BuiNguyenKhanh_DoHuynhQuanNgoc

7/28/2019 BuiNguyenKhanh_DoHuynhQuanNgoc

1/96

Task-Based Language Teaching

HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

GRADUATION PAPER

SUBMITTED BY: BUI NGUYEN KHANH

DO HUYNH QUAN NGOC

SUPERVISOR: MR. NGUYEN TUAN PHUC, MA

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

Bachelor of Arts in English Language Teaching

HO CHI MINH CITY, APRIL 2010


2/96


Running head: TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TEACHING

SPEAKING

The Implementation of Task-Based Language Teaching

In Teaching Speaking for 11th Graders of Public High Schools in Ho Chi

Minh City

Supervisor: Mr. Nguyen Tuan Phuc, MA

Students: Bui Nguyen Khanh

Do Huynh Quan Ngoc

Ho Chi Minh City University of Education

English Department

2


3/96


Acknowledgements

The researchers would like to send our sincere thanks to many teachers,

friends and students in helping us carry out this paper. They play an important role in

making the completion of this minor research a success.

First of all, we are extremely grateful to our supervisor, Mr. Nguyen Tuan

Phuc. His timely and insightful at every stage in the preparation of this research, and

his encouraging and guidance have made a writing process a pleasure. He has kindly

given up his valuable time to read every chapter and give much-needed critical

feedback. Any shortcomings remain solely our responsibility. Without his incessant

support, this research cannot come to this successful closing stage.

Secondly, a special thank is needed for our Department of English, Ho Chi

Minh City University of Education, especially Mr. Pham Tan, in recommending Mr.

Tuan Phuc. We also thanks Dr. Nguyen Thanh Tung, who spent his valuable time

providing us with basic knowledge of writing a research paper. Besides we want to

thank Ms. Hanh Nguyen for keeping track our progress.

Thirdly, we really appreciate the special help from Ms. Ta Thanh Huyen, a

lecturer from English Department and Ms. Vu Thi The Mai, a teacher from Bui Thi

Xuan High School in observing and evaluating our trial classes. Moreover, they

spent their valuable time joining our interview.

Fourthly, we also express our gratitude to the teachers and the students from

three different public high schools in Ho Chi Minh City: Bui Thi Xuan, Hung Vuong

and Ly Thuong Kiet for their precious help and cooperation during our survey at

their schools.

3


4/96


Last but not least, millions of thanks are sent to our beloved family and our

friends from University of Education due to their endless support and

encouragement, which really motivates us in writing this research paper.

4


5/96


Table of Contents

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................................

3

LIST OF TABLES..............................................................................................................

5

ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................

7

Introduction.........................................................................................................................

8

Literature Review................................................................................................................

13

Communicative Language Teaching............................................................................................................................

14

The Task-based Approach............................................................................................................................

15

The Implementation of Task-based in teaching speaking............................................................................................................................

16

Methodology.......................................................................................................................

24

Locations

5


6/96


............................................................................................................................

24

Subjects

............................................................................................................................

25

Materials............................................................................................................................

26

Procedures............................................................................................................................

27

Results of Findings and Data Analysis...............................................................................

29

Questionnaire............................................................................................................................

29

Interview............................................................................................................................

34

Controlled experiment............................................................................................................................

38

Discussion...........................................................................................................................

47

Conclusion and Recommendations.....................................................................................

53

REFERENCES...................................................................................................................

57

6


7/96


APPENDIX A Students Questionnaire..........................................................................

59

APPENDIX B Teachers Questionnaire..........................................................................

64

APPENDIX C Data collected from Students Questionnaires........................................

68

APPENDIX D Data collected from Teachers Questionnaires.......................................

70

APPENDIX E Interview Questions for Students.............................................................

72

APPENDIX F Interview Questions for Teachers............................................................

73

APPENDIX G Lesson Plan for the first trial period........................................................

74

APPENDIX H Lesson Plan for the second trial period...................................................

76

APPENDIX I Observation for the first trial period.........................................................

79

APPENDIX J Observation for the second trial period....................................................

81

APPENDIX K Data collected from questionnaires for students feedback

after the first trial period.....................................................................................................

83

APPENDIX L Data collected from questionnaires for students feedback

7


8/96


after the second trial period.................................................................................................

84

APPENDIX M Tables......................................................................................................

85

APPENDIX N Tables of Chi-square (Critical values)....................................................

91

8


9/96


List of Tables

Page

Table 1 Distribution of students among the three high schools...................

25

Table 2 The sources of the activities in speaking classes............................

30

Table 3 Opinions about teachers less attention and help

in speaking classes..........................................................................

32

Table 4 The Frequency of learning at high schools.....................................

33

Table 5 Problems of the lack of fluency and accuracy among students......

34

Table 6 Problems of the lack of confidence among students.......................

34

Table 7 Comparisons between the two trial classes.....................................

41

Table 8 Students general opinions about the trial period.......................... .

43

Table 9 Students opinions about tasks in the trial period...........................

43

Table 10 The suitability of the tasks with students ability...........................

44

9


10/96


Table 11 Teachers instructions.....................................................................

44

Table 12 Communication in the class............................................................

45

Table 13 The practicability of the tasks.........................................................

45

Table 14 Reasons Why Students find it interesting

to learn speaking at high schools....................................................

85

Table 15 Reasons Why Students find it uninteresting

to learn speaking at high schools....................................................

86

Table 16 The Frequency of Activity Types used in speaking classes...........

87

Table 17 Factors which may decide the success of a speaking period..........

88

Table 18 The Benefits of Implementation of TBT in teaching speaking

at high schools.................................................................................

89

Table 19 The Problems of Implementation of TBT in teaching speaking

at high schools.................................................................................

90

10


11/96


Abstract

Teaching and learning speaking are showing a remarkable improvement in

high schools since the innovation of the new textbooks. It is a promising sign for

students to develop their communicative skills. However, students still do not have

lots of interest in the speaking tasks in the recent textbook. Therefore, this research is

intended to investigate the effects of implementing the framework of Task-Based

Language Teaching in teaching speaking for 11th graders in our public high school so

that students can have much more opportunities to enhance their communicative

skills. The survey is carried out on two hundred and forty nine students and thirty

five teachers in three public high schools: Bui Thi Xuan, Hung Vuong, Ly Thuong

Kiet. At first, the researchers deliver sets of questionnaires and interview some

respondents to explore students and teachers attitudes towards the speaking tasks in

the textbook and their desire for a successful speaking period. In the second place,

the two trial classes, one with the tasks in the textbook, and one with the

implementation of TBLT framework are conducted to attest the merits and

drawbacks of TBLT under the observation and evaluation of one lecturer in English

Department and the supervisor in Bui Thi Xuan High School. The three interactive

instruments questionnaires, interviews and classroom observation show their

values in conveying students and teachers thoughts about the applying TBLT in

teaching and learning speaking in high school context. Then some solutions to better

the weaknesses are laid out and put into practice by one of the researchers. The

findings reveal the pros and cons of TBLT and its effects on improving students

speaking ability, which exerts a strong influence on advancing students speaking

skills in Vietnamese high school context.

11


12/96


The Implementation of Task-Based Language Teaching

In Teaching Speaking for 11th Graders of Public High Schools in Ho Chi

Minh City

It is disheartening to note that there is not much provisions made to

provide students with opportunities to speak in English within the classroom,

including English lessons.

Mrs. Rabia Shahul,

Head of Department, English Language,

Compassvale Secondary School

This is a problem not only in the Asian countries, where English is

considered as a foreign language but also in Vietnam. We are living in the era where

English is the key to ones success to gain a position in this competitive market, and

Vietnam is not an exception, especially at the time when Vietnam is in the process of

international integration. However, one striking fact is that 86.8% of the students

graduating from high school admit that they dont have enough confidence in

communicating in English even if using simple sentences (Kim Lien, 2006). Many

parents and educators also feel worried about the fact that students cannot speak

English fluently even after seven years studying in high school. A series of articles

also raises an alarming warning for this issue. For example, on Dan Tri Newspaper

(2007) came an article Km ngoi ng, sinh vin Vit Nam mi tt hu (Bad at

English, Vietnamese students always fall behind). This article says Khng t cc tn

c nhn sm b loi khi cc cuc tuyn dng ch v vn ting Anh qu ngho

nn (Lan Anh, 2007) (The newly-graduated are quickly knocked out in the the

12


13/96


jobs recruitment due to the incompetence in English). Moreover, on Nguoi Lao

Dong (The Labor) exists an article Su im yu ca sinh vin Vit Nam (Six

weaknesses of Vietnamese Students). Dong Trieu (2004) clearly pointed out that one

of the weaknesses is the limited ability in communicating in English. Therefore,

students speaking ability should be paid more attention to. Up until now, many

efforts have been put to enhance students speaking ability. Obviously, it is the

adoption of series of new text books that puts an improvement in students speaking

competence. However, teaching speaking at high schools still doesnt get

satisfactory results. This brings us into the idea of using Taskbasked Language

Teaching, an approach of Communicative Language Teaching, in redesigning the

tasks in the current official textbooks with the hope to bring a new wind of change in

teaching and learning speaking in Vietnamese high schools context.

However, before we can make any achievements, we first have to take many

problems into thorough consideration. First of all, The Grammar Translation Method

(GTM) has been profoundly used in Vietnam for a long time. We have been

continuously paying too much attention to teaching grammar and too little to

teaching other communicative skills such as speaking or listening. In other words, it

is the form rather than the meaning is focused on in class. Therefore, students may

find it very difficult to talk with other people in the target language. Furthermore, we

are also influenced by the Chinese ideology (Confucianism). Confucianism, a system

of teaching moral, social, political thought, became the foundation of Vietnam's

educational system. Under this philosophy, students become more and more passive

in class and dare not to ask teachers what they dont understand. Moreover,

according to Kramsch and Sullivan (2006), Vietnamese teachers usually treat the

class in a classroom-as-family way. It means students chorally repeats after

13


14/96


teachers. Some can mimic the others and it is very difficult for teachers to know

students ability or even the teachers cannot identify students can actually speak or

not.

Secondly, the new English series is a big improvement in teaching 4 skills:

Reading, Speaking, Listening, and Writing. However, students find it difficult to

acquire the speaking skills due to the fact that there is too little time spent on

teaching speaking. With three periods a week, it is difficult for teachers to

simultaneously cover the four skills. Thus, teachers sometimes neglect the speaking

section to focus on the other points, i.e. grammar, reading, and listening. Especially,

when there are too many students in one class, it is difficult for teachers to handle the

class in teaching speaking. Importantly, reading and grammar rather than the

speaking, as a matter of routine, are preferable to be taught in class. Moreover, under

the influence of the backwash of our testing system, where there is no test on

speaking, students seem to ignore the speaking skills. Obviously, students just study

what they need for the exam, and take no notice of the speaking skills.

In order to find a solution for the above problems, our research proposes the

application of the Task-Based Language Teaching, an approach of the

Communicative Language Teaching in teaching speaking for 11th graders in high

school to develop the students speaking ability. The purpose of the Communicative

language teaching is to bring real life situations into the classroom so that the

learners can have a chance to communicate in the target language, and the learning

of a second language, thus, emerges naturally. On the other hand, task-based

approach gives a more specific and practical usage in the framework of

communicative language teaching. Task-based approach is focusing on the

functional purposes for which language must be used and on the learners language

14


15/96


competence. Thus, implementing communicative language teaching and tasked-

based approach in high school classrooms is a change from the traditional instruction

which focuses on the structure of language towards the usage of language in an

authentic way.

Overall, with this research, we aim at investigating the effectiveness of the

implementation of Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) in teaching speaking for

11th graders of Ho Chi Minhs public high schools. Moreover, the merits and

problems when applying this approach as well as some possible solutions to these

obstacles are also proposed in this research. Besides, we choose the 11th graders

because they have already exposed to the series of this new textbook in the 10th form.

Therefore, they can give a deeper thought over the tasks in the textbook. Hence our

findings of investigating the implementation of TBLT in teaching speaking for 11th

grade students are predicted to be more comparatively precise and reliable. In order

to accomplish these goals, our research aims at the following issues:

1. How is Speaking taught for the 11th graders? Has the Task-Based

Language Teaching been implemented in teaching speaking for the 11th graders?

2. What are the advantages and the difficulties in using task-based in teaching

speaking for 11th grade students in our public high schools?

3. How can English teachers apply the task-based to teaching speaking for

11th graders effectively?

There are six chapters in this research. In Chapter 1, we look at the current

situation of teaching speaking in Vietnam and students speaking ability. The

research questions are also raised in this chapter. Chapter 2 points out a conceptual

framework for teaching speaking by using the Task-Based Language Teaching.

Chapter 3 gives further information about the process of conducting this research,

15


16/96


i.e. how the questionnaire is delivered, or how we conduct the interview with the

participants,Chapter 4 includes the data analysis and the interpretation from the

data. In Chapter 5, we focus on the issues mentioned in the research questions and

end up with some suggestions for carrying out this method. In the last chapter,

chapter 6, we draw conclusions towards implementing the Task-Based Language

Teaching in teaching speaking for 11th graders so that it can be widely used in the

high school to improve students speaking ability. With this research, we hope it can

provide a valuable resource for English teachers who have a strong desire to conduct

the successful communicative classroom in the high school by using the Task-Based

Language Teaching.

The second chapter will present the conceptual framework which serves as a

solid foundation for the survey.

16


17/96


Literature Review

This chapter is devoted to building a conceptual framework for our research

which centers on the implementation of Task-Based Language Teaching in teaching

speaking skills. It provides a basic framework to develop our research.

For many decades the Grammar Translation Method (GTM) is the

predominant method in language teaching in all the high schools in Vietnam. This

method stems from the teaching of the nineteenth century and is extensively used for

the first half of the last century to teach foreign languages. As for GTM, there is

usually a list of vocabulary and rule explanations, as what can be seen in the series of

the old English textbooks. Moreover, students just do the translation or some

grammar exercises in class. Therefore, little oral fluency in using target language

would result from the GTM. In 1960s, many questions concerning students

communication outside the classroom was raised among the linguistics. Students, in

order to be a fluent speaker, are often expected to go abroad to acquire the target

language.

This does not seem to be the problem since the implementation of the

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in promoting students language

acquisition. CLT then is generally regarded as an approach to language teaching

(Richards and Rodgers, 2001). Particularly, the Task-based Language Teaching

(TBLT) is more favorable among other communicative approaches such as the

content-based or the theme-based. TBLT gives a more specific and practical

outcome in the framework of communicative language teaching. What makes task-

based approach different from other communicative approaches, such as the content-

based or the theme-based, is that it is considered to be more language-based.

Language-based, in this case, is not in a traditional sense of focusing on the

17


18/96


structure of language, but rather, it is focusing on the functional purposes for which

language must be used and on the learners pragmatic language competence

(Brown, 1994). Overall, Communicative Language Teaching together with Tasked-

Based Language Teaching is regarded as a way for successful language learning and

is worthwhile to be implemented in EFL (English as a Foreign Language)

classrooms, especially in teaching speaking. As a result, students in high schools can

find learning speaking interesting, which may improve their speaking skills.

The following sections build up a more comprehensive picture of the

Communicative Language Teaching and the Task-Based Language Teaching.

Communicative Language Teaching

The CLT stems from the notion that the main purpose of learning a foreign

language is communication. It is to develop the fluency rather than the accuracy. In

other words, students can use the language to communicate not only in the classroom

but also in the social context. The ability to communicate (communicative

competence knowing when and how to say what to whom) is more challenging

than learning linguistic structures (linguistic competence rules of linguistic usage).

It requires that students perform certain functions within a social context.

Here come definitions of the CLT. A communicative (or functional/notional)

approach is organized on the basis of communicative functions (e.g. apologizing,

describing, inviting, promising) that a given learner of group of learners needs to

know and emphasizes the ways in which particular grammatical forms may be used

to express these functions appropriately (Canale and Swain, 1980:1). According to

Brown, such a teaching method is to move significantly beyond the teaching of

rules, patterns, definitions, and other knowledge about language to the point that

we are teaching our students to communicate genuinely, spontaneously, and

18


19/96


meaningfully in the second language (Brown, 2000, P. 14). From these definitions,

we can learn that language, in CLT, is regarded as a social tool which speakers use

to make meaning. It is essential that learners be involved in using target language for

a diversity of purposes in all phases of learning. This notion entails a wide range of

abilities: the knowledge of grammar and vocabulary (linguistic competence); the

ability to say the appropriate thing in a certain social situation (communicative

competence); the ability to start, or end a conversation (discourse competence).

Therefore, with CLT, students can make a flying leap, from knowing simple

rules of grammar or a mountain of vocabulary to the way to use and apply them in

appropriate context. This will enhance students competence in speaking, and thus

they may communicate well outside the classroom. Among the approaches in CLT,

Task-based Language Teaching seems to be the most outstanding and favorable. In

the following section, we will explore the theory of Task-based Language Teaching

so that we can implement this theory in teaching speaking for high school students to

improve students speaking skills.

The Task-based Approach

There are many definitions of tasks, which center on different features of

what makes up a task.

A well-known definition is proposed by Nunan (1989), who defines

communicative task as a piece of classroom work which involves learners in

comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language while

their attention is principally focused on meaning rather than form. As for Brown

(1994, p.229), A task-based curriculum, then, specifies what a learner needs to do

with the English language in terms of target tasks and organizes a series of

pedagogical tasks intended to reach those goals. More recently, Skehan (1998,

19


20/96


p.147) summarizes the criteria for a task activity in the following way: (a) meaning

is primary; (b) learners are not given other peoples meanings to regurgitate, (c)

there is some sort of relationship to comparable real-world activities, (d) task

completion has a priority, and (e), the assessment of tasks are done in terms of

outcome.

Despite the different elucidations from these three definitions, several

common characteristics can be acknowledged. All three definitions give emphasis to

the importance of focus on meaning. This decisive factor supports the notion that

conveying an intended meaning is important to the use of language. Skehan (1998)s

definitions call attention to the use of real-world tasks that are similar to authentic

behavior in real life. Skehan (1998) also further suggests that task performance often

involves accomplish a goal and put on the final outcome.

In general, tasks can be extensively used in many aspects of language teaching

including four separate skills, grammar, etc. In this study, we focus on investigating

speaking tasks, which can be seen as activities that involve speakers in using

language for the purpose of achieving a particular goal or subjective in a particular

speaking situation. (Bachman and Palmer, 1996)

Implementation of TBT in teaching speaking

In any second language teaching and learning, speaking is always believed to

be the most vital skill. Learning a target language makes no sense if you cannot

communicate in it successfully. With the rapid progress of globalization, English

speaking skill is thought to be the key to ones success in his career.

However, teaching speaking has been held in low esteem in Vietnam for many years.

It hasnt been taught in classroom, or many teachers still have persisted in teaching

speaking by having student repeat and memorize the dialogues. Thanks to the

20


21/96


innovations of new textbooks which apply tasks in teaching English skills, teaching

speaking is showing signs of remarkable improvements. However, the

implementation of task-based teaching still hasnt exerted far-reaching consequences

as expected.

Willis (1996) describes the model cycle of task-based learning as a three-

stage process:

The first phase is call pre-task in which the topic is introduced and students

are familiarized with some essential topic-related words ort some useful structures

that can encourage learners to tackle the task better. The second phase is labeled

task cycle with three sub-stages (task, planning and report) in which students do

the task in pairs or groups, and then prepare their report before presenting it in front

of the class. Through the task cycle, students can gain fluency and confidence in

themselves as communicators as well as upgrade their language. The last phase

language focus with two steps analysis and practice gives students an

21

Pre-Task

Introduction to topic and task

Task Cycle

Task

Planning

Report

Language FocusAnalysisPractice


22/96


opportunity to focus their attention on forms which can be skipped in teaching

speaking.

Among various approach, TBT is considered effective and beneficial because

it is more student-centered. According to Willis (1996), tasks encourage learners to

activate and genuinely use their language to communicate. Learners become far

more independent and autonomous when bringing their own experiences to lessons

and adjusting their language. Furthermore, they can enjoy the challenge of tasks.

Teachers, who no longer maintain the dominion over learners learning process, play

the role of facilitator and linguistic adviser by ensuring an environment where

learners can get natural acquisition to accomplish the task and guiding them to

discover what ways of learning work best for them.

With those above advantages, new series of English textbooks apply tasks in

teaching English skills, especially speaking skill. However, because of some

drawbacks of TBT itself and the limitation of implementation of TBT to the

Vietnamese teaching and learning context, the effectiveness of teaching speaking

hasnt come up to expectations.

Firstly, many linguists claim that TBT is time-consuming. With the limited

time in public high schools in Vietnam, the adoption of TBT seems to be ineffective.

If the allowed time is not lengthened, teachers have to prepare more carefully and

use the time more wisely in the classroom.

22


23/96


Secondly, the success of TBT depends on how good the conditions for

language learning are. Willis (1996) summarizes three essential conditions for

language learning in the following diagram:

Willis states that the exposure needs to be as rich as possible. This requires

teachers to use a wide variety of materials from different sources, such as texts,

photographs, multimedia sources, etc. One more important thing is materials need to

be authentic to reflect real-life situations and requirements. Authentic materials

prepare for students to cope with the language they contact in the real world outside

the classroom. Some examples of authentic materials are letters, newspaper extracts,

shopping lists, menu, recipe, weather forecast, hotel brochures, real-life telephone

conversations

After receiving input, learners need opportunities to communicate, socialize

and exchange experiences with their partners through activities. Like exposure, the

activities need to fulfill the quality of authenticity which learners will encounter in

the real world. Pattison (1987) proposes seven activity types:

Questions and answer

Dialogues and role-plays

Matching activities

Communication strategies

23

Conditions for Language Learning

Exposure Use Motivation


24/96


Pictures and pictures stories

Puzzles and problems

Discussions and decisions

Harmer (1983) also suggests some common kinds of communicative

activities including communication games, problem solving, interpersonal exchange,

role play. Otherwise, Clark (1987) asserts that the most interactive activity types are

role play, discussion and problem solving.

Here are some examples about communicative activities that can be used in

the class which are taken from the bookNew English File, Intermediate. The first

one is a discussion activity.

24


25/96


And this is a role-play activity.

25


26/96


This is an interview activity,

which is very common

among communicative

activity types.

26


27/96


Back to three conditions suggested by Willis, through the process of

receiving and using the target language, learners need motivation achieve tasks with

success. Confidence and satisfaction are the key factors in nourishing motivation.

Therefore, its indispensible that teachers select topics and activities which can

stimulate interest and involve the whole class.

In general, although TBT is less teacher-centered, teachers missions are not less

burdensome. They have to select materials, design tasks, set up optimal condition

for learning. The English textbooks for Vietnamese high schools have tasks in but

there are few genuinely communicative, so very few opportunities for true

communication. For that reason, teachers should make some minor changes in the

way to use the tasks in the course books, as well as supplement existing textbook

material with authentic materials.

The next chapter will wholly deal with the methodology we exploited to

investigate our research thesis.

27


28/96


Methodology

Location

Schools. Our research is carried out in three public schools in Ho Chi Minh

City: Bui Thi Xuan, Hung Vuong, and Ly Thuong Kiet. The students in Bui Thi

Xuan and Hung Vuong high school are supposed to be better than the rest. The

students in Bui Thi Xuan High School allocated in two sections: A (Math, Physics,

and Chemistry) from 11A1 to 11A13, and one class, 11A14 in section D (Math,

Literature, and English). In Ly Thuong Kiet High School, there is only one class,

11A, where students focus on Math, Physics, and Chemistry, while the rest follow

the basic textbook. The first two are the public schools situated in the center of the

city, while the rest is in the outskirts of our city. Those three schools are chosen due

to the variety of location as well as the diversity of students level. All these criteria

accounts for the generality of our research, which leads to a reliable result.

Subjects

Students. There are two hundred and forty-nine students taking part in the

survey. The students from three schools follow the Basic version of the new series of

the textbook. The detail of the students is described in the following table.

28


29/96


Table 1 Distribution of students among three high schools

School Class SectionNumber of

students

Bui Thi Xuan11A13

A (Math, Physics,

and Chemistry)41

11A14

D (Math,

Literature, and

English)

42

Hung Vuong11A20

D 41

11A21 D 43

Ly Thuong Kiet11A A 3411B6 Basic 48

We choose the students whose major is in English, and one is not to

generalize the precise and the reliability of our result.Teachers.

It is highly appreciated that many teachers agree to help us in doing the

survey, conducting an interview and making the observations. In total, there are

thirty-five teachers taking part in the survey: twelve teachers from Bui Thi Xuan,

twelve teachers from Hung Vuong, and eleven teachers from Ly Thuong Kiet. All of

them have a good command of English and have a great deal of experience in

teaching English. Twenty of them have been teaching English for more than ten

years. Moreover, all of them have been trained to adopt the new series of the

textbook, which exploit the four skills: Reading, Listening, Speaking and Writing.

Materials

Questionnaire

29


30/96


In order to find out the speaking problems in high school and students

expectation towards the speaking tasks, we designed two separate sets of

questionnaires, one for teachers and one for students. Each contains a variety of

questions: multiple choice, check lists and open-ended questions about teaching and

learning speaking at high school and the implementation of TBT in teaching

speaking. This is a useful way for us to handle and explore the opinions of such a

large number of respondents for a short period of time.

We also design a short questionnaire, containing six multiple choice

questions to obtain students opinion about the two trial classes.

Interview

We conduct two separate interviews, one with four students in the class

11A14 from Bui Thi Xuan high school and one with two teachers Ms. Vu Tran The

Mai, a teacher from Bui Thi Xuan High School and Ms. Ta Thanh Huyen, a lecturer

from English Department, Ho Chi Minh City University of Education. Ms. The Mai

has been teaching in Bui Thi Xuan High school for more than ten years. As for Ms.

Thanh Huyen, she is experienced in training would-be-teachers as well as teaching

speaking at English Department, Ho Chi Minh City University of Education. Each

interview, as a friendly conversation to share experience, lasted about ten minutes.

Two separate sheets of questions were also prepared to take note the information

obtained from the interview. In these interviews, the interviewees could have an

opportunity to express their own ideas about the issues addressed in this research

paper. The opinion gained from the interview helps validate the results we get from

the questionnaires.

Controlled Experiment

30


31/96


We conducted two periods, one with tasks in the textbook and one with the TBLT.

The two periods were carried out in class 11A14. This class consists of 41 students,

who all have a good command of English. We chose the same class when conducting

the two periods, so the result will be more reliable when comparing students attitude

and performance towards the two periods.

Classroom observation

To conduct the two trial periods, one of the researchers taught and the other

observed. The result from the observation also assures validity of the data we get

from the questionnaires. The observation also helps us find out some of the problems

when applying the TBLT in high school context, whether they are the same with our

expectations.

Procedures

At first, the questionnaires were delivered to teachers and students of the four

high schools mentioned above. These questionnaires were supposed to be collected

one day after the distribution. All the students in these six classes were required to

return all the questionnaires to the researchers. This survey is carried out in the third

week of the practicum, from February 1st, 2010 to February 6th, 2010.

Simultaneously, the researchers also held two interviews with students and teachers.

Those instruments set a background for the researchers about the respondents

opinions about implementation of TBT in teaching speaking. Then the researchers

conducted two trials. The first trial using original tasks in the textbook under the

observation of Ms. The Mai, and the other researcher was conducted in the fourth

week of the practicum. After this class, the questionnaires were delivered to get

students opinion about the effect of this speaking period. Then the second class with

TBLT under the observation of Ms. The Mai, Ms. Thanh Huyen, and the other

31


32/96


researchers was conducted in the fifth week of the practicum. After this class, the

questionnaires are also distributed to obtain students opinion.

To sum up, the findings are analyzed from two major sources quantitative

data (including the questionnaires for the students and the teachers) and qualitative

data (including classroom observation and interviews with both the students and the

teachers). In the following chapter we will come up with the discussion of our

findings.

32


33/96


Results and Data Analysis

Questionnaire

Students vs Teachers

Two hundred and forty-nine questionnaires for students and thirty-five

questionnaires for teachers were sent out and all are returned to the researchers,

making up 100% response rate.

Almost all the teachers (approximately 90%) acknowledge that they spend a

separate period on teaching speaking (as illustrated in Appendix D; Q1) almost

equivalent to that percentage of students (86.35%).

About elements that can determine the success of a speaking period, both

students and teachers show a high rate of agreement as shown in table 17. Generally,

tasks are vital to the success of teaching speaking. Tasks must be interesting, diverse,

practical and they should satisfy students concerns.

Nearly 80% of the students frankly answer that learning speaking at high

schools is not interesting. The reasons for students disapproval are boring,

unrealistic tasks in the textbook. More than half of the students even think learning

speaking at high school does not help them improve their speaking skills. There was

even an opinion of a student showing his frustration about the fact that speaking

periods are just for good, active students.

With respect to respondents opinions about speaking tasks in textbooks,

students and teachers also share the same attitude that those tasks are uninteresting

and impractical. As for the authenticity and practicability of speaking materials and

activities in the textbooks, the majority (more than 70% of the students and more

33


34/96


than 80% of the teachers) falls into the option that students just sometimes apply

what they learn to real-life situations. Meanwhile, as weve all known, the

practicability plays an important role in the success of teaching speaking.

However, teachers and students were in disagreement when asked about the

sources of the activities used in speaking classes.

Table 2 - The sources of the activities in speaking classes

Taken fromtextbooks

Supplemented Newly designed

Students 105 107 3

48.84% 49.77% 1.39%

Teachers 3 29 0

9.38% 90.62% 0%

The Chi Square value of this item is 8.22, higher than the critical value

(5.99), which shows a significant difference in the beliefs of teachers and students.

As shown in the table above, most of the teachers (90.62%) state that they often re-

design the speaking tasks in textbooks as well as supplement them with their

materials. Meanwhile, just about 50% of the students say the same thing.

In regard to activity types, we can easily realize that many kinds are used in

speaking classes from Appendix M, table 16. Surprisingly, dialogue receives the

highest percentage of frequency from both students and teachers. Besides,discussion, problem solving are also frequently used as more than half of

respondents stated that these activities are usually or sometimes applied in speaking

periods. However, theres a slight difference in the activity types of role play,

interview and information gap. More than 80% of the teachers believe they often or

sometimes operate role play and interview in class while just about 50% share the

34


35/96


same opinion. On the other hand, information gap receives affirmation from more

than 80% of the students but only about 60% from the teachers.

As for the procedure of task cycle, almost teachers and students agree that all

the steps are carried out. However, contrary to the belief of the teachers that they

always follow the task process, a small number of students still complain that some

stages of tasks are neglected, especially the report stage (12%). In addition, the

revelation by both teachers and students that the phases of the task cycle are just

accomplished occasionally, not all the time (30-40%) is really worth concerning.

This is closely related with the deficient time allotted for speaking.

As the researchers expected, both teachers and students have the same belief

with high rate of agreement about the various merits of TBTL in teaching speaking.

It is claimed to offer more opportunities for students to communicate and improve

their speaking skills. They also agree with TBT, students can apply what they learn

to real life as well as they will be more motivated, more energetic and more self-

confident.

In contrast to the advantages, the respondents admit that the implementation

of TBT also has some unavoidable problems. The biggest problem that receives high

percentage of supporting responses from both teachers and students (over 85%) is

the limited amount of time for speaking period. Noise is also a real problem as it

receives a high rate of agreement from the majority of respondents. However, more

than one fourth of the students dont consider noise as a problem. This shows that

students want to be free to practice their speaking, although it can cause noises.

It is important to know that not many respondents regard unsuitable seating

arrangement, students lack of fluency and accuracy and students lack of

35


36/96


confidence as obstacles of implementation of TBT. Consequently, it is reasonable

to infer that the respondents are confident about students ability. Additionally, they

think they can overcome the problems of unsuitable seating arrangement.

However, there is a slight difference between teachers and students in the

option teachers less control. Approximately 60% of the students assume these are

problems while just 40% of the teachers share the same opinion. Particularly, the

conflict about teachers less attention and help is really obvious:

Table 3 - Opinions about teachers less attention and help in the classrooms

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

Students 76 114 52 7

30.52% 45.78% 20.88% 2.81%

Teachers 2 13 16 4

5.71% 37.14% 45.71% 11.44

The Chi Square value of this item is 9.87, higher than the critical value

(7.82), which proves a crucial difference in the ideas of teachers and students. As it

is shown in the table above, about 75% of students believe teachers less attention

and help is an obstacle, which shows that students require the help from teachers

during their activities. On the contrary, teachers do not think this is a considerable

problem, maybe because they presume that its not difficult to give help and monitor

the class.

At the end of the teachers questionnaires, some solutions to overcome the

problems of TBT implementation are suggested. As teachers do not care much about

the seating arrangement in the classrooms, not many of them choose re-arranging

seats as a solution. Only half of them care about preparing the lessons well

beforehand. In contrast, the two proposals about going around during students

36


37/96


activities and giving clear, sufficient instructions and input are shared by most of the

teachers.

Students from good schools vs students from not quite good school

In general, students from the three schools share the same opinions about

almost all the aspects. The most basic divergence between students from quality

schools like Hung Vuong or Bui Thi Xuan and Ly Thuong Kiet high school is the

frequency of learning speaking in classrooms.

Table 4 - The frequency of learning speaking at high schools

Yes No

HV + BTX167 0

100% 0%

LTK48 34

58.54% 41.46%

As the table below, all the students from Hung Vuong and Bui Thi Xuan high

school have a separate speaking period for each unit. In the meantime, 41.46% of

students from Ly Thuong Kiet revealed that they do not learn speaking in class.

Among those students learn speaking at Ly Thuong Kiet high school, the

majority agree that learning speaking is uninteresting, which is the same as students

from Hung Vuong and Bui Thi Xuan high school. They also concur about the

criteria of a good speaking period, the benefits of TBT and also some of their

problems. Nonetheless, it is significant that they have some basic dissimilarities

about some problems of TBT.

37


38/96


Table 5 - Problem of the lack of fluency and accuracy

strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree

BTX + HV

13 31 82 41

7.79% 18.56% 49.10% 24.55%

LTK17 50 9 6

20.73% 57.32% 15.85% 6.10%

(Chi square value 2 = 8.55)

Table 6 - Problem of the lack of confidence

strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree

BTX + HV

21 46 64 36

12.57% 27.55% 38.32% 21.56%

LTK21 42 15 4

25.61% 51.22% 18.29% 4.88%

(Chi square value 2 = 9.64)

The Chi Square value of the first item is 8.55, and the Chi Square value of

the second item is 9.64, higher than the critical value (7.82), which proves a

significant difference in the opinions of students from Hung Vuong, Bui Thi Xuan

high school and Ly Thuong Kiet high school. While most of students from Hung

Vuong and Bui Thi Xuan high school (60-70%) dont think that they lack

competence or confidence to learn with TBTL, those from Ly Thuong Kiet consider

these two as serious problems. This raises a key question about TBT: Can TBTL be

applied successfully in every school with students of different levels?

Interview

Interview with the students

To begin with, the students acknowledge they had the chance to learn

speaking with one period for each unit as assigned in the textbooks. Like teachers,

students think speaking is an important skill and learning speaking is useful and

38


39/96


more interesting than other skills. However, they honestly admitted that learning

speaking at high school was boring. The reasons they pointed out are boring,

unrealistic tasks in the textbooks, the limited time allotted, and uninspiring teachers

who cannot involve the whole class, especially those who are shy in speaking

activities.

With regard to speaking tasks in the textbooks, students are of the same mind

that their content does not accord with young learners. Most of them are uninspired,

old-fashioned, impracticable and cannot awake students interest. The activities are

in the same condition with monotonous types like dialogue, questions and answers.

When asked about Task-based learning, students eagerly show their

approvals. They believe in the merits of TBTL such as it can help them improve

their speaking skills and make them more motivated. However, they affirmed that

the tasks play a very important role in the success of implementation of TBTL. Tasks

must be interesting and realistic so that students find it interesting to learn speaking.

So they expressed their wish that teachers can determinedly ignore uninteresting

tasks in the textbooks and replace them with more authentic, exciting tasks.

As for some problems of TBTL, students seemed to mind a lot about the time

for speaking. They said, with some irritation, that 45 minutes is originally not

sufficient and the student talking time is too limited. Furthermore, teachers usually

tend to cut it down for other skills which appear in the English exam at high schools.

About the noise, though they confessed this is a problem, they still hoped for

teachers tolerance. They give some excuses for this matter. They claim that the

noise stems from their discussion and argument when doing the tasks. Concerning

the seating arrangement, there are some different opinions. One of them expressed

that the seating arrangement at high school is not suitable and its hard to form group

39


40/96


of four or five. Fortunately, they believe they can overcome it because they dont

hesitate to move as well as turn their back to interact with their friends. In addition,

almost all the students were confident about their ability to learn speaking with tasks.

What they expected, they emphasized, is the enthusiasm from the teachers. They

hoped that teachers are more concerned for speaking skills and handle more

interesting and authentic activities.

When it comes to speaking activities, students openly admitted that just some

students in the class really worked, especially group work. Active students are often

eager to do the tasks, while shy and incompetent students rarely join in the tasks.

Sometimes, because of the big class size, students neglect to work and gossip in

mother tongue in speaking classes under the inefficient management of the teachers.

Interview with the teachers

At the outset of the interview, Ms. Mai reveals it is heartening that students

seem to like learning speaking compared to other skills. When English now becomes

ELF (English as lingua franca), speaking is the most important and preferable skill.

As for the tasks in the textbooks, the two teachers dont show an optimistic

attitude. They are not appealing and the topics do not match students interests;

therefore, they often feel bored and gossip in the speaking class. The activity types

cannot generate motivation in the students either. Almost all of them require students

to ask and answer in pairs while some of them have students discuss in group about

dry, insipid matters. Some are easy so that students have no need to use their own

words to speak, but substitute the sample dialogue in the textbook. She explained,

with the pressure of time and the curriculum, there is no way but follow the tasks in

40


41/96


the textbook. In fact, the design of the new textbooks is directed to Task-based

teaching and learning. However, it hasnt showed good effects so far.

Regarding Task-based Teaching and Learning, Ms. Huyen says TBLT is

really a good method to help students in enhancing their speaking ability. It can

actively involve students in learning with interesting tasks which suit students taste.

Remarkably, if the materials and the content of tasks are authentic, they can help

students prepare for real-life circumstances. As for Ms. Mai, she stated that TBTL

can give students a lot of opportunity to communicate in class.

With respect to some common problems that task-based teaching can cause,

the two teachers seem so down-to-earth. The first problem is the noise. Although

noise is inevitable and the teachers can be tolerant of it, noises can disturb the

neighboring classes and it seems that the school administrations still hold a bad

impression of noises in classrooms. Another biggest problem of this method is the

large size of the class which brings about some bad effect on classroom

management. The fact that the class is crowded makes teachers difficult to monitor

the class, so some students in the class may gossip and neglect the lessons.

Furthermore, those whose level is lower than that of their friends may find it difficult

to keep up with their friends. With regard to solutions for this problem, Ms. Mai

suggested teachers should go around the class more often to make sure all the

students are doing the tasks, as well as give help when necessary. Ms. Huyen,

additionally, pointed that time limit is the major obstacle in implementing TBT.

Within only forty-five minutes, students do not have enough to practice. Shes

worried that the student talking time is really short since teachers have to spend

some time giving input in that forty-five minutes. Eventually, she affirmed that if we

want to implement TBT in teaching speaking, we should improve the tasks in the

41


42/96


textbooks based on students interests and students ability. As for good-quality

schools like Bui Thi Xuan or Hung Vuong, students are dynamic and have a high

level of competence in English to learn with this method. On the contrary, if students

lack fluency and accuracy to speak, this method seems inappropriate. To solve this

problem, teachers are required to prepare well in advance, give clear instructions and

comprehensible input.

Ms Huyen also raises the researchers awareness towards the teachers

talking time. Because of the characteristics of TBLT, where teachers are supposed to

provide students with the input, set the context and explain the students roles,

teacher talking time may constitute the class. As in this phrase, students may lose

their attention and turn to talk with their friends. Therefore, teacher should also let

students involve in the pre- task stage.

Controlled experiment

Classroom observation

Classroom observation, providing direct information about language, language

learning, or language learning situations (Brown 2001 4), is the best way for us to

know how students can interact in class, and how the TBLT is when being

implemented in the real situation. Therefore, we conduct two classes, one with the

TBLT, and one with the tasks in the textbook. These two classes are carried out in

class 11A14, consisting of forty one students, who all have a good command of

English.

The first trial

The first trial class with the tasks in the textbook is carried out in the fourth week of

the practicum, under the observation of Ms. The Mai, and the other researcher (The

42


43/96


classroom observation sheet can be seen in Appendix I and J). One of the researchers

regarded as a teacher who conducts the class, while the other observes. On the

observed day, students have finished the Reading and the Listening of Unit 12: The

Asian Games (English 11, The Basic version), and on the day of conducting the trial,

they continue the Speaking of Unit 12. In this class, the researcher uses the tasks in

the textbook. There is still communication in class, but it is too little. There are also

three phases for each task: the pre-speaking, while- speaking and post-speaking. In

task 1, teacher asks students to read aloud the dialogue in the textbook at first. Then,

students work in pair and take turn to ask and answer the questions using the

information from the table. After this task, teacher has student report back and gives

feedback on students performance. From task 1, we realize that there is interaction,

but not too much, between students and teachers, students and students. This task

lacks the communicative elements due to the fact that there are no information gaps

in the textbook, which really bores the students. There are no challenges in this task

because all students know the answer. It is observed that some students dont want to

do the tasks, but turn to talk with their friends in mother tongue. In addition, when

students stand up in the post-task, they just look at the sample dialogues in the

textbook and read aloud with the substitutions. This is not actually what happens in

real life.

Then students move to task 2 in which they work in groups and take turn to talk

about the sports results of Vietnamese athletes at 14th Asian Games. This task, again,

consists of no communicative elements. Thus, they have no interest and pay no

attention to what happens in class. Some even learn for other subjects instead of

doing the task.

43


44/96


The second trial

In the second trial class, the framework of TBLT is implemented in teaching

speaking (The classroom observation sheet can be seen in Appendix J). Instead of

saying tasks in the textbook, the teacher has designed the tasks with his own

materials. In the pre-task 1, teacher explores the topic language and provides

students with some input about how to start a conversation with strangers. Then in

the while-task, students go around, greet other people, and ask them about their

hobbies. During the task, teacher goes around to help and takes note the mistakes

made by students. In the post task, teacher calls some close pairs to perform the task

in front of class. After that, teacher gives comments on the students performance

and corrects some of their mistakes.

Starting task 2, teacher help students recall and activate the process of opening a by

asking some lead-in questions (see Appendix H). In the while-task, students work in

group of four. First, each of them has to go around and interview their friends with

the questions in the interview sheet. Then students work in their group, comparing

the results they get from the interview and decide which shop they are going to open.

During the task, teacher goes around and helps students with their problems or

comments briefly on the content. Then in the post task, two groups come in front and

report the plan to the whole class. After the performance, teacher gives feedback

about their performance.

In the second trial class, it can be observed that students are very interested in

carrying out the tasks. They have a free space to communicate with their friends in

English and involve actively in the task. Besides, the tasks are somewhat likely to be

similar with the real-world situation. The use of the target language outgrows that of

the mother tongue. Students speaking time constitutes 70% of the speaking class.

44


45/96


Obviously, TBLT proves to be effective in enhancing students speaking ability.

Moreover, all students can gain confidence in speaking and interacting well not only

in class but also in the social context.

However, there are some problems as we are expected when carrying out the TBLT

that should be taken into consideration. The first problem seems to be the noise.

Students always make noise when they go around the class and discuss in groups and

it really annoys teachers from neighboring classes. Next, the classroom management

is also another problem. Although the teacher tries to go around, he cannot control

whats going on in each group due to the big class size. Besides, from the

observation, we can learn that the talkative students always dominate the group or

the pair work, which makes some shy or weak students keep silent during the

speaking period.

Overall, the observation of the two classes can be described in the following table.

Table 7 Comparisons between two trial classes

The first class The second class

Tasks Used in the textbooks. Redesigned by

researchers, using TBLT.

Exposure Students have to follow the

sample dialogue and the

structures in the textbooks.

Students take full

advantage of exposure to

the target language during

the framework of TBLT.

Use of the language Students focus on form

more than the meaning.

Students just read aloud

the sample dialogues with

Students have a chance to

recall and use the

language they know to

convey meaning.

45


46/96


substitution in the

textbook.

They are expected to make

real use of the target

language themselves.Motivation Students have no

motivation in performing

the tasks.

Students have a lot of

interest in performing the

tasks.

The quality of students

speaking time

The mother tongue is

overused to gossip during

this speaking class.

Students can actually

communicate with their

friends.Problems Boring.

Not much communication.

Impracticability.

Noise.

Classroom management.

Students ability.

The aforesaid analysis is the qualitative data gained from the classroom observation.

After these two classes, we also deliver questionnaires to get students opinion about

the effects of two classes in improving students speaking ability.

Feedback from students

Table 8

Students general opinion about the speaking period

Very interesting Interesting Normal Boring

Period 1 0% 4.88% 31.71% 63.41%

46


47/96


48/96


Period 2 4.88% 75.51% 19.51%

From the above results, we can learn that the speaking tasks in the textbook seems to

be very easy with 41.46% of students choose this option; therefore, students have no

difficult in performing the tasks. On the other side of the coin, the tasks with the

implementation of TBLT seem to be more challenging to students. It requires

students ability to perform the tasks. It may be too difficult for the weak students.

Table 11

Teachers instructions

Yes Sometimes No

Period 1 85.37% 9.75% 4.88%

Period 2 75.60% 12.20% 12.20%

In class, teachers instruction is very important for students to conduct the speaking

tasks. While 85.37% of students find the teachers instruction very easy to

understand in the first class, 75.6% of them share the same feeling in the second

class. In the first class, the instructions are available in the textbook, moreover the

tasks are also very simple, so it is very easy for them to follow teachers instruction.

However, in the second class, where teacher has to set the context, and explain the

roles, so it may confuse the students. Generally speaking, the result makes the

researchers take into consideration the teachers instruction in applying the TBLT. It

should be clearer so that students can know their roles and what they are supposed to

do during the tasks.

Table 12

48


49/96


Communication in the class

Very much Much Little None

Period 1 4.87% 43.90% 48.78% 2.44%

Period 2 14.63% 63.42% 21.95% 0%

As can be seen from table 12, in the first class, 48.77% of students feel that they can

communicate with their friends. This number is much smaller than that of the second

class (78.05%). From this result, we can learn that TBLT can help to enhance

students speaking ability in a way that students can have a great deal of time to

communicate in class.

Table 13

The practicability of the tasks

Yes No

Period 1 26.83% 73.17%

Period 2 100% 0%

From table 13, it is very striking to learn that 100% of students find the tasks in the

second class very useful for them in the real life. Moreover, the second task where

students have to find out the teenagers hobbies to open a shop is really interesting to

students. This really suits well with students practicality because many of them

nowadays have many great ideas of opening a shop for themselves. However, the

task in the textbooks is just the sequence of asking and answering, which rarely

happens in real life. This leads to the number of 73.17% students find the tasks

impractical.

49


50/96


In general, students have a good point of view towards the second class, which

shows a promising sign for the TBLT in teaching speaking for high school students.

50


51/96


Discussion

This research is projected with the aim of exploring the upshot of

implementing Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) in teaching speaking for 11th

graders. TBLT has been applied in teaching speaking in many foreign language

centers. It proves to be very effective in enhancing students speaking ability;

moreover, students seem to be very interested in the speaking lessons. Thus, TBLT

should be put into operation by high school teachers.

It is respectable that most of teachers, as can be seen from the data analysis,

have devoted one period to teaching speaking. To put it another way, high school

teachers and students nowadays have conceded the importance of speaking in

acquiring a foreign language, especially at the time when Vietnam is in the process

of international integration. However, this raises the questions on the effects of a

speaking period when teachers just use the tasks in the textbook. From the data

analysis, we can learn that both students and teachers come to terms with the

importance of tasks in teaching and learning speaking. Sadly enough, the tasks in the

textbook show no promising signs of motivating let alone improve students

speaking skills. Support for this interpretation comes from the fact that the tasks in

the textbooks seems to be very boring. Equally relevant to the issue are the questions

of teachers responsibility to better the tasks in the textbooks so as to increase

students talking time. However, the majority of students, as can be seen from the

data analysis, make a clean breast that teachers just use the tasks in the textbooks in

the speaking period. We could perhaps go further and ask ourselves whether teachers

take no notice of the speaking skills, which leads to their lack of investments in

supplementing the tasks in the textbooks. We should, however, not forget that

teachers in high school have to suffer from ocean of burdens. This comes from not

51


52/96


only the rigid curriculum, which allots only forty five minutes to one speaking

period but also the influence of our deep-rooted testing system, in which speaking

skills are not tested. In order to have students get high marks in the exam, teachers

find no ways, but get the speaking done quickly or even sacrifice the speaking

periods to other skills or language areas which emerge in the exam. As a result, the

boring and monotonous tasks in the textbooks are usually exploited in the speaking

periods. Consequently, it is necessary to blow a new wind of approach into

redesigning speaking tasks for high school students, so that we can involve students

interest in learning speaking.

Concerning the types of activities in the textbook, the analysis shows us a

high percentage of dialogues which are brought into play, while the other activities

(role play, interview, problem solving ) acquires the high degree of sometimes.

It is advisable to include a wide range of activities in teaching speaking, for students

are really active and fun-oriented. They can easily get bored with the simple routine

of one similar task. Moreover, the data shows a conflict between students and

teachers in the approach of activities used in class. It can be explained that students

may not know exactly what kind of activities they are doing which leads to their

misunderstanding in defining the type of activities, or even the goal of each activity

whereas teachers seem to be slapdash in organizing these speaking activities in class.

This raises a question about teachers circumspection in conducting the activities, so

that students can benefit from the goal of each activity to the fullest.

Moreover, from the two classroom observations and the data analysis, it can

be learnt that TBLT seems to be very effective in teaching speaking for 11th graders.

Many students and teachers seem to be very interested in the implementation of this

method. It can be proved by the fact that with TBLT students can have a free space

52


53/96


to exchange ideas with their friends in the target language and provoke their fluency

in speaking. Importantly, they become far more independent learners. Moreover,

they enjoy the challenge of doing tasks, as well as have fun in working with their

friends. Besides, teachers have also recognized the significance of TBLT in

promoting students speaking ability because learners can bring their own

experiences to lessons and often come up with interesting and original ideas.

In short, TBLT encompasses many merits in teaching speaking for high

school students. Firstly, the tasks corresponding to TBLT follow the three criteria for

a communicative task as mentioned above in chapter Two. Secondly, with TBLT,

students are usually allocated into pairs or groups, which can increase the students

speaking time. It gives learners confidence to try out whatever language they know

and share whatever they think without fear of teachers correction. In addition,

working in pairs or groups engages students in using language purposefully,

concentrating on building meaning. These proposals, as analyzed from the data, are

perfectly in tune with the majority of students. Thirdly, it gives learners more

chances to try out communication strategies like checking understand, paraphrasing

an unknown word, reconstructing other peoples ideas, and providing words and

phrases to their friends in groups. Last but not least, TBLT adopts the learner-

centered approached, removing teachers domination, therefore, students have

chance to interact naturally. From the above reasons, we can learn that TBLT

provides a good platform for students to improve their speaking skills.

Besides the aforesaid merits, there are some drawbacks towards the

implementation of TBLT. One of the most striking features of this problem is the

noise. According to the data analysis, both teachers and students reach the consensus

that the class is rather noisy not only when students do the tasks but also when

53


54/96


teachers provide students with input. Needless to say, noise is the obvious evidence

to show students interest and liveliness in the speaking class. One should,

nevertheless, consider the problem from another angle. It really annoys the

neighboring class. Conducting the TBLT equates with receiving complaints from not

only the neighboring class but the supervisors as well. Due to the strict rules in high

school, students are supposed to keep quiet in class. Moreover, the noisy class, to

some extent, really discourages teachers now that they have to spend lots of time

calming down the class. Fortunately, the both sides, teachers and students, agree that

they should handle the noise in class to take full advantage of the implementation of

TBLT. All of these points to the conclusion that students can make noise in class,

but it should be within the acceptability and teachers tolerance.

Furthermore, TBLT requires lots of efforts from teachers, which entails a

gloomy picture of teachers using the tasks in textbook. It needs a profound

preparation from the handouts to the situation, and ways to provide input. Moreover,

forty five minutes is not enough to conduct the TBLT cycle of providing input,

doing the tasks, and giving feedback. In addition, high school teachers have to work

under the pressure of the condensed curriculum; therefore, teachers usually devoted

the speaking period to teaching grammar or make revisions to the exam.

Consequently, teachers should change their deep-rooted perception to get insights

into the importance of speaking so that speaking will not be replaced to give room

for other skills. In addition, time management might not be a problem if teachers

have a meticulous preparation to make every minutes in one period worthwhile and

effective.

Equally relevant to the issue are the questions of classroom management.

There are usually forty five to fifty students in a heterogeneous class with different

54


55/96


students level. It is really challenging for teachers to handle such a big mixed class.

Teachers are supposed to be the facilitators to support each groups, however, they

cannot carefully observe every groups, let alone pay attention to the inattentive

individuals. Lacking of teachers help may be an obstacle to students as 75% of them

come to this conclusion. It is really a concerning problems in relation to the

implementation of TBLT. In the same way, teachers have to cope with the fixed

chairs and tables to get students into groups. The above predicaments may hinder the

implementation of TBLT in high school context. This, again, requires lots of efforts

from teachers to go around and direct students in the speaking period.

To some extent, we cannot ignore the fact that students are used to the

security of a teacher-led PPP (Presentation Practice Produce), a teacher-centered

class. There are some students, especially the weak students, who prefer choral drills

and copying from the board, because these are safe activities. TBLT, in fact, tends

to moderate explicit grammar instructions, or ignore it altogether. It cannot be denied

that students may feel they are not being taught enough. It is very possible that some

students may hold a strong objection to the implementation of TBLT. However, it

just constitutes a small proportion in a whole picture where all students have a

hopeful craving to develop their speaking skills. Therefore, the application of TBLT

is welcomed by all students and teachers.

It is also clear from the observation that teachers should take students ability

into consideration. The gifted students or even the talkative ones may dominate the

group discussion, giving no room for the shy and weak students to complete the

tasks. Therefore, teachers should provide students with equal chance to express their

opinion, encouraging the timid ones to join the activities. Furthermore, one should

not forget that students from the outskirts are much more behind in comparison to

55


56/96


those from the city. The TBLT may get them into trouble. As for educators, it can be

a conundrum for us to research on.

Though the merits and drawbacks coexist in the TBLT, the former

outnumbers the latter in a sense of improving students speaking ability. We could

perhaps go further and ask ourselves whether the TBLT can be applied to the 10th

and 12th graders, especially the 12th graders whose speaking periods are usually

ignored to give room for other skills due to the preparation for the graduation exam.

In the second place, although this study may answer many important questions, other

questions related to this subject may remain unanswered. It is worth concerning the

speaking lessons for students in the outskirts, where students are not as good as those

from the downtown. If so, we can help students to communicate and use English

fluently after seven years studying in high school.

All of these points to a satisfactory conclusion that TBLT, though it per se is

not an ideal method, can contribute a great deal in the race to boost the students

speaking ability. Teachers and students are perfectly in tune with our own thoughts

on the implementation of TBLT in teaching speaking for the high school students.

Doubtless, it is a promising sign for the achievement of TBLT in the high school

context.

The next chapter will come to some conclusions and put forward several trial

recommendations.

56


57/96


Conclusion and Recommendations

In order to make inroads into the implementation of TBLT in teaching

speaking for 11th graders, the researchers have addressed three research questions

brought up at the very first of this research paper. Subsequent to a careful analysis of

obtainable data and an extensive research, we come to these final conclusions

towards the implementation of TBLT.

1. It is really encouraging that teachers devote one period to teaching

speaking for their students. On the other side, students from the outskirts still dont

usually have a separate speaking period. Moreover, the tasks in textbook are

frequently exploited in the speaking period. Not often do the teachers redesign the

tasks or supplement students with some other materials, let alone conduct a variety

of activities in class. The boring, unrealistic tasks in textbook, needless to say, really

dishearten students. That leads to the conclusion that teaching and learning speaking

end up with almost no results. Therefore, students might not use the target language

to communicate in the social context.

Obviously, the tasks in the textbook are directed at TBT. However, because

of some reasons that weve analyzed, the effects do not come up to our expectation.

2. In view of these findings, it is quite likely that TBLT has a great number of

merits in promoting students speaking ability. Firstly, the classroom where the

TBLT is applied could be considered as a real life situations in which students can

freely use the target language to convey their opinion without the fear of being

corrected in front of class. Moreover, students can have a chance to express the

original ideas. In the second place, TBLT facilitates students to work in groups or

pairs, thus they have enough confidence and feel secure in doing the tasks.

Undoubtedly, TBLT can provoke students interest, which leads to their excitement

57

7/28/2019 BuiNguyenKh

Documents

BuiNguyenKhanh_DoHuynhQuanNgoc