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

LÊ MINH QUÝ
APPLICABILITY OF TASK – BASED LANGUAGE
TEACHING TO THE TEACHING CONTEXT IN THAI HOA
UPPER SECONDARY SCHOOL

(KHẢ NĂNG ÁP DỤNG PHƯƠNG PHÁP DẠY HỌC NGÔN NGỮ DỰA
VÀO NHIỆM VỤ TRONG BỐI CẢNH TRƯỜNG THPT THÁI HÒA) M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS
Field: English Language Teaching Methodology
Code: 60.14.10

Code: 60.14.10
Supervisor: Nguyễn Việt Hùng, MA

Hanoi , 2013
i

CANDIDATE’S STATEMENT
I certificate that the minor thesis entitled “Applicability of task-based language teaching to
the teaching context in Thai Hoa secondary school” is submitted in fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts is the result of my own work. This minor
thesis or any part of this one has not been submitted for a higher degree to any other
university or institution.

Hanoi, 28
th
June, 2013

iii

ABSTRACT
Recently task-based language teaching (TBLT) evolving from communicative
language instruction has drawn the attention of many researchers towards itself. To date,
there have not had many studies on applicability of TBLT in a particular context. This
study has intended to explore the attitudes of students‟ towards TBLT. It also seeks the
understanding of teachers‟ of TBLT. A sample of five teachers and three hundred students
participated in this study. A questionnaire was used to examine students‟ attitudes towards
the friendliness of theoretical issues of TBLT. Then, interviews and observations are
employed to find out how teachers understand and implement task-based language learning
in their classroom. The data were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The
results of the study showed that while students in general had positive attitudes towards
TBLT, teachers lacked conceptualizations of TBLT and their teaching practice did not
match TBLT model. Therefore, these findings led to the conclusion that it is impossible to
apply TBLT to the teaching context in THSS successfully. Finally, suggestions were made
in order to solve those problems mentioned above: teachers should attend seminars on
ELT; they should train themselves through books and articles; there should have had
competitions for both teachers and students to enhance teaching and learning English.



v LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Tables

Table 1.

Table 16.
Descriptive statistics of the items in Attitude towards Features of Teaching
Table 17.
Descriptive statistics of the items in Attitude towards Stages of Teaching
Table 18.
Descriptive statistics of the items in Attitude towards Techniques of
Teaching
Table 19.
Summary of Mean difference of domains between groups according to age
Table 20.
Summary of T-Test Values of Mean difference of domains between
groups according to age
Table 21.
Summary of Mean difference of domains between groups according to sex
Table 22.
Summary of T-Test Values of Mean difference of domains between groups
according to sex
Table 23.
Mean difference in Attitude towards Task-Based Language Teaching
according to Economic condition
Table 24.
Multi linear regression analysis of Attitude towards Task-Based Language
Teaching
Table 25.
Coefficients of multi linear regression analysis of Attitude towards Task-
vi

Based Language Teaching
Table 26.
Model Summary


vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

THSS
Thai Hoa Secondary School
TBL

F
Facilities
LE
Local Economy viii

TABLE OF CONTENT

CANDIDATE’S STATEMENTS……………………………………………
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………
ii
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………….
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………
iv
LIST OF APPENDICES………………………………………………………
vii
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………….
viii
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………
ix

1.1.4. Research on communicative tasks………………………………….
8
1.2. Task-based language teaching………………………………………………
9
1.2.1 Definition of a task………………………………………………….
9
1.2.2. Task types…………………………………………………………
11
1.2.3. Teacher‟s roles in TBLT……………………………………………
12
1.2.4. Some problems in implementing TBLT in Asian context………….
14
1.3. Theoretical framework ……………………………………………………
16
ix

1.3.1. Working terminology……………………………………………….
16
1.3.2. Principles of TBLT…………………………………………………
17
1.3.3. Features of TBLT…………………………………………………
19
1.3.4. Stages of TBLT…………………………………………………….
19
1.3.5. Techniques of TBLT……………………………………………….
21
1.4. Summary………………………………………………………………………
22
Chapter 2. METHODOLOGY………………………………………………
23

2.6. Reliability and validity of the research…………………………………….
27
Chapter 3. DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS………………………………
31
3.1 Students’ attitudes towards theoretical issues of TBLT……………………
31
3.1.1. Students‟ attitudes towards TBLT…………………………………
31
3.1.2. Students‟ attitudes towards each domain of TBLT………………….
35
3.1.3. Difference of Students‟ attitudes towards theoretical issues of TBLT in
groups
39
3.1.4. Main factors which affect students‟ attitudes towards TBLT……….
41
3.2. Findings from semi-structured interviews and classroom observations

46
x

3.2.1. Teacher
s‟

conceptualization
s

of

task-based language teaching

xi 1

teachers‟ perception of TBLT in Thai Hoa Secondary school.
1.2. Aim and Objectives of the study
The main aim of the study is to find out how applicable task-based language
learning (TBLL) is in the teaching context of Thai Hoa Secondary School (THSS); this aim
is subdivided into following objectives to be easier to manage:
2

To get investigate students‟ attitudes towards the friendliness of theoretical issues
of TBLT by a survey questionnaire.
To find out how teachers understand and implement task-based language learning
in their classroom by case studies in which interviews and observations are employed.
1.3. Research questions
In order to meet the objective of the study, the following research questions are raised:
1. What are students‟ attitudes towards theoretical issues of task-based language
learning?
2. What are teachers‟ perceptions of task-based language learning?
1.4. Scope of the study
In order to find out the applicability of TBLT in the teaching context of Thai Hoa
secondary school, the study is only focused the attitudes of students‟ towards TBLT and
the understanding of teachers‟ of TBLT. In addition, the study is only carried out in THSS.
1.5. Significance of the study
The findings of the research will help teachers have a more comprehensible
understanding of students‟ attitudes and teacher‟s perceptions towards TBLT. Also, they
will know benefits of TBLT but challenges facing them and their students when
implementing TBLT. Finally, some suggestions will be made in order to help them apply
TBLT at THSS successfully.
1.6. Method of the study
To achieve the aims of the study, both quantitative and qualitative methods are
employed and the following steps are involved:
 Collecting data by survey questionnaires for students
4

Part B: DEVELOPMENT
Chapter 1. LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Theoretical Background of TBLT
The first person who has applied TBLT to teaching programs and practice is
Prabhu. It was in Bangalore of southern Indian in 1979 that Prabhu began his bold
experiments to put his theories into practice which seemed radical at that time. According
to Prabhu, students may learn more effectively when their minds are focused on the task,
rather than on the language they are using (Prabhu, 1987). Therefore, Prabhu is thought to
be the originator of TBLT.
The theoretical basis of TBLT dates back to cognitive psychology „the Learning
theory‟ that has deeply affected the elementary education. Allwright (1977) put that “If the

master concepts and ideas that they cannot understand on their own. No one ever achieves
the full extent of their learning potential, but people can continue to develop their cognitive
capacity throughout their lives and their social interaction.
Vygotsky (1978) shared many of Piaget‟s assumptions about how children learn,
but he placed more emphasis on the social context of learning. Piaget‟s cognitive theories
have been used as the foundation for the discovery of learning models in which the teacher
plays a limited role. In Vygotsky‟s theories both teachers and older or more experienced
children play very important roles in learning. There is a great deal of overlap between
cognitive constructivism and Vygotsky‟s social constructivist theory. However, Vygotsky‟s
constructivist theory, which is often called social constructivism, has much more room for
an active involved teacher. For Vygotsky, the culture gives the child the cognitive tools
(they are features of our minds that shape the ways we make sense of the world around us;
the richer the cognitive toolkit we accumulate, the better the sense we make.) needed for
his development. The type and quality of those tools determine, to a much greater extent
than they do in Piaget‟s theory, the pattern and rate of development. Adults such as parents
and teachers are conduits for the tools of the culture, including language. The tools of the
culture provides to a child include cultural history, social context, and language. Today
they also include electronic forms of information access.
Supported by social-interactive and constructive theory, a social constructive model
of the teaching-learning process comes into being. It emphasizes the dynamic nature of the
interplay between teachers, learners and tasks, and provides a view of learning as arising
from interactions with others. In this model, a learner is an active meaning-maker and
problem-solver and tasks involve input in the form of a piece of text or language. They
involve activities, which are what the learners are required to do; and they involve
cognitive operations, which are the cognitive process needed in order to carry out the
activities. Together with the other two key factors, teachers and context, they interact as
part of a dynamic, ongoing process.
1.1.2. Input and Interactionist Theory
6


speech when they interact with non-native speakers.
Most native speakers seem to adjust naturally their speech to the non-native-
speakers needs, in order to facilitate communication (Long, 1983). Long (1983, pp.177-
193) suggests that language acquisition can be gained only through the „conversational
7

interaction‟. Meanwhile, he also thinks that the necessary language acquisition device is
“modified interaction” , which concerns (l) the modified interaction may make the input
comprehensible; (2) the comprehensible input is good for language acquisition; (3)
modified interaction benefits language acquisition.
Therefore, in ELT we should design the activity with the modified interaction
(task) so that learners can naturally acquire language through the conversational
interaction. Task-based language teaching can make language learning in classrooms
closer to the natural route and may reach a higher rate of language acquisition because it
provides learners with a clear communicative goal, interaction is needed to reach the goal,
and comprehensive input can occur, and then language acquisition is facilitated.
Nowadays, more and more designers of communicative syllabuses attempts to organize
communicative language teaching around a specification of communicative tasks. Some
classroom activities are often designed to focus on completing tasks that are mediated
through language or involve interaction or negotiation of information and information
sharing.
1.1.3. Communicative Language Teaching
Task-based language teaching can be regarded as one particular development
within the broader “communicative approach” (Littlewood 2004, p.1). Communicative
language teaching (CLT) has become the accepted orthodoxy theory of Teaching English
as a Foreign Language (TEFL) over the past ten years or more, and many, but not all,
general courses include communicative goals, communicative practice or communicative
methodology. Its theoretical base, according to Richards and Rodgers (2001, p.71),
includes these characteristics:
1. Language is a system for the expression of meaning.

5) Students their abilities, needs and interests are important.
6) Social community the class as a whole and its sense of “groupness”.
Wright (1987) suggests that tasks minimally contain just two elements: input data
which may be provided by materials, teachers or learners, and an initiating question which
instructs learners on what to do with the data.
Candlin (1987) characterizes that tasks should contain input, roles, settings, actions,
monitoring, outcomes and feedback. Input refers to the data presented for learners to work
on. Roles specify the relationship between participants in a task. Setting refers to the
classroom and out-of-class arrangements entailed in the task. Actions are the procedures
and sub-tasks to be performed by the learners. Monitoring refers to the supervision of the
task in progress. Outcomes are the goals of the task and feedback refers to the evaluation
of the task.
Long (1989) discussed two commonly aspects of communication tasks-the
distribution of task-essential information and the goal orientation of learners. Regarding
information distribution, Long discusses “one-way” tasks in which one learner holds all
task- essential information and must communicate it to the others, and “two-way” tasks in
which task-essential information is distributed between learners, enquiring them to share
and integrate it. Regarding goal orientation, Long discusses “open” task in which learners
know that there is no “correct” solution to the task, and “closed” tasks in which learners
9

know that there is only one or a small range of solutions. Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun
(1993) combine these conditions to produce a typology of tasks based on the opportunities
for interaction that they provide.
Yule (1997) provided a second typology of communication tasks. Yule proposes
three task types (descriptive, instructional, and narrative) and argues that the discourse
skills necessary for descriptive task are entailed in instructional task, and that the skills for
both are entailed in narrative tasks. Whereas the typology of Pica et al. (1993) helps to
understand how learners need to interact on individual tasks, Yule‟s (1997) typology
provides a basis for sequencing tasks developmentally. Although new approach is

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 large, 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. Also, Nunan (1989, p.10)
argues that a task is “a piece of classroom work which involves learners in comprehending,
producing or interacting in the target language while their attention is principally focused
on meaning rather than form”.
One of the definitions of task advocated much among researchers is Willis‟s
definition (1996) indicates that „tasks are always activities where the target language is
used by the leaner for a communicative purpose (goal) in order to achieve an outcome‟
(p.23). Drawing on Breen‟s (1987) definition, Littlejohn (1998) proposed a broader
definition: „A task refers to any proposal contained within the materials for action to be
undertaken by the learners, which has the direct aim of bringing about the learning of the
foreign language‟ (p. 198).
With this definition, each three aspects of task: process, participation and content
[Process means what teachers and learners go through; classroom participation concerns
whom learners work with in the process. Content is something that learners focus on
(Littlejohn, 1998)].
Skehan (1998) generalizes features of a task as follows:
1) Meaning is primary;
(2) Learners are not given other people‟s meaning to repeat;
(3) A task has some connection to the real-world;
(4) Task completion has some priority;
(5) The assessment of the task is in terms of outcome (p.95).
Finally, stressing both meaning and form, Ellis (2003), drawing on the research, also
defines task in a pedagogical way:
A work plan 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

+ Reasoning – gap activity, which involves deriving some new information from
given information through processes of inference, deduction, practical reasoning, or a
perception of relationships or patterns.
The activity necessarily involves comprehending and conveying information, as an
information – gap activity, but the information to be conveyed is not identical with that
initially comprehended. There is a piece of reasoning which connects the two.
+ Opinion – gap activity, which involves identifying and articulating a personal
preference, feeling, or attitude in response to a given situation. One example is story
completion; another is taking part in the discussion of a social issue. The activity may
involve using factual information and formulating arguments to justify one‟s opinion, but
there is no objective procedure for demonstrating outcomes as right or wrong, and no
reason to expect the same outcome from different individuals or on different occasions.
Another classification of task types, proposed by Richards, cited in Nunan (2004, p.58),
specifying 5 kinds of task:
12

+ Jigsaw tasks: These tasks involve learners in combining different pieces of
information to form a whole.
+ Information – gap tasks: these are tasks in which one student or group of students
has one set on information and another student or group has a complementary 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 a
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 don‟t need to reach agreement.