Investigating task types employed in 11th grade speaking classes at le quy don gifted high school in nha trang

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HUE UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
------------

DOAN TON BAO PHUC

INVESTIGATING TASK TYPES EMPLOYED
IN 11TH GRADE SPEAKING CLASSES AT LE QUY DON
GIFTED HIGH SCHOOL IN NHA TRANG

MA THESIS IN THEORY AND METHODOLOGY
OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts,
Hue University of Foreign Languages

HUE, 2018


MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HUE UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
------------

DOAN TON BAO PHUC

INVESTIGATING TASK TYPES EMPLOYED
IN 11TH GRADE SPEAKING CLASSES AT LE QUY DON
GIFTED HIGH SCHOOL IN NHA TRANG

MA THESIS IN THEORY AND METHODOLOGY
OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING

CODE: 60.14.01.11

SUPERVISOR: Ph.D. NGUYEN THI BAO TRANG

HUE, 2018


BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO
ĐẠI HỌC HUẾ
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ
--------

ĐỒN TƠN BẢO PHÚC

KHẢO SÁT CÁC HOẠT ĐỘNG NĨI ĐƯỢC SỬ DỤNG
TRONG CÁC LỚP KHỐI 11
TẠI TRƯỜNG TRUNG HỌC PHỔ THÔNG
CHUYÊN LÊ QUÝ ĐÔN Ở NHA TRANG

LUẬN VĂN THẠC SĨ LÝ LUẬN VÀ PHƯƠNG PHÁP
DẠY HỌC BỘ MÔN TIẾNG ANH
MÃ SỐ: 60.14.01.11

NGƯỜI HƯỚNG DẪN KHOA HỌC:
TS. NGUYỄN THỊ BẢO TRANG

HUẾ, 2018


STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY

This work has not previously been submitted for a degree or diploma in any university.
To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously
published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the thesis
itself.

Date: …./ …./ 20….
Signature

i


ABSTRACT
The aim of this study is to investigate types of speaking tasks used in grade 11
classes at Le Quy Don Gifted High School. The data of research were collected by means
of classroom observations, questionnaires and interviews. The teachers’ use of tasks was
documented through classroom observations and their perceptions of tasks were explored
through questionnaires and interviews. Specifically, the researcher observed three
teachers in their 12 speaking periods, four each, in three of their respective grade 11
classes majoring in Chemistry, Physics and Literature. All these three classes use the
textbook Tieng Anh 11. Three teachers and 14 students participated in the interviews and
the interviews for both teachers and students lasted roughly 40 minutes. The interviewees
were audio recorded. Questionnaires were distributed to 104 students grade 11 and 12
English teachers from this high school. The findings show that English teachers in Le
Quy Don Gifted High School in Nha Trang tended to stick to tasks in the textbook and
occasionally adapted textbook tasks or created their own tasks to better engage students.
The commonly used tasks as observed and obtained from the questionnaire are ‘ask and
answer questions’, ‘work in pairs to make a dialogue’, ‘talk about personal experiences’,
and ‘arrange information’. In addition, a majority of teachers perceived it is important
that tasks have a primary focus on meaning, a clear objective and represent real-world

situations. Students perceived fear of mispronunciation, insufficient vocabulary and ideas
are important factors that hinder their task participation. The fact that high stake
examinations do not include a speaking component, was identified by both teachers and
students as a demotivating factor.
The research has valuable implications for language teaching through speaking
tasks, for curriculum designers, policy makers, and teacher educators.

Key words: tasks, speaking skills

ii


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Along my MA journey, I have received a great deal of support, encouragement, incentives,
help and suggestions from my supervisor, Vietnamese teachers at Le Quy Don High School,
family and friends, sister-in-law who have all played primary roles in my present
achievement.

I would like to express my deepest gratitude and sincere thanks to my respectful and
professional supervisor Ph.D. Nguyen Thi Bao Trang for her dedicated supervision, valuable
guidance, support and practical suggestions throughout my journey. She has provided me
with her knowledge of tasks, quantitative and qualitative data analysis and interpretation and
tremendous support for additional documents.

My sincere thanks are sent to the teaching staff of Le Quy Don Gifted High School for their
considerable support and approval for my data collection in their school. Also, my thanks go
to the 104 students for their voluntary participation in my research.

I would like to express my special thanks to my close friend, Luong Thi Xuan Hong for her
substantial encouragement and assistance during my journey.

Last but not least, I wish to express my profound gratitude to my family including my
parents, Doan Van Xuan and Ton Nu Thanh Thuy, and my sister-in-law for their love,
encouragement and support.

Without all these people, my thesis would have never been successfully completed.

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. 1
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 4
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1
1.1.

Background of the study ...................................................................................... 1

1.2.

Rationales ............................................................................................................. 2

1.3.

Aims of the study ................................................................................................. 3

1.4.

Research questions ............................................................................................... 3

1.5.

Significance of the study ...................................................................................... 4

1.6.

Scope of the study ................................................................................................ 4

1.7.

Structure of the study ........................................................................................... 4

CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................... 6
2.1.

Task-based language teaching (TBLT) ................................................................ 6

2.2.

Task definitions .................................................................................................... 7

2.2.1.

Strong and weak versions of TBLT ..................................................................... 9

2.3.

Task types ........................................................................................................... 10

2.3.1.

Oral tasks ............................................................................................................ 13

2.4.

Teaching speaking .............................................................................................. 15

2.4.1.

Difficulties in teaching speaking ........................................................................ 16

2.4.2.

Difficulties in learning speaking ........................................................................ 17


2.5.

Review of related studies ................................................................................... 17

2.5.1.

Classroom use of tasks ....................................................................................... 17

2.5.2.

Student task preferences ..................................................................................... 21

2.5.3.

Perceived difficulties in task implementation/ participation.............................. 22

CHAPTER 3 – METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 26
3.1.

Introduction ........................................................................................................ 26

3.2.

Context of the study ........................................................................................... 26

3.2.1.

Research location ............................................................................................... 26

3.2.2.

Participants ......................................................................................................... 27

3.3.

Research methodology ....................................................................................... 27

3.4.

Data collection methods ..................................................................................... 27

3.4.1.

Classroom observation ....................................................................................... 27

3.4.2.

Questionnaires .................................................................................................... 28

3.4.3.

Interviews ........................................................................................................... 29

3.5.

Data collection procedures ................................................................................. 30

3.5.1.

Ethics .................................................................................................................. 30

3.5.2.

Piloting ............................................................................................................... 30

3.6.

Data analysis ...................................................................................................... 31

3.6.1.

Analysis of the observation data ........................................................................ 31

3.6.2.

Analysis of the questionnaire data ..................................................................... 32

3.6.3.

Analysis of the interview data ............................................................................ 32

3.7.

Summary of the data collection methods ........................................................... 32

3.8.

Summary of the chapter ..................................................................................... 33

CHAPTER 4 – FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................ 34


4.1.

Introduction ........................................................................................................ 34

4.2.

Findings .............................................................................................................. 34

4.2.1.

Teachers’ use of textbook tasks ......................................................................... 34

4.3.

Teachers’ perceived importance of different aspects of speaking tasks ............ 44

4.4.

Students’ opinions about various types of speaking task ................................... 53

4.5.

Students’ perceptions of learning English speaking through tasks .................... 57

4.5.1.

Students’ perceived level of interest in English speaking.................................. 57

4.6.

Difficulties in implementing speaking tasks in classrooms ............................... 60

4.7.

Suggestions for effective speaking teaching ...................................................... 67

4.8.

Summary of the findings .................................................................................... 71

CHAPTER 5 – IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION .......................................... 73
5.1.

Pedagogical implications ................................................................................... 73

5.1.1.

Task design ......................................................................................................... 73

5.1.2.

Student engagement ........................................................................................... 74

5.1.3.

Teacher professional development ..................................................................... 75

5.1.4.

For further research ............................................................................................ 76

5.2.

Limitations of the study and future research directions ..................................... 77

5.3.

Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 78

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 79
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 94


LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1. Task definitions by other authors .................................................................. 7
Table 2.2. Task-types from various researchers ........................................................... 10
Table 2.3. Oral tasks proposed by various researchers ................................................ 14
Table 3.1: Summary for data collection methods ....................................................... 32
Table 4.1: Definition of three categories ..................................................................... 35
Table 4.2. The teachers’ responses to the textbook tasks ........................................... 35
Table 4.3: Textbook tasks vs. teacher tasks ................................................................. 36
Table 4.4: Teacher’s perceived importance of difference aspects of speaking tasks .. 44
Table 4.5: Real practice of using tasks to teach speaking ............................................. 49
Table 4.6: The most frequently used tasks .................................................................... 51
Table 4.7: Less common speaking tasks ....................................................................... 54
Table 4.8: Students’ perceived preferences for various types of speaking tasks ......... 58
Table 4.9: Students’ perceived benefits of speaking tasks ............................................ 60
Table 4.10: Students’ perceived difficulties in learning speaking through tasks ......... 64
Table 4.11: Teachers’ suggestions on effective task implementation in teaching
speaking ........................................................................................................................ 67
Table 4.12: Students’ suggestions on how to improve speaking ................................. 69


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1: The most frequently used tasks .................................................................. 50
Figure 4.2: Less common speaking tasks ..................................................................... 52
Figure 4.3: Students’ opinions about various types of speaking tasks ........................ 55
Figure 4.4: Students’ self reported level of interest in English speaking ..................... 57

Figure 4.5: Benefits of speaking tasks ......................................................................... 59


CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
_____________________________
1.1.

Background of the study
English has now been considered as a lingua franca and its importance is definitely

undeniable because English plays an important role in a number of aspects such as
technology, medical, education, etc. With regards to the developing country like Vietnam,
teaching and learning EFL have significantly evolved since Vietnam’s participation in
World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2007. Since then, English has been widely taught
and young people have become more aware of its importance because it can help them
find a better job, converse with native speakers or approach their favourite specialist field.
Recognizing the popularity of English, the Ministry of Education and Training
(MOET) has launched an English program for all students from primary school level to
post-graduate level. Also, they have implemented the Teaching and Learning English
Project 2020 for the years 2017-2025 with the purpose of increasing the communicative
competence in English in accordance with the Common European Framework. According
to the data reported in Canh and Barnard (2009, p.23), the newly documented English
language curriculum in Vietnamese high schools (Ministry of Education and Training
[MOET], 2006) is intended for learners to acquire fundamental communicative
competence in all four skills as well as a rudimentary base of English knowledge and an
admiration of the cultural aspects of English-speaking countries. Therefore, it should be
noted that teachers are expected to encourage students to fully participate in a wide variety
of classroom activities in “active, creative and cooperative” manners through individual,
pair, and group work in meaningful interaction within a task-based framework (Van et al,
2006, p.10). The textbooks embraced Communicative language teaching and a task-based

approach to develop students’ communicative competence (Van et al, 2006).

1


1.2. Rationales
A considerable body of research has focused on how task design or manipulating
task characteristics influences language learning (Adams & Ross-Feldman, 2008; Bygate,
2016; García Mayo &Azkarai, 2016; Kuiken & Vedder, 2012; Robinson, 2011).
However, how teachers use tasks in their actual classrooms and what task types they use
and why they use tasks as such and student perceptions, has largely been neglected.
Nguyen, Newton and Crabbe (2018) explore how teachers used textbook tasks in EFL
classrooms, but does not address students’ perspective. Pham (2014) conducted the
research to identify the impact of task-based speaking activities of English-majored
freshmen at Van Hien University. Additionally, Jeon and Hahn (2006) carried out
research on task-based language teaching (TBLT) at a Korean secondary school. The
results indicated that TBLT positively affected students’ speaking ability. Nevertheless,
there is little research into classroom use of speaking tasks in high school in Vietnam
from both teacher and student perspectives. Bui (2017) conducted the research to
investigate teachers’ difficulties perceived in conducting TBLT at University of
Languages and International Studies (ULIS) in Hanoi. Although these studies provide
useful insights in teaching speaking through TBLT, there is still a gap for the investigation
into speaking task types. The current study contribute to understanding tasks with a
classroom focus by investigating task types used in English speaking classes at a high
school in Vietnam. It also explores tasks from both teacher and student perpectives,
extending beyond what tasks teachers use in their classroom practice, but also student
task preferences and perceive dificulties when carrying out the tasks. This research
responds to the urgent call for research that focuses on tasks in the classroom (Bygate,
2011; 2016). This research has important value given the context of the textbooks that
aim to develop students’ communicative competence, according to the textbook authors

(Hoang et al., 2006, 2007) and the social demands for English in Vietnam.
Teaching English in Vietnam is greatly affected by examination-oriented practice
and the curriculum highlights the theoretical information and does not provide students
with adequate space for hands-on experience (Canh, 2011). Findings from Nguyen (2014)
2


indicate that the grammar-driven teaching model is quite popular and it is a major factor
affecting the students’ oral production. Ellis (1994) states that activities offer
opportunities for students to practise interactive skills that make them converse
effectively in real-life scenarios. Speaking tasks are able to encourage students’ learning
motivation or stimulate the classroom learning atmostphere, According to Nunan (1989),
classroom activities play an important role because EFL students have little opportunities
to practise language outside school. It is crucial to understand tasks as a language
environment to cultivate their speaking so that learners can express themselves in the
target language (Bygate, 2016; Ellis, 2003). Speaking is one of the important skills in the
English textbooks for Vietnamese high school students. Therefore, this study investigate
the use of speaking tasks employed in the grade 11 classes at Le Quy Don Gifted High
School for the purpose of exploring the current practice of speaking tasks as well as
students’ perceptions of tasks. The focus is on the grade 11 classes because the grade 10
students are still new to the learning environment and the school did not want research to
be carried out with grade 12 students because they are at the end of the final high school
year. The research took place at Le Quy Don Gifted High School, Nha Trang where the
researcher lives, which facilitated travelling for data collection.

1.3.

Aims of the study
Based on the research statement, this study is aimed:


To investigate how high school teachers use speaking tasks in their classrooms.



To explore teachers’ perceived use of task types and students’ task preferences



To identify difficulties teachers and students perceive they encounter when
teaching and learning speaking through various types of tasks. Explore their
suggestions for enhancing speaking through tasks

1.4.

Research questions
This research was planned as an investigation into types of task employed at Le

Quy Don Gifted High School. It seeks to answer following research questions:
3


 From teachers’ perspectives
1. How do teachers use tasks in the speaking classrooms?
2. What are the teachers’ frequency of use of different speaking task types?
3. What are the teachers’ perceived difficulties in task implementation?
 From students’ perspectives
4. What are students’ perceived preferences for speaking task types?
5. What are the students’ perceived level benefits of speaking tasks?
6. What are the students’ perceived difficulties in task participation?

1.5.

Significance of the study
The present study is considered as a useful reference source to understanding

speaking task types in use in from both teacher and students’ perspectives. English
teachers in Vietnam could benefit from this study by using alternative task types to teach
their students speaking. The findings can be useful for English teachers at junior high
school level or even primary level for the purpose of improving the learning environment
as well as students’ speaking ability. The study has useful implications for task design,
student engagement and teacher professional development.

1.6.

Scope of the study
 Population
The current research was conducted at Le Quy Don High School for Gifted

Students, in Southern Vietnam. Data collection took place in the second school term and
lasted nearly two months from March to May 2018. The participants of this study are 12
English teachers and 104 grade 11 students majoring in Chemistry, Physics and
Literature.

1.7.

Structure of the study
This thesis is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 is the introduction of the

research. It provides the background of the study problem and the rationales for the

4


research. Following this are the aim, significance, research questions, and scope of the
study.
Chapter 2 includes the relevant literature reviews about task-based language
teaching (TBLT), definitions of tasks, and studies on relevant to the present study.
Chapter 3 describes the methodology of the investigation.
Chapter 4 presents and discusses the findings of the study.
Chapter 5 presents a conclusion to the study, where pedagogical implications,
limitations of the study and recommendations for further research are discussed.

5


CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW
___________________________________
The term ‘task’ is defined in different ways by different authors. For example,
‘tasks’ can broadly refer to any activity in the materials for the sake of language learning
(e.g., Littlejohn, 2011). The present study analyses ‘tasks’ the teachers used and their
perceived difficuties from a task-based language teaching and learning (TBLT)
framework. In this chapter, TBLT and task definitions are therefore addressed. Then
previous studies relevant to the focus of the present study, namely teachers’ classroom
use of tasks, their perceived practice of task types and their perceived difficulties are
reviewed and discussed.

2.1.

Task-based language teaching (TBLT)
Task-based language teaching pertains to teaching a second or foreign language

that helps engage learners in authentic language use by performing a series of tasks
(Bygate, 2016; Long, 2015). In other words, by doing tasks, learners learn the language.
According to Ellis (2003), TBLT is a form of teaching that treats language primarily as a
tool for communicating rather than as a subject for study or manipulation. It means that
if learners are eager to utilize and advance in a second language they should be aware of
how language is utilized as a tool for communicative purposes. Plus, Ellis (2003) states
that TBLT enables ‘task’ to be the key role in language teaching. Task-based approach
concentrates on communication and sending message. It gives secondary importance to
the forms used (Ellis, 2008, as cited in Ganta, 2015). Cook (2008) states that in TBLT, it
should be noted that learning and teaching have to be planned around a group of
communicative tasks and tasks are performed in the target language. Task-based learning
urges learners to use language purposefully and creates a useful learning environment to
develop language learning and it helps learners to be well-prepared in using language in
the real world (Andon 2010, as cited in Ganta, 2015). Norris (2009) depicts TBLT as a
6


method towards second or foreign language education that incorporates theoretical and
practical basis for learning in the form of “tasks” – that means learners’ capacity of using
language. Tasks provide better contexts for activating learner acquisition processes and
promoting L2 learning (Shehadeh, 2005).

2.2. Task definitions
The concept of tasks is crucial to TBLT because tasks are considered as a foundation
for the entire framework. Tasks are defined in various ways. Long (1985) defines tasks
in a broad sense:
A task is a piece of work undertaken for oneself or for others, freely or for some
reward. Thus, examples of tasks include painting a fence, dressing a child, filling out
a form, buying a pair of shoes, making an airline reservation, borrowing a library

book, etc. In other words, by „task‟ is meant the hundred and one things people do
in everyday life, at work, at play and in between. (p.89)

This is a non-pedagogical definition of task because it depicts types of things
individuals do outside the classroom, and some of these tasks do not vitally need to
employ the use of language. According to Ellis (2003), a task is a workplan that requires
learners to process language pragmatically. It requires them to give primary attention to
meaning and to make use of their own linguistic resources. Other well-known definitions
of tasks include Bygate, Skehan and Swain’s (2001), Ellis’s (2009), Skehan’s (1998),
Willis and Willis’s (2007), which are presented in Table 2.1 below.
TABLE 2.1
Task definitions by other authors

‘a task is an activity which requires learners to use
Bygate et al. (2001, p.11)

language, with emphasis on meaning, to attain an

7


objective, and that the central challenge for language
teaching is to develop learner’ communicative
language ability through pedagogic intervention with
tasks accomplished.’

- Focus mainly on ‘meaning’
- Create a need for learners to convey information or
Ellis (2009, p.223)

express an opinion
- Rely on learners’ linguistic and non-linguistic in
order to complete the activity
- Have a clearly defined outcome rather than the use of
language
- Meaning is primary.
- There is a goal that needs to be tackled.

Skehan (1998, p.95)

- There are some communication-related problems to
resolve.
- There is a number of relationships compared to real
world activities.
Task-like activities address the following

Willis and Willis
(2007, p.13)

characteristics:
1. Does the activity engage learners’ interest?
2. Is there a primary focus on meaning?
3. Is there an outcome?
4. Is success judged in terms of outcome?
5. Is completion a priority?
6. Does the activity relate to real world activities?

8

Common in these task definitions are a focus on meaning rather than language form
(i.e, expressing meaning), a clear outcome and reflection of real world activities. Ellis
(2009) clearly specifies that learners can use whaterver language resources they have
in order to achieve the outcome of the task. While some scholars (e.g., Long &
Crooks, 1992; Long, 2015) give greater emphasis on the real world aspects of tasks
as authenticity, Ellis (2003) holds that a task should involve processes of language
use similar to processes involved in doing real world tasks. According to Ellis (2003),
there are two forms of task authenticity, namely situational authenticity and
interactional authenticity. The former refers to replication of real world tasks and the
latter the processes involved that assist language acquisistion in doing tasks.
Therefore learners participate in language activities pertaining to the real-world, for
instance, filling in a form, or learners may join language activity that is artificial, for
example, finding similarities and differences between two pictures.

2.2.1. Strong and weak versions of TBLT
There are two versions of TBLT: a strong version and a weak version (Ellis,
2009; Skehan, 2009). With regard to a strong form of the task-based approach, tasks
are the starting points, driving syllabus design and selection. In other words, tasks are
central units of teaching and learning. In Ellis’s (2003) words, in the strong form,
tasks are treated “as units of teaching in their own right and have designed whole
courses around them” (Ellis, 2003, p.27). Meanwhile, a weaker form of the taskbased approach is task-supported language teaching (Ellis, 2009). In this weak
form,“tasks are a vital part of language instruction, but they are embedded in a more
complex pedagogic context” (Skehan, 2009, p.84). In other words, in task-supported
language teaching “some methodologists have simply incorporated tasks into
traditional language-based approaches to teaching” (Ellis, 2003, p.27). It means tasks
are used along side with other activities. In this regard, task-supported language
teaching resonates with communicative language teaching (CLT). Carless (2009)
compares the task-supported version with the P-P-P (Presentation-Practice9

Production) format in CLT. Ellis (2003) acknowledges thatTBLT is somewhat
complex and suggests that “the strong version of TBLT may be more theoretically
desirable, while task-supported teaching is more likely acceptable to teachers” (p.52).
He adds that “in both cases, tasks have been implemented to make language teaching
more communicative; therefore, tasks are an important feature of Communicative
Language Teaching (CLT)” (Ellis, 2003, p.27). Researchers have argued that tasksupported language teaching might provide more flexibility and feasibility in
language teaching in EFL Asian contexts (e.g., Butler, 2011; Littlewood, 2007).

2.3. Task types
Researchers have developed a number of ways to categorize task types and they
make sure that learners involve with a wide range of learning experiences and engage
of language use in a number of different contexts. Table 2.2 represents a variety of
task types proposed by numerous well-known authors.

TABLE 2.2
Task-types from various researchers

Task designers

Types of task
1. Listing

Willis (1996)

2. Ordering/ Sorting
3. Comparing
4. Problem solving
5. Sharing personal experiences
6. Creative tasks

Nunan (2001)

1. Real-world tasks
2. Pedagogic tasks

10


Ellis (2003)

1. Focused tasks
2. Unfocused tasks
3. Closed tasks
4. Open tasks

Vasilevskaya and Lipovka
(2005)

1. Open-ended tasks
2. Semi-structured tasks
3. Structured tasks

Berton (2008)

1. One-way tasks
2. Two-way tasks

Willis (1996) taxonomises tasks based on cognitive processes involved such as listing,
ordering, comparing, problem solving, sharing personal experiences and creative tasks.
Examples of listing tasks can be brainstorming, finding facts, completing a list of items

or put things into a mind map. This kind of task can help develop students'
comprehension skills.
- Ordering and sorting include sequencing, ranking and classifying activities.
Students are able to put a list of information in chronological order in accordance with
specific criteria. These tasks can promote learners’ comprehension or logical
development.
- Comparing tasks help learners compare information of a similar nature but from
different sources in order to identify common points and/ or differences. The process
involved can be contrasting two items, finding similarities and things in common or
finding differences.
- Problem-solving tasks are tasks where students have to resolve a problem or find
solutions to a problem. These tasks are often considered as a challenge for learners’
intellectual ability, but help promote students' logical reasoning and decision-making
skills.

11


- Sharing personal experiences refer to tasks that encourage students to talk more
freely about themselves and experiences to their peers. The process involved are
describing, narrating and expressing thoughts, and reactions. The outcome is generally
social.
- Creative tasks are often called projects and involve pairs or groups of learners in
some kind of creative work. They also tend to have more stages than other tasks, and
can involve combinations of task types: comparing, listing, ordering and problem
solving.
In Nunan’s (2001) categorisation of tasks, pedagogic tasks are communicative
tasks that facilitate the use of language in the classroom towards achievement of some
instrumental or instructional goal, whereas real-world tasks involve “borrowing” the
target language used outside the classroom in the real world. Pedagogical tasks have a

psycholinguistic basis in SLA theory and research but do not necessarily reflect realword tasks. For example, teacher gives four students pictures and they are required to
describe these pictures to the class. The other students can ask the four students any
questions about their pictures, and a student then tries to tell a story. In this way,
pedagogic tasks correspond to tasks with situational authencity as Ellis (2003) describes
above.
For Ellis (2003), regarding the target language form, he divided tasks into
focused versus unfocused tasks. Focused tasks are tasks designed so that learners are
naturally required to use target language features, while unfocused tasks are a task that
students can use their own linguistic resources freely without having to focus on specific
language forms. In terms of the task outcome, Ellis distinguishes closed tasks and open
tasks. Close tasks refer to tasks that have one single correct outcome or a limited number
of correct outcomes, whereas tasks open tasks are tasks that have multiple possible
outcomes (or outcomes are unpredictable).
Regarding levels of open-endedness of tasks, according to Василевская (2015),
there are three primary categories of speaking tasks, namely open-ended speaking tasks,
semi-structureed task and structured speaking tasks. The rationale of open-ended tasks
12


is to help learners to do something with language as an indication of their skills and this
type of task comprises some tasks such as giving a presentation, or a short functional
linguistic like making a request or an apology. A semi-structured task focuses primarily
on socially or functionally complex language use, e.g. reacting in situations. The learners
pick a social situation where they should imagine themselves to be, and they are asked
to say what they would say in the situation. Learners are encouraged to use formulaic
language and this task type should be used in face-to-face interactions.
Structured speaking tasks are the speaking equivalent of multiple choice tasks and
the responses are expected to be short. These tasks normally include common questionanswer or comment-response sequences such as greetings or apology-acceptance
routines.
Berton (2008) classifies task into one-way and two-way tasks. A one-way task is

described as only one of the participants has all the information that other group
members do not have. He or she must hand the information over to other members in
order to finish the task. However, it seems that there is an unequality in the delivery of
the information between the participants. This results in lesser negotiation of meaning
rather than in a two-way task where participants possess different pieces of information
that need to be shared for the completion of task.

2.3.1. Oral tasks
A group of researchers and language educators suggest different types of oral
tasks and name them more or less based on task genres. These task types are summarised
in Table 2.3. This categorisation of tasks are more teacher-friendly and can act as a guide
for teachers to use in the classroom.

13


TABLE 2.3
Oral tasks proposed by various researchers

Oral tasks

Authors

 conversations, guided conversations, and interviews
Bailey (2005)

 information gap and jigsaw activities
 scripted dialogues, drama, and role-playing
 logic puzzles
 picture-based activities

 physical actions in speaking lessons
 extemporaneous speaking.
 Discussions
 Role-play
 Simulations
 Information gap

Kayi (2006)

 Brainstorming
 Storytelling
 Interviews
 Story completion
 Reporting
 Picture narrating
 Picture describing
 Find the difference

Harmer (2012)

 Acting from a script
 Discussion
 Prepared talks
 Questionnaires

14