The Implementation of Task-based Language Teaching A case study of the upper-secondary school = Việc thực hiện phương pháp giảng dạy ngoại ngữ dựa vào các nhiệm

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST- GRADUATE STUDIES

NGUYỄN THỊ KĂN
The Implementation of Task-based Language Teaching:
A Case Study of the Upper- Secondary School
(Việc thực hiện phương pháp giảng dạy ngoại ngữ dựa vào các nhiệm vụ được giao:
Một điển cứu ở trường Trung học phổ thông)

M.A Minor Thesis
Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 601410
M.A course: 18

HANOI, 2011


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST- GRADUATE STUDIES

NGUYỄN THỊ KĂN
The Implementation of Task-based Language Teaching:
A Case Study of the Upper- Secondary School
(Việc thực hiện phương pháp giảng dạy ngoại ngữ dựa vào các nhiệm vụ được giao:
Một điển cứu ở trường Trung học phổ thông)

M.A Minor Thesis
Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 601410

Supervisor: Le Van Canh, Ph. D

HANOI, 2011


Lists of abbreviations

ELT

English Language Teaching

CLT

Communicative Language Teaching

TBLT

Task-Based Language Teaching

TBI

Task - Based Instruction

PPP

Presentation- Practice- Production

EFL

English as a Foreign Language

MOET

Ministry of Education and Training

T

Teacher

Ss

Students

Vs

versus

iv


Table of contents

Declaration………………………………………………………………………………………i
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………..ii
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………...iii
Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………………………..iv
Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………………..v

PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale for the Study ………...……………………………………………….....1

2. Aims of the Study………………...……………………………………………......2
3. Research Questions ………………………………………………………………..2
4. Scope of the Study …………………………………………………………….......2
5. Methodology of the Study…………...………………………………………….....3
6. Significance of the Study ………………………………………………………….3
7. Organization of the Study………………………………………………………….4

PART B: DEVELOPMENT
Chapter 1. Literature Review
1.1. What is Task-Based Language Teaching?.............................................................5
1.1.1 Background to Task-Based Language Teaching……………………...……...5
1.1.2. Defining TBLT……………………………………………………………….6
1.1.3. Definitions of Task…………………………………………………………...7
1.1.4. Tasks vs. Exercises…………………………………………………………...9
1.1.5. Characteristics of TBLT……………………………………………………...9
1.1.6. Theoretical Framework of TBLT Implementation………………………….10
1. 2. Review of Issues in the Implementation of TBLT………………………………11
1.2.1. Factors Related to Grammar-based Examination…………………………...12
1.2.2. Large Classes………………………………………………………………...13
1.2.3. Socio-cultural Constraints…………………………………………………...13

v


1.2.4. Inadequately Trained Teachers………………………...…………………....14
1.2.5. Difficulties Caused by TBLT…………………………………………………15
1.3. Summary………………………………………………………………………….15

Chapter 2: Methodology
2.1. The Fitness of Case Study to the Research Purpose…………………………....16

2.2. Research Questions………………………………………...…………………...16
2.3. Context of the Study…………………………………...………………………..16
2.3.1. New English Curriculum………………………………………………….....16
2.3.2. The Case……………………………………………………………………..18
2.4. Participants…………………………………...……………………………….....18
2.5. Instruments………………………………...………………………………….....19
2.6. Data Collection Procedures………………...………………………………........20
2.7. Data Analysis Procedure…………………...……………………………………21
2.8. Summary………………………………………………………………………...21

Chapter 3: Findings……………………………………………….............................22
Chapter 4: Discussion …………………………………………….…………………36
Part C: Conclusion
1. Summary of the Major Findings………………………………………………..38
2 . Pedagogical Implications……………………………………………................38
3. Limitations of the Study………………………………………………………..39
4. Suggestions for Further Studies………………………………………..……….40

References……………………………………………………………………….41
Appendix

vi


1
Part A: Introduction
1. Rationale for the Study
With the advent of the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach in the early 1980s
and much emphasis on learners‟ communicative abilities over the last two decades, the term
Task-Based Language Teaching came into prevalent use in the field of second language

acquisition in terms of developing process-oriented syllabi and designing communicative tasks
to promote learners‟ actual language use. In many Asian countries, educational policies and
national curricula devised for English Language Teaching (ELT) in the past ten years have
adopted communicative and task-based language teaching. National curricula and ministry of
education policies in countries including China (Hu, 2005; Zhang, 2007), Taiwan (Sung,
2005), and Hong Kong (Carless, 2007) specify that task-based approaches to teaching English
should be used at all levels of the curricula.
In Vietnam, the newly documented English language curriculum was promulgated by Ministry
of Education and Training (MOET) and institutionalized in 2006. According to MOET, the
curriculum adopts two currently popular teaching approaches, i.e. the learner - centred
approach and the communicative approach with a focus on TBLT as the leading methodology.
While educational policy in Asia heavily favours TBLT and other communicative, holistic
approaches to language teaching, a large body of classroom-based research on current
teaching in Asia indicates that these policies have not always been implemented thoroughly or
consistently. Research conducted across East Asian contexts has suggested that curricular
policies have had limited overall impact on English language teaching, which remains
traditional with an explicit grammar-teaching focus ( Hu, 2005; Carless, 2007; Zhang, 2007)
Why is there a gap between government curricular innovations and the practice in actual
classrooms? I believe teachers play a key role in the success or failure of a planned innovation,
which is shared with Nunan (1989) and Carless (2001), because they are the executive
decision makers in the actual setting in which the intended innovation is to be realized- the
classroom.
It is important that the knowledge and attitudes of teachers regarding the innovation (here
TBLT) should be taken into account before, during and after the implementation phase. This


2
means that their opinions need to be reported and their voices heard. While there are some
studies on teacher attitudes towards, and beliefs about TBLT (Carless, 2003; Jeon & Hahn,
2006), there has been little research into how teachers implement it in their actual classrooms.

Little research has come to light with regard to English language teachers in Vietnam, apart
from a small-scale study carried out by Canh & Barnard (2009). For these reasons, I undertook
a case study of an upper-secondary school English teachers‟ understandings of, attitudes
towards and implementation of TBLT in Vietnam.
2. Aims of the Study
Teachers are frequently required to implement pedagogic innovations developed by external
agents who may or may not be familiar with the teachers‟ viewpoints or the specific classroom
context in which the innovation is to be implemented. If teachers‟ views are not sufficiently
taken account of, the already challenging nature of implementing something new may be
exacerbated (Carless, 2003). Thus, the aim of the paper is to provide an investigation of the
beliefs and the understandings of a small number of language teachers and a picture of how
the three teachers tried to come to terms with the implementation of a task-based pedagogic
innovation and what factors had an impact on the process.
3. Research Questions
The paper seeks to answer the following research questions:
1. What are teachers‟ understandings of, and attitudes towards TBLT?
2. To what extent do the teachers implement TBLT in their actual classrooms?
3. What factors impact on the implementation of TBLT?
4. Scope of the Study
The study was conducted in a micro setting in Vietnam, focusing on only three teachers at Yen
Phong Upper-Secondary School No 1. It is within this minor thesis space that the study is
located with exploration of the attitudes, the understandings and the practices of TBLT of a
small number of language teachers. Although the data focuses on a small sample of teachers, it
seems likely that the findings can still illuminate some issues of the implementation of TBLT
that other teachers working in similar contexts may encounter.


3
5. Methodology of the Study
Given the complexity of understanding the ongoing process of realized innovation, the

adoption of a qualitative case study approach seemed particularly suitable. Since this approach
„enable the development of an understanding of the phenomenon from the teacher‟s view‟
(Carless, 2001, p. 266)
This study employed qualitative data collection instruments which included semi-structured
interview, class observation (field notes) and post-observation interviews. The semi-structured
interview was conducted with some guided questions. The interviewees were given the guided
questions beforehand in the form of a handout for better preparation of ideas and thoughts.
The class observation enabled me to investigate what the teachers actually did in the
classroom. Field notes were made use of to observe all skills and language focus lessons.
Post-observation interviews were employed to provide triangulated data. They focused on
critical issues arising from the observed lessons.
6. Significance of the Study
The results of this study are important in the following aspects:
First, they partly indicate that curricular policies promoting the use of TBLT at the national
level do not automatically translate into the use of TBLT in actual English language
classrooms.
Second, they highlight the need to bridge the gap between what is intended by teaching
innovation designers and what is actually implemented by classroom teachers.
Third, they suggest that teachers in Vietnam need to make further efforts to develop and
generate, within task-based approach, classroom techniques appropriate to their conditions.


4
7. Organization of the Study
The study is organized in three parts.
Part A

Part A is the introduction which provides a brief overview of the study with more
details of the rationale, the aims, the scope, the research methodology, the research
questions, the significance of the study as well as the organization of the study.

Part B

Part B, the Development, consists of four chapters.
Chapter 1

reviews the literature in TBLT. This chapter presents the theoretical
background of the thesis which contains four main points: background
to TBLT, definitions of Tasks and TBLT, characteristics of TBLT and
theoretical frameworks of TBLT implementation

Chapter 2

namely methodology, focuses on the fitness of case study to the
research purpose,

research questions, context of the study (New

English curriculum, the case, participants) instruments, data collection
procedures, data analysis procedure.
Chapter 3

Findings, presents and illustrates my findings from interview and
observation data

Chapter 4
Part C

Discussion, provides an interpretation of the results

Part C, the Conclusion, is devoted to summarize major findings and discussion,
present pedagogical implications and limitations of the study and provide
suggestions for further studies.


5
Chapter 1: Literature Review
There is a wide literature on Task-Based Language Teaching, but as Candlin (2001) observes,
there is a lack of empirical research on TBLT in school foreign language contexts.
Particularly, how teachers implement the innovation in pedagogy is an important area which
does not receive sufficient attention.
In this part, I will review the literature on TBLT implementation. Specifically, definitions of
tasks and TBLT, characteristics of TBLT and theoretical frameworks of TBLT
implementation will be reviewed. Additionally, the studies carried out to date will be revised
to identify issues emerging in the implementation of TBLT which might occur in our own
teaching and learning contexts. Due to the limit of a minor thesis paper, only some studies
associated with implementing TBLT in Asian contexts are analysed.
1.1. What is Task-Based Language Teaching?
In this section, the background to TBLT, definitions of task and TBLT, the distinction
between tasks and exercises and the characteristics of TBLT are presented.
1.1.1. Background to Task-Based Language Teaching
Task-Based Language Teaching , also called Task-Based Instruction (TBI) which has attracted
the attention of second language acquisition researchers, curriculum

developers,

educationalists, teachers trainers, and language teachers worldwide can be seen as both a
refinement of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) as well as a reaction to the use of
form-focused models such as Presentation- Practice- Production (PPP). Critics of PPP claim
that it fails to meet an essential requirement of CLT, which is to treat language „primarily as

a tool for communicating rather than as an object for study or manipulation‟ (Ellis,
2003, p. 9). Thus, TBLT has the substantial implication that language learning is a
developmental process promoting communication and social interaction rather than a product
acquired by practicing language items, and that learners learn the target language more
effectively when they are naturally exposed to meaningful task-based activities. Such a view
of language learning led to the development of various task-based approaches in the 1980s
(Breen, 1987; Candlin & Murphy, 1987; Nunan, 1989; Prabhu, 1987), and during the 1990s,
has developed into a detailed practical framework for the communicative classroom in which


6
learners perform task-based activities through cycles of pre-task preparation, task
performance, and post-task feedback through language focus (Skehan, 1996; Willis, 1996).
Specifically, Ellis (2003) indicates that TBLT has been re-examined in recent years from
different perspectives including oral performance, writing performance, and performance
assessment.
Despite the prevalent use of tasks in language pedagogy, some significant challenges behind
designing proper task-based syllabi and constructing authentic task-based materials, both of
which have been considered crucial factors in determining the effectiveness of TBLT in
communicative classrooms, still remain unresolved. In response to these challenges, many
second language acquisition researchers are currently moving their attention from
conceptualizing tasks to sequencing and implementing tasks based on observation of the
practical utilities of TBLT methodology in classroom practice.
1.1.2. Defining TBLT
TBLT is not a monolithic teaching method, but an adaptable approach to language teaching.
Thus, the term “TBLT” is not easy to define, and choice of a definition is made more difficult.
The term was coined, and the conception was developed, by second language acquisition
researchers and language educators, largely in reaction to empirical accounts of teacherdominated, form-oriented second language classroom practice (Long & Norris, 2000). Long
(1985) and Prabhu (1987) take the view that TBLT is an approach to language education in
which students are given functional tasks that encourage them to focus primarily on meaning

exchange and to use language for real world, non-linguistic purposes. As Ellis notes, „there is
no single way of doing TBLT‟ (2009, p. 224), the conceptualisation of TBLT is also
provided in Long & Crookes (1992), Skehan (1998) and Willis (1996). In this study, a useful
definition of TBLT that will be used is provided by Samuda & Bygate, who write that taskbased language teaching refers to „contexts where tasks are the central unit of instruction:
they “drive” classroom activity, they define curriculum and syllabuses and they determine
modes of assessment‟ (2008, p. 58). This definition, first of all, directs our attention to the
most common characteristic of TBLT, i.e. the use of tasks as a central component in the
language classroom because they provide better contexts for activating learner acquisition
processes and promoting L2 learning. They also provide the basis for an entire language
curriculum, which according to Ellis (2003), shows that TBLT constitutes a strong version of


7
CLT. In my view, this definition is relatively simple but comprehensive, as it covers sufficient
features of TBLT in nature.
1.1.3. Definitions of Task
As mentioned above, tasks form the focus of TBLT. Richards and Rodgers (2001, p. 228)
suggest that this is because „tasks are believed to foster processes of negotiation, modification,
rephrasing, and experimentation that are at the heart of second language learning.‟
In the literature, various definitions have been offered that differ quite widely in scope and
formulation up to a point where almost anything related to educational activity can now be
called a “task”. Within much discussion and varying interpretations as to the definition of
tasks in the field of second language teaching, I would like to look at the following definitions
which are closely related to my scope of study.
Nunan‟s (1989, p. 10) definition is one of the most commonly cited pedagogical definitions of
a classroom task. Nunan proposes 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.

The definition refers to the deployment of grammatical knowledge 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.
Skehan (1998, p. 95), on the other hand, defines a task in the following way:
A task is an activity in which:


meaning is primary;



there is some communication problem 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.


8
This definition addresses five characteristics of a task. That is, the cope of a task, the
authenticity of a task, the linguistic skills required to perform a task, the cognitive processes

involved in task performance and the outcome of a task.
Ellis (2003, p. 16) lists six „criterial features of a task‟. He mentions all aspects listed by
Skehan above, and also includes the concept of task as a „workplan for learner activity‟, which
„requires learners to employ cognitive processes‟, and „can involve any of the four language
skills‟. This definition implies that tasks provide a purpose for the use and learning of
language other than simply learning language items for their own sake and that to perform the
task learners are required to process the thought.
Adopting this approach, Willis & Willis (2007, 2009) develop a set of criteria for determining
how „task-like‟ a given activity is:
A task has a number of defining characteristics, among them: does it engage the learners‟ interest; is
there a primary focus on meaning; is success measured in terms of non-linguistic outcome rather
than accurate use of language forms; and does it relate to real world activities? The more confidently we
can answer yes to each of these questions the more task-like the activity.

(Willis & Willis, 2009, p. 4)
Willis & Willis‟s (2009) criteria are not widely accepted. For example, Harmer (2009, p. 173)
considers these criteria „less than helpful‟ and finds in this approach to defining tasks „a lack
of willingness to pin down exactly what is on offer‟ that is „less than totally persuasive‟
(2009, p. 174). Many teachers can probably relate to Harmer‟s point. At least, one study
(Littlewood, 2007) has found that conceptual uncertainty about tasks and TBLT has affected
its implementation in many East Asian EFL contexts.
The following provides teachers with a more precise definition of a language learning
task. Samuda & Bygate (2008, p. 69) carefully consider the task definition literature
before defining a second language pedagogic task as:
... a holistic activity which engages language use in order to achieve some non-linguistic outcome
while meeting a linguistic challenge, with the overall aim of promoting language learning, through
process or product or both.


9

In my opinion, this definition is neither too restrictive nor too broad in terms of its processes
and overall aim. Therefore, it provides the solid foundation needed to begin developing
an understanding of TBLT.
1.1. 4. Tasks vs. Exercises
In teaching and method discussions, there exists various and overlapping understanding of
tasks and exercises. There is a clear need to clarify the differences between the two terms to
serve to the understanding of TBLT.
There are some differences pointed out by different experts in different times. Nunan (1999)
states that the essential difference between a task and an exercise is that a task has a
nonlinguistic outcome, while an exercise has a linguistic outcome.
However, Willis and Willis (2001) takes the view that tasks differ from grammatical exercises
in that learners are free to use a range of language structures to achieve task outcomes – the
forms are not specified in advance.
According to Ellis (2003), „Task‟ are activities that call for primarily meaning-focused
language use. In contrast, „exercises‟ are activities that call for primarily form-focused
language use. He also argues that in „task‟ language is learned incidentally but in „exercise‟
language is learned intentionally. This view seems much more plausible and is widely shared.
I am of the opinion that tasks can be defined in different ways but essentially they are
meaning-based activities closely related to learners‟ actual communicative needs and with
some real-world relationship, in which learners have to achieve a genuine outcome and in
which effective completion of the task is accorded priority.
1.1.5. Characteristics of TBLT
Translated into classroom practice, TBLT appears in both weak and strong versions. Weak
versions, or what Ellis (2003) refers to as “task-supported language teaching,” use tasks for
communicative practice but in other respects follow a conventional grammar or functionbased syllabus. Strong versions, referred to by Ellis as “task-based language teaching,” treat
the task as the central unit of curriculum and lesson planning. The tendency for teachers to
translate officially mandated TBLT into what at best could be called task-supported language
teaching is a theme addressed in a number of places in this study.

10
Within the varying interpretations of TBLT related to classroom practice, recent studies
exhibit three major features: TBLT is compatible with a learner-centered educational
philosophy (Ellis, 2003; Nunan, 2005; Richards & Rodgers, 2001); it consists of particular
components such as goal, procedure, specific outcome (Murphy, 2003; Nunan, 2004; Skehan,
1998); it advocates content-oriented meaningful activities rather than linguistic forms
(Carless, 2002; Littlewood, 2004).
The learning principle underlying this approach is that learners will learn language best if they
engage in activities that have interactional authenticity (Bachman, 1990), i.e. require them to
use language in ways that closely resemble how language is used naturally outside the
classroom. Whereas more traditional approaches to language teaching assume that learners
need to be taught some language before they can communicate, TBLT is premised on the
assumption that learners best learn a language through communicating, as in first language
acquisition and naturalistic L2 acquisition. Various learning principles underpin this view.
Krashen (1981) proposes that learners will acquire language when they are exposed to
„comprehensible input‟ and are motivated to attend to the input. Long (1996) has argued that
acquisition is best served when learners participate in the negotiation of meaning (i.e.
interactional sequences that arise as a result of some communication problem). Long &
Robinson (1998) have suggested that task-based teaching affords opportunities for learners to
„focus-on-form‟ in the context of attempts to communicate and that this constitutes the ideal
condition for acquisition to occur. Other researchers (e.g. Ellis, 2003) have suggested that
TBLT is needed to ensure the development of implicit knowledge. Thus, this approach to
teaching has drawn on a variety of theoretical perspectives.
There are not any reports in the literature on which version – the strong or weak version- is
more effective. In my opinion, this can because TBLT can be adapted flexibly in different
teaching contexts by different teachers.
1.1.6. Theoretical Frameworks of TBLT Implementation
In this section, the frameworks of implementing TBLT which are common to almost all
authors will be introduced.
Willis (1996) has proposed a three-stage model for the implementation of task in language

classroom as follows:


11


Pre-stage: The pre-task phase provides the necessary background, knowledge and
procedure, introduces students to-and familiarizes them with-the topic and the task to
be performed.



Task Cycle: During the task cycle, the students perform the task in pairs or small
group while the teacher monitors from the distance. The students then plan how they
will tell the rest of the class what they did and how it went, and they then report on the
task either orally or in writing, and/or compare notes on what has happened.



Language Focus: In this stage, the students examine and discuss specific features of
any listening or reading text which they have looked at for the task and/or the teacher
may conduct some form of practice of specific language features which the task has
provoked.

Although the framework provides a staged-model for classroom implementation, Skehan
(1998b, p. 129) criticizes that there is insufficient detail as to how plans can be made and
systematic teaching is arranged.
Ellis (2003), however, outlines the framework of task-based instruction into three different
stages: pre-, during- and post-task stages more specifically. The pre - task stage is related to
introducing the task, presenting the model task and planning the time for completion of the

task. In during – task stage, learners perform the task by using different performance options
and information processing options. The last stage is the post - task stage which incorporates
the activities like reporting, conscious-raising and repeating the task. The post - task is formfocused as in the Willis model.
1. 2. Review of Issues in the Implementation of TBLT
TBLT has been subjected to criticism by some teachers and educators. Among these critics
are Seedhouse (1999, 2005), who has challenged TBLT on the grounds that „task‟ does not
constitute a valid construct around which to build a language teaching programme, that TBLT
results in impoverished language use that is of little inquisitional value, and Widdowson
(2003), who has argued that the criteria for defining tasks are overly loose and that TBLT over
emphasizes „authentic‟ language use. In addition, Burrows (2008), Sheen (2003) and Swan


12
(2005) have insisted that it lacks sufficient focus on form. Furthermore, Bruton (2002) and
Swan (2005) have claimed that it is unsuitable for low-level learners.
TBLT has been adopted by several Asian governments as the national approach to English
language pedagogy. However, studies show that TBLT may not directly impact actual
language teaching practice, (Li, 1998) in South Korea; (Carless, 1999) in Hong Kong;
(Gorsuch, 2000) in Japan; and (Canh and Barnard, 2009) in Vietnam.
A large body of research has investigated the difficulties associated with implementing TBLT
in East Asian contexts. Because full accounting of these issues is beyond the scope of this
study, I will only group the issues under the five main categories that are directly relevant to
the present study.
1.2.1. Factors Related to Grammar-based Examination
As Zhang (2007) pointed out, in order for tasks to be enacted by teachers in the classroom, the
government institutions that plan educational policies and the schools that adopt them need to
create a supportive environment for teachers to experiment with new teaching approaches in
their classrooms. At the governmental level, the measurement of success in language teaching
and learning through norm-referenced, knowledge-based, vocabulary and grammar-focused
exams might hinder efforts to use TBLT in the classroom. Hu (2002) indicated that grammar

and vocabulary knowledge-focused national examinations were the most influential factors
preventing teaching innovation in China.
Chow and Mok-Cheung (2004) considered the summative, knowledge-based high stakes
exams used in Hong Kong to be the main barrier to implementing TBLT. Curricular
communicative objectives were not reflected in the Korean national exams, so washback from
tests pressured teachers to revert to traditional, rote-learning approaches to teach to the test
(Li, 1998), and similar concerns were noted by Japanese teachers and students (Gorush, 2000).
External examinations could limit the implementation of TBLT because the largely multiple
choice testing formats lead administrators and teachers to prefer explicit teaching approaches
(Carless, 2007; Littlewood, 2007). These concerns with the effect of high-stakes national
examinations on learning were also echoed by Canh & Banard (2009), who found that their
case study teachers, Cam, Quyt and Mo, were reluctant to integrate communicative activities


13
into their classroom, concerned that their students needed more mechanical practice to prepare
them for the national exams through which the students, the teacher, and the school are all
judged. It is important to remember, however, that while the nature of EFL examinations in
many countries may not foster support for curricular changes, simply integrating
communicative and skills-based testing into exams will not guarantee enactment of tasks in
language classrooms. As Carless (2007) pointed out, teachers might still consider traditional
methods of teaching as more appropriate, regardless of the manner of testing.
1.2.2. Large Classes
The set-up of many English language classes in Asia, particularly at public secondary schools,
is not conducive to the use of tasks in class. A frequently mentioned concern is large class
sizes, which was noted as a barrier to change in Korean (Jeon, 2006; Li, 1998), Hong Kong
(Carless, 2002), mainland Chinese (Zhang, 2007), schools. Li (1998) pointed out that large
classes were inherently difficult to manage, and thus challenged teacher ability to make
changes to their teaching. Littlewood (2007) noted that it was particularly difficult to
implement TBLT in large classes because of logistical issues associated with students

communicating in groups. It should be noted, however, that many of the issues associated with
large classes are relevant only to the use of interactive pair work or small group tasks.
A related issue to class size is the presence of students with multiple ability levels in each
class. Because primary and secondary students might be streamed by age rather than
proficiency, mixed proficiency classes were common in Asian contexts (Butler, 2005). Chao
and Wu (2008) pointed out that the inclusion of students at a range of proficiency levels in
Taiwanese schools made it difficult for teachers to select appropriate tasks for their classes. To
address this issue, Tinker Sachs (2007) proposed promoting cooperative learning, whereby
students of different proficiency levels could help one another.
1.2.3. Socio-cultural Constraints
Asian teachers traditionally relied on a strong teacher-fronted information transfer model of
teaching to maintain classroom order (Cortazzi & Jin, 2001), and good classroom management
was often defined in terms of volume, with students individually working quietly and not
causing disruption (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996). Yet, task-based approaches call for a range of
participatory structures (e.g., whole class, small group, pair, individual, Ellis, 2003). Thus,


14
TBLT challenged traditional views of classroom management. Jeon & Hahn (2006) noted that
very few of the Korean EFL teachers in her sample considered TBLT as an appropriate way to
manage the classroom. Carless (2004) suggested that teachers may struggle with the noise
generated by pair- and group-work, and that they may need to learn to separate the noise of
students engaged in using language to complete a task from the noise of classroom disorder.
This clearly calls for a shift in perspective.
On the other hand, it is not only teachers who may need to adjust to the inclusion of groupand pair-work in task-based courses. Students accustomed to traditional methods, and
particularly to methods that promote accuracy over fluency, may find it difficult to use
English in the classroom. Li (1998) found that Korean students resisted oral class
participation, while Burrows (2008) carried out a study to look at how TBLT was difficult to
implement in socio-cultural context of Japan. He also examined TBLT grounding on the role
of students. He claimed that the learning style of Japanese students, their learning

expectations, socio-cultural context of Japan and the structure of TBL itself were major
challenges for the implementation of TBLT in Japan. Chang‟s (2004) survey of native speaker
English teachers in Korea indicated that they considered their students overly reliant on
authority figures and reluctant to take risks through speaking. When students can be motivated
to speak in English, they may produce the simplest language possible; instead of stretching
their linguistic resources and developing compensatory strategies, students‟ efforts focus on
avoiding mistakes to save face (Lee, 2005). Learner reluctance to speak in class may then
undercut the value of interactive and production tasks for language development.
1.2.4. Inadequately Trained Teachers
Addressing concerns with integrating tasks into classrooms may help promote the enactment
of TBLT curricula in Asian schools, but is unlikely to be successful unless it is accompanied
by sustained teacher development initiatives. As Zhang (2007) noted, pseudo-compliance by
schools in adopting task-based innovations has led to minimal teacher development efforts in
mainland China, while sustained, grounded, and culturally sensitive teacher development may
be required for real change in the enacted curriculum (Carless, 2007). Because TBLT requires
teachers to adapt materials and juggle classroom roles to serve the communication needs of
their learners, using tasks effectively in the classroom requires understanding of the nature of
tasks and the ways they can promote learning (Ellis, 2003). In many contexts, teachers have


15
not had opportunities to gain sufficient understanding of tasks and task-based teaching to be
able to implement TBLT in their own classrooms. Clark et al., (1999) identified vague
understanding of TBLT as a main factor that limited the ability of Hong Kong teachers to
implement the new curriculum, a finding echoed by Zhang (2007) for teachers in mainland
China and Butler (2005) for teachers in Korea. Carless (2002) pointed out that even some of
the teacher educators involved in promoting the Hong Kong task-based curriculum expressed
uncertainty about the nature of tasks and about the effectiveness of holistic learning.
1.2.5. Difficulties Caused by TBLT
Carless (2004) pointed out that the strong version of TBLT (language is learned by taking part

in communication and without explicit instruction on grammar) was not suitable in Hong
Kong. He suggested that TBLT needed flexibility in its implementation so that it became more
suitable in local context. He proposed a new approach situated task-based approach which is
claimed to involve grammar in pre-task stage, relationship between the task and the
examinations, and reading and writing skills, too. The study also indicates that grammar
should be taught directly in pre-task stage.
1.3. Summary
The literature review presented in this chapter shows that task-based approaches emphasize
communication of meaning rather than study of grammatical form as the starting point for
learning activities. The content is specified holistically in terms of „tasks‟. An essential feature
of TBLT is learner-centredness. Review of the research on the implementation of TBLT in
Asian context indicates that the feasibility of TBLT for schooling in Asian settings has not yet
been convincingly demonstrated due to institutional factors, classroom factors and teacher
development. The review also reveals that whilst there is a body of research evidence on taskbased language teaching with various levels and in various contexts, so far, little research has
been identified that have specifically investigated the implementation of TBLT in uppersecondary schools, particularly in Vietnam setting. Thus, it was decided that a case study of
teachers‟ implementation of TBLT would complement previous studies, and add to
professional understanding about how teachers implement TBLT in their actual classrooms.


16
Chapter 2: Methodology
This chapter presents the research methodology adopted to achieve the aims of the study. First,
the reason for the research method is well- explained; next is a brief description of the research
questions, the context of the study, the participants and the research instruments. Then data
collection procedures and data analysis procedures are clarified.
2.1. The Fitness of Case Study to the Research Purpose
In order to find out the answer to the research questions, I decided to conduct a case study.
According to The U.S. General Accounting Office (1990, p. 14), “ A case study is a method
for learning about a complex instance, based on a comprehensive understanding of that
instance obtained by extensive descriptions and analysis of that instance taken as a whole and

in its context”. This definition seems to focus on a particular instance and reaching an
understanding within a complex context.
The case study approach was chosen as an investigative technique so as to permit me to study
the teachers in depth in the classroom setting and facilitate the development of an
understanding of the innovation from the teachers‟ viewpoints. Notwithstanding limitations of
generalisability from small samples, detailed case study data can provide what Bassy (1999)
refers to as „fuzzy propositions‟ or „fuzzy generalisations‟ i.e. tentative general statements
which lack scientific generalisability but are likely to be a useful reference point for teachers
and/or researchers to compare with their own contexts.
2.2. Research Questions
The central focus of the study was to explore teachers‟ implementation of TBLT in their actual
classroom. The key research questions that guided the study as follows:
1.

What are teachers‟ understandings of, and attitudes towards TBLT?

2.

To what extent do the teachers implement TBLT in their actual classrooms?

3.

What factors impact on the implementation of TBLT?

2.3. Context of the Study
2.3.1. New English Curriculum


17
In Vietnam a newly documented English language curriculum was officially approved and

institutionalized for all grades and school types nation-wide from Grade 6 through to Grade 12
in 2006. It aims to enable school pupils to:
a.

communicate in English at the basic at the basic level in all modes of communication, i.e., listening,
speaking, reading and writing

b.

master the basic formal knowledge of the English language

c.

have general understanding of, and a positive attitude towards, the cultures of English-speaking
countries.

(Ministry of Education and Training, 2006, p. 5)
In addition, this document states that „communicative skills are the goal of the teaching of
English at the secondary school while formal knowledge of the language serves as the means
to the end‟ (MOET 2006, p. 6)
The national English curriculum is effectively operationalised in a locally-written set of
textbooks. According to its authors, the textbook is theme-based and skill-based, with the
adoption of the „two currently popular teaching approaches, i.e. the learner - centred approach
and the communicative approach. A focus is on task-based teaching as the leading
methodology‟ (Van et al., 2006, p. 12). The themes or topics covered in the textbooks series
consist of education, community, nature, environment and recreation.
Within the task-based framework of the new textbook series, teachers‟ and learners‟ roles are
clarified. Students are expected to engage with each other in meaningful interaction and
negotiation of meaning within a special context. Teachers are expected to organise classroom
activities so that students can engage with each other “actively, creatively and cooperatively”

(Van et al., 2006, p. 10) through individual, pair, and group work in meaningful interaction.
With regard to skills development, each of the didactic units follows a standard pattern
comprising five sections: reading, speaking, listening, writing and language focus. The last
unit explicitly focuses on key grammatical structures and phonetic features, some of which
have been previously introduced in the reading and listening texts and practised in the


18
speaking and writing sections. Each of these sections is to be dealt with in one 45-minute
lesson.
With respect to assessment, the curriculum does not define the testing methods to be applied,
except that „learners‟ learning outcome should be measured in terms of four linguistic skills
(listening, speaking, reading, writing) and linguistic knowledge (including phonetics, lexis,
grammar)‟ (MOET 2006, p. 18). However, the Ministry has institutionalised multiple-choice
tests as the only testing method for standardised high-stake tests. In these tests, pupils are
tested in terms of phonetics, grammar, vocabulary and reading comprehension.
2.3.2. The Case
Yen Phong Upper-Secondary School No1, a state-run school, is located in a town in Bac Ninh,
which has a key industrial zone of the north. It is a large school with 2,100 students in the
three grades (Grades 10 to 12). The average class size in this school is around 50 and the
classrooms are well-equipped with furniture, light, drinking water, computers, LCD
projectors, cassette players, screens and blackboards. Inside the classroom, students sit in long
rows with 5 students being in one row.
There are 14 English–language teachers whose teaching experience varies from 4 to 20 years.
Two of them are male, and the rest are female. All have university degrees in teaching English
as a Foreign Language, and most of them have twice participated in textbook training
workshops run by key teachers.
With regard to students, there are around 50 students of mixed ability in each class. Students at
Yen Phong Upper-Secondary School have less or no exposure to authentic English. The
majority of them learn English just because it is a compulsory school subject and they learn it

just to pass the national examinations. They do not have an obvious communicative need in
the target language. All they need is a sufficiently good knowledge of grammar and
vocabulary of the target language to pass the national grammar-based examinations.
2.4. Participants
To complete the aims of this study, typical–case sampling strategy were used. Prospective
case teachers were identified by review of extant demographic data. Three teachers were


19
selected to participate in the study. All of them are from Yen Phong Upper-Secondary School
No 1 in Bac Ninh province. They were selected for the study based on the following relevant
attributes: young and competent teachers, open-minded in responding to questions of my
interview, confident enough in their teaching to be observed in the classroom, professionally
motivated to take part in the study, aware of the study‟s demands and willing to participate on
that basis. To ensure confidentiality, the pseudonyms (An, Anh, Oanh) were used throughout
the study.
The following Table 3.1 provides the profile of the teachers involved in this study.
Teacher Gender

Age

Teaching

Qualifications/training

years
An

male

32

8 years

He got his bachelor degree of English for education
from College of Foreign Languages, Thai Nguyen
University 8 years ago and then started his teaching
career immediately at Yen Phong Upper-Secondary
School No1.

Anh

female

35

12 years

She finished her bachelor course of English for
education from College of Foreign Languages,
Vietnam National University, Hanoi in 1999 and
taught at Yen Phong Upper-Secondary School No1
just after that. She is now taking the role of leader of
EFL teachers group.

Oanh

female

28

5 years

She both finished the bachelor course and master
course majoring in English in College of Foreign
Languages, Vietnam National University, Hanoi. Her
master professionalism is in ELT methodology.

Table 3.1: Teacher participants
2.5. Instruments
Since this is a multimethod case study, three instruments of data collection were used to
achieve the triangulation, i.e. classroom observations, semi-structured interviews, and post-


20
observation interviews. This part is intended to introduce the reasons why the research tools
fit the purposes of the study.
As Hopkins (1993) (cited in Mc Donough & Mc Donough, 2005) describes, observation as a
„pivotal activity‟ with a crucial role to play in classroom research, teachers‟ personalprofessional growth, and school development as a whole. In fact, class observation is one of
the most common and important data-collection techniques in case studies because it enables
the researcher to investigate in one specific aspect or the whole load of teaching and learning
in class, i.e. teacher‟s management, facilitation and monitor of class for learning tasks made
use of; to investigate their knowledge of teaching methodology through what teachers do in
class, and the involvement of students on tasks; to know the way of co-operations and
interactions between students and students and between teacher and students through the task
process.
Interviewing is an effective research instrument to get real statistics of any aspects in life. It
may be used as the primary research tool or as a checking mechanism to triangulate data
gathered from other sources (Mc Donough & Mc Donough, 2005). A semi-structured
interview first gives the interviewee a degree of power and control over the course of the

interview. Secondly, it gives the interviewer a greater deal of flexibility. Finally, and most
profoundly, this form of interviewing gives one privileged access to other people‟s lives.
2.6. Data Collection Procedures
Data collection methods used for the study comprised semi-structured interviews, classroom
observation and post-observation interviews. A baseline interview, prior to the commencement
of classroom observation, collected relevant background information about the teachers and
the school. The semi-structured interviews, lasting 35 minutes to 1 hour, were conducted with
each of the teachers and were recorded. TBLT was a major focus of the interviews.
The classroom observations were conducted for five consecutive English lessons for each
teacher over three weeks. The rationale for observing successive lessons was to minimize the
dangers of one-off display lessons not typical of regular teaching. Because teachers were not
comfortable with their lessons being video- recorded, so extensive field notes were made use