A study on group discussion and its impacts on speaking ability of the non major students at the post elementary level in military science academy

1

VIET NAM NATIONAL UNVERSITY, HA NOI
COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE
POST – GRADUATE STUDIES
****************

PHAM THANH MAI

A study on group discussion and its impacts on
speaking ability of the non-major students at the
post-elementary level in Military Science Academy
Nghiên cứu về thảo luận nhóm và ảnh hưởng của nó đến
khả năng nói của học sinh khơng chun ngữ trình độ
sau A tại Học viện Khoa học Quân Sự
M.A MINOR THESIS

Field: Methodology
Code: 60.14.10

Ha noi 7-2007
DECLARATION


2

To the best of my knowledge and belief, this minor thesis contains no material
which has previously been submitted and accepted for any other degree in any university.
The thesis is my own work and based on my own research. It involves no material
previously published or written by any other person, except where due reference is
acknowledged in the paper.

Signature:

___________________________


3

ABSTRACTS
The study presents an attempt to investigate group work and its impacts on the
subsequent individual presentations in the EFL classroom-based context. Oral data from a
range of sources including group planning and individual presentations were collected from 16
non-major students at the post elementary level at MSA over a period of ten weeks. The
students worked in small groups preparing for oral presentations. For each topic, two students
from two groups were randomly selected to give presentations. Eight group discussions and
sixteen individual presentations were selected and analyzed based on language related episodes
(LREs) as well as typical features of group interaction and error free clause (EFC). The aims of
the study were to explore what actually happens in group planning and whether the students in
pre-planning groups perform more accurately and better than those in unplanning groups in
terms of tenses, subject-verb agreement and pronouncing morpheme-s in plurality. The results
showed that in group discussions students tended to focus on the content of the task, and
assisted each other in preparing for the individual presentations. The findings also showed that
students in pre-planning groups produced better presentations than those in unplanning groups
in terms of tenses, subject-verb agreement and pronouncing morpheme-s in plurality. Since the
two activities, group work and individual presentations, are routine tasks at the college where
the research had been conducted, the impacts of group planning have important pedagogical
implications in organizing group and individual activities in the EFL classroom context.


4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the debt of gratitude to my supervisor Duong Thi
Thuc, M.A for her guiding and indispensable comments on my drafts. If it had not been for
her supervision, the thesis would not have been completed.
My sincere thanks are due to Mr. Truong Anh Tuan, M.A, whose generous advices
and materials have encouraged and inspired me during steps of the thesis.
I would also like to express my deep sense of gratitude to my dear students of
group 21T in Military Science Accademy, whose participation in and dedication to the
research remain invaluable and have been acknowledged. Without their precious support,
the thesis would not have taken shaped.
I am indebted to my colleagues at the English Department of Military Science
Academy for their enthusiastic assistance and co-operation.
Finally, the support extended to me by the members of my family has been
immeasurable. I would like to express my thanks to my parents, my husband Do Van
Tuyen, and my daughters, Do Hai Yen and Do Thu Ha, for their whole hearted
encouragement.
Ha Noi, July 8th 2007
Pham Thanh Mai.


5

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Principal types of task planning
Table 2: The implementation of the study
Table 3a: Summary of the number of LREs in PTP3 group talks
Table 3b: Summary of the number of LREs in PTP4 group talks
Table 4a. Summary of the number of turns in PTP3 group interaction.

Table 4b. Summary of the number of turns in PTP4 group interaction.
Table 5a. Summary of the leadership moves in group PTP3.
Table 5b. Summary of the leadership moves in group PTP4.
Table 6: Summary of EFVC and EFNC


6

ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS
E:

English

EFL:

English as Foreign Language

ESL:

English as Second Language

EFC:

Error Free Clause

EFNF:

Error Free Noun Forms

EFVF:

Error Free Verb Forms

F-LREs:

Form-Based Language Related Episodes

L1:

Mother tongue/ first language

L2:

Second language/ Foreign language

L-LREs:

Lexis-Based Language Related Episodes

LREs:

Language Related Episodes

M-LREs:

Mechanic-Based Language Related Episodes

MSA:

Military Science Academy

NNS:

Non Native Speaker

NS:

Native Speaker

NP:

No Planning

PTP:

Pre Task Planning


7

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Declaration...................................................................................................................….i
Abstracts ………………………………………………………………………….. ii
Acknowledgements..................................................................................................... iii
List of tables ................................................................................................................. iv
Abbreviations and conventions …………………………………………………….... v
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION................................................................................1
1.1. BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE..................................................................................1
1.2. SCOPE, OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS FOR THE STUDY.............................3
1.3. METHODS OF THE STUDY.............................................................................................4

1.4. THE DESIGN OF THE STUDY.........................................................................................5
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................................6
2.1. GROUP DISCUSSION AND ITS ADVANTAGES.................................................................6
2.1.1. Definition of group discussion.............................................................................6
2.1.2. Group work and its benefits from different points of view..................................7
2.1.2.1. From the psycho-linguistic point of view......................................................7
2.1.2.2. From the socio-linguistic point of view........................................................8
2.1.2.3. From the pedagogical point of view...........................................................10
2.2. TASK-BASED PLANNING AND TASK PERFORMANCE...................................................10
2.2.1. Definition of a task and a frame work of task-based instruction.......................10
2.2.2. Classification of task-based planning................................................................12
2.3. CRITERIA TO ASSESS ORAL LANGUAGE PRODUCTION................................................15
2.3.1. Fluency...............................................................................................................16
2.3.2. Complexity.........................................................................................................17
2.3.3. Accuracy............................................................................................................18
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN.................................................................20
3.1. SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE MILITARY SCIENCE ACADEMY.............................20
3.2. PARTICIPANTS OF THE STUDY....................................................................................21
3.3. PROCEDURES..............................................................................................................22
3.4. INSTRUMENTATION....................................................................................................24


8

3.5. DATA COLLECTION....................................................................................................25
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS...........................................................................27
4.1. GROUP DATA..............................................................................................................27
4.2. INDIVIDUAL PRESENTATION DATA............................................................................32
4.3. QUESTIONNAIRES.......................................................................................................34
CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS..........................................................................................35

5.1. GROUP DISCUSSION....................................................................................................35
5.1.1. Language Related Episodes...............................................................................35
5.1.2. Turns in group talks...........................................................................................36
5.1.3. Leadership moves..............................................................................................37
5.2. INDIVIDUAL PRESENTATIONS....................................................................................38
5.3. QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS.........................................................................................40
CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION..................................................43
6.1. DISCUSSION...............................................................................................................43
6.1.1. Research question 1...........................................................................................43
6.1.2. Research question 2..............................................................................................................44
6. 2. CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................45
References …….……………………………………………………………..…47
Appendix .................................................................................................................
Observers’ sheet ………………………………………………………………………..
Questionnaire No. 1 ………………………………………………..…….………………
Questionnaire No. 2 ……………………………………………….…………………….
Transcripts of group planning …………………………………………..……………….
Transcripts of individual presentations …………….……………………………………


9

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
I. Background and Rationale
For many years, the traditional teaching method of English language such as
Grammar Translation has dominated the teaching and learning environment in Vietnam.
This method does not focus on communicative skills, but much on grammar points in order
to help learners pass Grammar Tests at secondary schools and universities. As a result,
many Vietnamese learners are excellent at grammar, but they can not communicate with
each other in English. In classroom, teachers always explain grammatical points such as

tenses, articles, prepositions and so on, and give students a great deal of exercises to
practice in order to master grammar rules. Therefore, learners rarely have opportunities to
speak and express their own ideas. In the teacher-centered class the teacher tends to
explain and students take notes and practice; they rarely work in pairs or in groups to
discuss a topic with each other. This seems to be very absurd for many educators in the
world as the purpose of learning a second language is to communicate with each other in
society. This is a reason why the Ministry of Education and Training needs to innovate the
way of the second language teaching by applying the communicative approach in teaching
English in Vietnamese classrooms. In addition, the text books and curriculums for both
schools and universities should be designed for the communication-oriented and learnercentered approach. Almost all teachers are required to improve their teaching skills and try
out new methods to be successful in classrooms. Group work is one of the most effective
communicative approach that teachers often take into practice.
A number of researches have been conducted in the field in order to realize the
influences of group discussion as a frequent class activity on students’ linguistic
performance and communicative competence. Participating in group discussion helps
students develop “reproductive thinking” into “productive thinking”; and discussion
method results in effective learning outcomes in terms of : (a) the mastery of general
subject, (b) the ability of problem-solving, (c) the development of morality, (d) the
development of attitude and (e) the development of communication skills (Wilen, 1990).
Alvermann and Hayes (1989) believed that active and thoughtful participation in class
discussion is an “outward sign of learning”. Besides, in group participants learn to talk


10

better, i.e. they know how to retrieve ideas, organize them coherently and speak them out
fluently, and therefore communicative competence is developed. Discussion also shapes
“moral culture” as participants act together in a special way with regard to truthfulness,
responsiveness, openness, respect, self-awareness, self-confidence and so on (Bridges,
1979). However, Jones (1999) raised a question why a number of non-native English

speaking background students, particularly those who come from Asian countries,
encounter difficulties in academic group discussion. They stay silent and reticent whilst
their counterparts from Europe, for example, actively participate in the group work. In Viet
Nam National University, Ha Noi some studies related to group work have been done, but
they only focus on applying cooperative learning to improve speaking skills. (Phan Thi
Hong Anh, 2003; Vo van Thanh, 2004; Tran Thi Ngoc Bac, 2005; Hoang Thi Lan, 2005;
Le Tuan Ngoc, 2005; Le Thi Bich Thuy, 2006; Nguyen Thu Huong, 2006; To Thi Thanh
Ha, 2006.)
In sum, group discussion is regarded as a fruitful topic for researchers, particularly
for those who are interested in Second Language Acquisition in the sense that it relates to
how L2 learners approach a new language and how interactions among them contribute to
that process. A number of researchers have shed light onto the field and seemed to agree
on the point that group discussion productively promotes interactions among its
participants. Though many of the researchers did investigate the issue, few have drawn the
conclusion about what truly happens during group discussion and whether there are the
relationships between group discussion and its influence on the participants’ speaking skill
in terms of accuracy. Moreover, the most important reason why I pursue the study on
groupwork is that teachers at the Military Science Academy (MSA) have been using group
discussions very so often, however, they do not truly recognize how much their students
may benefit from this dynamic activity. A minority of them even show doubts on group
discussion’s advantages. Being inspired by the teaching and learning situation in the MSA,
the researcher comes up with the project with clear purposes in mind: to go deeply into the
essence of group discussion to explore what the students actually do during group
discussion and its impacts on students’ acquisition of communicative competence in terms
of accuracy, to determine if there is any possibility that participating into group discussion
for academic purposes can help students gain better at their interactions within the


11

classroom, inside the college campus and later on in a learning environment of other higher
educational institutions.
II. Scope, Objectives and Research Questions for the study
Within the MA thesis, the present study involves in the investigation of what the
students truly do during academic group discussion and its impacts on the communicative
competence of 16 post-elementary non- major English students who are in the forth year of
the Chinese Department. Group discussion is experimented as an intensive methodology in
speaking lessons in one class during a ten-week-study.
The project is conducted in the hope that it can contribute to the advancement of
teaching and learning quality at the MSA, especially in the course of educational
modernization of the country. The first and foremost, it will help:


contribute more theory to the current understandings of academic group discussion
and exploring the relationships between group discussion within the classroom and
the advancement of communicative skills of 16 post-elementary non-major English
students at the MSA.



realize the essentials and potentials of group discussion as a means to accelerate
EFL students’ communicative competence.



legalize group discussion, provide the teachers with the basic framework to conduct
academic discussion in speaking lessons at the MSA.



build a stepping-stone toward the generalization of the findings into other classes,
with different linguistic level students at the MSA.



provide EFL students with more chances to interact in small groups, develop
speaking skill to communicate more effectively within the group, for academic
purposes, and latter on, beyond the fence of the college.
Above all, the focal point of the project is to get a better insight into group

discussion as a method of improving communicative competence of EFL students for the
sake of enhancing teaching and learning quality at the MSA. The findings of the study may
be generalized in a broader scale, with higher level students, in larger contexts; students


12

will enjoy greater chances of being more dynamic and active in group work and their
further studies.
The research is going to cast light onto the following questions:
1. What truly happens during group discussion in classroom?
2. Do the students in pre-planning groups perform more accurately and better than
those in unplanning groups in terms of tenses, subject-verb agreement and
pronouncing morpheme-s in plurality?
III. Methods of the study
The research is conducted basing on both qualitative and quantitative methodology.
Qualitative approach is utilized to investigate fully the issue during group discussion and
participants’ performance. Each speaking lesson in which group discussion is
experimented will be observed directly by the researcher. The researcher may use field
notes, carefully note down what happens in groups during the discussion, how students

interact to one another, and how, for instance, the so-called silent students accommodate
themselves into the group work, etc. The observation forms are based on the model
initiated by Brilhart and Galanes (1992).
Besides, a questionnaire aiming at investigating students’ experience of learning a
foreign language and students’ opinions on the effectiveness of group discussion in terms
of communication advancement is also conducted as the further confirmation of the
collected results from the experiment. The questionnaire includes closed questions, rating
scale and free responses. This kind of questionnaire is chosen because student
questionnaires are the most widely used as a method of evaluating teaching and the
quickest way to collect information from every student (Bligh, 1986).
Finally, quantitative analysis is also involved in the process of data collection. The
data collected will be coded and analyzed to synthesize what truly happens during the
discussion and to what extent students interact with one another.


13

IV. The design of the study
This thesis is organized into six chapters.
Chapter One has briefly introduced the general background information, the
scope, objectives and methods dealt with in the study. Research questions will also be
raised in this chapter. Chapter Two will start with some definitions of group discussion,
then review a number of studies on pre-task strategic individual planning and its
consequences on task performance in terms of fluency, complexity and accuracy. The
chapter ends with the criteria to assess fluency, complexity and accuracy. Chapter Three,
the methodology chapter, will make it clear how the present study was implemented,
including information about context, participants, and procedures, instrumentation and data
collection. Methods of analysis will be addressed in Chapter Four. Analysis of a range of
data collected from various sources (oral data from group planning and individual
presentations, questionnaires, teacher’s observation notes) for the study will be clarified in

this chapter. Chapter Five will present findings from the present study. These results will
be discussed and interpreted in Chapter Six, which is also the concluding chapter of the
study.


14

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter is composed of three areas of research related to this study: research
on group/pair work, research on task-based planning and research on criteria of fluency,
complexity and accuracy. The general review about group discussion and how it
advantages students in the classroom are reviewed first. Then, the nature of task-based
planning and its impacts on subsequent task performance in terms of fluency, complexity
and accuracy is discussed. The chapter ends with the criteria to assess fluency, complexity
and accuracy.
2.1. Group discussion and its advantages
2.1.1. Definition of group discussion
First, let us examine the different definitions of group discussion.
“Group discussion is an activity in which students usually interact with one
another (often face-to-face) with the goal of increasing understanding, and achieving
shared solutions to a particular problem” (Brilhart & Galanes, 1992). This definition is
similar to Henry’s: “Group work is a number of people interacting in a face-to-face
situation” (Henry,W.1997). According to Dillon, group discussion is also defined as “a
form of back-and-forth interactions, give-and-take dialogues in which participants enrich,
refine and exchange their understandings, facts, opinions, experiences and the like”
(Dillon, 1994). Another definition of group work is given by Brown, D: “It [group work]
is a generic term covering a multiplicity of techniques in which two or more students are
assigned a task that involves collaboration and self initiated language. It implies small
group work, that is, students in groups of perhaps six or fewer” (Brown, 2001, p.177).
Thus, three important aspects should be highlighted in these definitions. The first one is

collaboration, in other word, cooperation. Students have to work together to complete the
task. All the members of the group are like the pieces of a machine. If one does not work
well, a trouble may occur. In group work, of course, all the members discuss together,
come out with new ideas, change certain things, but if one does not comply with his/ her
role, the work will be paralized. Also, roles are changed within the group every time when
a new task is assigned. This is what Kagan (1994) called “interdependency”. “The success


15

of every team member depends on the success of each member (if one fails, all do), then a
very strong form of positive interdependency is created and team members are very
motivated to make sure each student does well” (p.7). The second and the third aspects are
very related. Self initiated language refers to students using what they have known and
learnt to communicate in the classroom. In order to do this, the groups have to be small, as
Brown (2001) previously suggests six students or fewer. In a very big group, shy or
passive students tend to fall in silence and let the most talkative ones do the talking. Nunan
(1999) also points out that one of the classroom variables that have had a marked effect on
student participation in oral activities has been group size. Students who remain silent in
groups of ten or more will contribute actively to discussions when group size is reduced
into five or three (p.157).
2.1.2. Group work and its benefits from different points of view
For decades, group discussion as a teaching tool has drawn substantial attention from
researchers. Studies of how language is learnt in groups stemmed from different
perspectives. Group work has been investigated from the psycho-linguistic theoretical
perspective (e.g. Gass and Varonis, 1994; Loschky, 1994; Ellis et al, 1994), with researchers
focusing on the kind of negotiations that group work encourages. Research guided by sociocultural theories of learning (e.g. Donato, 1994; Storch, 2001, 2002) has focused on how
language knowledge is co-instructed in group or pair interactions. However, regardless of the
theoretical perspective adopted, it has been widely agreed that group discussion is a
worthwhile and beneficial activity in the classroom, and therefore should be encouraged. In

addition to theoretical arguments, pedagogical arguments for the practice of group work in
the classroom can be found in the work of Long and Porter (1985).
2.1.2.1. From the psycho - linguistic point of view
Researchers (Long, 1985; Gass and Varonis, 1994; Loschky, 1994; Swain and Lapin,
1995; Fuente, 2002) have shed more light on the negotiation of meaning and oral L2
development from psycho-linguistic perspective. The negotiation of meaning refers to the
conversational modifications and adjustments between participants when they encounter a
breakdown in communicative interactions. Long (1985) argues that it is not input nor
interaction that is important to the L2, but input that occurs in the interaction where


16

meaning is negotiated through interactional modifications. Following the argument of
Long, investigations of non-native speaker/non-native speaker (NNS/NNS) interactions
have received attention in recent years (Foster, 1998; Lynch & Maclean, 2000). From the
research findings of NNS/NNS interactions, the use of tasks and group work has been
found to provide the learners with more opportunities to produce the target language and to
modify interactions, and to expose the learners to more comprehensible input, compared to
a teacher-fronted language lesson (Gass,1997; Mackey,1999). Fuente (2002) investigated
the effects of negotiated interactions (modifications and adjustments that happen in
communicative interactions between native and non-native speakers (NS/ NNS) and also
between NNS/NNS) of Spanish and found that negotiated interactions positively influence
L2 vocabulary comprehension. The negotiation process was believed to facilitate learners’
productive acquisition of basic meaning of L2 vocabulary. The findings support
suggestions by Ellis et al (1994) and Swain and Lapkin (1995) concerning the benefits of
negotiation: negotiation makes it easier for L2 learners to comprehend input, which in turn
results in L2 acquisition. These researchers suggest that interaction should advantage
students to use new words if they have chances to use/ repeat the words and receive
feedback from other speakers.

2.1.2.2. From the socio-linguistic point of view
Group work has also been examined from a socio-cultural perspective. This perspective
stems from Vygotskian theory of cognitive development and learning (1978). Human
cognitive development is argued to be socially situated by means of language, a mediating
tool in interaction with other people. Knowledge/learning is therefore believed to be coconstructed in and developed through social interactions between people, and only then
internalized within an individual. Following Vygotsky’s developmental theory, Donato
(1994) explored “collective” group interaction by learners of French and their language
performance in an open-ended classroom task. During one-hour planning session, these
students had to prepare for the conclusion of a given scenario; then they were asked to
present their scenario conclusion before the class. Donato found that group work can
promote L2 learning by means of collective scaffolding. The term “scaffolding”,
originating from socio-cultural theory and L1 research, means the supportive condition
whereby a more knowledgeable participant assists another less skilled participant to


17

develop to a higher level of proficiency. Collective scaffolding is a “strategic process of
problem solving” in which at first an “expert”/experienced individual “guides, supports,
and shapes actions” of the novice/less able individual. The novice then can internalize the
processes and be able to perform him/herself even when support is no longer available
(Donato, 1994: 37). Donato’ s (1994) findings suggested that learners, by means of
collective scaffolding, could support each other in finding the best solutions to L2
problems during collaborative interactions. Other researchers (e.g. Ohta, 2001) also found
evidence of collective scaffolding in group work among L2 Japanese learners.
Furthermore, Donato (1994) found that such collective scaffolding may facilitate L2
individual’s linguistic development. Students who had engaged in the previous
“collaborative planning”/scaffolding processes were reported to be able to use a relatively
high percentage of scaffolded items (24 out of 32 scaffolded cases) in subsequent
independent performance when supporting conditions were no longer available. The

findings provided convincing evidence to support the role of social interaction in
individual’ linguistic development. This is similar to findings reported by Ohta (2001).
Scaffolding during learners’ interactions was believed to build “bridges to proficiency” and
support second language development.
In line with Donato’s study, Storch’s (2002) longitudinal classroom-based study in an
adult ESL class also found that students could scaffold each other when interacting in
pairs. However, Storch found that such scaffolding occurred more frequently in certain
patterns of pair interactions (collaborative and expert/novice). There was also evidence of a
transfer of language items co-constructed in these patterns of pair work to the subsequent
individual performance. The researcher referred to Vygotskian theory to interpret such
findings. That is, interactions in collaborative and expert/novice patterns helped coconstruct language items. These items were then internalized by individual members of the
pairs, and re-produced in subsequent performance. The researcher also posited that patterns
of pair/group work might relate to language learning, and therefore the nature of pair/group
work could not be neglected when studying learners’ interactions. This empirical evidence
may therefore have important pedagogical implications for L2 learning in ESL contexts.


18

2.1.2.3. From the pedagogical point of view
For the past several decades, the pedagogical arguments for the practice of group
activities in second language learning have been mainly about the relationships between
group work and learner’s interlanguage improvement. Several arguments concerning the
advantages of conducting group work in the language classroom were proposed by Long &
Porter (1985). Firstly, they argued that group work created more opportunities for learners
to practice the second language (L2) in the classroom. Secondly, that actively engaging in
group work appeared to help students improve their oral language quality because students
have wider access to a range of language functions (rhetorical, pedagogic, and
interpersonal). Long and Porter also suggested that group activities could also minimize
the differences between learners (aptitude, personality, interests, cognitive styles, first

language, learning experience, cultural-background); reduce stress among students and
promote a supportive environment in the classroom. Group discussion was also considered
a means of bringing about a safe and friendly environment for students to share ideas
together, maximizing timid students’ participation, creating chances of helping each other
in the group, lessening burdens for teachers, and subsequently, developing students’ oral
communication skills. Pringle and Freedman (1990) suggested that small group work has
potentially cognitive and social benefits in the long run (e.g. better reasoning strategies,
improved collaborative skills, better critical thinking).
2.2. Task- based planning and task performance
2.2.1. Definition of a task and a frame work of task-based instruction
A task is variously defined by many researchers: Prabhu (1987), Nunan (1989),
Willis (1996), Skehan (1998), and their definitions for tasks are presented in the
chronological order as follows.
Prabhu (1987) defines a task as "an activity which required learners to arrive at an
outcome from given information through some process of thought, and which allowed
teachers to control and regulate that process"(p.24). Beside Prabhu, Nunan (1989) uses the
word ‘task’ instead of ‘activity’. He defines a task as “a piece of classroom work which
involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target


19

language while their attention is principally focused on meaning rather than form" (p.10).
He suggests that in all definitions of tasks, one can see communicative language use where
the learner focuses on meaning instead of linguistic structure.
Willis (1996a) defines a task as “a goal-oriented activity in which learners use
language to achieve a real outcome.” (p.53). He continues, “tasks are always activities
where the target language is used by the learners for a communicative purpose” (Willis,
1996b, p.23). However, Skehan’s (1998, p.268) concept of task is seen to capture the
essentials of a task. He describes a task as an activity in which



meaning is primary



there is a goal which needs to be worked towards



the activity is outcome-evaluated (the task is assessed in terms of outcome)



there is a real-world relationship

Skehan (1996a, 1996b) agrees that there are three goals for task-based approaches
which are fluency, complexity/restructuring and accuracy. Skehan (1996b) emphasizes that
it is necessary to pay attention to the balance of the three goals, because too much attention
on one goal can be easily leading to the ignorance of the others. They suggest that teachers
should arrange situations in which a balance is made between “syntactic and lexical modes
of communication” on one hand, while maintaining that balance between “conservative
and ambitious syntactic use” on the other hand (p. 23).
Willis (1996) divides task into three stages: Pre-task, Task Cycle and Language Focus.
1. Pre-task: introduces the class to the topic and the task activating topic-related
words and phrases.
2. Task Cycle: offers learners the chance to use whatever language they have already
known in order to carry out the task and then to improve their language under the teacher’s
guidance while planning their reports on the task. Task Cycle offers learners a holistic
experience of language in use. There are three components of a Task Cycle:

20



Task: Learners use whatever language they can master, working

simultaneously, in pairs or small groups to achieve goals of the task.


Planning: comes after the task and before the report, forming the

central part of the cycle. The teacher's role here is that of a language adviser. Learners plan
their reports effectively and maximize their learning opportunities.


Report: is the natural condition of the Task Cycle. In this stage

learners tell the class about their findings. So the report stage gives students a natural stimulus
to upgrade and improve their language. It presents a very real linguistic challenge to
communicate clearly and accurately in language appropriate to the circumstances.
3. Language Focus: allows a closer study of some of the specific features naturally
occurring in the language used during the Task Cycle. Learners examine the language forms
in the text and look in detail at the use and the meaning of lexical items they have noticed
(Willis, 1986, p.75). Language focus has two components:


Analysis: Analysis activities draw attention to the surface forms,

realizing the meanings learners have already become familiar with during the task cycle and
so help them to systematize their knowledge and broaden their understanding. Instead of the
teacher presenting language to learners as new analysis activities, learners reflect on the
language already experienced.


Practice: Practise activities are based on features of language that

have already occurred in previous texts and transcripts or in features that have just been
studied in analysis activities.
On looking back at these definitions, it is said that using tasks in teaching is a popular
method and using a variety of tasks in class gives teachers and learners positive results.
2.2.2. Classification of task-based planning
In the literature on task-based planning, two principal types of task planning are
distinguished based on the criterion of when the planning happens (Ellis, 2005). They are
pre-task planning (before task performance) and within/online planning (during task
performance). Pre-task planning is further categorized into rehearsal (learners repeat
exactly what they planned) and strategic planning (learners prepare what and how to