Applying task based approach in teaching english grammar to the 1st year non english majors at ho chi minh university of industry, nghe an branch luận văn thạc sĩ giáo dục học

1

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
VINH UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

---    --NGUYEN NU NGOC TRAM

APPLYING TASK-BASED APPROACH IN
TEACHING ENGLISH GRAMMAR TO THE 1ST
YEAR-NON ENGLISH MAJORS AT HO CHI MINH
UNIVERSITY OF INDUSTRY, NGHE AN BRANCH

FIELD: THEORY AND METHODOLOGY OF
ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING
CODE: 60.14.10

MASTER THESIS IN EDUCATION

VINH - 2011


2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents

Page

Sub cover page………………………………………………………………………….....i
Statement of Authorship…………………………………………………….............ii

Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………...........iii
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………..iv
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………1
List of Abbreviations………………………………………………………………..5
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………..6
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………….7
APPENDICES


3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AM: Audio-lingual Method
EFL: English as a Foreign Language
ELT: English Language Teaching
ESP: English for Specific Purpose
GTM: Grammar Translation Method
HUI: Ho Chi Minh University of Industry
S: Student
SLA: Second Language Acquisition
P-P-P: Presentation – Practice – Production
T: Teacher
TBL: Task-based Language Teaching and Learning (Task-based Learning)


4

LIST OF TABLES
Table

Page

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure

Page

CHAPTER 1:

INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale


5

English has been the most popular international language for ages. Specially,
in the new era of high technology and communication, English is playing a more and
more important role and having a strong impact on many fields of the society.
Moreover, the economic open-door policy pursued by the government of Vietnam has
increased a demand for studying English. Many people are expected to be competent
to communicate verbally with the outside world and to access technology. In
correspondence to this trend, in almost all of schools, colleges, universities, English is
a compulsory subject. Ho Chi Minh University of Industry (HUI), Nghe An Branch
where I have been working for more than 3 years, is not an exception.
Together with the growing demand for learning English, there has been an
innovation in English teaching and learning methods everywhere in Vietnam. For a
long time, language teaching in Vietnam was strongly influenced by the structuralist
tradition. Emphasis was placed on mastery of language structures. Students have been
taught how to form correct utterances and to understand the structures of the language
without any consideration of language use. Also, they have been asked to learn every

single word by heart, and translate or analyze grammatically every sentence in the
text. To speak about the teachers, they have often taken up almost all the time in class
explaining the form of language to students who were passive recipients. This kind of
teaching and learning, consequently, has been the “production” of students who were
structurally competent but communicatively incompetent.
However, as the result of psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic research,
language teaching has moved from the traditional to a more communicative approach.
In this current approach, language is considered as a form of social behavior. The
objective of language teaching is teaching learners to communicate fluently,
appropriately and spontaneously in the cultural context of the target language.
Communicative competence, according to Canale and Swain (1980), is made up of
grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and
strategic competence.


6

With more than 3 years of experience in teaching English at HUI, Nghe An
Branch, I find that students have to learn English in two semesters in the curriculum
and English is often taught in the first school - year. At the end of each semester, the
students have to take a written test, not an oral one. Therefore, most of the time is
spent on grammar points because many of the students have never learnt English
before and the teachers have to try to keep to the syllabus, that is, to finish the coursebook entitled “American Headway 2”. In addition, many students are too shy to speak
in class whereas most of the grammar lessons are carried out in traditional methods.
In each lesson, the teacher presents new grammar verbally, and then students do, turn
by turn, exercises in workbooks. Moreover, in teaching practice, there exist some
limitations in conducting Presentation – Practice – Production (P-P-P) grammar
lessons. Touching this pedagogical context, this study emphasizes on the
investigation into the application of task-based approach to teaching English grammar
at HUI, Nghe An Branch. The task-based approach might come as an effective

teaching method for the language teachers at HUI. A research into the TBL will help
the teachers at HUI to interpret and have a thorough understanding of the task-based
approach, its theories and characteristics, hence providing an effective application to
teaching grammar at HUI pedagogical context.
All the aforementioned reasons urge the author to carry out the study entitled
“Applying Task-based Approach in Teaching English Grammar to the 1 st
year-non English majors at Ho Chi Minh University of Industry – Nghe An
Branch”. Hopefully, the results could serve as a useful source of reference for those
who concern about the subject matter.
1.2. Aims of the Study
With the presented rationale, the specific aims of the study, accordingly, are:
a) to examine the reality of applying TBL in teaching English grammar at HUI.
b) to find out student’s attitudes towards applying TBL in teaching English
grammar of teacher at HUI.


7

c) to evaluate the effectiveness of the application TBL in teaching English
grammar at HUI.
d) to propose some suggestions and recommendations to promote English
grammar teaching in the light of the task-based approach at HUI.
1.3. Scope of the Study
This research focuses on investigating how HUI language teachers exploit TBL
in teaching English grammar in their classes. Due to the limitation of time, the author
only fulfilled the study among twenty teachers and one hundred the first year students
at HUI, Nghe An Branch.
1.4. Research Questions
In order to serve the aforesaid aims, the research attempts to answer the
following questions:

1. What is the reality of the application of the task-based approach in teaching
English grammar at HUI?
2. What are the students’ attitudes towards applying the task-based approach to
teaching English grammar at HUI?
3. How effective is the task-based approach in teaching English grammar at
HUI?
4. What should be done to promote English grammar teaching with the taskbased approach at HUI?

1.5. The Organization of the Study
The study includes five chapters as follows:
Chapter 1 – Introduction – provides rationale, the aims of the study, the scope of
the study, the research questions.


8

Chapter 2 – Literature Review and Theoretical Background – present the
previous studies related to the thesis and some concepts as theoretical basis for the
study.
Chapter 3 – Research Design and Methodology – describes the research design,
instruments for data collection, data collection, data analysis, reliability and validity,
and research procedures, which gives details of the research method and describes how
the hypothesis of the thesis is interpreted and explained.
Chapter 4 – Findings and Discussions – presents the results and discussions
developed after the linguistics figures are analyzed.
Chapter 5 – Conclusion and Implications – summarizes the main issues touched
upon in the research, the limitations of the research and some suggestions for further
studies. Following the chapters are the references and appendices.

CHAPTER 2:

LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1. Previous Studies Related to the Thesis


9

In recent years, teachers of all subjects have sought ways to make the classroom
more “student-centred” and have investigated the different ways in which students can
play more active roles in discovering and processing knowledge. The result of the
research is the outcome of task-based learning.
The idea of getting learners to acquire English through tasks was developed in
India by Prabhu in the 1980s. Prabhu made a strong Communicative Approach Project
in Banglore, South India. He put forward many kinds of tasks, and designed the
learning contents into all kinds of communicative tasks. He thinks learners may learn
more effectively when their minds are focused on tasks, rather than on the language
they are using.
Harmer found his favour with TBL by saying that, “Many methodologists have
concentrated not so much on the nature of language input, but on the learning tasks
that students are involved in.” He argued that there seemed to have been an argument
that pure rote learning or de-contextualized practice is giving way to language learning
that is required as a result of richer experiences in life.
However, historically reviewed, TBL seems to have gained its currency since
the 1996 publication of Willis’s “A Framework for Task-based Learning” (Longman),
in which she defined how tasks can be used as the central focus in a supportive
methodological framework. In this book, she outlined a mode for TBL in which she
referred to three stages: the pre-task, the task-cycle, and the language focus.
Skehan (1998) showed that learner in task-based instructions are given tasks to
complete in the classroom and he asserted that transacting tasks in this way will make
naturalistic acquisition. He explained that the task-based approach is more favourable

than any other approaches because it focuses very much on meaning, not on form.
Jeon and Hahn (2006) addressed their study to the EFL teachers’ perceptions of
task-based language teaching in a Korean secondary school context. They appreciated
the emphasis on learners’ communicative abilities with task-based teaching and
learning in terms of designing communicative tasks to promote learners’ actual


10

language use. Tseng (2006) indicated the differences between task-based instruction
and traditional teacher-led, whole class instruction at two primary school classrooms in
terms of four-skill performances of the students. Also, the factors that influenced the
implementation of TBL at primary school were discussed.
In Vietnam, there are numerous English M.A theses concerning Vietnamese
learning and teaching with TBL. Duong Thi Le Thuy (2004) made an investigation into
task-based approach, which is used in the field of ESP, for the current English course
book for construction engineering. Additionally, Vo Phuc Anh Vu (2009) presented the
application of task-based language teaching and learning to teaching English speaking
skills in upper secondary schools in order to find out how TBL can fit into traditional
English speaking classes to promote the students’ communicative competence.
At Ho Chi Minh University of Industry, Nghe An Branch, the traditional
structural method has no longer been the teachers’ favours. The teacher-centred
method is giving way to a more learner-centred approach. This thesis, therefore,
focuses on studying the application of TBL in teaching English grammar to probe its
feasibility and validity in the setting of HUI, Nghe An Branch.
2.2. The Importance of Grammar in Language Teaching and Learning
2.2.1. Definitions of Grammar
There have been various ways of defining grammar - a very common and
familiar term in language teaching and learning.
According to Luu Quy Khuong (2006), in the old days, grammar was defined

as “the way words are put together to make correct sentences”. However, this
definition is too simple and people need other ones that can cover aspects of
grammar.
The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (quoted in Harmer,
1987:1) considers grammar as “the study and practice of the rules by which words
change their forms and are combined into sentences”. There are two concentrated
basic elements in this definition: the rules of grammar and the study and practice of


11

the rules. Similarly, Harmer (1988:1) defines grammar as “the way in which words
change themselves and group together to make sentences. The grammar of a
language what happens to words when they become plural or negative, or what word
order is used when we make questions or join two clauses to make one sentence.” As
for Celce – Murcia & Hilles (1988: 16), grammar is “a subset of those rules which
govern the configurations that the morphology and syntax of a language assume.”
Additionally, Leech, Deuchar & Hoogenraad (2006) consider grammar as a set
of rules which allow users of a language to create speech and writing by combining
words together in a meaningful way. Whereas users apply grammar all the time, they
fail to perceive them consciously. Besides, grammar has a very close, interactive
relationship with semantics (meaning), phonology (sounds or speaking) and writing
systems.
However, Brown (1994) approaches grammar in a quite different way. He
defines grammar in a larger unit, not within a sentence but a discourse. In fact, he tries
to make clear their distinction. According to him, grammar is a set of rules controlling
the order and the connection of words in the level of a sentence only. The system of
discourse rules shares this function, but in the broader level – among sentences. Brown
also emphasizes that grammatical competence is very important in communicative
competence.

To sum up, it can be said that the definition of Brown (1994) has covered all the
main points of grammar the other authors discuss. First, grammar is a set of rules
or patterns controlling the sequence and the mutual interaction of words in the level of
a sentence only. Secondly, discourse is grammar but active in the larger units. Thirdly,
grammar exists in the close and interactive relationship with the other factors of a
language including semantics, phonology and the writing systems. Finally, grammar
competence is one of the needed conditions for communicative competence.
2.2.2. Ways of Teaching Grammar


12

There have been ideas focus on whether to teach grammar explicitly (or
deductive or overt grammar teaching) or implicitly (or inductive or covert teaching)
and whether to follow learner-centered or teacher-centered approach.
According to implicit approach, the students are presented with examples first
and then they are guided to figure out the rule or generalization from the examples. A
clear grammar explanation may never be given from their teacher. The explicit one is
different because in this approach, a rule or generalization is first given by the teacher
or textbook and then students are allowed to practice various instances of language to
which the rule applies (Brown, 1994).
Many authors (Brown, 1994; Gardner, 2008; Hartnett 1985, and so on) discuss
this issue and agree on some points. First, generally, the implicit approach is more in
favor because it allows students to discover some aspects of language before getting to
know grammatical explanations so that it builds more intrinsic motivation among them.
However, in some cases, the explicit approach or a blend between the two is more
appropriate. In fact, the distinction between these approaches in a lesson is not always
apparent. All in all, the choice should depend on specific teaching contexts.
The learner-centered approach’s principle is that the emphasis in the teaching
and learning process at all times should be on the learner, not the teacher (Stevick,

1982). Stevick also notes that learner-centeredness does not imply that teachers should
abandon the classroom to the learners, and that there should be a number of legitimate
teacher functions in learner- as well as teacher-centered classrooms.
After a large amount of research, authors come to a conclusion that whereas
students prefer moving from teacher-centered to more learner-centered class, they still
think both of these approaches are useful. All in all, it is a good idea for teachers to
make use of all these approaches to satisfy students.
2.2.3. Contents in A Grammar Lesson
According to Harmer (1987), language is used actually to do things, to perform
certain functions, like inviting, apologizing, introducing and so on. Therefore, instead


13

of teaching grammar, teachers should teach functions to students even though their
grammatical base should be insured as well. Clear evidence is that modern courses
often teach a grammatical structure and then get students to use it as part of a
functional conversation.
Freeman (2003) shares Harmer’s ideas to some extent. However, she asserts that
teaching grammar includes teaching form, meaning and use as well. She clarifies that
teaching those three dimensions is really important because it will make students have
enough knowledge to reach the primary goal of learning a language which, after all, is
to enable to communicate in the target language. However, she also notes that
language functions might be emphasized over forms (Freeman, 2000).
In short, authors confirm the necessity of teaching grammar to students, because
if appropriate techniques are used, grammar can effectively assist students in the
language learning process. To help learners communicate well and appropriately in the
target language, it is necessary that teachers teach them the form, meaning and use of
any grammar. The exclusion of any dimension can badly affect students. As a teacher,
we can choose any method or a combination of some to serve best our students’

interests, needs, personalities and experience.

2.3. A Brief Review of Task-based Language Learning
The task-based view of language teaching, based on the constructivist theory of
learning and communicative language teaching methodology, has evolved in response
to some limitations of the traditional PPP approach (Ellis, 2003; Long & Crookes,
1991). Thus, it has the substantial implication that language teaching is a
developmental process promoting communication and social interaction rather than a
product acquired by practicing language items, and that the target language is learned
more effectively when the learners are naturally exposed to meaningful task-based
activities. Such a view of language learning led to the development of various task-


14

based views in the eighties (Krahnke, Nunan, Nunan & Burton) and in the nineties
(Harmer, Larsen-Freeman & Long, Willis, Willis & Willis, Thornbury, Skehan).
During the nineties, this view of language learning has developed into a detailed
framework for the communicative classroom in which learners perform task-based
activities through cycles of pre-task preparation, task performance, and post-task
feedback through language focus (Sekhan, 1996; Willis, 1996).
In conclusion, it is obvious that the task-based approach has drawn from
disadvantages of PPP traditional model. Skehan (1996) summarises the contrast
between PPP and task based learning as follows: “A PPP approach looks on the
learning process as learning a series of discrete items and then bringing these items
together in communication to provide further practice and consolidation. A task based
approach sees the learning process as one of learning through doing – it is by
primarily engaging in meaning that the learner’s system is encouraged to develop”.
2.4. Tasks
2.4.1. Definitions of Tasks

TBL proposes the notion of “task” as a center unit of planning an teaching.
Originally, task has nothing to do with pedagogy. Long (1985: 89) frames 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”. From his view, tasks have non-linguistics outcome.
Prabhu (1987: 12-17), one of the first methodologists raising interest and
support for TBL, defines “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. He thinks that effective
learning occurs when students are fully engaged in a language task, rather than just
learning about language. Prabhu indicates a task is an activity of learning process. In
order to stimulate students’ thinking, teachers are allowed to guide the process.


15

According to Willis (1996: 23), tasks are “always activities where the target
language is used by the learner for a communicative purpose (goal) in order to
achieve an outcome”. It means that tasks should provide opportunities for free and
meaningful use of the target language. The aim of communication tasks is to
stimulate real communication in the target language.
Nunan (1989) states that the 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. Nunan claims that for the definition of tasks, we can
see communicative language use where the learner’s attention is on meaning instead
of linguistic structure. Tasks are defined in terms of what the learners will do in class
such as “filling out a form, buying a pair of shoes, making an airline reservation,

borrowing a library book, weighing a patient, taking a hotel reservation, etc” rather
than in the world outside the classroom.
Another definition of task comes from Lee (2000): 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”.
In summary, the definitions of tasks vary in TBL. The definitions involved in
everyday activities, job responsibility, or general activities for learners. While these
definitions are different somewhat, they all focus on 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.


16

In this thesis, my own view of a pedagogical task is strongly influenced by
Nunan (1989), Willis (1996), and Lee (2000). 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. 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.
2.4.2. Types of Tasks
According to Pica, Kanagy and Fladun (1993) cited in Jack & Thoedore

(2001: 234) tasks are classified into five types:
- Jigsaw tasks: These involve learners combining different pieces of
information to form a whole, i.e. three individuals or groups may have three different
parts of a story and have to put the pieces of the story together.
- Information- gap tasks: One student or a group of students has one set of
information and another student or group has a complimentary set of information.
They must negotiate and find out what the other party’s information is in order to
complete an activity.
- Problem-solving tasks: Students are given a problem and a set of
information. They must arrive at a solution to the problem. There is generally a single
resolution of the outcome.
- Decision-making tasks: Students are given a problem for which there are
number of possible outcomes and they must choose one through negotiation and
discussion.
- Opinion- exchange tasks: Learners engage in discussion and exchange of
ideas. They do not need to reach agreement.


17

These are different types of tasks. Willis (1996) classifies them into different
groups:
a) Listing
Listing may seem unimaginative, but in practice, listing tasks tend to generate
a lot of talks as learners explain their ideas. The processes involved are:
 brainstorming, in which learners draw on their own knowledge and experience
either as a class or in pairs/groups
 fact-finding, in which learners find things out by asking each other or other
people and referring to books, etc.
The outcome would be the completed list, or possibly a draft mind map.

b) Ordering and sorting
These tasks involve four main processes:
 sequencing items, actions or events in logical or chronological order
 ranking items according to personal values or specified criteria
 categorizing items in given groups or grouping them under given headings
 classifying items in different ways, where the categories themselves are not
given
The outcome is a set of information ordered and sorted according to specified criteria.
c) Comparing
Broadly, these tasks involve comparing information of a similar nature but
from different sources or versions in order to identify common points and/or
differences. The processes involved are:
 matching to identify specific points and relate them to each other
 finding similarities and things in common
 finding differences


18

The outcome could be items that are appropriately matched and the identification of
similarities and/ or differences.
d) Problems solving
Problem-solving tasks make demands upon people’s intellectual and reasoning
power, and, though challenging, they are engaging and often satisfying to solve. It
consists of analyzing real situations, analyzing hypothetical situations, reasoning and
decision-making. The outcome is solution to the problem, which can then be
evaluated.
e) Sharing personal experiences
These tasks encourage learners to talk more freely about themselves and share
their experiences with others. The resulting interaction is closer to casual social

conversation in that it is not so directly goal-oriented as in other tasks. For that
reason, however, these open tasks may be more difficult to get going in the
classroom. The tasks include narrating, describing, exploring and explaining attitudes,
opinions, and reactions. The outcome is largely social.
f) Creative tasks
These are often called projects and involve pairs or groups of learners in some
kind of freer creative work. They also tend to have more stages than other tasks, and
can involve combinations of task types: listing, ordering and sorting, comparing and
problem-solving. Out of class research is sometimes needed. Organizational skills
and team-work are important in getting the task done. The outcome can often be
appreciated by a wider audience than the students who produced it.
In summary, we can see that some of the above-mentioned tasks are real-world
or target tasks and some are pedagogical tasks. And here is the thorough discussion of
these two types of tasks.
2.4.2.1. Real-world Tasks
Real-world tasks are tasks that reflect real-world use of language and might be
considered a rehearsal for real-world tasks. They are proposed to use language in the


19

reality beyond the classroom. A role-play in which students practice a job interview
would be a task of this kind. Nunan and Burton (1989) make clear that real-world
tasks are things that learners are expected to do in the world outside the classroom
like filling a form or asking for specific information. They indicate that a crucial step
in applying TBL to language class is to “translate real-world tasks into
communicative classroom or pedagogical activities.” Obviously, real-world tasks are
goal-guided activities, which encourage learners to apply the language they have
practiced in class to have genuine communication in the world outside the classroom.
According to Nunan (1989), real-world tasks include daily activities such as

filling out a form, making airline preservation, borrowing a library book, taking a
reservation hotel, etc. TBL views real-world tasks as the source for pedagogical tasks
in the classroom, which is referred to as classroom tasks.
2.4.2.2. Pedagogical Tasks
When they are transformed from the real world to the classroom, tasks become
pedagogical in nature. According to Nunan (1989), classroom tasks are defined in
terms of “what the learner do in the classroom rather than in the outside world”.
Another definition of pedagogical task comes from Richards (1986: 289): “…
an activity or action which is carried out as the result of processing or understanding
language (i.e. as a response).
Then, in 2003, the definition of a pedagogical task that Ellis informs is as
follows:
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 (p.16).


20

Obviously, the main key criterial features of Ellis’s tasks are: meaning
focusing, real-world language use, and communicative outcome. He considers
focusing on meaning the key criterion to differentiate a task from an activity. It means
that a task should be using language pragmatically instead of displaying language.
Additionally, these tasks should be used in the real world, such as for information
exchanging. In other words, the goal of tasks is communicative. It does not mean
tasks will be limited to speaking and listening only. Instead, a task includes four
language skills: speaking, listening, reading, and writing.

2.4.3. Characteristics of Tasks
Skehan (1996) 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. Therefore, he 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’.
However, according to Jack & Theodore (2001), the characteristics of task
have been described as follows:
- One way or two ways: Whether the task involves a one way exchange of
information or two way exchange
- Convergent or divergent: whether the students achieve a common goal or
several different goal


21

- Collaborative or competitive: whether the students collaborate to carry out
a task or complete with each other on a task
- Single or multiple outcomes: whether there is a single outcome or many
different outcomes are possible
- Concrete or abstract language: whether the task involves the use of concrete
language or abstract language
- Simple or complex processing: whether the linguistic demands of the task

are relatively simple or complex
- Reality- based or not reality-based: whether the task mirrors a real world
activity or in a pedagogical activity not found in the real world.
Willis and Willis (1996) suggest that the key characteristic of the task should
be the degree of difficulty of task to which Jane Willis and Dave Willis defines “the
aim of effective sequencing is to ensure that the demands on language are of the right
level”. From this, tasks should be too difficult or too easy. If the task goes beyond the
learners’ current knowledge, they will face the lexicalized and grammatical resources
for communication. On the other hand, if the task is easier than the learners’ ability in
using the language, they will get bored and are not motivated to use the language,
hence there will be no language development.
In conclusion, task is characterized in the point that task plays the center in the
learning process. Meaning is primary in communication, so task should involve a
focus on meaning. Task is inspired from real-world activities and must be goaloriented. Its completion has priority and the success of task completion is assessed by
the outcome.
2.4.4. Principles of Tasks
Willis (1996) indicates that tasks are governed by the following principles:
- Task should engage the learner’s focus on negotiating the meaning, rather than the
practice of form or prescribed forms or patterns.


22

- Task should promote communication and interaction through having students
engage and negotiate the meaning of the task.
- There is some kind of purpose or goal set for the task so that learners know what
they are expected to achieve by the end of the task.
- The task should motivate learners, engage their attention, present suitable degree of
linguistic challenge and promote language development.
2.4.5. Tasks, Exercises, and Activities

Nunan (2004) gives a clear distinction between three concepts: tasks, exercises
and communicative activities. 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. With tasks, learners freely use language to achieve a
goal, and this activity often reflects real life and has a focus on meaning. Solving a
problem, sharing information or experience, and so on are typical examples of tasks.
An exercise usually focuses on specific language element restrictively, and has a
linguistic outcome. An example of an exercise is that teacher asks students to work in
pairs and make questions and answers using the cues: “Do you like….? – Yes, I do. /
No, I don’t.” An activity usually has a restrictive focus on one or two language items,
but also has a communicative outcome.
2.5. Task-based Language Teaching and Learning
2.5.1. Definitions of TBL
Task-based teaching approach, also called task-based learning, which was put
forward in the 1980s, derives its idea from the process syllabus. It can be regarded as
one particular approach to implement the broader “communicative approach”. It is a
teaching method that puts tasks at the center of the methodological focus. It considers
the learning process as a set of communicative tasks that are directly linked to the
curricular goals (Brown, 2001). The aim of task-based learning is to make language
classroom approximate to the target language environment, develop students’ ability


23

to communicate, and communication takes place through using the grammatical
system.
Willis (1996) proposes: “Task-based learning combines the best insights from
communicative language teaching with an organized focus on language form.” She
explains that TBL helps learners improve communication by doing different tasks in
different meaningful classroom situations with an organized focus on language form.

It is an approach where tasks are used as the central focus of a lesson within a
supportive methodological framework.
2.5.2. Characteristics of TBL
Nunan (1991: 279) regards TBL as an overall approach to language learning
that views the “tasks” learners do as central to the learning process in order to achieve
communicative goals. He describes five characteristics of task-based approach to
language teaching as follows:
- An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target language.
- The introduction of authentic texts in the learning situation.
- The provision of opportunities for learners to focus, not only on language but also in
the learning process itself.
- An enhancement of the learners’ own personal experiences as important contributing
elements to classroom learning.
- An attempt to link classroom language learning with language activation outside the
classroom.
2.5.3. Principles of TBL
The task-based approach aims at providing opportunities for learners to
experiment with and explore both spoken and written language through learning tasks
which are designed to engage learners in authentic, practical and functional use of
language for meaningful purpose. Nunan (2005: 35-38) suggests seven principles for
the task-based instruction below:


24

a) Scaffolding
- A basic role for an educator is to provide a supporting framework within
which the learning can take place. This is particularly important in TBL as learners
will encounter holistic “chunks” of language that will often be beyond their present
processing capacity.

- At the beginning of the learning process, learners should not be expected to
produce language that has not been introduced either explicitly or implicitly.
- The “art” of TBL is known when to remove the scaffolding: too early and the
process will collapse; too late, the learners will not develop independence.
b) Task dependency
Within one lesson, one task should grow out of previous tasks – and build
upon them. Each task exploits and builds upon the one that has gone before. The
sequence tells a “pedagogical story”, as learners are led step-by-step to the point
where they can carry out the final task in the sequence.
c) Recycling
Learning is not an “all-or-nothing” process, but piecemeal and unstable.
Recycling language not only maximises opportunities for learning but also allows
learners to encounter target language items over time and in a range of different
environments, both linguistic and experiential. For example, they will see how
“expressing likes and dislikes”, “yes/no questions” and “do/does” function in a range
of content areas, from the world of entertainment to the world of food.
d) Active learning
Learners learn best by actively using (experiencing) the language they are
learning. A key principle is that learners learn best through doing – through actively
constructing their knowledge, rather than having it transmitted to them by the teacher.
Thus, most class time should be devoted to opportunities for students to use the
language. The key point is that it is the learner, not the teacher, who is doing the


25

work. This does not mean that there is no place at all for input, explanation, etc., but
that such teacher-focussed work should not dominate class time.
e) Integration
Learners should be taught in ways that make clear the relationships between

linguistic form, communicative function and semantic meaning. Recently, applied
linguists have argued that what is necessary is a pedagogy that makes explicit to
learners the systematic relationship between form, function and meaning.
f) Reproduction to creation
Learners should be encouraged to move from reproductive to creative
language use. In reproductive tasks, learners reproduce models provided by the
teacher, the textbook, or the tape. These tasks are designed to give learners a mastery
of form, meaning and function, and this provides a basis for creative tasks. In creative
tasks, learners recombine familiar elements in novel ways. This principle can be
applied not only with intermediate and advanced students, but also with beginners if
the instructional process is carefully sequenced.
g) Reflection
Learners should be given opportunities to reflect on what they have learned
and how well they are doing. Becoming a reflective learner is part of learner training
where the focus shifts from language content to learning processes. Research shows
that learners who are aware of the strategies driving their learning will be better
learners – and TBL is underpinned by many strategies. For learners who have done
most of their learning in ‘traditional’ classes, TBL can be mystifying, even alienating.
Therefore, adding a reflective element can help learners see the rationale for the new
approach.
2.6. Characteristics of the Task-based Grammar Class
The focus of the task-based grammar class is accomplishing tasks and
activities in real-life like situations, so task-based grammar class will show the
following characteristics: