Việc áp dụng phương pháp dạy học theo nhiệm vụ vào bộ môn nói tiếng anh cho sinh viên năm nhất CLC đh ngoại ngữ ĐHQG hà nội

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION

GRADUATION PAPER

THE APPLICATION OF TASK-BASED APPROACH
TO ENGLISH SPEAKING ACTIVITIES FOR FIRSTYEAR FAST-TRACK STUDENTS BY THE
TEACHERS OF ENGLISH IN FELTE, ULIS, VNU

Supervisor: Ms. Phạm Thị Thanh Thủy(M.Ed)
Student: Lê Thị Hồng Nhung
Course: QH2012

HÀ NỘI - 2016


ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ
KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH

KHÓA LUẬN TỐT NGHIỆP

Việc áp dụng phương pháp dạy học theo nhiệm vụ vào bộ
mơn nói Tiếng Anh cho sinh viên năm nhất CLC ĐH
Ngoại Ngữ, ĐHQG Hà Nội

Giáo viên hướng dẫn: Thạc sĩ Phạm Thị Thanh Thủy
Sinh viên: Lê Thị Hồng Nhung
Khóa: QH2012

HÀ NỘI - 2016


ACCEPTANCE PAGE
I hereby state that I: Lê Thị Hồng Nhung (QH2012.F.1.E2), being a candidate for
the degree of Bachelor of Arts (TEFL) accept the requirements of the University
relating to the retention and use of Bachelor‟s Graduation Paper deposited in the
library.
In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper deposited in the
library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in accordance
with the normal conditions established by the librarian for the care, loan or
reproduction of the paper.
Signature

Date


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, it is my honor to be supervised by Ms. Phạm Thị Thanh
Thủy, to whom I would like to express my deepest gratitude. Without her dedicated
guide and support, this paper could not be accomplished.
Secondly, the researcher would like to send sincere thanks to the teachers-incharge in Faculty of English Language Teacher Education, Vietnam National
University (FELTE, ULIS, VNU) who agreed to help me with the research and all
the first-year fast-track students majoring in English Language Teacher Education in
FELTE, ULIS, VNU. Without their help and determination in the procedure of
collecting data, the researcher could not finish this paper, either.
Last but not least, I am extremely grateful to my family and friends who
always stayed by my side and gave me strength to overcome any difficulties during
the time of writing this paper.

i


ABSTRACT
Communicative Language Teaching approaches (CLT) have become more
and more popular in recent years since the ultimate goal of language learning is to
be able to effectively communicate in that language. Task-based approach is widely
known as one of the approaches influenced by CLT and has been applied in
teaching both receptive and productive skills. Due to the fact that there has been
little research in this field for English major students at tertiary level, this paper was
conducted to investigate the application of task-based approach for fast-track
freshmen in University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National
University. It is expected to offer useful information for pedagogical tasks for
English teachers in general. Qualitative research design was applied to address the
two research questions relating to the reasons of using task-based approach and its
application. The teachers from first-year fast-track classes majoring in English
Language Teacher Education were chosen to join the study. Document observations,
class observations and the interviews with teachers were used as data collection
instruments; content analysis was the data analysis method. The findings of the
study showed a number of benefits that task-based approach could bring to students
and how task-based approach was strictly applied in Forum activity as well as how
it influenced Functional Language lesson. It is recommended that the teacher should
use task-based approach for a maximum of 10 students to ensure the quality of this
learning task. Additionally, the teacher should equip themselves with related
knowledge when facilitating authentic tasks and also help students develop
supplementary skills in other activities so as to accomplish the task.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................... i
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES AND ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................... vi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1
1.1. Statement of the problem ................................................................................. 1
1.2. Aims of the study and research questions ........................................................ 2
1. 3. Significance of the study ................................................................................. 3
1.4. Scope of the study ............................................................................................ 3
1.5. Methods of the study ........................................................................................ 3
1.5.1. Data collection methods ............................................................................ 3
1.5.2. Data analysis methods .............................................................................. 4
1.6. Overview of the study ...................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................... 6
2.1. Historical background of task-based approach ................................................ 6
2.2. Task-based approach in English language teaching ........................................ 7
2.2.1 Definition of task and task-based approach .............................................. 7
2.2.2. Types of task .............................................................................................. 9
2.2.3. A framework for task-based approach .................................................... 14
2.3. Teaching English speaking ............................................................................ 17
2.3.1. Definition of speaking ............................................................................. 17
2.3.2. Principles for teaching speaking............................................................. 18
iii


2.4. Related studies ................................................................................................ 20
2.5. Chapter conclusion ......................................................................................... 21
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................ 22
3.1. Research design .............................................................................................. 22

3.2. Participants ..................................................................................................... 22
3.3. Data collection instruments: .......................................................................... 23
3.3.1. The observation of documents................................................................. 23
3.3.2. Class observation .................................................................................... 24
3.3.3. Semi-structured interviews with teachers ............................................... 24
3.4. Data collection procedure .............................................................................. 25
3.5. Data analysis procedure ................................................................................. 26
3.6. Chapter conclusion ......................................................................................... 26
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ...................................................... 27
4.1. Research question 1: Why do the FELTE-ULIS teachers teaching first-year
fast-track students choose to apply task-based approach to their English speaking
lessons as stated in the course guide of the subject? ............................................ 27
4.2. Research question 2: How do the FELTE-ULIS teachers apply task-based
approach to English speaking lessons as claimed by themselves and seen by the
researcher? ........................................................................................................... 29
4.2.1. Forum ...................................................................................................... 30
4.2.2. Functional Language Speaking Lesson .................................................. 35
4.3. Chapter conclusion ......................................................................................... 39
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 40
5.1. Summary of findings ...................................................................................... 40
iv


5.2. Implication of the study ................................................................................. 40
5.3. Limitations of the study ................................................................................. 41
5.4. Suggestions for further study ......................................................................... 41
LIST OF REFERENCE ............................................................................................ 42
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... 46
Appendix 1: OP – FORUM ACTIVITY............................................................... 46
Appendix 2: OP – FUNCTION LANGUAGE LEARNING ................................ 47

Appendix 3: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR TEACHERS .............................. 48
Appendix 4: OP – FORUM ACTIVITY............................................................... 49
Appendix 5: OP – FORUM ACTIVITY............................................................... 52
Appendix 6: OP – FUNCTION LANGUAGE LEARNING ................................ 54
Appendix 7: OP – FUNCTION LANGUAGE LEARNING ................................ 56
Appendix 8: INTERVIEW SCRIPT - TEACHER A ........................................... 58
Appendix 9: INTERVIEW SCRIPT - TEACHER B ........................................... 61
Appendix 10: FUNCTION: BEING TACTFUL .................................................. 65
Appendix 11: FUNCTION: EXPLAINING AND PARAPHRASING ................ 68

v


LIST OF TABLES AND ABBREVIATIONS

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Types of task proposed by Nunan (1999, as cited in Nunan, 2004, p.61) .. 13
Table 2: A framework for designing a task-based lesson (Ellis, 2006) .................... 15
Table 3: A framework for designing a task-based lesson (Willis, 1996).................. 17
Table 4: Principles for teaching speaking ................................................................. 20
Table 5: The number of participants ......................................................................... 23
Table 6: Forum procedure ......................................................................................... 32

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CLT

Communicative Language Teaching

L1

First language

OP

Observation Protocol

FELTE

Faculty of English Language Teacher Education

ULIS

University of Languages and International Studies

VNU

Vietnam National University

vi


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
This initial chapter includes statement of the problem, the aims, the significance as
well as the scope of the study. Besides, the research questions are clearly indicated
as the backbone of the study.
1.1. Statement of the problem
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is predicated on the theory that
the ultimate goal of language learning is communication. This novel concept, which
appeared in the last half of the 20th century, has almost closed the door on traditional
teaching approaches in which vocabulary and rule clarification dominate language

teaching and learning as exemplified by the grammar-translation method. However,
Richards and Rodgers (2001, as cited in Rozati, 2014) state that CLT is not regarded
as a method that enables teachers to design content, syllabus and teaching routines.
Rather, CLT is composed of a wide range of methods or approaches that have a
shared goal of developing communication abilities. Among the applied approaches,
Willis (1996, as cited in ZHAO, 2011) affirms that task-based approach is highly
valued as it creates a chance of integrating “the best insights from communicative
language teaching with an organized focus on language form”, which helps avoid
the imbalance between language meaning and form in CLT.
The first decade of the 21st century witnessed a huge change in at least the
perception of learning languages in Vietnam. It has been all over the news that
many university students with 12 years of English learning experience cannot
generate a small casual talk with foreigners. The course of action towards this
alarming issue is the nation-wide transition from traditional approaches to CLT in
general and task-based approach in particular at all education levels. According to
the documents of Ministry of Education and Training of Vietnam (2006),
“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.” (as

1


cited in Barnard and Nguyen, 2010). At tertiary level, almost all EFL teachers are
required to apply CLT or Task-based approach in their English classes (Le, 2014).
A number of researches related to task-based approach can be found in Vietnam.
These include the studies by Le (2014), Nguyen (2014), Barnard, R. & Viet, N.G.
(2010), Elke, Hoang, Kris and Lies (2015). However, the focal research area is more
of secondary education or non-English major students at university and the research
content targets at 4 English skills as a whole or writing skill alone. This research
aims to investigate how the FELTE-ULIS teachers apply task-based approach to

English speaking activities for first-year fast-track students majoring in English
Language Teacher Education.
1.2. Aims of the study and research questions
The research is conducted to investigate the application of task-based
approach for fast-track freshmen in ULIS, VNU. Specifically, the focus of this
research is on the reasons why the FELTE-ULIS teachers choose task-based
approach and how they apply it into teaching. The above-mentioned questions are
addressed by both the FELTE-ULIS teachers and the researcher in order to
guarantee the objectivity of the research. Then the study is expected to offer several
pedagogical implications for teachers to enhance the benefits of using task-based
approach and for students to maximize their learning in task-based activities.
This research is on “The application of task-based approach to English speaking
activities for first-year fast-track students by the teachers of English in FELTE,
ULIS, VNU”. The two following questions briefly summarize the objectives of the
study:
1. Why do the FELTE-ULIS teachers teaching first-year fast-track students choose
to apply task-based approach to their English speaking lessons as stated in the
course guide of the subject?

2


2. How do the FELTE-ULIS teachers apply task-based approach to English
speaking lessons as claimed by themselves and seen by the researcher?
1. 3. Significance of the study
The result of this research is expected to benefit both FELTE-ULIS teachers/
students as regards teaching/ learning methods and anyone who is interested in this
topic. The research plays a role as one of the initial studies on the application of
task-based approach to speaking activities separately and for English-major students
at tertiary level in Vietnam. To be more specific, the FELTE-ULIS teachers may be

able to reflect on their task-based teaching, using the analysis of the study as well as
different perspectives of their colleagues. As a result, improvements can be made to
deploy the application of task-based approach.
1.4. Scope of the study
In the first place, as stated in the previous part, task-based approach can be applied
in either receptive or productive skills. However, the research merely aims to
address the application of task-based approach in speaking lessons and it is the fact
that speaking is widely known as one of the most challenging language skills to
freshmen. In the second place, research participants are the teachers who are in
charge of first-year fast-track students majoring in English Language Teacher
Education from University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam
National University. The result of this study may be used as reference to some
similar cases such as English language specialized universities in Hanoi.
1.5. Methods of the study
1.5.1. Data collection methods
In this research, the qualitative approach is applied as it can provide details about
human behavior, emotion, and personality characteristics, which can help
researchers gather detailed information on the lessons (Madrigal and McClain,
2012). As mentioned in the research design, this research demands to have a
3


thorough understanding of teachers‟ application of task-based approach; therefore,
this approach effectively serves the purpose of both exploring and explaining new
information. The main data collection instruments are the observation of documents,
class observation and semi-structured interviews with teachers. If the researcher
considers the observation of documents as a theoretical basis and class observation
as a “field trip”, semi-structured interviews help bridge the gap between the
assumed knowledge (gained from document and class observation) and the actual
knowledge (gained from direct interaction with teachers/ designers).

1.5.2. Data analysis methods
Firstly, the received data is classified into two groups referring to two research
questions. The first question “why do the FELTE-ULIS teachers teaching first-year
fast-track students choose to apply task-based approach to their English speaking
lessons as stated in the course guide of the subject?” can be answered by document
observation and the interviews. The second question is addressed by document
observation, class observation and interviews.
Secondly, the data is processed by the qualitative data analysis which is a process of
interpreting any form of content that the researcher has collected. According to
Learning Qualitative Data Analysis on the Web (n.d.), to analyze the qualitative
data, there are few steps that the researcher is compelled to do. The first step is to
prepare the data by clearly and fully presenting the collected information on one
side of the paper only. The second step is to develop coding categories. To be able
to categorize the collected information, the researcher must comprehend or make
sense of all the material. After the information has been coded, the researcher can
start summarizing or using short quotes to make findings.

4


1.6. Overview of the study
The basic structure of the study
 Chapter 1: Introduction
 Chapter 2: Literature review
-Historical background of task-based approach
-Task-based approach in English language teaching
-Teaching English speaking
 Chapter 3: Methodology
-Participants
-Data instruments

-Procedure of data collection
 Chapter 4: Results and discussion
 Chapter 5: Conclusion

5


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter discusses the literature of the study revolving around the three key
concepts: “task”, “task-based approach” and “speaking”.
2.1. Historical background of task-based approach
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is predicated on the theory that the
ultimate goal of language learning is communication. This novel concept, which
appeared in the last half of the 20th century, has almost closed the door on traditional
teaching approaches in which vocabulary and rule clarification dominate language
teaching and learning as exemplified by the grammar-translation method. However,
Richards and Rodgers (2001, as cited in Rozati, 2014) have stated that CLT is not
regarded as a method that enables teachers to design content, syllabus and teaching
routines. Rather, CLT is composed of a wide range of methods or approaches that
have a shared goal of developing communication abilities. At the early stage of
CLT, form-based approaches or the so-called weak form of CLT designed to focus
on language features instead of information exchange were broadly used (Manta,
2013). For example, the PPP cycle (Presentation-Practice-Production) which had
already been used in traditional methods was modified to suit the characteristics of
CLT. First, the teacher presents new language items in a specific context and check
students‟ comprehension. The teacher then requires students to practice what have
just learnt in a controlled context such as gap-filling or substitution exercises.
Finally, students are given a communication task (for instance: role-playing, writing
a full essay or making presentations) in which the target language should be used. In
fact, the PPP approach not only encourages students to follow the learning principle

“Practice makes perfect” but also increases the teacher‟s control of the lesson.
However, a certain number of negative comments on this approach have been found
in various researches as follows:
This approach is ineffective in achieving what it is intended to do… [We] can
do until we are blue in the face, but it doesn‟t necessarily result in what PPP
6


was designed to do. And yet there is, still, within language teaching, a
commitment to trying to control not only input but actually what is learned.
(Ellis, 1993, as cited in Atkins, 2000)
The underlying theory for a PPP approach has now been discredited. The
belief that a precise focus on a particular form leads to learning and
automization (that learners will learn what is taught in the order in which it is
taught) no longer carries much credibility in linguistics or psychology.
(Skehan, 1996, as cited in Palmer, 2004)
Learners who do well in the practice phase fail to transfer this ability to the
production phase, and –even if they do successfully manage the production
phase– they often fail to transfer this ability outside the classroom.
(Kostoulas, 2012, as cited in Manta, 2013)
The problems of form-based approaches have shifted the attention away from
grammatical accuracy. As a result, meaning-based approaches as a strong form of
CLT in which learners themselves build a language system by using the language
have become popular (Manta, 2013). Among the approaches influenced by CLT in
general and meaning-based approach in particular, Willis (1996, as cited in ZHAO,
2011) has affirmed that task-based approach is highly valued as it creates a chance
of integrating “the best insights from communicative language teaching with an
organized focus on language form”, which helps avoid the imbalance between
language meaning and form in CLT.
2.2. Task-based approach in English language teaching

2.2.1 Definition of task and task-based approach
To gain an understanding of task-based approach, we should know how
„task‟ is interpreted in this case. As reflected in numerous researches, the definition
of task has been viewed in different angles. Richard (1986) and Skehan (1996a)
have met each other at the point that „task‟ is an activity which requires learners to
either process or produce language and aims at the completion of the task (as cited
in Ellis, 2003). Hence, according to Richard (1986), “drawing a map while listening
7


to a tape, listening to an instruction and performing a command” may be regarded as
examples of tasks. Similarly, Prabhu (1987, as cited in Ellis, 2003) has defined
„task‟ as an “outcome” that learners are expected to achieve through “the process of
thought”. Besides, he highlighted the role of teachers as a regulator when
implementing tasks.
According to Nunan (2004), depending on where the target language is used, there
are two sorts of task including real-world and pedagogical tasks. The former, as its
name suggests, pertains to uses of the target language in everyday life while the
latter carries the characteristics of classroom setting. Nunan (2004) has expressed
the idea that learners are compelled to employ their grammatical knowledge to
achieve the task outcome that is to convey meaning when doing a pedagogical task.
What‟s more, from the viewpoint of Willis and Willis (2001, as cited in Nunan,
2004), what makes tasks distinct from grammatical exercises is that students are not
provided “a range of language structures” or forms in order to finish the task.
Ellis (2003) has also responded to the question of „task‟ definition. He wrote:
A task is a workplan that requires learners to process language pragmatically
in order to achieve an outcome that can be evaluated in terms of whether the
correct or appropriate propositional content has been conveyed. To this end,
it requires them to give primary attention to meaning and to make use of their
own linguistic resources, although the design of the task may predispose

them to choose particular forms. A task is intended to result in language use
that bears a resemblance, direct or indirect, to the way language is used in the
real world. Like other language activities, a task can engage productive or
receptive, and oral or written skills and also various cognitive processes.
This definition fully indicates the critical features of „task‟ that involve task
workplan, task outcome/purpose, cognitive process, task authenticity, and language
skill (Ellis, 2003). Specifically, the task designer considers task as a workplan – an
activity that creates a chance for learners to convey meaning (task purpose) through
language processing (cognitive process) in a particular context originated in the realworld (task authenticity). The task designer ensures the success of the task by
8


guiding students what steps they need to take and measures the success level by the
completion of the task (task outcome). Besides, Ellis has also emphasized the
deployment of learners‟ “own linguistic resources” or “particular forms” (cognitive
process) to fulfill the task which can be either productive or receptive (language
skill). This demonstrates that Ellis (2003) shares his view towards the definition of
„task‟ with a number of researchers such as Nunan (2004), Prabhu (1987), Richards
(1986), Skehan (1996), Willis and Willis (2001).
This research follows the „task‟ definition of Ellis (2003) because of its clarity and
comprehensiveness.
Basing on the historical background of task-based approach and the „task‟
definition, the author of the research has summarized the picture of task-based
approach in the following key points:
1. A meaning-based approach – a strong form of CLT (Task purpose: to convey
meaning)
2. Learning through the completion of pedagogical tasks influenced by realworld tasks (Task outcome: the completion of tasks)
3. Implicitly required grammatical knowledge (to fulfill the task)
2.2.2. Types of task
As mentioned in the previous part, Nunan (2004) has distinguished the two

types of task comprising pedagogical and real-world tasks regarding the place of
using tasks. Concerning the focus on form, Nunan (2004) has also introduced
focused and unfocused tasks. A focused task is what requires learners to use a
particular structure so as to fulfill the task whereas an unfocused task allows for free
use of learners‟ own linguistic resources.
According to Willis (1996, as cited in Kasap, 2005), six types of task involve listing,
sorting and ordering, comparing, problem-solving, sharing personal experiences,
and creative tasks. Listing tasks ask people to produce a list following specific
9


criteria – typical flowers in London, street food in Vietnam or music artists in Japan.
Ordering and sorting tasks have four different kinds of “processes”: ranking,
sequencing, grouping or classifying. Comparing tasks require learners to relate
items in terms of similarities and differences. Problem-solving tasks challenge
learners‟ reasoning capacities to address given problems. Sharing personal
experience tasks, as the/their names suggest, provide a chance for students to share
personal experiences with each other. Last but not least, creative tasks allow
students to generate their own creative products such as short stories, videos,
magazines and so on. Comparing this typology to that of the Bangalore project
proposed by Prabhu (1987, as cited in Nunan, 2004), some tasks can be grouped
under a broader term. In this project, three principal tasks are information gap,
opinion gap and reasoning gap. Information –gap activity which is “a transfer of
given information from one person to another” may include listing or comparing
tasks. Reasoning-gap activity which requires learner to make inferences from given
information can possibly be problem-solving tasks or ordering and sorting tasks.
Opinion-gap activity which encourages learners to “articulate a personal preference,
feeling or attitude”, (p. 57) in a particular context may be sharing personal
experience tasks.
The above-mentioned typologies may be somewhat specific as in Willis‟s (1996) or

be general as in Nunan‟s (2004) or Prabhu‟s (1987) and they are all based on an
analysis of communicative language use (Nunan, 1004). Viewing the types of task
from a different angle, Nunan (1999, as cited in Nunan, 2004) has classified tasks
according to the strategies underpinning them.
Strategy

Task

Definition

COGNITIVE

Classifying

Putting things that are similar together in
groups
Example: Study a list of names and
10


classify them into male and female
Predicting what is to come in the learning

Predicting

process
Example: Look at the unit title and
objectives and predict what will be
learned
Inducing

Looking for patterns and regularities
Example: Study a conversation and
discover the rule for forming the simple
past tense
Writing down the important information

Taking notes

in a text in your own words
Concept mapping

Showing the main ideas in a text in the
form of a map
Using what you know to learn something

Inferencing

new
Distinguishing between the main idea and

Discriminating

supporting information
Using information from a text to label a

Diagramming

diagram
INTERPERSONAL

Sharing ideas and learning with other

Co-operating

students
Example: Work in small groups to read a

11


text and complete a table
Pretending to be somebody else and

Role playing

using the language for the situation you
are in
Example: You are a reporter. Use the
information from the reading to interview
the writer.
LINGUISTIC

Conversational

Using expressions to start conversations

patterns

and keep them going

Example: Match formulaic expressions to
situations
Doing controlled exercises to improve

Practicing

knowledge and skills
Example: Listen to a conversation, and
practice it with a partner
Using the surrounding context to guess

Using context

the meaning of an unknown word,
phrase, or concept
Picking out and presenting the major

Summarizing

points in a text in summary form
Selective listening/ Listening/ reading for key information
reading

without trying to understand every word
Example: Listen to a conversation and

12


identify the number of speakers.

Reading or listening to get a general idea

Skimming

of a text
Example: Decide if a text is a newspaper
article, a letter or an advertisement
AFFECTIVE

Learners share their own opinions,

Personalizing

feelings, and ideas about a subject
Example: Read a letter from a friend in
need and give advice
Thinking about how well you did on a

Self-evaluating

learning task, and rating yourself on a
scale

CREATIVE

Reflecting

Thinking about ways you learn best

Brainstorming

Thinking of as many new words and
ideas as one can
Example: Work in a group and think of
as many occupations as you can

Table 1: Types of task proposed by Nunan (1999, as cited in Nunan, 2004, p.61)
This typology not merely shows what task students are particularly doing but also
what skill they are honing. Besides, both productive and receptive tasks are
mentioned in each strategy whereas the other typologies are more of productive
tasks. Hence, when looking at a task-based lesson as a whole, this strategy-based
typology is preferable. The research will apply the strategy-based method of

13


classifying tasks for detailed analysis and may only refer to other typologies if
necessary.
2.2.3. A framework for task-based approach
Ellis (2006) proposed a clear framework for a task-based lesson including
three phases: pre-task, during-task and post-task and also stated that this framework
provided various options with in-depth analysis for teacher to make appropriate
educational decisions.
Phase

Detailed description

Pre-task

+) Purpose: To „frame‟ the task students are going to perform ->

To ensure students do the task “in the ways that will promote
acquisition.”
+) Strategies:
 Emphasis on the general cognitive demand of the task
 Performing a similar task (break down a step into smaller
steps with teacher‟s guidance)
 Provide a model (students observe and study the features
of the required task)
 Idea-focused strategic planning (idea brainstorming
activities)
 Emphasis on linguistic factors
 Non-task

preparation

activities

(vocabulary-focused

activities)
 Language-focused strategic planning (grammar-focused
activities)
During task

+) Task performance options
 Teacher‟s decision on whether to set a strict time limit
14


for students to complete a task

 Teacher‟s decision on whether to allow students to access
to the input data while they perform a task
 Teacher‟s decision on whether to add surprise elements
into the task
+) Process options
 Though task-based pedagogy requires learners to treat
language as a tool and function as language users,
Teacher uses explicit or implicit techniques to achieve
the focus on form when communication problems arise.
=> Teacher‟s role: both instructor and interlocutor
 Effective

scaffolding

of

participants‟

effort

to

communicate in L2
 The possible use of L1 in establishing goals for the task
 Collaborative working -> Allow students to take
linguistic

risks

(little

pressure

from

teacher‟s

supervision)
Post-task

Three major pedagogic goals:
 Repeat performance (ask students to repeat a task)
 Reflect on the task (self-evaluation or task evaluation,
written or oral)
 Focus on forms (review of learner errors, consciousnessraising tasks, production practice activities, noticing
activities)

Table 2: A framework for designing a task-based lesson (Ellis, 2006)
One of the biggest concerns suggested in the framework above is whether to include
form-focused activities/ instructions in the task. Ellis (2006) raised the issue of
“detracting” the „taskness‟ of the task which denotes the primary focus of meaning
15


in the task. However, he has demonstrated that the focus on form is beneficial to
“the acquisitional value of the task” (p. 92)
From the perspective of Willis (1996, as cited in Richards, 2006), another view of
designing a task-based lesson is presented as follows:
-Pre-task:
+) Teacher introduces the topic of the task or new words/ phrases (not new

structures) to students
+) Teacher gives students a chance to observe a model task.
-Task cycle:
Task: Students do the task in pairs or groups with their own linguistic resources
NB: Teacher does not correct students‟ errors in forms.
Planning: Students plan in their groups to prepare for the next step: reporting to the
whole class “how they did the task and what the outcome was” in either oral or
written form. Teacher goes around the class and helps students correct their
language individually or in small groups. The report is remarked regarding its
clarity, organization and accuracy.
NB: If the report is in written form, it is recommended that students should make
full use of peer feedback and use of dictionaries.
Report: Teacher asks some groups or pairs to report fully to the whole class. Other
students may take notes.
NB: Teacher gives comments on the content of the report but avoids “OVERT
PUBLIC CORRECTION”.
-Language focus
16