discussion.
3 Language
focus
a. Corrective feedback: Teacher gives comments
on the use of language in students’ presentation
and during the implementation of tasks.
b. Language analysis and practice: This is the
stage where a clear and careful explanation of
grammar structures is made. Despite interesting
task and useful explanation, students will
appreciate the lesson if they have chance to
practice the theory with drilling exercises in class.
Therefore, teacher should spend at least 5 minutes
to instruct them to do exercises.
6.2. Implications of using tasks in grammar lessons
6.2.1. Tasks are activities with real-life goals
This is one of five criteria set by Willis and Edward (2006) for a
communicative task. However, this requirement does not only to help teacher
ensure that activities that he/she designs are tasks but also to motivate
students. Students’ motivation could be increased by tasks which were related
88
to their real life. Therefore, it is suggested that a real-life related task will be
more reasonable and acceptable for students to complete rather than a strange
one. The task will attach closely to their normal life and doing the task is
considered as doing an ordinary activity in their daily life. Hence, students
will not have the feeling of being forced to study.
6.2.2. Tasks encourage students to reach and show an outcome
The report stage in the task-cycle was often very interesting and
motivating. In this step, students could present their outcomes and proved how
well they had done. Like other people, students had their self-esteem and
desire to show their ability. Task-based grammar lessons were appreciated
because they provided them with chances to express themselves. Edwards &
Willis (2005) in the book Teacher Exploring Tasks in English Language
Teaching mentioned a case in which a teacher applied TBLT into grammar
teaching. She reflected that her students were motivated significantly when
they had chance to state their own views. Even the least confident students
also became extremely excited. Therefore, in order to make students involved
in tasks, teacher could have tasks with a clear outcome and especially provide
them with opportunities to show their ability.
6.2.3. Tasks should help students practice other English skills
From the definition of task, Nunan (1989, p.10) emphasizes that a task
“involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting
in the target language” so there is no reason for teacher to create a task
without the use of other English skills (reading, writing, speaking and
listening) in grammar lessons. One of the reasons for students’ motivation in
task-based lessons was that they had chances to practice language skills
89
besides learning grammar points. Therefore, to make a lesson more useful and
motivating, an integration of other skills in tasks is essential.
6.2.4. Tasks encourage students to interact in English
Skehan (1996) emphasizes that through interactions or negotiation of
meanings, students can eventually develop greater fluency. Moreover,
students in this study had shown their great interest and motivation when they
had chance to communicate with each other. They saw it as a way to learn and
the communication also created a relaxing atmosphere during the lessons.
6.2.5. The position of grammar instruction in a task-based grammar lesson
As Thornbury (1999) discusses, a task-based lesson is a challenge but
engages the learner more than a grammar-based one. One principle underlined
this fact is that learners tend to notice language features that they discover
themselves rather than what are arranged for them. Therefore, task-based
approach brings students opportunities to be closer to the natural acquisition
of English language. However, when not being directed, students may not pay
attention to what teacher wants them to focus. Hence, there should be an
implication of form in designing tasks. In other words, teacher does not
explain grammar rules right at the beginning of the lesson but implies these
rules through examples or small reminders given to students during the
completion of tasks. Teacher also can be the model using these rules while
interacting with students. As a result, grammar rules that students have to
learn in each lesson should be hidden in tasks and the natural acquisition of
these rules may happen as expected.
90
CHAPTER VII: CONCLUSION
This chapter is the summary of most important findings of the study as
well as raises some limitations when the research was conducted. Moreover,
suggestions for related studies will be made at the end of this section.
7.1. Summary of important findings
This is the first time that the students as the participants of the study
have had the opportunity to learn grammar with the application of tasks. This
change in grammar lessons received good comments and appreciation from
students during the implementation of the study. In these lessons, students
become more active and were the center of the lessons. This was mainly
because tasks brought opportunity for students to interact with each other and
acquire grammar knowledge naturally without the feeling of being forced to
learn. Grammar contents of each unit were integrated in tasks and became
easier to accept.
Teacher observation and students’ response to surveys pointed out that
tasks were more effective in motivating students to learn English than the
conventional method. Students were inspired to join in lessons and desired to
learn grammar to complete the tasks as well as communicate with friends in
class. Moreover, they realized the usefulness of grammar in helping them
organize their talks in English lessons. In other words, tasks have made
students understand the meaning of their learning, that is, they were not only
studying English to cope with examination but studying English to use it and
when they were using it, they were also studying it.
Another finding that proves task-based grammar lessons a meaningful
change is that the atmosphere of these lessons had been improved. It was
91
activities which students had to do in a lesson to complete the task that
brought about these changes. The grammar lessons were not the “monotonous
conversation” in which teacher talks most of the time and students keep
listening but they were made of various conversations and discussions.
Data collected in each cycle also reflected factors in a task-based lesson
that can motive students. Firstly, tasks were activities that required them to use
other English skills such as listening, speaking, writing and reading to
complete and increased chances for them to communicate with friends in
English. Secondly, tasks with real life goals were the reason for students being
more involved in the lessons. Moreover, settings or contexts to which tasks
were attached were also daily situations that students could encounter in their
life and made the requirement of task completion more reasonable. Lastly,
materials used in tasks were proved to be useful in widening students’
knowledge. They were more interested in the lesson not only because tasks
were funny, interesting and familiar but also useful for them.
2. Limitations of the study
Despite positive results collected after two cycles, the study would be
more satisfying if some limitations were overcome. The biggest matter was
time limitation. Two cycles were carried out only in four units, two units for
each. Such a short-term cycle made it impossible to assess students’
improvement in learning English grammar. Changes in students’ attitude or
classroom’s atmosphere could be seen clearly but changes in students’
competence of using English grammar need more time to evaluate. Another
problem also relates to time limitation. Each lesson in this study just was in 30
minutes. It was quite difficult for the teacher to design tasks that fit in the time
allowance. Moreover, the lack of time forced the teacher to assign drilling
92
exercises to be completed at home. This did not satisfy some students who
found these exercises important to their learning. Furthermore, the language
focus stage had to stop at doing drilling exercises while it should have
continued with other communicative activities that check and consolidate
students’ understanding of the lesson.
3. Suggestions for further studies
Task-based teaching is really a powerful one to develop students’
competences in English. There are many directions to approach this method.
For examples, task-based teaching can be applied in teaching English skills
such as reading, writing, listening or speaking. In terms of applying task-based
method in grammar teaching, deeper look at the effectiveness of task-based
teaching can open a new research process. Besides teaching grammar in task-
based method to high school students, other studies can explore the use of task
in teaching grammar for secondary school students who are beginners in
learning English.
4. Conclusion
Findings of the action research indicate factors that teacher can consider
before applying tasks in grammar lessons. Students will be more interested in
the lessons if they see that their role in the class is appreciated. They are
allowed to control that lesson and learn voluntarily. English learning should
give students opportunities to use it frequently as a way of learning it. They
will be more motivated with grammar lessons in which interaction and
communication are encouraged. In addition, grammar contents are integrated
in activities, which allows the most natural process of acquiring. Besides,
tasks should be real-life activities and their outcomes also need
93
encouragement. Task-based teaching in grammar lessons actually requires
much serious consideration before action. Teacher should investigate carefully
the current situation before applying it so that practical results can be
achieved. Moreover, observation and adjustment should always be ready to
ensure a successful application of tasks, especially for a long-term purpose.
94
REFERENCES
Boekaerts, M. (2002). Motivation to Learn. International Academy of
Education. Retrieved April 27th, 2011 from
http://www.ibe.unesco.org/publications/EducationalPracticesSeries
Pdf/prac10e.pdf
Bourke, J.M. (2005). The grammar we teach. Reflections on English
Language Teaching 4 (2005). University of Brunei.
Branden, K.V., (2006). Task-based language education: from theory to
practice. Cambridge: CUP. 2-9
Brecke, R. & Jensen, J. (2007). Cooperative Learning, Responsibility,
Ambiguity, Controversy and Support in Motivating Students.
Insight:A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 2, 53.
Breen, M.(1984). Processes in syllabus design. In C.Brumfit (ed). General
English Syllabus Design. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching – A
guide for practitioners. New York: Routledge
Celce-Murica, M. (1985). Making informed decisions about the role of
grammar in language teaching. TESOL Newsletter, 19 (1), 4-5.
Chomsky, N. (1959). On certain formal properties of grammars, Information
and control. Vol. 2, p.13
95
Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: OUP.
Edwards, C.& Willis, J. (2006). Teachers exploring tasks in English language
teaching. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p3-39.
Ellis, N. (1995). Consciousness in second language acquisition: A review of
field studies and laboratory experiments. Language awareness, 4,
123-146.
Ellis, R. (1997). Research and language teaching. Oxford: OUP.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning. Oxford: OUP.
Ferrane, E. (2000). Action Research. Brown University.
Fotos, S. & Ellis, R. (1991). Communication about grammar: A task-based
Hinkel, E. & Fotos, S. (2002). New perspectives on grammar teaching in
second language classrooms. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.
Hudleston, R. (1988) English grammar: An outline. Cambridge: CUP.
Hui, Oi-lin & Irene (2004). Teacher’s Perceptions of Task-based Language
Teaching: Impact on their teaching approaches. The University of
Hong Kong.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed).
Victoria, Australia: Deakin Universtiy Press.
96
Kohn, A. (1992) No contest: The case against competition. New York:
Houghton Mifflin Company.
Leedy, P.D. (1997). Practical research: Planning and design. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall. p.199
Lívia, N. F. (2006). From Theoretical to Pedagogical Grammar:
Reinterpreting the Role of Grammar in English Language
Teaching. University of Pannonia.
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction and second language development: An
empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 21: 557-587.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing task for the communicative classroom.
Cambridge: CUP, 10-11.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinle &
Heinle, 24.
Nunan, D (2003). Practical English language teaching. New York: Mc Graw
Hill/Contemporary.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: CUP.
Odlin, T. (Ed). (1994). Perspectives on pedagogical grammar. Cambridge:
CUP
97
Rahman, M. M. (2010). Teaching Oral Communication Skills: A Task-based
Approach. ESP World, 1 (27), 9. Retrieved April 27th, 2011 from
http://www.esp-world.info/Articles_27/Paper.pdf
Richards, J. C. & Rogers, T. S. (1986). Approaches and Methods in Language
Teaching. Cambridge: CUP.
Richards, Jack C. (2005). Professional Development for Language Teachers.
New York: Cambridge University Press, p.171
Richards, J. & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language
Teaching: A Description and Analysis. Cambridge: CUP.
Ritchie, G. (2003). Presentation-Practice-Production and Task-Based Learning
in the Light of Second Language Theories. The English Teacher, 6,
2, 112-124.
Ruso, N. (2007). The Influence of Task Based Learning on EFL Classrooms.
Asian EFL Journal.18 (2). Retrieved February 24th, 2011 from
http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/yousif/3422/The%20influence%20of%20
TBL.pdf
Sano, M., Takahashi, M., & Yoneyama, A. (1984). Communicative Language
Teaching and Local Needs. English Language Teaching Journal,
38(3), 170-177.
Setyanigrum, R. (2010). Task-based language teaching to teaching writing
for 7th grade students.
98
Skehan, P. (1996). Second language acquisition research and task-based
instruction. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change
in language teaching. Oxford: Heinemann.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: OUP.
Songsiri, M. (2007). An action research study of promoting students’
confidence in speaking English. School of Education Faculty of
Arts, Education and Human Development, Victoria University.
Suter, C. (2001). Discussing and Applying Grammatical Consciousness-
Raising. University of Birmingham
Swan, M. (1985). A Critical Look at the Communicative Approach. ELT
Journal. 39 (1),9.
Pei, M. (1966). Glossary of Linguistic Terminology. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Thornbury, S (2004). How to teach grammar. London: Longman, 21-23.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Longman.
Watts, H. (1985). When teachers are researchers, teaching improves. Journal
of Staff Development, 6(2), 118.
Zhu, X. (2007). Integrating task-based teaching approach into grammar
teaching. 4 (9).
99
APPENDIX 1
QUESTIONNAIRE 1
This questionnaire was delivered to students before the action of Cycle
one and translated into Vietnamese for better understanding.
PHIẾU ĐIỀU TRA
Cô là Nguyễn Ngân Hà, khoa Sư phạm tiếng Anh, trường Đại học
Ngoại ngữ, Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội. Hiện nay, cô đang tiến hành nghiên
cứu với đề tài: “Khám phá việc áp dụng nhiệm vụ trong việc giảng dạy ngữ
pháp lớp 10 tại các trường trung học phổ thô ng trên địa bàn Hà Nội”.
Những câu hỏi dưới đây nhằm tìm hiểu ý kiến của các em về việc học ngữ
pháp tiếng Anh cũng như các tiết học tiếng Anh trên trường phổ thông.
Những câu hỏi sau đây sẽ phục vụ cho nghiên cứu và câu trả lời của các
em cho những câu hỏi đó là vô cùng hữu ích để cô có thể hoàn thành đề tài
này. Câu trả lời của các em được đảm bảo giữ bí mật hoàn toàn trong suốt
quá trình làm nghiên cứu và không ảnh hưởng đến kết quả đánh giá môn
tiếng Anh của các em trên lớp.
Câu 1. Em thấy các tiết học ngữ pháp tiếng Anh trên lớp như thế nào ?
Khoanh tròn vào chữ cái trước lựa chọn của em.
a. Rất thú vị
b. Thú vị
c. Bình thường
d. Nhàm chán
e. Rất nhàm chán
100
Câu 2. Em đánh giá thế nào về hiệu quả của các tiết học ngữ pháp trên lớp đối
với việc học tiếng Anh nói chung của em ? Khoanh tròn vào chữ cái trước lựa
chọn của em.
a. Rất hiệu quả
b. Tương đối hiệu quả
c. Không hiệu quả
d. Phản tác dụng
Câu 3: Em thấy các tiết học ngữ pháp trên lớp của em thường đi theo trình tự
như thế nào ? Khoanh tròn vào chữ cái trước lựa chọn của em.
a. Cô giáo giới thiệu kiến thức ngữ pháp mới, đưa ví dụ và hướng dẫn học
sinh làm bài tập áp dụng.
b. Cô giáo đưa ví dụ trước, rồi gọi học sinh rút ra kiến thức ngữ pháp mới
từ ví dụ và sau đó đưa bài tập áp dụng.
c. Trình tự khác: (Em hãy nêu cụ thể trình tự đó)
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………
Câu 4: Em hãy cho biết ý kiến của mình về những nhận định dưới đây bằng
việc đánh dấu X vào ô thích hợp:
TT Nhận định Đồng ý
Không đồng ý
Không có ý kiến
1
Trên lớp, em thường làm bài tập trong sách giáo
khoa và bài tập bổ sung của cô giáo để hiểu và nhớ
các kiến thức ngữ pháp vừa học.
2 Trong tiết học ngữ pháp, không có nhiều các hoạt
động theo cặp hay nhóm như thảo luận, thuyết trình.
101
3 Em không có nhiều cơ hội luyện tập các kỹ năng
tiếng Anh khác trong giờ học ngữ pháp.
4
Không khí học trong các tiết học ngữ pháp thường
không sôi nổi bằng các tiết học kỹ năng tiếng Anh
(nghe, nói đọc, viết)
Cảm ơn các em rất nhiều !
102
QUESTIONNAIRE 1
I am Nguyen Ngan Ha, from 07E1, Faculty of English language
teaching education, University of Languages and International Studies,
Vietnam National University, Hanoi. I am conducting a study with the title:
“Exploring the use of tasks in grammar teaching to Grade 10 students in
Hanoi high schools”. These questions are to investigate your opinions and
attitudes towards English grammar studying and current English grammar
lessons. Your answers are important data for the completion of this study.
All of the information will be appreciated and kept confidential during the
research and will not affect your English results in class.
Thank you very much !
Question 1: What do you think about your English grammar lessons in
general? Circle the letter before your choice.
a. Very interesting
b. Interesting
c. Normal
d. Boring
e. Very boring
Question 2: What do you think about the effectiveness of English grammar
lessons in helping you learn English? Circle the letter before your choice.
e. Very effective
f. Effective
g. Not effective
h. Counter-effective
103
Question 3: What is the usual procedure of your English grammar lesson?
Circle the letter before your choice.
d. Teacher explains new grammar structures, gives examples and requires
students do exercises.
e. Teacher gives examples, requires students to draw new grammar
structures from examples and requires students do exercises.
f. Other processes (Explain specifically)
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
Question 4: Please give your opinions about the following statements by
ticking (x) in the appropriate column:
No. Statements Agree Disagree Neutral
1
I often do exercises in the text book and
supplemental materials given by the teacher to
understand and remember new knowledge in
grammar lessons.
2 In the grammar lessons, there is not much group
or pair work.
3 I do not have many chances to practice other
English skills in grammar lessons.
4
The atmosphere of grammar lessons usually is
not as lively as other lessons (listening, speaking,
reading and writing)
Thank you very much !
104
APPENDIX 2
QUESTIONNAIRE 2
This questionnaire was delivered to students after the action of Cycle
one and translated into Vietnamese for better understanding.
PHIẾU ĐÁNH GIÁ CỦA HỌC SINH Đối với các tiết học ngữ pháp sử dụng các nhiệm vụ dạy học (tasks)
Em hãy cho biết ý kiến của mình về các tiết học ngữ pháp đã sử dụng “nhiệm vụ” vừa qua. “Nhiệm vụ” có thể hiểu là những hoạt động theo nhóm, hay theo cặp mà em đã thực hiện để hoàn thành một yêu cầu nào đó mà giáo viên đưa ra. Đó là những hoạt động có mục đích rõ ràng, gần với thực tế cuộc sống. Để thực hiện được các nhiệm vụ này, em cần sử dụng các kỹ năng thực hành tiếng như nghe, nói, đọc, viết và trao đổi với các thành viên khác trong nhóm hoặc trong cặp của mìn h. Sau khi hoàn thành một nhiệm vụ, em có được một thành quả cụ thể. Bên cạnh đó, những kiến thức ngữ pháp mới của bài học đã được “lồng” vào trong các nhiệm vụ.
Câu 1: Em có thích những thay đổi trong các tiết học ngữ pháp vừa qua không ? Khoanh tròn vào chữ cái trước lựa chọn của em.
a. Rất thích b. Thích c. Bình thường, thấy việc thay đổi hay không không quan trọng. d. Không thích e. Rất không thích
Em hãy giải thích cho lựa chọn của mình: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
105
Câu 2: Em có thích những tiết học ngữ pháp tiếp tục được dạy theo cách mới như vậy hay không ?
a. Có b. Không c. Không có ý kiến
Câu 3: Em thấy tiết học ngữ pháp với phương pháp mới có giúp ích cho em trong việc tiếp thu các kiến thức ngữ pháp mới không ?
a. Có, chúng giúp em học ngữ pháp tốt hơn so với phương pháp cũ. b. Có, nhưng em thấy hiệu quả của phương pháp cũ và mới là như nhau. c. Có, tuy nhiên phương pháp cũ vẫn giúp em học ngữ pháp tốt hơn. d. Hoàn toàn không. e. Ý kiến khác:
……………………………………………………………………… Câu 4: Em thấy trong các tiết học vừa qua, có những kỹ năng tiếng Anh nào của em đã được sử dụng ?
a. Kỹ năng nghe b. Kỹ năng nói c. Kỹ năng đọc d. Kỹ năng viết e. Không có kỹ năng nào
Câu 5: Theo em việc áp dụng phương pháp mới trong giờ học ngữ pháp có giúp tiết học trở nên sôi nổi và sinh động hơn không ?
a. Có, không khí trong lớp thay đổi rõ rệt b. Có nhưng những chuyển biến là không rõ c. Không, không khí học vẫn không thay đổi. d. Không, trái lại còn khiến các tiết học trở nên nhàm chán hơn.
Câu 6: Em hãy cho biết ý kiến của mình về các nhận định sau. Đánh dấu x vào ô trống phù hợp:
TT Nhận định Đồng
ý Không đồng ý
Không có ý kiến
1 Các nhiệm vụ do cô giáo đưa ra phù hợp với trình độ tiếng Anh của em.
106
2 Các nhiệm vụ do cô giáo đưa ra giúp em luyện tập được thêm các kĩ năng thực hành tiếng như nghe, nói, đọc, viết.
3 Các nhiệm vụ cô giáo đưa ra có ích cho việc sử dụng tiếng Anh trong thực tế của em.
4 Các nhiệm vụ thú vị và giúp em có nhiều cảm hứng học ngữ pháp tiếng Anh hơn.
5 Trong các tiết ngữ pháp tiếng Anh, em đã trở nên năng động hơn.
6 Cách cô hướng dẫn thực hiện các nhiệm vụ dễ hiểu và dễ theo dõi.
Câu 7: Em cho biết đánh giá của mình về một trong những khía cạnh sau bằng việc đánh dấu vào một trong các ô số từ 1 đến 5 (1 tương ứng với rất tốt, và 5 tương ứng với rất không tốt) :
1 2 3 4 5 Rất tốt Rất không tốt
TT Khía cạnh 1 2 3 4 5 1 Phương pháp truyền đạt của giáo viên 2 Nội dung của bài học 3 Các hoạt động trong giờ học 4 Bài tập ngữ pháp áp dụng
Cảm ơn các em rất nhiều !
107
QUESTIONNAIRE 2 Assessment and attitudes of students towards task-based grammar lessons
This questionnaire is to investigate your opinion about grammar lessons with the use of tasks. “Tasks” can be understood as group work or pair work activities that your have to do to complete a requirement of teacher. These activities have a real-life goal. In order to complete the tasks, you have to use other English skills such as reading, writing, speaking and listening and interact with your partners. After the completion of tasks, you will have a particular outcome. Moreover, grammar knowledge of the lesson is integrated with these tasks.
Question 1: Do you like changes in the grammar lessons with the use of tasks? Circle the letter before your choice.
a. Very interested b. Interested c. Neither interested nor uninterested. Changes do not matter. d. Bored e. Very bored
Please explain your choice: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Question 2: Do you want next grammar lessons to be taught in this new method? Circle the letter before your choice.
a. Yes b. No c. Neutral
Question 3: Do you think that these grammar lessons are effective in helping you understand new grammar knowledge? Circle the letter before your choice.
108
a. Yes, they are more effective than previous ones with the old method. b. Yes, but they are as effective as previous ones with the old method. c. Yes, but previous lessons with the old method were more effective. d. No, not at all e. Other opinion:
……………………………………………………………………… Question 4: In these grammar lessons, which skills have you used? You can choose more than one option.
a. Listening b. Speaking c. Reading d. Writing e. None of them
Question 5: In your opinion, has the new method made grammar lessons more lively and interesting?
a. Yes, the atmosphere changed clearly b. Yes, but changes were not clear. c. No, there was no change. d. No, even lessons became more boring.
Question 6: Please give your opinion about the following statements. Put (x) in the appropriate column that shows your opinion.
No. Statements Agree Disagree Neutral
1 Tasks were suitable with my English level. 2 Tasks helped me practice other skills such as
reading, speaking, listening and writing.
3 Tasks were helpful for my English use in the real life.
4 Tasks were interesting and motivated me to learn English grammar.
5 In grammar lessons, I became more active. 6 Teacher’s instruction was easy to understand
and follow.
109
Question 7: Please show your assessment on the following aspects of the grammar lessons by ticking in column 1 -5 (1 is “very good” and 5 is “very bad”) 1 2 3 4 5
Very good Very bad
No. Aspect 1 2 3 4 5 1 Teacher’s instruction and teaching manner 2 Lesson’s content 3 Tasks 4 Practice exercises
Thank you very much !
110
APPENDIX 3
QUESTIONNAIRE 3
This questionnaire was delivered to students after the action of Cycle
two and translated into Vietnamese for better understanding.
PHIẾU ĐÁNH GIÁ CỦA HỌC SINH Đối với các tiết học ngữ pháp sử dụng các nhiệm vụ dạy học (tasks)
Câu 1: Em có thích những thay đổi trong các tiết học ngữ pháp vừa qua không ? Khoanh tròn vào chữ cái trước lựa chọn của em.
a. Rất thích b. Thích c. Bình thường, thấy việc thay đổi hay không không quan trọng. d. Không thích e. Rất không thích
Em hãy giải thích cho lựa chọn của mình: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Câu 3: Em thấy tiết học ngữ pháp với phương pháp mới có giúp ích cho em trong việc tiếp thu các kiến thức ngữ pháp mới không ?
a. Có, chúng giúp em học ngữ pháp tốt hơn so với phương pháp cũ. b. Có, nhưng em thấy hiệu quả của phương pháp cũ và mới là như nhau. c. Có, tuy nhiên phương pháp cũ vẫn giúp em học ngữ pháp tốt hơn. d. Hoàn toàn không. e. Ý kiến khác:
……………………………………………………………………… Câu 4: Em thấy trong các tiết học vừa qua, có những kỹ năng tiếng Anh nào của em đã được sử dụng ?
a. Kỹ năng nghe b. Kỹ năng nói c. Kỹ năng đọc
111
d. Kỹ năng viết e. Không có kỹ năng nào
Câu 5: Theo em việc áp dụng phương pháp mới trong giờ học ngữ pháp có giúp tiết học trở nên sôi nổi và sinh động hơn không ?
a. Có, không khí trong lớp thay đổi rõ rệt b. Có nhưng những chuyển biến là không rõ c. Không, không khí học vẫn không thay đổi. d. Không, trái lại còn khiến các tiết học trở nên nhàm chán hơn.
Câu 6: Em hãy cho biết ý kiến của mình về các nhận định sau. Đánh dấu x vào ô trống phù hợp:
TT Nhận định Đồng
ý Không đồng ý
Không có ý kiến
1 Các nhiệm vụ cô giáo đưa ra có ích cho việc sử dụng tiếng Anh trong thực tế của em.
2 Các nhiệm vụ thú vị và giúp em có nhiều cảm hứng học ngữ pháp tiếng Anh hơn.
3 Trong các tiết ngữ pháp tiếng Anh, em đã trở nên năng động hơn.
Câu 7: Em cho biết cảm nhận của mình (sự hứng thú, thích thú) đối với những yếu tố trong tiết học ngữ pháp dưới đây bằng việc đánh dấu vào một trong các ô số từ 1 đến 5 (1 tương ứng với rất hứng thú, và 5 tương ứng với rất không hứng thú) :
1 2 3 4 5 Rất hứng thú Rất không hứng thú
TT Khía cạnh 1 2 3 4 5 1 Phương pháp truyền đạt của giáo viên 2 Nội dung của bài học 3 Các hoạt động trong giờ học 4 Bài tập ngữ pháp áp dụng
Cảm ơn các em rất nhiều !
112
QUESTIONNAIRE 3 Assessment and attitudes of students towards task-based grammar lessons
Question 1: Do you like changes in the grammar lessons with the use of tasks? Circle the letter before your choice.
a. Very interested b. Interested c. Neither interested nor uninterested. Changes do not matter. d. Bored e. Very bored
Please explain your choice: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Question 3: Do you think that these grammar lessons are effective in helping you understand new grammar knowledge? Circle the letter before your choice.
a. Yes, they are more effective than previous ones with the old method. b. Yes, but they are as effective as previous ones. c. Yes, but previous lessons with the old method were more effective. d. No, not at all e. Other opinion:
……………………………………………………………………… Question 4: In these grammar lessons, which skills have you used? You can choose more than one option.
a. Listening b. Speaking c. Reading d. Writing e. None of them
Question 5: In your opinion, has the new method made grammar lessons more lively and interesting?
a. Yes, the atmosphere changed clearly
113
b. Yes, but changes were not clear. c. No, there was no change. d. No, even lessons became more boring.
Question 6: Please give your opinion about the following statements. Put (x) in the appropriate column that shows your opinion.
No. Statements Agree Disagree Neutral
1 Tasks were helpful for my English use in the real life.
2 Tasks were interesting and motivated me to learn English grammar.
3 In grammar lessons, I became more active.
Question 7: Please show your interest in the following aspects of the grammar lessons by ticking in column 1 -5 (1 is “very interested” and 5 is “very bored”) 1 2 3 4 5 Very interested Very bored No. Aspect 1 2 3 4 5 1 Teacher’s instruction and teaching manner 2 Lesson’s content 3 Tasks 4 Practice exercises
Thank you very much !
114
APPENDIX 4
OBSERVATION NOTE
1. General comments a. Teacher’s ways of explaining grammar structure:
Very good Good Normal Bad Very bad b. The suitability of task to students’ English level:
Suitable completely Suitable, to some extent Not suitable Not suitable at all c. The level of relevance between tasks and the content of lesson:
Completely match each other Quite relevant to each other Not very relevant
Irrelevant completely d. The atmosphere of the class:
Interesting Normal, not so interesting Boring 2. Other comments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
115
APPENDIX 5
INTERVIEW SCHEDULE
Following is the schedule for interviewing with ten selected students.
Firstly, the researcher introduced herself again and gave brief introduction to
the research and how the interviewees were chosen. Besides, confidentiality is
confirmed again.
Hello! Thank you for joining this interview.
………………………………………………………………………………....
Today, I would like to ask you some questions about tasks and grammar
lessons used tasks that you have learnt recently.
Question 1: Firstly, can you give me some general comments on grammar
lessons with tasks again?
………………………………………………………………………………....
Question 2: What do you think about tasks that you had to complete, in
general?
………………………………………………………………………………....
Question 3: What do you think about materials that had been used in tasks?
………………………………………………………………………………....
Question 4: Do you think you have changed in these lessons?
………………………………………………………………………………....
Question 5: What do you think about activities that you had done to complete
the tasks?
…………………………………………………………………………………
Question 6: Do you think the role of teacher had changed or remained?
…………………………………………………………………………………
116
Question 7: Can you give me some opinions about the settings of tasks?
………………………………………………………………………………....
Question 8: Do you have other comments on tasks and grammar lessons?
………………………………………………………………………………....
Thank you very much for your cooperation!
117
APPENDIX 6
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTION
Following is the translation version of the interview with student S1.
Nine other interviews with other students are available at request
Interviewer: Hello! Thank you for joining this interview. Can you introduce
yourself?
Interviewee: …………………………………………………………………..
Interviewer: Thank you. In this interview, I am going to ask you some
questions related to grammar lessons that I have taught you and
especially, tasks that you had to do in these lessons. All
information will be kept secret. Do you understand?
Interviewee: Yes, of course.
Interviewer: Firstly, can you give me some general comments on grammar
lessons that I have taught?
Interviewee: I saw it was very funny and interesting. I felt relaxed. Quite
different from other lessons (without the use of tasks)
Interviewer: Ok. What do you think about tasks that I have used in these
lessons?
Interviewee: They were very interesting and I had a lot of fun.
Interviewer: Why did you have a lot of fun?
Interviewee: Because every one worked together. Funny!
Interviewer: I see. What was the aspect of the lessons that motivated you
most?
Interviewee: They were tasks! Working together was exciting. I could learn
grammar better because every one had to think to complete the
118
tasks. It was easier to learn English. I was not afraid of English
any more.
Interviewer: Ok. I understand. So, in your opinion, how were materials that I
had used for those tasks?
Interviewee: They were very useful and made me more interested in the
lessons. I could know what I had not known before. If you had
not provided it, I could have never discovered that information.
Interviewer: Can you give me some examples?
Interviewee: For example, information about “The Beatles”. I did not know
this band before. If you had not given us, I would have never
found it.
Interviewer: Yes, I see. Besides that, what else do you like about those tasks?
Interviewee: While doing tasks, I listened to my friends’ talking. That’s funny.
I like to talk to them. However, I was still shy because my
grammar is not good.
Interviewer: Yes, I see. I think grammar is not a decisive factor of a good
speech. Don’t worry.
Interviewer: Do you think you have changed in grammar lessons with tasks?
Interviewee: Yes, of course. I became more active. I did not feel asleep
anymore. I felt freer to raise my opinion. I was more active in
learning grammar. Actually, I did not feel that I was forced to
learn grammar or vocabulary.
Interviewer: Uh huh ! Did you see the role of teacher remained or changed?
Interviewee: Changed. I found teacher friendlier. You helped me do tasks and
gave clear instruction.
Interviewer: Ok. I understand. The last question. Have you ever paid attention
to the settings or context of tasks?
119
Interviewee: Yes, of course. We had to understand to know what we have to
do and why we have to do the task.
Interviewer: Good. So what do you think about it?
Interviewee: The settings were quite proper. They were close to my life. We
knew them clearly and could understand. Hence, it was not
difficult to do the task. Moreover, I paid attention to your way
of speaking and I learnt from it. I found sentences that you used
easier to remember than grammar.
Interviewer: Ok. Do you have other comments?
Interviewee: No.
Interviewer: Ok. Thank you so much for your cooperation!
Interviewee: You are welcome!
120
APPENDIX 7
LESSON PLANS
***
LESSON PLAN Language focus: Grammar Date: ........
Unit 12: Music 1. Class description: Fifty 10th grade students
2. Time: 35 minutes
3. Objectives:
- Students can design a quiz based on available information.
- After the lesson, students recall some familiar Wh-questions and common
structure for those questions.
- Students are able make Wh-questions in writing and speaking.
4. Assumed knowledge: Students have already got familiar with some kinds
of Wh-questions
5. Anticipated problems:
6. Teaching aids: Handouts, board
7. Procedure:
Stage Time Activities
Teacher Students
Pre-task 10’
* T gives introduction of topic: Music
(The Beatles)
* Pre-task language activity: Teacher
will provide students with an information
- Listen to T
- Read through the
passage to catch the
121
sheet about the band “The Beatles”. They
read through the passage to catch the
main idea and locate new words listed at
the end of the paper
* T gives instruction of the task:
+ Imagine that you have to prepare a
game in the collective activity at the
weekend. This week has the theme:
Music.
+ Work in groups of four or five to
design a quiz relating to provided
information in 10 minutes.
+ After discussion, one group will go
to the stage and present their outcome.
Teacher then needs to provide some
sample questions that can be used in the
quiz.
main idea and locate
new words.
- Listen to T
Task -
cycle 15’
*The task stage:
- T helps Ss divide groups
- While students are reading the
information and design questions, teacher
goes around and helps if necessary. Ss
may need more explanation of new words
or structures of Wh-questions.
* The planning stage:
- Ss form groups of
four or five
- In groups, read the
information sheet,
and design
questions.
122
- T stops students’ discussion and asks
them to finalize the quiz to prepare for
report.
* The report stage
- T calls one group to read their quiz
while the others guess the answer.
- T acts as a judgment and decides which
questions and answers are acceptable.
- Finalize the quiz
- One group does as
required. The rest of
class listens to the
questions and
answer.
Language
focus 10’
* Corrective feedback: T gives
comments on students’ design of quizzes,
especially the form of questions.
* Language analysis and practice: T
asks students to draw a common structure
of Wh-questions and provides handouts
that relate to Wh-questions, types and
structure
- T instructs students to do drilling
exercises
- Listen to T
- Answer questions
- Do exercise.
123
LESSON PLAN Language focus: Grammar Date: ........
Unit 13 1. Class description: Fifty 10th grade students
2. Time: 35 minutes
3. Objectives:
- Students practice the way to express their opinions.
- Students are able to describe the appearance of familiar things.
- After the lesson, students understand the use of articles: a/an/the and apply in
conversations, discussions and presentations.
4. Assumed knowledge: Students have known some usages of articles
a/an/the.
5. Anticipated problems:
6. Teaching aids: Handouts, board
7. Procedure:
Stage Time Activities
Teacher Students
Pre-task 7’
* T gives introduction of the
topic: Houses and buildings.
* Pre-task language activity: T
provides Ss with words relating to
houses and buildings. Through
teacher’s suggestions, Ss guess the
meaning of some words which
have not been explained.
- Listen to T
- Read the words and
guess their
meanings.
124
* T gives task instruction;
+ Context: Japanese people are
suffering from earthquakes and
tsunami last week. Many of them
had lost their houses because these
houses were destroyed by these
disasters.
+ Students will work in pairs to
design houses for Japanese people
so that they can protect them from
the natural disasters. Discuss with
the partner and draw a picture of
the ideal houses in 10 minutes.
+ Some pairs will present their
ideas and the class vote for the
most impressive house.
* Preparation time: because the
task is new to students, teacher
spends time instructing students to
discuss by guiding questions such
as: Where will the house be? How
does it look like? What is it made
from?
- Think of the
answers for
questions
Task -
cycle
* The task stage
- T helps students form pairs and
- Form pairs
125
18’
start to discuss
- T goes around and helps Ss if
necessary.
* The planning stage
- T stops the discussion and asks Ss
to prepare to express their ideas
- T may need to help Ss prepare for
sharing part.
* The report stage
- T calls some pairs to show their
pictures and present the ideas
- T listens and asks Ss to give
comments and vote for the most
impressive house.
- Work in pair to
brainstorm and draw
their ideal houses.
- Prepare to share
(based on guiding
questions)
- Some pairs share
with the whole class.
- Vote
Language
focus 10’
* Corrective feedback: T gives
comments on the use of articles in
the presentation and other
important points (if any)
* Language analysis and practice
- T asks Ss to repeat the use of
article
- T delivers exercises.
- Listen to the
teacher
- Answer questions.
- Do exercises
126
LESSON PLAN Language focus: Grammar Date: ........
Unit 14 1. Class description: Fifty 10th grade students
2. Time: 35 minutes
3. Objectives:
- Students learn to plan for a party, express intentions and projects in the
future.
- After the lesson, students can differentiate the use of “will” and “be going
to” in talking about future and use them correctly in speaking and writing.
4. Assumed knowledge: Students know the structure with “will” and ‘be
going to’
5. Anticipated problems:
6. Teaching aids: Handouts, board
7. Procedure:
Stage Time Activities
Teacher Students
Pre-task 10’
* T gives introduction of the topic:
Mother (Mother’s birthday)
* Pre-task language activity: T
asks students to brainstorms words
relating to birthday and party before
providing vocabulary handout.
* T gives task instruction
- Name: SPECIAL GIFT FOR
- Listen to T
- Brainstorm
127
MOTHERS
- T explains the task: Ss work in
groups of four to five. Each group
will pick up a paper on which an
amount of money is written. This is
the money that Ss have saved to
prepare for their mothers’ birthday.
They will then discuss how to
celebrate that day.
- T asks some students about their
intentions with the money (What will
you do with ….?) to help them
generate ideas.
- Listen to T
- Answer question.
Task -
cycle
15’
* The task stage:
- T helps Ss form groups
- T goes around and helps Ss if
necessary.
- T encourages students to
participate in the tasks actively
* The planning stage
- T stops the discussion and asks Ss
to prepare for the presentation of
ideas.
* The report stage
- T calls some representatives to talk
about their plans
- Form groups
- In groups, Ss discuss
and decide what they are
going to do with the
money.
- Ss plan their talk
- Share with the whole
class.
128
- Listen and give comments. - Vote for the most
impressive idea
Language
focus 10’
* Corrective feedback: T gives
comments on students’ performance
as well as the use of tense futures
when talking about plans.
* Language analysis and practice:
- T asks students to distinguish the
difference between “will” and “be
going to” from the presentation
- Ss do drilling exercises with the
instruction of T.
- Listen to T
- Answer question
- Do exercise.
129
LESSON PLAN Language focus: Grammar Date: ........
Unit 15 1. Class description: Fifty 10th grade students
2. Time: 35 minutes
3. Objectives:
- Students practice the way to describe people and design a quiz as they
learned in previous lessons
- After the lesson, students can differentiate the use of non-defining and
defining relative clause.
4. Assumed knowledge: Students have learnt relative clauses.
5. Anticipated problems:
6. Teaching aids: Handouts, board
7. Procedure:
Stage Time Activities
Teacher Students
Pre-task 10’
* T gives introduction of the
topic: Classmates
* Pre-task language activities:
T provides students with a
handout. In this handout, there
are words describing people’s
appearance. Their meanings are
explained by pictures. T asks
students to explain words’
- Listen to T
- Read the handout
and find the meanings
of words
130
meaning based on pictures.
* T gives task instruction:
+ Students will work groups
of four to come up with a quiz
about other classmates in their
class. This quiz includes clues
with the form of statements.
The examples have been given.
+ After designing, some
groups will be called to present
their outcome.
- Listen to T
Task –
cycle
15’
* The task stage:
- T helps students form groups
- T goes around and helps Ss if
necessary.
* The planning stage:
- T asks students to spend 2
minutes to finalize their quizzes
and prepare to report.
* The report stage:
- T calls some groups to give
out the quiz
- Listen and give comments.
- In groups, Ss discuss
and write down clues
for quizzes
- Finalized the quiz
- Some groups will
read out the quizzes
and the other groups
guess the name.
131
Language
focus 10’
* Corrective feedback: T gives
comments on students’ quiz.
The focus is their use of relative
clauses.
* Language analysis and
practice: Ask students to
differentiate the defining and
non-defining relative clauses
based on examples from the
task and teacher’s comments.
- Help students do exercises
- Listen to T
- Do as required
- Do exercise.
132
APPENDIX 8
POST TESTS
***
1. UNIT 12
POST TEST
I. Choose the best answer: 1. "........." is your favourite Vietnamese singer ? "Trong Tan and My Linh " A. Whom B. What C. Who D. Whose 2. ".............do you like classical music?" " Because it helps me relax" A. How B. Why C. Which D. What 3. ...........is it from here to the theater ? A. How B. How far C. How often D. How long 4. " ......... are you learning Chinese for ?" " To sing Chinese songs." A. Why B. What C. How D. Which 5. .............was " Heal the world " written ?
A. By who B. Who C. By whom D. Whom
II. Make question for the underlined part: 1. He studies piano at the university. (what)
…………………………………………………………………….
2. The party lasted all night. (how long)
…………………………………………………………………….
3. I find a part time job to have enough money to take the English speaking
course. (what for)
133
2. UNIT 13
POST TEST I. Choose the correct answer.
1. 'Do you think Margaret will take the job you offered her'?' 'I don't know. She seemed …….. in it, however.
a. interest b. interesting. c. interested d. interestingly 2. 'The students all went to the circus yesterday.' I heard it was really ……. a. amused b. amusing c. amuse d. amusingly 3. It was ............ that Jan couldn't come to the party.' 'Her boss made her work
overtime. a. disappointing b. disappointedly c. disappoint d.
disappointed 4. 'What a terrible football game!' I thought it was ……… a. delightful b. delighting c. delight d. delighted 5. 'How ....... we are to hear that you got the scholarship!' `Thank you. It was
really a surprise.' a. pleasing b. pleased c. pleasingly d. please 6. We'd better go. We've been here for ..........hour.' 'That was.............. fastest
hour I've ever spent.' a. a/ the b. an/ the c. an/ a d. θ / the 7. Don't forget we're meeting on ............Friday for ............ lunch. a. a/ a b. a/ θ c. θ / the d/ θ / θ 8. 'I've got .........headache. I've had it all day' 'Why don't you go to …. health center? It's
open until six.' a. a/ a b. θ / the c. a/ the d. a/ θ 9, 'I've got some problems with my phone bill. Can 1 see someone about it?’
Yes, go to fifth floor, ...........lift is along the corridor.' a. the/ A b. the/ The c. θ! A d. the/ θ 10. 'Excuse me. I'd like to rent ........... new game.” Here you are. Sega
Genesis. Please take it to ............ cashier over there.' a. al the b. the/ the c. θ / the d. a/ a
II. Rewrite the following sentences, using It was not until
1. No one could leave the stadium until 2.30. 2. She wasn't allowed to open her presents until her birthday. 3. We didn't have any holiday until last summer.
134
3. UNIT 14
POST TEST I. Choose the correct answer: 1. I'm turning the cupboard into a darkroom. I .........my own films. A. develop B. am developing C. am going to develop D. will develop 2. " Van is in hospital". - Yes, I know. I ..........her tomorrow. A. will visiting B. go to visit C. am going to visit D. will visit 3. That bag looks heavy. I .........you with it. A. am going to help B. am helping C. help D. will help 4. I think Tam .........the job. She has a lot of experience. A. is going to get B. gets C. will get D. is getting 5. Mai and I have decided to have a party. We ..... lots of people. A. have invited B. will invite C. are going to invite D. are inviting 6. " I'm catching the 7.00 train". " So am I. I ....... you a lift to the station" A. going to give B. am giving C. shall give D. will give II. Choose one correct sentence: 7. There is an interesting football match. __________________ A. There are going to be lots of people at the match tonight. B. There are lots of people at the match tonight. C. There will be lots of people at the match tonight. D. There should be lots of people at the match tonight. 8. A: “I don’t have enough money to buy this book.” – B: “__________________ .” A. I’m going to lend you some B. I’m lending you some C. I lend you some D. I’ll lend you some 9. The traffic is terrible. __________________ A. We'll miss our flight. B. We're going to miss our flight. C. We’re missing our flight. D. We have to miss our flight. 10. Look! There are no clouds in the sky. __________________ A. It is going to be rainy. B. It is going to be warm. C. It will be rainy. D. It won’t be warm.
135
4. UNIT 15
POST TEST Choose the best answer. 1. In a desert, there are places _________________ some water is available and a few plants grow. a. that b. which c. where d. when 2. We decided to keep walking _________________ the rain. a. in case b. in spite of c. because of d. due to 3. _______________ I heard my mobile phone ringing, I didn’t answer it. a. Even though b. Despite c. In spite of d. Only if 4. Tokyo, _____________ was badly damaged in World War II, has recovered quickly. a. that b. who c. what d. which 5. I appreciate these engineers ____________ is very important. a. whose contribution b. that contributes
c. who contribute d. whom contribution 6. They don’t want to live in a big city, _____________ they know its advantages. a. but b. and c. although d. as if 7. ______________ declared the martial law. a. Abraham Lincoln, who was President at the time,
b. Abraham Lincoln, that was President at the time, c. Abraham Lincoln, whom was President at the time, d. Abraham Lincoln whom was President at the time,
8. England is one of the few countries _________________ people drive on the left. a. which b. where c. that d. whom 9. ____________ cutting my finger very deeply, I didn’t need any stitches. a. Although b. In spite of the fact that c. Despite d. Even though 10. That’s the businessman _________________ company is so successful. a. whose b. of which c. who’s d. of whom