UNIVERSITY TEACHER’S CONCEPTUALIZATION OF TASK-BASED TEACHING: A CASE study IN taybac university

i
DECLARATION

I, Nguyen Viet Hung, hereby state that this thesis is the result of my own research
and the substance of the thesis has not, wholly or in part, been submitted for any degree to
any other universities or institutions.
Signature: .....................................
Time: March, 2009.
ii
ABSTRACT
In today’s classrooms, language teaching method is undergoing tremendous
transformations towards the integration of different methods according to the learner and
teacher as well as contextual variables. Language teaching is, therefore, a challenging job in
any country. The purpose of this qualitative case study was to examine how task-based
language teaching supports the emergence of language study, within the context of northeast
university students. More importantly, how TBU teachers know about this method and their
implementation of TBLT in order to improve their teaching quality. The task-based language
teaching provides students multiple opportunities to work for targets and to learn, both as
form and meaning. First, task-based language teaching is useful as it allows to treat learners
as individual with their own needs and interests. Second, it allows learners to take input from
authentic sources which are communicative and comprehensible data, really relevant to their
own needs and interests. Third, the participants are provided with opportunities to engage in
communicative use of the target language in a wide range of activities. Working in groups or
in individuals, students fulfill tasks in which they visually represent their personal
interpretations of the world around. They focus deliberately on various language forms,
skills and strategies in order to support the process of language acquisition. As teachers, they
should conceptualize, research, of this method so as to fully exploit the potential of the
available teaching materials. The task-based language teaching can create a learning
environment in which students interact with each other as they made sense of and access the
available information for communication. In particular, naturally unconscious learning
occurs through threaded discussions and cooperation when they accomplish tasks. Educators

must be responsive to today’s learners. This study illuminates the expanded possibilities for
integrating tasks within the context of learning and teaching. Findings of the study suggest
task integration supports the emergence of language learning and teaching.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My sincere appreciation is extended to all teachers at College of Foreign Language,
Vietnam National University, Hanoi, especially who taught me methodological subjects and
research methods, such as Mr. Le Hung Tien, Mr. Le Van Canh, and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thuy
Minh. Those by their interesting lessons and precious suggestions for teaching and
researching engaged me in this field.
My gracefulness is also expanded to all university teachers of TBU for both their
participations into my interviews and their opening classroom doors and inviting me to stay
for my observations and their kind offer of teaching plans.
My deepest thanks go to my supervisor, Mr. Le Van Canh, M.A., for always bringing
out the best in me. Without his wisdom, high expectations, and his unwavering support for
materials, continued guidance, thorough suggestions and corrections, my thesis could not be
completed.
I credit my family in Thai Nguyen for providing me the courage to embark on this
journey and for teaching me to never, ever give up.
iv
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to the true lover of my life, Bui Thi Huong, whom I loved for
years. She with her warm and gentle heart for love was an inspiration to me, and I could
overcome all hardships. She is remembered for her character by everyone with the talent,
intelligence, and beauty. Though we could not be together because of different inevitable
reasons, my affections and thanks from the depth of my heart would go to her evermore.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION………………………………………………………………. i

ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………………… ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………………………………………………….. iii
DEDICATION ………………………………………………………………... iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………… v
LISTS OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………….. viii
LISTS OF TABLES…………………………………………………………… ix
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………. 1
1.1. Rationale……………………………………………………...…………… 1
1.1.1. State of the problem……………………………………………………… 1
1.1.2. Theoretical rationale …………………………………………………… 1
1.2. Purpose of the Study …………………………...………………………… 1
vi
1.3. Research Questions ………………………………………………………. 2
1.4. Significance of the Study ………………………………………..………. 2
1.5. Limitations of the Study …………………………………………………. 2
1.6. Scope of the study…………………………………………………………. 3
1.7. Organization of the Study ……………………………………………….. 3
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………….. 4
2.1. Definition of terminology…………………………………………...
4
2.1.1. Defining ‘task’ and task-based language teaching……………….
4
2.1.2. Task-based language teaching to learners……………………….
9
2.1.3. Tasks, Actvities and Exercises……………………………………
11
2.1.4. Developments of Task-Based Teaching…………………………
11
2.2. Theoretical Foundations……………………………………………
15

2.2.1. Theories of language………………………………………………
15
2.2.2. Theories of language learning……………………………………
16
2.2.2.1. Cognitive theory………………………………………………….
16
2.2.2.2. Constructivist Theory…………………………………….……..
17
2.2.2.3. Generative Learning Theory………………………………………..
18
2.3. The nature of Task-based Language Teaching…………………...
19
2.3.1. How is TBLT different from other teaching methods?...................
19
2.3.1.1. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)…………………………
20
2.3.1.2. Silent Way……………………………………………………………….
21
2.3.1.3. Experiential learning…………………………………………………..
22
2.3.1.4. Co-operative learning………………………………………………….
23
2.3.2. Task-based teaching versus other types of teaching instruction
models…………………………………………………………………….
24
2.3.3. Task-based Teaching Framework………………………………..
25
2.3.4. Task types…………………………………………………………..
29
2.3.5. Materials for Tasks Initiated……………………………………...

32
2.3.6. Syllabus design…………………………………………………….
33
2.3.7. Learner roles……………………………………………………….
34
2.3.8. Teacher roles…………………..………………………………….
34
2.4. The importance of understanding teachers’ interpretation of
teaching methodology……………………………………………………
35
2.5. Teachers’ interpretation of TBLT…………………………………
37
2.6. Teachers’ views of teaching methodology and their classroom
teaching…………………………………………………………………...
38
2.7. Conclusion 40
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY………………………………………….. 41
3.1. The fitness of case study to the research purpose…………………….. 41
3.2. Restatement of research questions…………………………………….. 43
3.3. Case description and context of the study……………………………….. 43
3.3.1. The setting of the study………………………………………………….. 43
3.3.2. Participants……………………………………………………………… 44
3.4. Instruments………………………………………...……………………… 46
3.4.1. Interviews
………………………………………………………………...
46
3.4.2. Observations………………………..…………………………………… 47
3.5.3. Teaching plan interpretation……………………………………………. 48
3.5. The procedure: ………………………………………..…………………. 48
vii

3.5.1.
Interviews…………………………………………………………………
48
3.5.2. Class
observation…………………………………………………………
49
3.5.3. Teaching plan interpretation……………………………………………. 50
3.6. Data analysis………………………………………………………………. 50
3.7. Conclusion ……………………….…………………….. 50
CHAPTER 4. DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS…………………………. 51
4.1.
General overview of the findin
gs………………………………………..
51
4.1.1.

Tea
chers’

conceptualization
s

of

task……………………………….
51
4.1.2. T
eacher
s’

conceptualization
s

of

task-based teaching……………. 53
4.1.3.

Tea
chers’

attitud
es

toward

task-b
ased

teaching……………………….
56
4.1.4.
Factors affecting the TBLT implementation
……………………….. 57
4.1.5. The reality of t
eacher
s’

class teaching
…………………………..

59
4.1.6. T
eacher
s’
class teaching implementation…………………………... 61
4.2. Discussions of the findings………………………...…………………….. 63
4.2.1. Congruence and incongruence between teachers’ conceptualizations
and the composite view of TBLT ………………………………………………
63
4.2.2. Congruence and incongruence between teachers’ classroom teaching
practice and teaching plans with the composite view of TBLT………………..
65
4.2.3. Consistence and inconsistence between their conceptualization with
teaching practices and teaching plans……………………………………….
66
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS, PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATONS AND
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY………………………………..
68
5.1. Summary of the major points of the study………………………..……. 68
5.1.1. Summary of the study…………………………………………………. 68
5.1.2. Conclusions…………………..…………………………………………. 68
5.1.3. Pedagogical implications…………………………..…………………… 70
5.2. Limitation of the study…………………………………………………. 70
5.3. Implications for future research ………………………………………… 71
LIST OF REFERENCES………………...…………………………………… I
APPENDICES……………………..………………………………………….. VII
Appendix A: Interview Questions………….….………………………………. VII
Appendix B: Schedule of taped Interviews …………………….…………….… VII
Appendix C: Samples of classroom observations………………………………. VIII
Appendix D: Samples of teaching plans of university teachers……………..….. XIV

viii
LISTS OF ABBREVIATIONS
TBU: Tay Bac University
TBLL: Task-Based Language Learning
TBLT: Task-Based Language Teaching
TST/ TSI: Task-Supported Teaching/ Instruction
ELT: English Language Teaching
ESL: English as Second Language
CLT: Communicative Language Teaching
PPP: presentation-practice-production
TTT: Test-Teach-Test
ESA: Engage-Study-Activate
TM: Teaching method
RQ: Research question
IQ: Interview question
ADTBLTOM: Ability to distinguish TBLT from other methods
AC AT: Ability to conceptualize the advantages of TBLT
AC DT: Ability to conceptualize the disadvantages of TBLT
ACT BLLF:
Ability to conceptualize the TBLT framework
(+): Conceptual, positive, mentioned
(-): Non-conceptual, negative, not mentioned
(=): Neutral
Att.:
Attitudes
Und.:
Understand
ings
ix
Tim.:

Time
Tb.:
Textbook
Pre.
Preparation
SLP:
Students’

language

proficiency
NSs: Number of students in class
Fac.: Facilities
Vs.: versus
Exer.: exercise/ act.: activity
LISTS OF TABLES
TABLE 1: Participants’ Profile
TABLE 2: Participants’
conceptualization
s

of

task
(Data from IQ2, IQ9)
TABLE 3: Participants’
conceptualization
s

of

task-based teaching
(Data from IQ2, IQ3, IQ 5, IQ6, IQ10, IQ11, IQ12)
TABLE 4: Participants’ attitudes towards TBLT
(Data from IQ2, IQ3, IQ4, IQ 5, IQ6, IQ8, IQ12)
TABLE 5
: Factors

impacting

on

extent

of
TBLT
impleme
ntation
(Data from IQ2, IQ3, IQ 5, IQ6, IQ7, IQ8, IQ10, IQ11, IQ12, IQ13)
TABLE 6: Participants’ class teaching practice
(Data from class observations)
TABLE 7: Participants’ orientation of teaching instruction
(Data from teaching plan)
TABLE 8: The deviations between teachers’ conceptualizations and their practice
x
1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale
1.1.1. State of the problem.
Task-based language teaching, like other approaches to language teaching, is

initiated in the west (Ellis, 2003) mainly for adult intermediate learners. It opens new
potential orientations and hopes to the EFL learners and teachers in some aspects of learning
and teaching. The application of this approach depends on a lot of factors, such as context of
teaching, environment or social variables and as the matter of fact the teacher’s
conceptualization. Despite its popularity in Vietnam, this approach remains under-
researched, especially how teachers conceptualize it according to their own understanding
and beliefs. In Tay Bac University, English language teachers have been introduced to this
approach, and they often mention the need to use this approach to the teaching of English to
the students in the university. It is quite rational because Ellis (2003) has stated that task-
based language teaching applied in universities is really a great help. However, if the success
of any language teaching method or approach depends on many factors, one of which is
teachers’ understanding and conceptualization of the intended approach, the investigation of
how teachers interpret Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) is an urgent need. This study
was intended to respond this need.
1.1.2. Theoretical rationale
Numerous studies suggest that teachers’ teaching approaches are less affected by the
reserachers’ ideas but more by their conceptualization of the approach (Borg, 2003). In fact,
there has been an emphasis on research into teachers’ understanding, interpretation or
conceptualization of, and attitudes towards, the intended language teaching approach over
the last decades. Such conceptualization and attidues of teachers are shaped by various
contextual and educational factors. This study follows the research paradigm which seeks to
uncover teachers’ psychology and cognition of TBLT in the context of Tay Bac University.
1.2. Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to investigate teachers’ conceptualization of TBLT and
their actual implementation of TBLT in their classroom. Specifically, the following
objectives were set up for the study:
2
a) to investigate university teachers’ at titudes to TBLT in their teaching context
b) to understand university teachers’ conceptualization of TBLT
c) to find out how university teachers implement TBLT in their own classroom.

1.3. Research Questions
In order to achieve the above-mentioned objectives, the following research questions
were raised:
1. What are the university teachers’ conceptualizations of, and attitudes towards,
task-based language teaching?
2. To what extent do their conceptualizations match the composite view of task-
based language teaching?
3. How do they implement task-based language teaching in their classroom?
In seeking the answers to these research questions, a qualitative case study was
designed and conducted in the context of a university in the mountaineous area of North
Vietnam.
1.4. Significance of the Study

Information obtained from this study will help teacher educators and teacher
researchers to make appropriate decisions on how to introduce TBLT in Vietnamese
contexts. Aslo, it may inform concerned people of how to help teachers to adapt TBLT to
their teaching context by first of all readjust their mindset and attitudes.
1.5. Limitations of the Study
There are several limitations identified in this study. First, the sample size is small
and limited to the context of Tay Bac University. Data collection and analysis focus on only
twelve university teachers which were purposefully selected to yield the most information
for the research questions. Although unique in their own ways, the participating teachers are
all considered highly proficient teachers and familiar with methodology as almost all of them
have just finished subjects of master course and they are doing theses. This study may help
to build knowledge and understanding of teachers’ conceptualization of a method, but so it is
unable to generalize the research results to the variety of universities. The study purpose is
3
only of the benefit of a method at a specific university, so we are not intended to produce
results which can be applied universally.
Researcher’s bias may be another limitation in this study. The researcher is an avid

proponent of this method with extensive classroom experience involving learning through
tasks. To minimize the effects of the researcher’s bias, the interviews are recorded carefully
for later data analysis, and the class teaching observations are encrypted with thorough
attention on sheets of paper, and teaching plans of teachers are interpreted carefully to get
triangulate data.
1.6. Scope of the study
What are univerity teachers’view of TBLT and how such a view of TBLT is
implemented in the classroom by TBU teachers of English? The task-based approach itself is
scattered in this scope.
1.7. Organization of the Study
This chapter introduced the study exploring potential of TBLT within the context of
Taybac University. The chapter included an overview of the issues, statement of the
problem, purpose of the study, research questions, significance of the study, limitations of
the study, definition of terms, and organization of the study. Chapter 2 provides a review of
the literature, including a theoretical framework focusing on learning and teaching theory.
Chapter 2 also provides research of issues surrounding the concepts and components of
TBLT.
Chapter 3 describes the methodology through a description of the case study
methodology and research design. An overview of a pilot study that informs the proposed
study and a description of the selected research site and its participants are also included. In
addition, the role of the researcher, the role of the teacher, and the procedures for data
collection and data analysis are discussed through rich description and visual representations.
Chapter 4 presents the results of the study. Finally, Chapter 5 summarizes the findings,
discusses implications for educational implications, and offers recommendations for further
researches.
4
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this chapter is to provide an extensive review of the literature as it
relates to the overall perspectives of task-based language learning and task-based language
teaching. First, an overview of the literature concerning the TBLT terminologies, its key

components, its principles, its features, framework for learning and teaching, and its
distinctions with other teaching methods is provided. Next, the theoretical foundations for
the birth and growth of task-based language teaching are discussed, including cognitive
theory of learning, sociocultural perspectives of constructivist theory of learning, etc. Third,
teachers’ interpretation of teaching methodology is mentioned. This chapter is also designed
to explore and identify how teachers’ views of their classroom teaching are. Lastly, the
theoretical underpinnings, review of existing task-based teaching research bibliography will
provide a framework for understanding the concept of TBLT and its potentials, the
methodology and data collection involved in the study, and, ultimately, the analysis of
findings obtained from the study.
2.1. Definition of terminology
2.1.1. Defining ‘task’

and task-based language teaching
Before doing anything else, we need to clarify terminologies; therefore, in this part, a
basic distinction between real-world or target tasks, and pedagogical tasks, and different
perspectives of TBLT is identified and discussed. It is necessary because confusions often
arise in discussions of task-based teaching when different teachers and writers use different
definitions of the term ‘task’. And here is the overview of task definitions.
In the literature, various definitions have been offered that differ widely in scope and
formulation up to a point where almost anything related to educational activity can now be
called a ‘task’. Clearly, in order to prevent the understanding of tasks from becoming fuzzy
5
and overwhelming, clear definitions of what authors mean when they use the word ‘task’ are
necessary.
Long (1985) defined a task as "… a piece of work undertaken for oneself or for
others, freely or for some reward . . . By 'task' is meant the hundred and one things people do
in everyday life, at work, at play, and in between" (p. 89).
Task also refers to a job responsibility or duty that is a specific part of a particular
job that a person is asked to do. For example, the job of an administrative assistant requires

the task of scheduling appointments for the supervisor. Jobs can be "task-analyzed" for
personnel and training purposes (Smith, 1971). This general view of task again implies that
the task is externally imposed on the person from outside.
These three definitions of task defined are what that is called real world or target
tasks, which has features of non-linguistics and even non-technical outcome but the real
mental-oriented outcome that people intend to do everyday. Those may describe the sorts of
things that the person in the street would say if asked what they were doing. (In the same
way as learners, if asked why they are attending an English course, are more likely to say,
‘So I can make hotel reservations and buy food when I’m in Australia,’ than ‘So I can master
the subjunctive.’). The conclusion of the distinction between target tasks and pedagogical
tasks may refer to Nunan (1989). He supposes that target tasks, as the name implies, refer to
uses of language in the world beyond the classroom; pedagogical tasks are those that occur
in the classroom.
So what are pedagogical tasks? When they are transformed from the real world to
the classroom, tasks become pedagogical in nature Nunan (1989). He states 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”. In this
definition, we can see that the authors take a pedagogical perspective. Tasks are defined in
terms of what the learners will do in class rather than in the world outside the classroom.
More detailed definition of task-based language approach of his in another book published in
6
2001 is the following, cited in Canh (2004): a task-based language teaching approach is
characterized by:
a) An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target language.
b) The introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation.
c) The provision of opportunities for learners to focus, not only on language, but also on
the learning process itself.
d) An enhancement of the learner's own personal experiences as important contributing

elements to classroom learning.
e) An attempt to link classroom language learning with language activation outside the
classroom (p.103).
Another definition of pedagogical task comes from Richards (1986): . . . an activity
or action which is carried out as the result of processing or understanding language (i.e. as a
response). For example, drawing a map while listening to a tape, listening to an instruction
and performing a command may be referred to as tasks. Tasks may or may not involve the
production of language. A task usually requires the teacher to specify what will be regarded
as successful completion of the task. The use of a variety of different kinds of tasks in
language teaching is said to make language teaching more communicative . . . since it
provides a purpose for a classroom activity which goes beyond the practice of language for
its own sake. (p.289)
Breen (1987: 23) offers another definition of a pedagogical task: . . . any structured
language learning endeavour which has a particular objective, appropriate content, a
specified working procedure, and a range of outcomes for those who undertake the task.
‘Task’ is therefore assumed to refer to a range of workplans which have the overall purposes
of facilitating language learning – from the simple and brief exercise type, to more complex
and lengthy activities such as group problem-solving or simulations and decision-making.
This definition is very broad, implying as it does that just about anything the learner does in
the classroom qualifies as a task. It could, in fact, be used to justify any procedure at all as
‘task-based’ and, as such, is not particularly helpful.
7
More circumscribed is the following from Willis (1996), cited in Willis and Willis
(2001): a classroom undertaking “. . . where the target language is used by the learner for a
communicative purpose (goal) in order to achieve an outcome”. Here the notion of meaning
is subsumed in ‘outcome’. Language in a communicative task is seen as bringing about an
outcome through the exchange of meanings (p.173).
Skehan (1996a), drawing on a number of other writers, puts forward four key
characteristics of a task in a pedagogical aspect:
• meaning is primary

• 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.
However, when his book was republished in 1998, he had five keys characteristics
for a task; one more was added. So that she redefined a task as ‘an activity in which:
meaning is primary; learners are not given other people’s meaning to regurgitate; there are
some sorts of relationship to the real world; task completion has some priority; and the
assessment of task performance is in terms of task outcome’.
In the view of Crookes (1986: 1), a task is a piece of work or an activity, usually with
a specified objective, undertaken as a part of an educational course, at work, or used to elicit
data or research.
According to Richards, Platt, and Weber (1985), a task is an activity or an action
which is carried out as the result of processing or understanding language, i.e. as a response.
For example, drawing a map while listening to a tape, and listening to an instruction and
performing a comment, may be referred to as tasks. Tasks may or may not involve the
production of language. A task usually requires the teacher to specify what will be regarded
as successful completion of the task. The use of variety of different kinds of tasks in
language teaching is said to make teaching more communicative… since it provides purpose
for classroom activity which go beyond practice of language for its own sake” (p.289).
8
Prabhu (1987), one of the first methodologists raising interest and support for TBL,
considers a task is “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.12). He deserves credit for originating the task-based teaching and
learning, based on the concept that effective learning occurs when students are fully engaged
in a language task, rather than just learning about language (p.17).
Lee (2000) defines a task is ‘(1) a classroom activity or exercise that has: (a) an
objective obtainable only by interaction among participants, (b) a mechanism for structuring
and sequencing interaction, and (c) a focus on meaning exchange; (2) a language learning
endeavor that requires learners to comprehend, manipulate, and/or produce the target

language as they perform some sets of work plans’ (p.23).
Bygate, Skehan, and Swain (2001) view ‘A task is an activity which requires learners
to use language, with emphasis on meaning, to attain an objective’ (p.288).
Finally, Ellis (2003: 16) defines a pedagogical task in the following way: 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.
From what mentioned above, we go through many viewpoints about and definitions
of task. The definitions involved a tax, piece of work, everyday activity, job responsibility,
or general activity for learners. While these definitions vary somewhat, they all emphasize
the fact that pedagogical tasks involve communicative language use in which the user’s
attention is focused on meaning rather than grammatical form. However, this does not mean
that form is not important. In second language teaching and learning, task is now often
viewed as a linguistically outcome-oriented instructional segment or as a behavioral
framework for research or classroom learning.
9
My own view of a pedagogical task is strongly influenced by Willis (1996) and
Nunan (2001) and Littlewood (1981). In my opinion, task-based language teaching approach
is the implementation of pedagogical tasks, which are inspired from the real world tasks,
fitted well to students’ need and interest, and socially contextualized. A task is goal-oriented,
meaning-focused first and form-focused then, contextualized, and implemented as the basis
for teaching and learning. It can enable teacher’s teaching in the direction of strong form
realization of CLT, and help students achieve the reachable and communicative outcome
when they are exposed to authentic and comprehensible input, then do the task through
interactions (in pairs or in small groups) in which their own experiences of target language

are exploited, and lastly access the completeness through the outcome. My definition refers
to the deployment of learners’ knowledge, experience and skills 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. As Willis (1996)
points out: “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”
(p.23).
2.1.2. Task-based language teaching to learners
The task-based approach upon which the curriculum is built aims at providing
opportunities for learners to experiment with and explore both spoken and written language
through learning activities that are designed to engage learners in the authentic, practical and
functional use of language for meaningful purposes. Learners are encouraged to activate and
use whatever language they already have in the process of completing a task. The use of
tasks will also give a clear and purposeful context for the teaching and learning of grammar
and other language features as well as skills. . . . All in all, the role of task-based language
teaching is to stimulate a natural desire in learners to improve their language competence by
challenging them to complete meaningful tasks. (David Nunan, 1999: 41)
Task-based teaching can be regarded as one particular approach to implementing the
broader “communicative approach” and, as with the communicative approach in general.
The aim of task-based teaching is to develop students’ ability to communicate and
10
communication (except in its most simple forms) takes place through using the grammatical
system of the language.
Learners who are not used to TBLT may not at first realise the advantages of it, and
they take some time to understand what is required of them and be persuaded of the benefit.
This may be based on the kind of teaching they have had before and then what benefit the
task make to them. This is the report from Willis (1996) about the advantages of TBLT after
his survey to his learners:
• they gain confidence in speaking and interacting quite soon after a task-based course;
• they enjoy the challenge of doing tasks and find many of them fun;

• they are able to talk about language itself in addition to other topics;
• they can cope with natural spontaneous speech much more easily, and tackle quite tough
reading texts in appropriate way;
• they become far more independent learners. (p.137)
Willis also gives out the opinions of teachers and trainers who have just
experimented with TBLT:
• with mix-level classes, a TBLT approach works far better than a PPP one;
• learners bring their own experiences to lessons and often come up with interesting and
original ideas;
• by the end of the course they are often surprised at how much their learners have
achieved. (pp.137 - 138)
In his view, form learner’s position, doing the tasks in pairs or groups has a number
of advantages. Bearing this in mind can also guide teachers in roles of facilitators of
learning.
• It gives learners confidence to find out whatever language they know, or think they know,
in the relative privacy of a pair or small group, without fear of be wrong or of being correct
in front of the class.
11
• It gives learners experience of spontaneous interaction, which involves composing what
they want to say in real time, formulating phrases and units of meaning, while listening to
what is being said.
• It gives learners a chance to benefit from noticing how others express the similar
meanings. Research shows they are more likely to provide corrective feedback to each
other (when encouraged to do so) than adopt each other’s errors.
• It gives all learners chances to practise negotiating turns to speak, initiating as well as
responding to questions, and reacting to other’s contribution (where as in teacher-led
interaction, they only have a responding role).
• It engages learners to use language purposefully and cooperatively, concentrating on
building meaning, not just using language for display purpose.
• It makes learners to participate in a complete interaction, not just one-off sentences.

Negotiating openings and closings, new stages or changes of direction are their
responsibility. It is likely that discourse skill such as these can only be acquired through
interaction.
• It gives learners more chances to try out communication strategies like checking
understanding, paraphrasing to get round an unknown word, reforming other people’s
ideas, and supplying words and phrases for other speakers.
• It helps learners gradually gain confidence as they find they can rely on co-operation with
their fellow students to achieve the goals of the tasks mainly through use of the target language
(pp.35 - 36).
2.1.3. Tasks, Actvities and Exercises
In teaching and method discussions, there exist a lot of various and overlapping
understandings in tasks, activities and exercises. The three terms somewhere else are used
without distinctions. It is worth to clarify the differences here because the knowledge of this
serves much to the understanding of TBLT. At first attempts to distinguish between CLT
and traditional methods of teaching, some of researchers such as Morris et al. (1996),
Nunan (1999), Ellis (2003) and Carless (2004) made a clear cut between tasks as
distinction between tasks and exercises (non-tasks). This clear cut has been on the
12
journey for a long time to researchers’ minds when they need to conceptualize the
differences between traditional methods which is familiar to most teachers due to the
exploits of non- communicative ‘exercises’ and the new teaching ideas and approaches
adopted and mentioned in CLT which bases on the exploits of communicative ‘tasks’.
Consequently, “this oversimplified division is an obstacle both to conceptual clarity and to
effective implementation” (Littlewood, 2007). Afterwards, it is noticeable that Nunan
(2004) has moved from the two-category distinction in Nunan (1999) to a three-
category framework of ‘tasks’, ‘communicative activities’ and ‘exercises’. According to
him, a task is a communicative act that does not usually have a restrictive focus on a
particular grammatical structure, and has a non-linguistic outcome. An exercise usually has
a restrictive focus on a specific language element, and has a linguistic outcome. An activity
usually has a restrictive focus on one or two language items, but also has a communicative

outcome.
2.1.4. Developments of Task-Based Teaching
This section is to discuss about the history of researches and viewpoints of stages in
TBLT, and then the clarification between the most well-known and favourable TBLT model
and other models of instructions.
TBLT was first applauded by Prabu (1987); however, it was only shaped into careful
framework later by other methodologists. This part is, therefore, to introduce briefly the
historical development of TBLT researches on both the concept and its framework. As noted
by Richards and Rodgers (2001) and Willis (1996a, 1996b, 1998), a task has a natural series
of stages, such as preparation for the task (pre-task), the task itself, and follow-up (post-
task). Many second language learner textbooks now follow this practice. In addition, tasks
are often placed into a sequence as part of a unit of work or study. Sequencing is a major
issue in a task-based syllabus. For Swales (1990), tasks are "…sequenceable goal-directed
activities…relatable to the acquisition of pre-genre and genre skills appropriate to a foreseen
or emerging . . . situation" (p. 76, cited in Salaberry, 2001, p. 102). Skehan (1998b) noted
that tasks have discernable implementation phases, for which there should be clear criteria
for outcome assessment.
13
Nunan (2004) argued in favor of units based on topics or themes in which Halliday's
(1985) three groups of macrofunctions are divided into microfunctions, each linked with
certain grammatical structures. Nunan's task-based syllabus contains six stages per unit:
•
schema building,
•
controlled practice embedded in a context (unlike traditional controlled practice),
•
authentic receptive skills work,
•
a focus on form (lexical and/or grammatical),
•

freer practice ("communicative activities"), and at last
•
the (communicative) task itself.
It is interesting that Nunan, unlike Ellis (2003) and Long (1985, 1991), waited until
the very end of the process to include the communicative task. In Nunan's model, the task is
a culmination of all other work. In this sense, as noted by Feeney (2006), this is not too far
from the PPP format, except that Nunan's controlled practice occurs within more of a
communicative context than is usual with the PPP arrangement. Nunan's focus on form
occurs before both freer practice and the task, whereas Willis's (1996b) model employs a
focus on form after the task.
Long's (1985, 1991) task-based language teaching model presents a focus on form,
which involves meaning, structure, and the context of communication. The model follows
the following sequence of task development, implementation, and assessment/evaluation:
•
Needs analysis to identify target tasks
•
Classify into target task types.
•
Derive pedagogic tasks.
•
Sequence to form a task-based syllabus.
•
Implement with appropriate methodology and pedagogy.
•
Assess with task-based, criterion-referenced, performance tests.
•
Evaluate program.
In Long's model, tasks are selected based on careful analysis of real-world
communication needs. Such tasks are particularly important-even catalytic-for L2 learning
because they can generate useful forms of communication breakdown (Long, 1985). The

14
teacher offers some kind of assistance to help the learner focus on form at the point when it
is most needed for communication. This is the moment when meaning meets form. While
not explaining the learner's error, the teacher provides indirect assistance so the learner can
solve his or her own communication problem and can proceed to negotiate meaning still
further. Long (1997) presented the following typical instructional sequence for a "false
beginner" class of young adult prospective tourists.
•
Intensive listening practice: The task is to identify which of 40 telephone requests
for reservations can be met, and which not, by looking at four charts showing the
availability, dates and cost of hotel rooms, theater and plane seats, and tables at a
restaurant.
•
Role-playing: The learners take roles of customers and airline reservation clerks in
situations in which the airline seats required are available.
•
Role-playing: The learners take roles in situations in which, due to unavailability,
learners must choose among progressively more complicated alternatives (seats in
different sections of the plane, at different prices, on different flights or dates, via
different routes, etc.).
In this model, the exact sequence of any given task or set of tasks would depend on
the learners' needs, which shape the goals of instruction.
Ellis (2003b) distinguishes between (a) unfocused tasks (e.g., ordinary listening tasks
or interactions) and (b) focused tasks, which are used to elicit a particular linguistic feature
or to center on language as task content. He cited three principal designs for focused tasks:
comprehension tasks, consciousness-raising tasks, and structure-based production tasks.
Elsewhere (Ellis, 2003a) presents a sequence of tasks for helping learners become more
grammatical, rather than for attaining the exlusive goal of mastery. The sequence includes:
•
Listening task, in which students listen to a text that they process for meaning).

•
"Noticing" task, in which students listen to the same text, which is now gapped, and
fill in the missing words.
•
Consciousness-raising task, in which students discover how the target grammar
structure works by analyzing the "data" provided by the listening text.
•
Checking task, in which students complete an activity to check if they have
understood how the target structure works.
15
•
Production task, in which students have the chance to try out or experiment with the
target structure by producing their own sentences.
Johnson (1996), Skehan (1998b), and Willis (1996b) discuss sequencing of tasks
according to methodological task features, such as extent of communication (negotiation of
meaning), task difficulty, and amount of planning allowed. Others have discussed how to
sequence tasks to reflect the developmental sequence of language acquisition. Skehan (1999)
suggested targeting a range of structures rather than a single one and using the criterion of
usefulness rather than necessity as a sequencing criterion.
Salaberry (2001) has argued that a successful task sequence leads learners to: (a)
communicate with limited resources, (b) become aware of apparent limitations in their
knowledge about linguistic structures that are necessary to convey the message appropriately
and accurately, and finally, (c) look for alternatives to overcome such limitations. Building
on the work of McCarthy (1998), Salaberry offers a pedagogical sequence of four stages,
which for the learner would be involvement, inquiry, induction, and incorporation. For the
teacher the corresponding four-step sequence is introduction of the topic, illustration,
implementation, and integration.
It is evident that no consensus yet exists about the best way to sequence tasks or to
sequence elements within tasks. This is one of the key areas of research needed in the field.
However, the writer in this thesis take the model of Willis' (1996a, 1996b, 1998) as this is

the one which is very much advocated by other researchers and methodologists because of
its precise design. Willis' framework consists of the following phases:
•
Pre-task - introduction to the topic and task.
•
Task cycle: task planning; doing the task; preparing to report on the task; presenting
the task report
•
Language focus - analysis and practice (focus on form).
2.2. Theoretical Foundations
Methodologically, task-based language teaching represents a realization of the
philosophy of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). Other realizations that could
fairly claim to reside within the CLT family include content-based instruction (Brinton