NHẬN tức của GIÁO VIÊN đại học về ĐƯỜNG HƯỚNG dạy học TASK BASED điển cứu tại TRƯỜNG đại học tây bắc

i
DECLARATION

I, Nguyen Viet Hung, hereby state that this thesis is the result of my own research
and the substance of the thesis has not, wholly or in part, been submitted for any degree to
any other universities or institutions.
Signature:
Time: March, 2009.
ABSTRACT
ii
In today’s classrooms, language teaching method is undergoing tremendous
transformations towards the integration of different methods according to the learner and
teacher as well as contextual variables. Language teaching is, therefore, a challenging job
in any country. The purpose of this qualitative case study was to examine how task-based
language teaching supports the emergence of language study, within the context of
northeast university students. More importantly, how TBU teachers know about this
method and their implementation of TBLT in order to improve their teaching quality. The
task-based language teaching provides students multiple opportunities to work for targets
and to learn, both as form and meaning. First, task-based language teaching is useful as it
allows to treat learners as individual with their own needs and interests. Second, it allows
learners to take input from authentic sources which are communicative and
comprehensible data, really relevant to their own needs and interests. Third, the
participants are provided with opportunities to engage in communicative use of the target
language in a wide range of activities. Working in groups or in individuals, students fulfill
tasks in which they visually represent their personal interpretations of the world around.
They focus deliberately on various language forms, skills and strategies in order to support
the process of language acquisition. As teachers, they should conceptualize, research, of
this method so as to fully exploit the potential of the available teaching materials. The task-
based language teaching can create a learning environment in which students interact with
each other as they made sense of and access the available information for communication.
In particular, naturally unconscious learning occurs through threaded discussions and

cooperation when they accomplish tasks. Educators must be responsive to today’s learners.
This study illuminates the expanded possibilities for integrating tasks within the context of
learning and teaching. Findings of the study suggest task integration supports the
emergence of language learning and teaching.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

iii
My sincere appreciation is extended to all teachers at College of Foreign Language,
Vietnam National University, Hanoi, especially who taught me methodological subjects
and research methods, such as Mr. Le Hung Tien, Mr. Le Van Canh, and Mrs. Nguyen Thi
Thuy Minh. Those by their interesting lessons and precious suggestions for teaching and
researching engaged me in this field.
My gracefulness is also expanded to all university teachers of TBU for both their
participations into my interviews and their opening classroom doors and inviting me to
stay for my observations and their kind offer of teaching plans.
My deepest thanks go to my supervisor, Mr. Le Van Canh, M.A., for always
bringing out the best in me. Without his wisdom, high expectations, and his unwavering
support for materials, continued guidance, thorough suggestions and corrections, my thesis
could not be completed.
I credit my family in Thai Nguyen for providing me the courage to embark on this
journey and for teaching me to never, ever give up.
DEDICATION
iv
This thesis is dedicated to the true lover of my life, Bui Thi Huong, whom I loved
for years. She with her warm and gentle heart for love was an inspiration to me, and I
could overcome all hardships. She is remembered for her character by everyone with the
talent, intelligence, and beauty. Though we could not be together because of different
inevitable reasons, my affections and thanks from the depth of my heart would go to her
evermore.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

v
DECLARATION………………………………………………………………. i
ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………………… ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………………………………………………… iii
DEDICATION ……………………………………………………………… iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………… v
LISTS OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………… viii
LISTS OF TABLES…………………………………………………………… ix
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………. 1
1.1. Rationale…………………………………………………… …………… 1
1.1.1. State of the problem……………………………………………………… 1
1.1.2. Theoretical rationale …………………………………………………… 1
1.2. Purpose of the Study ………………………… ………………………… 1
1.3. Research Questions ………………………………………………………. 2
1.4. Significance of the Study ……………………………………… ………. 2
1.5. Limitations of the Study …………………………………………………. 2
1.6. Scope of the study…………………………………………………………. 3
1.7. Organization of the Study ……………………………………………… 3
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………… 4
2.1. Definition of terminology…………………………………………
4
2.1.1. Defining ‘task’

and task-based language teaching……………….
4
2.1.2. Task-based language teaching to learners……………………….
9
2.1.3. Tasks, Actvities and Exercises……………………………………
11
2.1.4. Developments of Task-Based Teaching…………………………

11
2.2. Theoretical Foundations……………………………………………
15
2.2.1. Theories of
language………………………………………………
15
2.2.2. Theories of language learning……………………………………
16
2.2.2.1. Cognitive
theory………………………………………………….
16
2.2.2.2. Constructivist Theory…………………………………….……
17
2.2.2.3. Generative Learning Theory………………………………………
18
2.3. The nature of Task-based Language Teaching…………………
19
2.3.1. How is TBLT different from other teaching
methods?
19
2.3.1.1. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)
…………………………
20
2.3.1.2. Silent Way……………………………………………………………….
21
2.3.1.3. Experiential learning…………………………………………………
22
2.3.1.4. Co-operative
learning………………………………………………….
23

2.3.2. Task-based teaching versus other types of teaching instruction
models…………………………………………………………………….
24
2.3.3. Task-based Teaching Framework………………………………
25
vi
2.3.4. Task
types…………………………………………………………
29
2.3.5. Materials for Tasks Initiated……………………………………
32
2.3.6. Syllabus design…………………………………………………….
33
2.3.7. Learner
roles……………………………………………………….
34
2.3.8. Teacher roles………………… ………………………………….
34
2.4. The importance of understanding teachers’ interpretation of
teaching methodology……………………………………………………
35
2.5. Teachers’ interpretation of TBLT…………………………………
37
2.6. Teachers’ views of teaching methodology and their classroom
teaching…………………………………………………………………
38
2.7. Conclusion 40
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY………………………………………… 41
3.1. The fitness of case study to the research purpose…………………… 41
3.2. Restatement of research questions…………………………………… 43

3.3. Case description and context of the study……………………………… 43
3.3.1. The setting of the study………………………………………………… 43
3.3.2. Participants……………………………………………………………… 44
3.4. Instruments……………………………………… ……………………… 46
3.4.1. Interviews
………………………………………………………………
46
3.4.2. Observations……………………… …………………………………… 47
3.5.3. Teaching plan interpretation……………………………………………. 48
3.5. The procedure: ……………………………………… …………………. 48
3.5.1.
Interviews…………………………………………………………………
48
3.5.2. Class
observation…………………………………………………………
49
3.5.3. Teaching plan interpretation……………………………………………. 50
3.6. Data analysis………………………………………………………………. 50
3.7. Conclusion ……………………….…………………… 50
CHAPTER 4. DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS…………………………. 51
4.1.
General overview of the findin
gs………………………………………
51
4.1.1.

Tea
chers’

conceptualization

s

of

task……………………………….
51
4.1.2. T
eacher
s’

conceptualization
s

of

task-based teaching……………. 53
4.1.3.

Tea
chers’

attitud
es

toward

task-b
ased

teaching……………………….

56
4.1.4.
Factors affecting the TBLT implementation
……………………… 57
4.1.5. The reality of t
eacher
s’

class teaching
………………………… 59
4.1.6. T
eacher
s’
class teaching implementation………………………… 61
4.2. Discussions of the findings……………………… …………………… 63
4.2.1. Congruence and incongruence between teachers’ conceptualizations
and the composite view of TBLT ………………………………………………
63
vii
4.2.2. Congruence and incongruence between teachers’ classroom teaching
practice and teaching plans with the composite view of TBLT………………
65
4.2.3. Consistence and inconsistence between their conceptualization with
teaching practices and teaching plans……………………………………….
66
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS, PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATONS AND
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY………………………………
68
5.1. Summary of the major points of the study……………………… ……. 68
5.1.1. Summary of the study…………………………………………………. 68

5.1.2. Conclusions………………… …………………………………………. 68
5.1.3. Pedagogical implications………………………… …………………… 70
5.2. Limitation of the study…………………………………………………. 70
5.3. Implications for future research ………………………………………… 71
LIST OF REFERENCES……………… …………………………………… I
APPENDICES…………………… ………………………………………… VII
Appendix A: Interview Questions………….….………………………………. VII
Appendix B: Schedule of

taped Interviews …………………….…………….… VII
Appendix C: Samples of

classroom observations………………………………. VIII
Appendix D: Samples of
t
eaching plans of university teachers…………… … XIV
viii
LISTS OF ABBREVIATIONS
TBU: Tay Bac University
TBLL: Task-Based Language Learning
TBLT: Task-Based Language Teaching
TST/ TSI: Task-Supported Teaching/ Instruction
ELT: English Language Teaching
ESL: English as Second Language
CLT: Communicative Language Teaching
PPP: presentation-practice-production
TTT: Test-Teach-Test
ESA: Engage-Study-Activate
TM: Teaching method
RQ: Research question

IQ: Interview question
ADTBLTOM: Ability to distinguish TBLT from other methods
AC AT: Ability to conceptualize the advantages of TBLT
AC DT: Ability to conceptualize the disadvantages of TBLT
ACT BLLF:
Ability to conceptualize the TBLT framework
(+): Conceptual, positive, mentioned
(-): Non-conceptual, negative, not mentioned
(=): Neutral
Att.:
Attitudes
Und.:
Understand
ings
Tim.:
Time
Tb.:
Textbook
Pre.
Preparation
SLP:
Students’

language

proficiency
NSs: Number of students in class
Fac.: Facilities
Vs.: versus
Exer.: exercise/ act.: activity

LISTS OF TABLES
ix
TABLE 1: Participants’ Profile
TABLE 2: Participants’
conceptualization
s

of

task
(Data from IQ2, IQ9)
TABLE 3: Participants’
conceptualization
s

of

task-based teaching
(Data from IQ2, IQ3, IQ 5, IQ6, IQ10, IQ11, IQ12)
TABLE 4: Participants’ attitudes towards TBLT
(Data from IQ2, IQ3, IQ4, IQ 5, IQ6, IQ8, IQ12)
TABLE 5
: Factors

impacting

on

extent

of
TBLT
impleme
ntation
(Data from IQ2, IQ3, IQ 5, IQ6, IQ7, IQ8, IQ10, IQ11, IQ12, IQ13)
TABLE 6: Participants’ class teaching practice
(Data from class observations)
TABLE 7: Participants’ orientation of teaching instruction
(Data from teaching plan)
TABLE 8: The deviations between teachers’ conceptualizations and their practice
1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale
1.1.1. State of the problem.
Task-based language teaching, like other approaches to language teaching, is
initiated in the west (Ellis, 2003) mainly for adult intermediate learners. It opens new
potential orientations and hopes to the EFL learners and teachers in some aspects of
learning and teaching. The application of this approach depends on a lot of factors, such as
context of teaching, environment or social variables and as the matter of fact the teacher’s
conceptualization. Despite its popularity in Vietnam, this approach remains under-
researched, especially how teachers conceptualize it according to their own understanding
and beliefs. In Tay Bac University, English language teachers have been introduced to this
approach, and they often mention the need to use this approach to the teaching of English
to the students in the university. It is quite rational because Ellis (2003) has stated that
task-based language teaching applied in universities is really a great help. However, if the
success of any language teaching method or approach depends on many factors, one of
which is teachers’ understanding and conceptualization of the intended approach, the
investigation of how teachers interpret Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) is an
urgent need. This study was intended to respond this need.
1.1.2. Theoretical rationale

Numerous studies suggest that teachers’ teaching approaches are less affected by
the reserachers’ ideas but more by their conceptualization of the approach (Borg, 2003). In
fact, there has been an emphasis on research into teachers’ understanding, interpretation or
conceptualization of, and attitudes towards, the intended language teaching approach over
the last decades. Such conceptualization and attidues of teachers are shaped by various
contextual and educational factors. This study follows the research paradigm which seeks
to uncover teachers’ psychology and cognition of TBLT in the context of Tay Bac
University.
1.2. Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to investigate teachers’ conceptualization of TBLT and
their actual implementation of TBLT in their classroom. Specifically, the following
objectives were set up for the study:
2
a) to investigate university teachers’ at titudes to TBLT in their teaching context
b) to understand university teachers’ conceptualization of TBLT
c) to find out how university teachers implement TBLT in their own classroom.
1.3. Research Questions
In order to achieve the above-mentioned objectives, the following research
questions were raised:
1. What are the university teachers’ conceptualizations of, and attitudes towards,
task-based language teaching?
2. To what extent do their conceptualizations match the composite view of task-
based language teaching?
3. How do they implement task-based language teaching in their classroom?
In seeking the answers to these research questions, a qualitative case study was
designed and conducted in the context of a university in the mountaineous area of North
Vietnam.
1.4. Significance of the Study

Information obtained from this study will help teacher educators and teacher

researchers to make appropriate decisions on how to introduce TBLT in Vietnamese
contexts. Aslo, it may inform concerned people of how to help teachers to adapt TBLT to
their teaching context by first of all readjust their mindset and attitudes.
1.5. Limitations of the Study
There are several limitations identified in this study. First, the sample size is small
and limited to the context of Tay Bac University. Data collection and analysis focus on
only twelve university teachers which were purposefully selected to yield the most
information for the research questions. Although unique in their own ways, the
participating teachers are all considered highly proficient teachers and familiar with
methodology as almost all of them have just finished subjects of master course and they
are doing theses. This study may help to build knowledge and understanding of teachers’
conceptualization of a method, but so it is unable to generalize the research results to the
variety of universities. The study purpose is only of the benefit of a method at a specific
university, so we are not intended to produce results which can be applied universally.
3
Researcher’s bias may be another limitation in this study. The researcher is an avid
proponent of this method with extensive classroom experience involving learning through
tasks. To minimize the effects of the researcher’s bias, the interviews are recorded
carefully for later data analysis, and the class teaching observations are encrypted with
thorough attention on sheets of paper, and teaching plans of teachers are interpreted
carefully to get triangulate data.
1.6. Scope of the study
What are univerity teachers’view of TBLT and how such a view of TBLT is
implemented in the classroom by TBU teachers of English? The task-based approach itself
is scattered in this scope.
1.7. Organization of the Study
This chapter introduced the study exploring potential of TBLT within the context of
Taybac University. The chapter included an overview of the issues, statement of the
problem, purpose of the study, research questions, significance of the study, limitations of
the study, definition of terms, and organization of the study. Chapter 2 provides a review of

the literature, including a theoretical framework focusing on learning and teaching theory.
Chapter 2 also provides research of issues surrounding the concepts and components of
TBLT.
Chapter 3 describes the methodology through a description of the case study
methodology and research design. An overview of a pilot study that informs the proposed
study and a description of the selected research site and its participants are also included.
In addition, the role of the researcher, the role of the teacher, and the procedures for data
collection and data analysis are discussed through rich description and visual
representations. Chapter 4 presents the results of the study. Finally, Chapter 5 summarizes
the findings, discusses implications for educational implications, and offers
recommendations for further researches.
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
4
The purpose of this chapter is to provide an extensive review of the literature as it
relates to the overall perspectives of task-based language learning and task-based language
teaching. First, an overview of the literature concerning the TBLT terminologies, its key
components, its principles, its features, framework for learning and teaching, and its
distinctions with other teaching methods is provided. Next, the theoretical foundations for
the birth and growth of task-based language teaching are discussed, including cognitive
theory of learning, sociocultural perspectives of constructivist theory of learning, etc.
Third, teachers’ interpretation of teaching methodology is mentioned. This chapter is also
designed to explore and identify how teachers’ views of their classroom teaching are.
Lastly, the theoretical underpinnings, review of existing task-based teaching research
bibliography will provide a framework for understanding the concept of TBLT and its
potentials, the methodology and data collection involved in the study, and, ultimately, the
analysis of findings obtained from the study.
2.1. Definition of terminology
2.1.1. Defining ‘task’

and task-based language teaching

Before doing anything else, we need to clarify terminologies; therefore, in this part,
a basic distinction between real-world or target tasks, and pedagogical tasks, and different
perspectives of TBLT is identified and discussed. It is necessary because confusions often
arise in discussions of task-based teaching when different teachers and writers use different
definitions of the term ‘task’. And here is the overview of task definitions.
In the literature, various definitions have been offered that differ widely in scope
and formulation up to a point where almost anything related to educational activity can
now be called a ‘task’. Clearly, in order to prevent the understanding of tasks from
becoming fuzzy and overwhelming, clear definitions of what authors mean when they use
the word ‘task’ are necessary.
Long (1985) defined a task as "… a piece of work undertaken for oneself or for
others, freely or for some reward . . . By 'task' is meant the hundred and one things people
do in everyday life, at work, at play, and in between" (p. 89).
Task also refers to a job responsibility or duty that is a specific part of a particular
job that a person is asked to do. For example, the job of an administrative assistant requires
5
the task of scheduling appointments for the supervisor. Jobs can be "task-analyzed" for
personnel and training purposes (Smith, 1971). This general view of task again implies that
the task is externally imposed on the person from outside.
These three definitions of task defined are what that is called real world or target
tasks, which has features of non-linguistics and even non-technical outcome but the real
mental-oriented outcome that people intend to do everyday. Those may describe the sorts
of things that the person in the street would say if asked what they were doing. (In the
same way as learners, if asked why they are attending an English course, are more likely to
say, ‘So I can make hotel reservations and buy food when I’m in Australia,’ than ‘So I can
master the subjunctive.’). The conclusion of the distinction between target tasks and
pedagogical tasks may refer to Nunan (1989). He supposes that target tasks, as the name
implies, refer to uses of language in the world beyond the classroom; pedagogical tasks are
those that occur in the classroom.
So what are pedagogical tasks? When they are transformed from the real world to

the classroom, tasks become pedagogical in nature Nunan (1989). He states that: “a
communicative task is a piece of classroom work which involves learners in
comprehending, manipulating, producing, or interacting in the target language while their
attention is principally focused on meaning rather than form. The task should also have a
sense of completeness, being able to stand alone as a communicative act in its own right”.
In this definition, we can see that the authors take a pedagogical perspective. Tasks are
defined in terms of what the learners will do in class rather than in the world outside the
classroom. More detailed definition of task-based language approach of his in another
book published in 2001 is the following, cited in Canh (2004): a task-based language
teaching approach is characterized by:
a) An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target language.
b) The introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation.
c) The provision of opportunities for learners to focus, not only on language, but also on
the learning process itself.
d) An enhancement of the learner's own personal experiences as important contributing
elements to classroom learning.
6
e) An attempt to link classroom language learning with language activation outside the
classroom (p.103).
Another definition of pedagogical task comes from Richards (1986): . . . an activity
or action which is carried out as the result of processing or understanding language (i.e. as
a response). For example, drawing a map while listening to a tape, listening to an
instruction and performing a command may be referred to as tasks. Tasks may or may not
involve the production of language. A task usually requires the teacher to specify what will
be regarded as successful completion of the task. The use of a variety of different kinds of
tasks in language teaching is said to make language teaching more communicative . . .
since it provides a purpose for a classroom activity which goes beyond the practice of
language for its own sake. (p.289)
Breen (1987: 23) offers another definition of a pedagogical task: . . . any structured
language learning endeavour which has a particular objective, appropriate content, a

specified working procedure, and a range of outcomes for those who undertake the task.
‘Task’ is therefore assumed to refer to a range of workplans which have the overall
purposes of facilitating language learning – from the simple and brief exercise type, to
more complex and lengthy activities such as group problem-solving or simulations and
decision-making. This definition is very broad, implying as it does that just about anything
the learner does in the classroom qualifies as a task. It could, in fact, be used to justify any
procedure at all as ‘task-based’ and, as such, is not particularly helpful.
More circumscribed is the following from Willis (1996), cited in Willis and Willis
(2001): a classroom undertaking “. . . where the target language is used by the learner for a
communicative purpose (goal) in order to achieve an outcome”. Here the notion of
meaning is subsumed in ‘outcome’. Language in a communicative task is seen as bringing
about an outcome through the exchange of meanings (p.173).
Skehan (1996a), drawing on a number of other writers, puts forward four key
characteristics of a task in a pedagogical aspect:
• meaning is primary
• there is some sort of relationship to comparable real-world activities
• task completion has some priority
• the assessment of the task is in terms of outcome.
7
However, when his book was republished in 1998, he had five keys characteristics
for a task; one more was added. So that she redefined a task as ‘an activity in which:
meaning is primary; learners are not given other people’s meaning to regurgitate; there are
some sorts of relationship to the real world; task completion has some priority; and the
assessment of task performance is in terms of task outcome’.
In the view of Crookes (1986: 1), a task is a piece of work or an activity, usually
with a specified objective, undertaken as a part of an educational course, at work, or used
to elicit data or research.
According to Richards, Platt, and Weber (1985), a task is an activity or an action
which is carried out as the result of processing or understanding language, i.e. as a
response. For example, drawing a map while listening to a tape, and listening to an

instruction and performing a comment, may be referred to as tasks. Tasks may or may not
involve the production of language. A task usually requires the teacher to specify what will
be regarded as successful completion of the task. The use of variety of different kinds of
tasks in language teaching is said to make teaching more communicative… since it
provides purpose for classroom activity which go beyond practice of language for its own
sake” (p.289).
Prabhu (1987), one of the first methodologists raising interest and support for TBL,
considers a task is “an activity which required learners to arrive at an outcome from given
information through some process of thought, and which allowed teachers to control and
regulate that process” (p.12). He deserves credit for originating the task-based teaching and
learning, based on the concept that effective learning occurs when students are fully
engaged in a language task, rather than just learning about language (p.17).
Lee (2000) defines a task is ‘(1) a classroom activity or exercise that has: (a) an
objective obtainable only by interaction among participants, (b) a mechanism for
structuring and sequencing interaction, and (c) a focus on meaning exchange; (2) a
language learning endeavor that requires learners to comprehend, manipulate, and/or
produce the target language as they perform some sets of work plans’ (p.23).
Bygate, Skehan, and Swain (2001) view ‘A task is an activity which requires
learners to use language, with emphasis on meaning, to attain an objective’ (p.288).
8
Finally, Ellis (2003: 16) defines a pedagogical task in the following way: A task is
a workplan that requires learners to process language pragmatically in order to achieve an
outcome that can be evaluated in terms of whether the correct or appropriate propositional
content has been conveyed. To this end, it requires them to give primary attention to
meaning and to make use of their own linguistic resources, although the design of the task
may predispose them to choose particular forms. A task is intended to result in language
use that bears a resemblance, direct or indirect, to the way language is used in the real
world. Like other language activities, a task can engage productive or receptive, and oral or
written skills and also various cognitive processes.
From what mentioned above, we go through many viewpoints about and definitions

of task. The definitions involved a tax, piece of work, everyday activity, job responsibility,
or general activity for learners. While these definitions vary somewhat, they all emphasize
the fact that pedagogical tasks involve communicative language use in which the user’s
attention is focused on meaning rather than grammatical form. However, this does not
mean that form is not important. In second language teaching and learning, task is now
often viewed as a linguistically outcome-oriented instructional segment or as a behavioral
framework for research or classroom learning.
My own view of a pedagogical task is strongly influenced by Willis (1996) and
Nunan (2001) and Littlewood (1981). In my opinion, task-based language teaching
approach is the implementation of pedagogical tasks, which are inspired from the real
world tasks, fitted well to students’ need and interest, and socially contextualized. A task is
goal-oriented, meaning-focused first and form-focused then, contextualized, and
implemented as the basis for teaching and learning. It can enable teacher’s teaching in the
direction of strong form realization of CLT, and help students achieve the reachable and
communicative outcome when they are exposed to authentic and comprehensible input,
then do the task through interactions (in pairs or in small groups) in which their own
experiences of target language are exploited, and lastly access the completeness through
the outcome. My definition refers to the deployment of learners’ knowledge, experience
and skills to express meaning, highlighting the fact that meaning and form are highly
interrelated, and that grammar exists to enable the language user to express different
communicative meanings. As Willis (1996) points out: “tasks differ from grammatical
9
exercises in that learners are free to use a range of language structures to achieve task
outcomes – the forms are not specified in advance” (p.23).
2.1.2. Task-based language teaching to learners
The task-based approach upon which the curriculum is built aims at providing
opportunities for learners to experiment with and explore both spoken and written language
through learning activities that are designed to engage learners in the authentic, practical
and functional use of language for meaningful purposes. Learners are encouraged to
activate and use whatever language they already have in the process of completing a task.

The use of tasks will also give a clear and purposeful context for the teaching and learning
of grammar and other language features as well as skills. . . . All in all, the role of task-
based language teaching is to stimulate a natural desire in learners to improve their
language competence by challenging them to complete meaningful tasks. (David Nunan,
1999: 41)
Task-based teaching can be regarded as one particular approach to implementing
the broader “communicative approach” and, as with the communicative approach in
general. The aim of task-based teaching is to develop students’ ability to communicate and
communication (except in its most simple forms) takes place through using the
grammatical system of the language.
Learners who are not used to TBLT may not at first realise the advantages of it, and
they take some time to understand what is required of them and be persuaded of the
benefit. This may be based on the kind of teaching they have had before and then what
benefit the task make to them. This is the report from Willis (1996) about the advantages
of TBLT after his survey to his learners:
• they gain confidence in speaking and interacting quite soon after a task-based course;
• they enjoy the challenge of doing tasks and find many of them fun;
• they are able to talk about language itself in addition to other topics;
• they can cope with natural spontaneous speech much more easily, and tackle quite tough
reading texts in appropriate way;
• they become far more independent learners. (p.137)
Willis also gives out the opinions of teachers and trainers who have just
experimented with TBLT:
10
• with mix-level classes, a TBLT approach works far better than a PPP one;
• learners bring their own experiences to lessons and often come up with interesting and
original ideas;
• by the end of the course they are often surprised at how much their learners have
achieved. (pp.137 - 138)
In his view, form learner’s position, doing the tasks in pairs or groups has a number

of advantages. Bearing this in mind can also guide teachers in roles of facilitators of
learning.
• It gives learners confidence to find out whatever language they know, or think they know,
in the relative privacy of a pair or small group, without fear of be wrong or of being correct
in front of the class.
• It gives learners experience of spontaneous interaction, which involves composing what
they want to say in real time, formulating phrases and units of meaning, while listening to
what is being said.
• It gives learners a chance to benefit from noticing how others express the similar
meanings. Research shows they are more likely to provide corrective feedback to each
other (when encouraged to do so) than adopt each other’s errors.
• It gives all learners chances to practise negotiating turns to speak, initiating as well as
responding to questions, and reacting to other’s contribution (where as in teacher-led
interaction, they only have a responding role).
• It engages learners to use language purposefully and cooperatively, concentrating on
building meaning, not just using language for display purpose.
• It makes learners to participate in a complete interaction, not just one-off sentences.
Negotiating openings and closings, new stages or changes of direction are their
responsibility. It is likely that discourse skill such as these can only be acquired through
interaction.
• It gives learners more chances to try out communication strategies like checking
understanding, paraphrasing to get round an unknown word, reforming other people’s
ideas, and supplying words and phrases for other speakers.
11
• It helps learners gradually gain confidence as they find they can rely on co-operation with
their fellow students to achieve the goals of the tasks mainly through use of the target language
(pp.35 - 36).
2.1.3. Tasks, Actvities and Exercises
In teaching and method discussions, there exist a lot of various and overlapping
understandings in tasks, activities and exercises. The three terms somewhere else are used

without distinctions. It is worth to clarify the differences here because the knowledge of
this serves much to the understanding of TBLT. At first attempts to distinguish between
CLT and traditional methods of teaching, some of researchers such as Morris et al.
(1996), Nunan (1999), Ellis (2003) and Carless (2004) made a clear cut between tasks as
distinction between tasks and exercises (non-tasks). This clear cut has been on the
journey for a long time to researchers’ minds when they need to conceptualize the
differences between traditional methods which is familiar to most teachers due to the
exploits of non- communicative ‘exercises’ and the new teaching ideas and approaches
adopted and mentioned in CLT which bases on the exploits of communicative ‘tasks’.
Consequently, “this oversimplified division is an obstacle both to conceptual clarity and
to effective implementation” (Littlewood, 2007). Afterwards, it is noticeable that Nunan
(2004) has moved from the two-category distinction in Nunan (1999) to a three-
category framework of ‘tasks’, ‘communicative activities’ and ‘exercises’. According to
him, a task is a communicative act that does not usually have a restrictive focus on a
particular grammatical structure, and has a non-linguistic outcome. An exercise usually
has a restrictive focus on a specific language element, and has a linguistic outcome. An
activity usually has a restrictive focus on one or two language items, but also has a
communicative outcome.
2.1.4. Developments of Task-Based Teaching
This section is to discuss about the history of researches and viewpoints of stages in
TBLT, and then the clarification between the most well-known and favourable TBLT
model and other models of instructions.
TBLT was first applauded by Prabu (1987); however, it was only shaped into
careful framework later by other methodologists. This part is, therefore, to introduce
briefly the historical development of TBLT researches on both the concept and its
12
framework. As noted by Richards and Rodgers (2001) and Willis (1996a, 1996b, 1998), a
task has a natural series of stages, such as preparation for the task (pre-task), the task itself,
and follow-up (post-task). Many second language learner textbooks now follow this
practice. In addition, tasks are often placed into a sequence as part of a unit of work or

study. Sequencing is a major issue in a task-based syllabus. For Swales (1990), tasks are
"…sequenceable goal-directed activities…relatable to the acquisition of pre-genre and
genre skills appropriate to a foreseen or emerging . . . situation" (p. 76, cited in Salaberry,
2001, p. 102). Skehan (1998b) noted that tasks have discernable implementation phases,
for which there should be clear criteria for outcome assessment.
Nunan (2004) argued in favor of units based on topics or themes in which
Halliday's (1985) three groups of macrofunctions are divided into microfunctions, each
linked with certain grammatical structures. Nunan's task-based syllabus contains six stages
per unit:
•
schema building,
•
controlled practice embedded in a context (unlike traditional controlled practice),
•
authentic receptive skills work,
•
a focus on form (lexical and/or grammatical),
•
freer practice ("communicative activities"), and at last
•
the (communicative) task itself.
It is interesting that Nunan, unlike Ellis (2003) and Long (1985, 1991), waited until
the very end of the process to include the communicative task. In Nunan's model, the task
is a culmination of all other work. In this sense, as noted by Feeney (2006), this is not too
far from the PPP format, except that Nunan's controlled practice occurs within more of a
communicative context than is usual with the PPP arrangement. Nunan's focus on form
occurs before both freer practice and the task, whereas Willis's (1996b) model employs a
focus on form after the task.
Long's (1985, 1991) task-based language teaching model presents a focus on form,
which involves meaning, structure, and the context of communication. The model follows

the following sequence of task development, implementation, and assessment/evaluation:
•
Needs analysis to identify target tasks
•
Classify into target task types.
13
•
Derive pedagogic tasks.
•
Sequence to form a task-based syllabus.
•
Implement with appropriate methodology and pedagogy.
•
Assess with task-based, criterion-referenced, performance tests.
•
Evaluate program.
In Long's model, tasks are selected based on careful analysis of real-world
communication needs. Such tasks are particularly important-even catalytic-for L2 learning
because they can generate useful forms of communication breakdown (Long, 1985). The
teacher offers some kind of assistance to help the learner focus on form at the point when it
is most needed for communication. This is the moment when meaning meets form. While
not explaining the learner's error, the teacher provides indirect assistance so the learner can
solve his or her own communication problem and can proceed to negotiate meaning still
further. Long (1997) presented the following typical instructional sequence for a "false
beginner" class of young adult prospective tourists.
•
Intensive listening practice: The task is to identify which of 40 telephone requests
for reservations can be met, and which not, by looking at four charts showing the
availability, dates and cost of hotel rooms, theater and plane seats, and tables at a
restaurant.

•
Role-playing: The learners take roles of customers and airline reservation clerks
in situations in which the airline seats required are available.
•
Role-playing: The learners take roles in situations in which, due to unavailability,
learners must choose among progressively more complicated alternatives (seats in
different sections of the plane, at different prices, on different flights or dates, via
different routes, etc.).
In this model, the exact sequence of any given task or set of tasks would depend on
the learners' needs, which shape the goals of instruction.
Ellis (2003b) distinguishes between (a) unfocused tasks (e.g., ordinary listening
tasks or interactions) and (b) focused tasks, which are used to elicit a particular linguistic
feature or to center on language as task content. He cited three principal designs for
focused tasks: comprehension tasks, consciousness-raising tasks, and structure-based
production tasks. Elsewhere (Ellis, 2003a) presents a sequence of tasks for helping learners
14
become more grammatical, rather than for attaining the exlusive goal of mastery. The
sequence includes:
•
Listening task, in which students listen to a text that they process for meaning).
•
"Noticing" task, in which students listen to the same text, which is now gapped,
and fill in the missing words.
•
Consciousness-raising task, in which students discover how the target grammar
structure works by analyzing the "data" provided by the listening text.
•
Checking task, in which students complete an activity to check if they have
understood how the target structure works.
•

Production task, in which students have the chance to try out or experiment with
the target structure by producing their own sentences.
Johnson (1996), Skehan (1998b), and Willis (1996b) discuss sequencing of tasks
according to methodological task features, such as extent of communication (negotiation of
meaning), task difficulty, and amount of planning allowed. Others have discussed how to
sequence tasks to reflect the developmental sequence of language acquisition. Skehan
(1999) suggested targeting a range of structures rather than a single one and using the
criterion of usefulness rather than necessity as a sequencing criterion.
Salaberry (2001) has argued that a successful task sequence leads learners to: (a)
communicate with limited resources, (b) become aware of apparent limitations in their
knowledge about linguistic structures that are necessary to convey the message
appropriately and accurately, and finally, (c) look for alternatives to overcome such
limitations. Building on the work of McCarthy (1998), Salaberry offers a pedagogical
sequence of four stages, which for the learner would be involvement, inquiry, induction,
and incorporation. For the teacher the corresponding four-step sequence is introduction of
the topic, illustration, implementation, and integration.
It is evident that no consensus yet exists about the best way to sequence tasks or to
sequence elements within tasks. This is one of the key areas of research needed in the field.
However, the writer in this thesis take the model of Willis' (1996a, 1996b, 1998) as this is
the one which is very much advocated by other researchers and methodologists because of
its precise design. Willis' framework consists of the following phases:
15
•
Pre-task - introduction to the topic and task.
•
Task cycle: task planning; doing the task; preparing to report on the task;
presenting the task report
•
Language focus - analysis and practice (focus on form).
2.2. Theoretical Foundations

Methodologically, task-based language teaching represents a realization of the
philosophy of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). Other realizations that could
fairly claim to reside within the CLT family include content-based instruction (Brinton
2003), text-based syllabuses (Feez 1998), project-based learning (Willis, 1996; Moss &
Van Duzer, 1998), problem-based learning, and immersion education (Johnston and Swain
1997). It is also possible to find essentially grammar-based teaching that fit comfortably
within the overarching philosophy of CLT. As the matter of fact, CLT is a broad,
philosophical approach to the language teaching that draws on theory and research in
linguistics, anthropology, psychology and sociology (For a review of the theoretical and
empirical roots of CLT, see Savignon 1993). Consequently, this part is to discuss about
essential philosophies of TBLT as well as CLT, i.e., the functional view, the interactional
view, cognitive theory, constructivist theory, and humanism.
2.2.1. Theories of language
The two most araised and influenced theories of language that lay the base for CLT
and TBLT are functional approach and interactional approach; they are, in turn, discussed
below.
The functional view considers language as a vehicle for expressing functional
meaning. Thus, in this view, the semantic and communicative dimensions of language are
more emphasised than the grammatical characteristics, although the latter are also
included. The target of language learning within the functional view is to learn to express
communication functions and categories of meaning. The Communicative Approach and
the Natural Approach are based on this view.
The interactional view sees language primarily as a means for establishing and
maintaining interpersonal relations and for performing social transactions between
individuals. The target of language learning in this view, thus, is to learn to initiate and
16
maintain conversations with other people. The Communicative Approach is also informed
by this view. (Richards and Rodgers, 1986, pp.16-17)
2.2.2. Theories of language learning
2.2.2.1. Cognitive theory

Emerging in the late 1950s, and beginning to be dominant theory of learning, but
really having powerful influence on instructional practice after the late 1970s, cognitive
psychology was a new meaningful argumentation from psychologists and methodologists,
usually coinciding with names of Chomsky, Jean Piaget and Lev Semenovich Vygotsky,
Ausubel, etc. Through years cognitive psychology has had a considerable influence on
language teaching methodology. There are no methodologies that limit themselves to
cognitivist theories; TBLT is no exception.
Cognitive theories of learning emphasized the role of the mind in actively acquiring
new knowledge. The ideas that Ausubel (1968) presented in his book Educational
Psychology: A cognitive view underlies the cognitivist stance in education. The most
important of these ideas was that learning must be meaningful and relatable to an
individual's cognitive structure if it was to become a permanent part of his or her
understanding of the world. Cognitive teaching treated the learners as thinking beings and
places them at the centre of the learning process by stressing that learning will only take
place when learners find the input meaningful, interesting and relevant to their needs. It
means the learner is an active participant in the learning process, using various mental
strategies in order to sort out the system of the language to be learned, which would rather
emphasizes the internal mental processes of the mind and how they could be utilized in
promoting effective learning than the external behaviour as behaviourism did; learner, in
fact, learns by thinking about and trying to make sense of what he or she hears, sees and
feels. And, as being retrieved from (Canh, 2004: p.39), cognitive psychology is grounded
on the following assumptions:
• People develop at different rates
• Development is relatively orderly
• Development takes place gradually
The basic teaching technique associated with a cognitive theory of learning is the
problem-solving tasks. Thus, the cognitive model of teaching is defined as a model of