Sử dụng các hoạt động giao nhiệm vụ cho sinh viên không chuyên tiếng Anh trong các tiết học nói tại trường Đại học Kinh tế Quốc dâ

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
POST-GRADUATE STUDIES




CHU THỊ KIM NGÂN






USING TASK-BASED ACTIVITIES FOR THE FIRST-
YEAR NON-MAJOR STUDENTS OF ENGLISH IN
SPEAKING LESSONS AT NATIONAL ECONOMICS
UNIVERSITY
( Sử dụng các hoạt động giao nhiệm vụ cho sinh viên
không chuyên tiếng Anh trong các tiết học nói tại trường
Đại học Kinh Tế Quốc Dân)


M.A MINOR THESIS




FIELD: ENGLISH METHODOLOGY
CODE: 601410

HANOI, 2009


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
POST-GRADUATE STUDIES




CHU THỊ KIM NGÂN






USING TASK-BASED ACTIVITIES FOR THE FIRST-
YEAR NON-MAJOR STUDENTS OF ENGLISH IN

SPEAKING LESSONS AT NATIONAL ECONOMICS
UNIVERSITY

( Sử dụng các hoạt động giao nhiệm vụ cho sinh viên
không chuyên tiếng Anh trong các tiết học nói tại trường
Đại học Kinh Tế Quốc Dân)


M.A MINOR THESIS






FIELD: ENGLISH METHODOLOGY
CODE: 601410
SUPERVISOR: Nguyen Thi Vuong, M.A







HANOI, 2009


iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION……………………………………………… 1
1.1. Rationale of the study……………………………………………………… 1
1.2. Aims of the study………………………………………………………… 1
1.3. Research questions………………………………………………………… 2
1.4. Scope of the study…………………………………………………………. 2
1.5. Design of the study…………………………………………………………. 2
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………… 3
2.1. Speaking skill……………………………………………………………… 3
2.1.1. What is speaking? 3
2.1.2. Approaches to speaking……………………………………………………….3
2.1.3. Aspects of teaching speaking in CLT classes……………………………….5
2.1.3.1. Introduction to CLT approach…………………………………………5
2. 1.3.2. Teaching interactional skill in CLT classes…………………………6
2.1.3. 3. Integrating pronunciation teaching………………………………….6
2.1.3.4. Accuracy and fluency………………………………………………… 6
2.2. Task-based language teaching (TBLT)…………………………………… 7
2.2.1. What is T BLT? 7
2.2.2. Tasks in TBLT……………………………………………………………… 9
2.2.2.1. Defining tasks………………………………………………………… 9
2.2.2.2. Classifying tasks……………………………………………………….10
2.2.3. Advantages of TBLT………………………………………………………….12
2.2.4. A framework for task-based learning……………………………… 14
2.3. Summary…………………………………………………………………… 16
CHAPTER 3: THE STUDY…………………………………………………… 17
3.1. The context for the stud……………………………………………………17
3.1.1 Introduction to the English course for first-year non-major students at
National Economics University……………………………………………………………17

3.1.2. The teaching materials and assessment………………………………… 17
3.1.3. Situational analysis……………………………………………………18
3.2 Design and methodology………………………………………………… 19


v
3.2.1. Participants………………………………………………………………………19
3.2.2. Instruments………………………………………………………………………19
3.2.3. Data collection procedures………………………………………………20
3.3. Data analysis…………………………………………………………… 20
3.3.1. Task-based project…………………………………………………………….20
3.3.2. The post-treatment test……………………………………………… 23
3.3.3. Interview …………………………………………………………………… 24
3.4. Findings and discussion…………………………………………………… 29
3.5. Summary………………………………………………………………………32
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION…………………………………………………….34
4.1 Summary of the major findings…………………………………………… 34
4.2. Recommendations for the application of the TB approach……………… 35
REFERENCES
APPENDIXES

vi



LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1: The framework for task-based learning………………………………….14
Table 2:The levels of proficiency of the experimental class………………………23
Table 3: The levels of proficiency of the control class………………………… 24

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
This chapter aims to present the rationale of the study, aims of the study, research
questions, scope of the study and design of the study.
1.1. Rationale of the study
Nowadays, teaching English has received increasing attention as English has become
the language for global communication. To meet the future job requirements, students in

general and students of Economics at National Economics University in particular need to
enhance their skills of English, especially the speaking skill. However, there exists a
critical problem in teaching and learning English at colleges and universities resulting from
inappropriate teaching materials and instructional techniques. The common teaching
approach applied in English lesson at most of universities and colleges is teacher-centered
and lecture-oriented, which normally results in learning passivity and non-involvement in
language skills in general and in speaking activities in particular. Therefore, it is the high
time to make a change in the traditional learning process of English at universities in
Vietnam in general and at the National Economics University in particular. Among the
modern teaching methods, the task-based one is considered a type of analytic learning and
teaching method which owns numerous advantages.
According to Cadlin (1987), “Task-based learning continues with and develops recent
attention to learner-centered approaches and in particular the ideas of differentiation and
learner independence… Tasks serve as compelling and appropriate method for realizing
certain characteristic principles of communicative language teaching and learning.”
Besides, Nunan (2005) argues that “TBT does provide a flexible, functionally compatible
and contextually sensitive approach for many teachers, as well as learners”.
For all the reasons mentioned, we do believe that the implication of task-based approach
will enable a change in students’ learning process, especially in terms of speaking skill and
for the first-year non-major students at National Economics University.
1.2 Aims of the study
The study aims to investigate the benefits of integrating a task-based approach in
teaching speaking to the first-year non-major of English at National Economics University.

2
The study aims to focus on students’ achievement in speaking skill and positive changes in
their learning attitudes and motivation as well.
1.3. Research questions
There are two research questions for the study as follows:
Question 1: Is the task-based method suitable for teaching speaking skill for the first-

year non-major students of English at NEU?
Question 2: Does the task-based approach bring about any progress in learning
process?
1.4. Scope of the study
The focus of the study was on the benefits gained by the first-year non-major students
at National Economics University when adopting a task-based approach in learning
speaking. The study was conducted under the scope of an experiment with a small
number of the first-year students. It was restricted to the second half of their first year.
1.5. Design of the study
The study consists of four chapters:
Chapter 1: Introduction
This chapter presents the rationale, the aim, the scope and the design of the study.
Chapter 2: Literature review:
This chapter is concerned with the theoretical background of the study which includes
an overview of speaking skill and Task-based Language Teaching.
Chapter 3: The study:
This chapter refers to the real situation of learning English of the first-year non-major
students
Chapter 4: Conclusion:
This chapter presents the summary of major findings and the suggestions for the
implication of the task-based approach.







3

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter is concerned with the theoretical background of the study which
includes an overview of speaking skill and Task-based Language Teaching.
2.1. Speaking skill
2.1.1. What is speaking?
In this section, I will consider what we mean by “speaking”. In language teaching, we
often talk about four language skills (speaking, listening, reading and writing) in terms of
their direction and modality. Speaking, in particular, can be regarded as the productive,
oral skill.
Speaking consists of producing systematic verbal utterances to convey meaning.
According to Florez (1999), speaking is “an interactive process of constructing meaning
that involves producing and receiving and processing information”. It is often spontaneous,
open-ended, and evolving but it is not completely unpredictable.
Speaking plays an important part in communication as Ur (1996), Bailey and Savage(
1994) say “ for many people, speaking is seen as the central skill because of the desire to
communicate with others, often face to face and in real time”. It is really an impressive feat
when we hear someone speaking effectively in a second or foreign language. Ur (1996)
considers speaking intuitively the most important of the four skills: people who know a
language are referred to as “speaker” of that language as if speaking included all other
kinds of knowing.
2.1.2. Approaches to speaking
For many years, language teaching was seen as helping learners develop linguistic
competence –that is, helping students master the sounds, words and grammar patterns of
English. The idea was that by studying the bits and pieces of a language, students could
eventually put them altogether and communicate.
In the1970s and 1980s, however, the understanding of language learning experienced a
significant shift in focus. This shift was influenced by international developments in
linguistics, curricula, and pedagogy, as well as by sociolinguistic research (primary in
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, The United Kingdom and The U.S). In addition, the

4
numbers of refugees and immigrants resettling in English-speaking countries made
linguists and language teachers realize that developing linguistic competence alone was not
enough to be able to speak English well and get along in a society.
In the mid-1970s, the notion of linguistic competence came to be viewed as a
component of the broader idea of communicative competence “the ability of language
learners to interact with other speakers, to make meaning, as distinct from their ability to
perform on discrete-point tests of grammatical knowledge”( Savignon, 1991). Being
communicatively competent “requires an understanding of sociocultural contexts of
language use”.
There are several important models of communicative competence, all of which
include some form of sociolinguistic competence, or the ability to use language
appropriately in various contexts. Sociolinguistic competence involves register (degrees of
formality and informality), appropriate word choice, style shifting, and politeness
strategies.
Another important element of communicative competence is strategic competence. In
terms of speaking, this is the learners’ ability to use language strategies to compensate for
gaps in skills and knowledge.
The fourth component of communicative competence is discourse competence, “how
sentence elements are tied together”, which includes both cohesion and coherence
(Lazaraton, 2001). Cohesion is “the grammatical and/ or lexical relationship between the
different parts of a sentence” (Richards, Platt and Weber, 1985). Cohesion includes
reference, repetition, synonyms and so on. In contrast, coherence involves “how texts are
constructed” (Lazaraton, 2001). Coherence also has to do with “the relationships which
link the meaning of utterance in a discourse” (Richards, Platt and Weber, 1985). However,
coherence often involves the speakers’ background knowledge.
Since communicative competence is a multifaceted construct, it is important for
teachers to understand the complexities that learners face when they are speaking English.
One of those complexities is balancing fluency and accuracy. A proficient speaker is

both fluent and accurate.




5
2.1.3. Aspects of teaching speaking in Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)
classes
2.1.3.1. CLT approach:
The communicative approach on language teaching starts from a theory of
language as a means of communication. The goal of language teaching in the light of CLT
is to develop communicative competence. Some of the characteristics of this approach
include:
 Language is a system for expression of meaning
 The primary function of language is to allow interaction and
communication
 The structure of language reflects its functional and
communicative uses.
 The primary units of language are not merely its grammar and
structural features but categories of functional and
communicative meaning as exemplified discourse.
While in traditional second language classroom, learners play passive roles in class,
in CLT classroom, learners are encouraged to contribute as much as he gains, and learns in
an independent way. Suggested by Reen and Candlin in Richards, R.C.& Roger, T.S
(2001), CLT teachers’ roles are to facilitate the communicative process in the classroom,
act as an independent participant within the learning-teaching group, an analyst, a
counselor and a group-process manager. With regard to the procedure, in CLT class, new
teaching points are introduced in dialogue form. Pair and group work are suggested to
encourage students to use and practice. Richards, R.C.& Roger, T.S (2001) summarize
principles of CLT as follows:

 Learners learn a language through using it to communicate.
 Authentic and meaningful communication should be the goals of
classroom activities.
 Fluency is an important dimension of communication
 Communication involves the integration of different language skills.
 Learning is a process of creative constructions and involves trials and
errors.

6
According to this, language is no longer described through concept of grammar and
vocabulary. Thus, the focus of language teaching moves from mere mastery of structures
to communication proficiency.
2.1.3.2. Teaching interactional skills in CLT classes
In the light of CLT approach, the goal of language study is to communicate
competently in that language. Richard, Platt and Weber (1985) (replicated in Nunan, D.,
1999) characterize four dimensions of communicative competence as follows:
 The grammar and vocabulary of the language
 Knowledge of rules of speaking( for example, knowing how to begin and
end conversations, knowing what topics can be talked about in different
types of speech events, knowing which address forms should be used with
different persons and in different situations)
 Knowing how to use and respond to different types of speech acts such as
requests, apologies, thanks and invitations
 Knowing how to use language appropriately
Nunan, D., 1999, P.226

2.1.3.3. Integrating Pronunciation teaching
In language learning and teaching, pronunciation is considered one of the most
difficult areas because of mother tongue interference and feelings of awkwardness,
inhibition, embarrassment and so fourth. Hedge, T.(2000) claims that it is teachers’

responsibility to decide when to focus on pronunciation, and on which aspects. It is now
agreed that in CLT class, pronunciation can be integrated into speaking lessons, either
through activities which prepare for speaking tasks or through follow-up activities.
Individual sounds, word stress, sentence stress, and various types of linking can be drawn
out of many classroom activities. Likewise, intonation can be picked out from dialogues in
textbook materials to show students its importance in indicating attitudes and emotion in
conversation.
2.1.3.4. Accuracy and fluency
According to Hedge (2000), “ as communicative approaches have developed, teachers
have been concerned to ensure that students not only practice speaking in a controlled way
in order to produce features of pronunciation, vocabulary and structure accurately, but also

7
practice using these features more freely in purposeful communication”. As a result, it is
necessary for teacher to design both accuracy-based and fluency-based activities. Hedge
(2000) works out four needs of a meaningful accuracy-based activity.
(i) Contextualized practice: Teachers will find a situation in which the structure is
commonly used. Students feel that the structures are used naturally.
(ii) Personalizing language: Personalized speaking activities enable students to express
their own ideas, feelings, preferences, and opinions as the activities allow students some
degree of choice in what they say.
(iii) Building awareness of the social use of language: The activity helps students
understand appropriate social behaviour and the language used in a certain situation.
(iv)Building confidence: With ease and confidence, students are likely to produce
language quickly and automatically.
According to Hedge (2000), fluency, on the other hand, means responding coherently
within the turns of conversation, linking words and phrases, using intelligible
pronunciation and appropriate intonation and doing all of this without hesitation. Fluency-
based activities work best in free discussion, role –play and gap activities.
(i) Free discussion: free discussion on a wide range of topics, which engage students’

interests, opinions, histories, and experiences, could encourage them to use the language
needed in a conversation.
(ii) Role-play: In comparison with free discussion, role-play has a greater chance to
involve all the students and reduce unequal participation. It is not all, for some certain
students, role-play is less challenging. However, role-play is not always successful and
whether or not it encourages interactional skills depends on the details. Functional roles
and social roles seem more effective than professional roles.
(iii) Gap activities: Gap activities involve each learner in a pair or group possessing
information which the other learners do not have and the information must be shared to
achieve an outcome. Activities of this kind can motivate students to bridge the information
gap to solve a problem. Moreover, activities of this kind seem to demonstrate the
usefulness of pair work, which is considered less threatening.
2.2. Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT)
2.2.1. What is TBLT?

8
According to Littlewood (2004), TBLT is a development within communicative
approach. It is not all, Brown (1994) also claims that “TBLT is a perspective that can be
taken within a CLT framework”. Besides, he stated that what various understandings of
TBLT emphasize is the centrality of task itself in a language course and, for TBLT as an
overall approach, the importance of organizing a course around communicative tasks that
learners need to engage in outside the classroom. Also, Foster (1999) points out that there
are different task-based approaches which share a common idea: giving learners tasks to
transact, rather than items to learn, providing an environment which best promotes the
natural language learning process. Candlin (1987) says that “Task-based learning continues
with and develops recent attention to learner-centered approaches, and in particular the
ideas of differentiation and learner interdependence” (P.3).
An important feature of TBL is that learners are free to choose whatever language
forms they wish to convey what they mean, in order to fulfill, as well as they can, the task
goals.

Nunan (1991) gives out five characteristics of a task-based approach to language
teaching as follows:
(i) An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target
language.
(ii) The introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation.
(iii) The provision of opportunities for learners to focus, not only on language but
also on the learning process itself.
(iv) An enhancement of the learners’ own personal experience as important
contributing elements to classroom learning.
(v) An attempt to link classroom language learning with language activation
outside classroom.
Task-based syllabus which is considered the cornerstone of TBLT is defined by
Richards (1991) as syllabus which is organized around tasks, rather than in terms of
grammar or vocabulary. In task-based learning, communication tasks (where language
forms are not controlled) involve learners in an entirely different mental process as they
compose what they want to say, expressing what they think or feel.
Tasks remove the teacher domination, and learners get chances to open and close
conversations, to interact naturally, to interrupt and challenge, to ask people to do things

9
and to check what they have done. Much of this will involve composing in real time. The
resulting interaction is far more likely to lead to increased fluency and natural acquisition
than form-focused exercises that encourage learners to get it right from the beginning.
According to Long and Crooks (1992), the task-based syllabuses are “distinguished
from most earlier syllabus types by the fact that their rationale derives from what is known
about human learning in general and second language learning in particular rather than, as
is the case with lexical, structural, notional, functional, and relational syllabuses primary
from an analysis of language and language use. In addition, while differing from one
another in important ways, all three reject linguistic elements (such as word, structure,
notion or function) as the unit of analysis and opt instead for some conceptions of tasks”

(P. 27)
2.2.2. Tasks in TBLT
2.2.2.1. Defining tasks
In a number of books, the word “task” has been used as a label for various
activities, including grammar exercises, practice activities and role plays. In some other
books, tasks are defined as activities where the target language is used by the learners for a
communicative purpose (goal) in order to achieve an outcome.
Nunan (1989) defines tasks as activities that can stand alone as fundamental units
and that require comprehending producing, manipulating, or interacting in authentic
language while attention is principally paid to meaning rather than form. Moreover, tasks
are seen as “complete and lengthy activities” (Breen, 1987)
Skehan (1998) proposes a definition of tasks within task-based instruction
following Candlin (1987), Nunan (1989), Long (1989), and others that a task is an activity
in which:
 Meaning is primary
 There is some communication to solve
 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



10
2.2.2.2. Classifying task
Task classification is important for a number of reasons. First, it provides a basis for
ensuring variety; syllabus designers can refer to the classification to ensure that they
incorporate a range of task types into the course. Second, it can be used to identify the task
types that match to the specific needs or preferences of particular groups of learners. Third,
it affords teachers a framework for experimenting with tasks in their classrooms. The aim

of this section is to develop a checklist of task types. This part will focus on four
approaches for classifying tasks: (1) pedagogic; (2) rhetorical; (3) cognitive; and (4)
psycholinguistic.
A pedagogic classification:
Willis (1996) offers a pedagogic classification of tasks based on an analysis of the
kinds of tasks commonly found in textbook materials. The types reflect the kind of
operations that learners are required to carry out in performing tasks:
1, Listing, i.e where the completed outcome is a list.
2, Ordering and sorting, i.e tasks that involve sequencing, ranking, categorizing and
classifying items
3, Comparing, i.e tasks that involve finding differences or similarities in
information.
4, Problem-solving, i.e tasks that demand intellectual activities as in puzzles or logic
problems
5, Sharing personal experience, i.e tasks that allow learners to talk freely about
themselves and share experiences.
6, Creative tasks, i.e projects, often involving several stages that can incorporate the
various types of tasks above and can include the need to carry out some research.
A retorical classification:
A rhetorial classification of tasks draws on theories of rhetoric that distinguish
different discourse domains in terms of their structure and linguistic properties- narrative,
instructions, descriptions, reports… That is a classification that often underlies language
courses for academic purposes and is often linked to the specific language functions that
figure in academic written discourse, for example, definitions, classifications, and giving
examples.


11
A cognitive classification:
A cognitive approach for classifying tasks is based on the kind of cognitive

operations different types of tasks involve. Prabhu (1987) distinguishes three general types
of tasks based on the kind of cognitive activity involved:
1, Information gap activity involves a transfer of given information from one
person to another or from one place to another. For example, using information in a text to
complete a chart or table.
2, Reasoning-gap activity involves “deriving some new information from given
information through processes of inference, deduction, practical reasoning, or a perception
of relationships or patterns” (Prabhu, 1987). Prabhu points out that this activity also
involves sharing information but requires going beyond the information provided. An
example of this kind of task is a task that requires students to work out a teacher’s
timetable from a set of class timetables.
3, Opinion-gap activity involves identifying and articulating a personal preference,
feeling, or attitude in response to a given situation. Examples of this are story completion
and taking part in a discussion. Such tasks are open in the sense that they afford many
possible solutions.
A psycholinguistic classification:
Pica, Kanagy and Falodun (1993) propose a classificatory system with the categories as
follows:
1, Interactant relationship: this concerns who holds the information to be
exchanged and who requests it and supplies it in order to achieve the task goals. It relates
to the distinction between one-way and two-way tasks. This category is derived from
research that indicates that when there is a mutual relationship of request and suppliance,
negotiation of meaning is more likely to occur.
2, Interaction requirement: This concerns whether the task requires participants to
request and supply information or whether this is optional


3, Goal orientation: This concerns whether the task requires the participants to
agree on a single outcome or allows them to disagree.

12
4, Outcome options: This refers to the scope of the task outcomes available to the
participants in meeting the task goals.
2.2.3. Advantages of TBLT
According to Bowen (2000), the main advantages of TBL are that language is used
for genuine purpose; it means that communication should take place and that when
preparing the report for the class, students should consider language form in general rather
than concentration on a single form as in “Presentation –Practice-Production” model of
language teaching. The aim is to integrate all four skills and to move from fluency to
accuracy plus fluency.
Nunan (2005) says that “TBL does provide a flexible, functionally compatible and
contextually sensitive approach for many teachers, as well as learners.” He also confirms
that the attractive features of TBL offer the potential as follows:
(i) A replacement to or supportive infusion of more student- centered learning to
certain single approach based syllabi.
(ii) Utilizing more authentic experiences and materials as well as principles of
constructivism compared to top down teaching
(iii) More of a sense of personal and active accomplishment including developing
a greater sense of language ownership.
(iv) Increasing student participation when task teaching is well planned and
implementing sensitive to learners’ learning styles, learning and communicative strategies,
personalities, multiple intelligences and the overall local contexts, for example.
(v) Making specific lesson goals more evident through movement towards and/ or
success of task completion.
(vi) Important and ongoing assessment and “wash back” to both teacher and
leaner.
(vii) Tasks, well chosen and developed which are centered around relevant
acquisition principles, as well as sensitive to context also have potential to lessen the need
for test cramming and exercise reliance on a result/ test-based oriented syllabi.
Nunan (2005) also states that “It provides rather than a useful practice that can be

implied across many approaches, as well as boundaries. TBL may provide an enduring
legacy that meets the test of the time. It may also provide a curricular and syllabus

13
framework of flexibility that logically students and teachers will be drawn to even if it
need not be the central feature for certain places.”
From the learners’ position, doing tasks in pairs or groups has a number of
advantages:
 It gives learners confidence to try out whatever
language they know, or think they know, in the relative
privacy of a pair or small group, without fear of being
wrong or being corrected 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 similar meanings. Research shows they
are more likely to provide corrective feedback to each
other than adopt each other’s errors
 It gives all learners chances to practice negotiating
turns to speak, initiating as well as responding to
questions, and reacting to other’s contributions
(whereas in teacher-led interaction, they only have a
responding role)



 It engages learners in using language purposefully and
cooperatively, concentrating on building meaning, not

just using language for display purposes
 It makes learners 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 ones can only be acquired through interaction.

14
 It gives learners more chances to try out
communication strategies like checking understanding,
paraphrasing to get round an unknown word,
reformulating other people’s ideas, and supplying
words and phrases for other speakers.
 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 the use of the target language.
2.2.4. A framework for task-based learning
According to Willis (1996), the components of the TBL are presented as follows:

Pre-task
Task cycle
Language focus
*Introduction to topic and
task:
Teacher explores the
topic with the class,
highlights useful words and
phrases to help students
understand task instructions

and prepare. Students may
hear a recording of others
doing a similar task.
*Task:
Students do the tasks, in
pairs or small groups.
Teacher monitors from a
distance.
* Planning:
Students prepare to
report to the whole class (
orally or in writing) how
they did the task, what they
decided or discovered
*Report:
Some groups present
their reports to the class, or
exchange written reports
and compare results.

*Analysis:
Students examine and
discuss specific features of
the text or transcript of the
recording.
* Practice:
Teacher conducts
practice of new words,
phrases and patterns
occurring in the data, either

during or after the analysis.


Table 1: The framework for task-based learning

15

1. General overview
According to the model of TBL by Willis (1996), the framework consists of three
phases: Pre-task, task cycle and language focus.
(i) The pre-task phase introduces the class to the topic and the task, activating
topic related words and phrases. The pre-task phase will usually be the shortest stage in the
framework. It could last between two and twenty minutes, depending on learners’ degree
of familiarity with the topic and the type of task. If there is a pre-task recording to set the
scene, it would take slightly longer. Willis (1996) also identifies three steps for pre-task
stage: Introducing the topic, Identifying topic language and giving task instructions.
(ii) The task cycle: Within this stage, there are three sub stages: doing the task,
engaging in planning post-task, and reporting. The task cycle offers learners the chance to
use whatever language they already know in order to carry out the tasks, and then to
improve that language under the teacher’s guidance., while planning their reports to the
task. Feedback from teacher comes when they want it most, at the planning stage and after
the report. Exposure to language in use can be provided at different points, depending on
the type of task. Either before or during the task cycle, students might listen to recordings
of other people doing the task, or read the text connected with the task topic, and relate this
to their own experience of doing the task. In general, the task cycle offers learners a
holistic experience of language in use.
(iii) The language focus phase: This is the last phase in the TBL framework. It
allows a closer study of some of the specific features naturally occurring in the language
used during the task cycle. By this point, the learners will have already worked with the
language and processed it for meaning, so they are ready to focus on the specific language

forms that carry that meaning. Thus the study of these forms is clearly contextualized
through the task itself. This final stage, which includes analysis and practice components,
fulfils the fourth desirable extra condition for learning- explicit study of language form.
2. Teacher’s role in the framework
In TBL lessons, the teacher is generally a “facilitator”, always keeping the key
conditions for learning in mind. Facilitating learning involves balancing the amount of
exposure and use of language, and ensuring they are both of suitable quality.

16
In a TBL framework, most of the emphasis is on learners doing things, often in pairs
or groups, using language to achieve the task outcomes and guided by the teacher. The
teacher is involved in setting tasks up, ensuring that learners understand and get on with
them, and drawing them to a close. Although learners do the tasks independently, the
teacher still has overall control and the power to stop everything if necessary.
The part the teacher plays during each component of the task framework also varies
according to its aim. At the end of the framework, where the focus turns to language form,
the teacher acts as “language guide”, for example.
In a broader sense, the teacher is also the course guide, explaining to learners the
overall objectives of the course and how the components of the task framework can
achieve these. A summing up of what they have achieved during a lesson, or after a series
of lessons, can help learners’ motivation.
The link between each task and the other components in the task cycle will also need to
be made explicit. Learners will be experiencing English throughout the whole task cycle.
2.3. Summary
This chapter has presented some theoretical issues of speaking skill in English and the
aspects of teaching speaking skill. The focus of the literature review is on Task-based
Language teaching and learning with several important points such as: the definition of
TBLT, classification of tasks in TBL, the advantage of TBLT and the framework for the
TBLT.
The following chapter intends to provide the methodology underlying the study and the

findings concerning the first-year non-major students of English at National Economics
University (NEU).










17


CHAPTER 3: THE STUDY
In the previous chapter, all the theoretical preliminaries relevant to the purpose of
the study were discussed. This chapter is devoted to the study on using the task-based
teaching method in the speaking lesson of the first year non-major students of English at
the National Economics University.
3.1 The context for the study
3.1.1 Introduction to English course for first -year students at the National
Economics University
At National Economics University, before students attend their English classes at
the first term, they have to take a placement test with 100 multiple –choice questions on
grammar in order to classify students’ levels of English. After the placement test, the
students will be divided into different English classes of two different levels: level A and
level B (A is relevant to elementary level and B is relevant to pre-intermediate level).
Each English class consists of 40-45 students.
After that, classes of group A and classes of group B will be offered different course

books. The course book for students in group A named “Powerbase” (Elementary) and
the one for students in group B is “Business Basics”. The first semester for both group A
and B lasted 15 weeks. The teaching procedure for each group is quite different because
of the students’ different levels of English. For group A, grammatical parts in the course
book are focused and revised regularly with supplementary exercises on grammar as they
are new to almost students in this group. However, for students in group B, teachers
spend less time on teaching grammar and more time on drilling speaking and listening
skill in the class room because the grammatical parts in course book are familiar with
most of the students in group B.
3.1.2. The teaching materials and assessment
During the first semester of English, different course books are used for each
group. For group A, the course book is “Powerbase” by David Evans and “Business
Basics” by David Grant and Robert McLarty for the classes of group B. Both group A

18
and B have supplementary books designed by the teachers at Faculty of Foreign
Languages for Economics- National Economics University.
The students’ assessments as follows: class participation and attendance (10%),
two midterm tests (15%+ 15%) and final test (60%)
3.1.3. Situational analysis
For several years, the English course for non-major students has been changed and
revised regularly in terms of course book, class size and teaching methodology. The
teachers at the Faculty of Foreign Languages for Economics- National Economics
University have always tried to work out the most suitable English courses for students of
Economics at National Economics University.
The formation of English classes is based on students’ levels of English, not on major
classes. Therefore, each English class may consist of students from different major
classes such as Banking and Finance, Business Administration, Accounting, etc.
For the last two years, class size has been a problem for both teachers and students
of English at National Economics University. Three years ago, there were only about 27-

30 students in each English class but now there are 40-45 students in each English one
because of the shortage of lecture halls.
Most teachers admit that they have not had high achievement in drilling speaking
skill for students because of these big classes. Whenever they ask students to practice
speaking in class, there will be too much noise. Besides, for the classes of 40-45 students,
teachers find it difficult to keep the whole class under their control. They cannot manage
to help and supervise every student. They also admit that they sometimes do not intend to
spend time in class for speaking skill as they keep thinking that it doesn’t work well in
such a big class like that. Therefore, most of the time in class is used for other activities
on reading, writing or drilling grammar that students have learnt.
As regards learning, it is surveyed that the students’ main weaknesses are in
productive skills, especially speaking. In fact, many students can do written exercises
accurately but they always have difficulties in getting themselves involved in speaking
activities naturally. This is probably because they have got used to the teacher- centered
method since they were school students. Another reason is that they find it difficult to
concentrate on their speaking tasks in such a big and noisy class. Some of them admit
that they tend to talk with each other in Vietnamese other than English, especially when

19
students are at the back rows of the class and the teacher may not pay attention to them as
she is busy helping other pairs or groups.
Despite the fact that most students in National Economics University realize that
speaking skill is of great importance to them, the majority of the students tend to have
very limited speech production and low levels of oral fluency in English. What needs to
be done first now is to increase their co-operation, motivation and confidence. Thus, it is
essential to create an active atmosphere and learning process in speaking lessons for non-
major students of English at National Economics University in general
and for first-year students in particular so as to motivate the enthusiasm of learners and
gradually develop their ability to speak English as well.
3.2. Design and methodology

3.2.1. Participants
The post-test and the interview are administered to 90 first-year non-major English
students at National Economics University, both males and females. The students took
part in the research are from two English classes of group B. They are of different majors
other than English. Their age ranges from 18-20. The participants had been learning
English at National Economics University for only one term. Therefore, that would be
their second term of English.
Every week, they had four 45-minute class hours and the official textbook is
“Business Basics” by David Grant & Robert McLarty. The two classes were taught by
the same teacher but different teaching procedures, especially for speaking skill. The
same instructor for two classes means that she would be able to make overall
observations and precise comments on the students’ learning process in both conditions.
The two classes should be labeled as class A and class B. Class A was the control class
which strictly followed all speaking lessons in the course book “Business Basics”. Class
B was the experimental class which received task-based instruction with a detailed
schedule.
3.2.2. Instruments
Data for the study were collected through the administration of an oral test for both
classes after the application of task-based method (that can be considered the “post-
treatment test”) and an interview for 45 students of class B- the experimental class about
the new teaching method (The TBLT)

20

3.1.3. Data collection procedures
The post- test was conducted right after the treatment. Both class A and B had the
same oral assessment. The result of the test was the baseline data to evaluate the impact
of the task-based approach on students’ speaking ability. Apart from testing the
effectiveness of the task-based approach on students’ speaking grades, the study aims
also require the insight, attitude and evaluations on the part of students towards this new

learning method. Thus, the qualitative research method which employed semi-structured
interviews for 45 students of the experimental class was adopted.
The reason for this kind of data to be chosen was the benefits it would bring about as
Dowsett (1986) commented “the semi-structured interview is quite extraordinary. The
interactions are incredibly rich and the data indicate that you can produce extraordinary
evidence about life that you do not get in structured interviews or questionnaire
methodology”. The questions for the interviews were developed and piloted through the
study. Question 1 was intended to investigate students’ estimation over the importance of
oral English competence, which may account for their priority over speaking tasks in the
project. Question 2 focused on problem that the students may encounter in oral
communication. Question 3 was used to discovered students’ perceptions of differences
between TBL and conventional learning. Questions 4,5,6 aimed to elicit students’ ideas
about the strengths of task-based approach as well as the difficulties they had coped with
under task-based instructions. The last question (question 7) elaborated students’
suggestion as to how TBT could be improved. The interview was conducted in
Vietnamese and translated into English after that.
3.3. Data analysis
3.3.1. The task-based project
The project required 12 weeks to complete. However, as part of the same course,
the experimental students were also engaged in other activities unrelated to the project
throughout the term. Task-based framework adapted to the models of Willis was
employed during the project.