VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST – GRADUATE STUDIES
*********************

BÙI PHƢƠNG THẢO

AN EVALUATION OF LISTENING TASK COMPLEXITY IN THE
COURSEBOOK NEW HEADWAY PRE- INTERMEDIATE TO THE NONENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS AT HANOI UNIVERSITY OF INDUSTRY

( Đánh giá sự phức tạp của các hoạt động nghe trong giáo trình New Headway
Pre- intermediate dành cho sinh viên không chuyên Tiếng Anh tại trƣờng Đại
học Công nghiệp Hà Nội)

M.A Minor Program Thesis (Type I)

Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60140111

Hanoi - 2016


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST – GRADUATE STUDIES
*********************

BÙI PHƢƠNG THẢO

AN EVALUATION OF LISTENING TASK COMPLEXITY IN THE
COURSEBOOK NEW HEADWAY PRE- INTERMEDIATE TO THE NONENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS AT HANOI UNIVERSITY OF INDUSTRY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I am deeply indebted to my supervisor, Assoc. Dr. Phan
Van Que, for his precious advice, academic guidance and support. Without his
invaluable assistance, this thesis would not have been fulfilled.
I would also like to express my sincere thanks to all lecturers and the staff of
the Faculty of Post Graduate Studies, University of Languages and International
Studies, Vietnam National University for their useful lessons and materials which
are of great values to my thesis.
I am appreciative of all my colleagues, and the non- major English students
at Hanoi University of Industry for their precious cooperation in giving valuable
information.
Last but not least, I find myself in debt to my dear family, and my friends
who are always supporting me with their considerations and encouragement.

ii


ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to obtain knowledge about the evaluation of
listening task complexity in the coursebook New Headway Pre- intermediate used
for non- major English students at Hanoi University of Industry (HaUI) from the
perspectives of the users of the material (i.e. non- major English students and their
listening teachers). It took into consideration the needs in listening tasks of the
target students in order to suggest changes for the improvements for teaching
listening skill to non- major English students at HaUI.
The participants included 100 students chosen randomly among non- English
major students at HaUI and 20 teachers who were in charge of teaching English for
non- major English students. Two survey questionnaires were employed to discover
the participants‟ perspectives of the students‟ needs in listening tasks and how
listening tasks met these needs. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used

Needs analysis

SLA

Second language approach

TBLT

Task- based language teaching

Ts

Teachers

Ss

Students

iv


LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1: Robinson‟ model of task complexity
Table 2: Skehan‟s model of task complexity
Figure 3.1: Students‟ listening needs in terms of code complexity
Figure 3.2: Students‟ listening needs in terms of cognitive complexity
Figure 3.3: Students‟ listening needs in terms of communicative stress
Figure 3.4: Ss‟ evaluation on listening task complexity in terms of code complexity
Figure 3.5: Ts‟ evaluation on listening task complexity in terms of code complexity
Figure 3.6: Ss‟ evaluation on listening task complexity in terms of cognitive

1.1.3.

Significance of task- based language teaching .........................................5

1.2.

Task complexity ...........................................................................................6

1.2.1.

Definition of task complexity ...................................................................6

1.2.2.

Significance of determining task complexity ...........................................6

1.2.3.

Models to determine task complexity.......................................................7

1.2.4.

Skenhan‟s model of task complexity ......................................................10

1.3.

Listening tasks and teaching listening tasks ...............................................12

1.3.1.


2.2.3.2. Interviews ..............................................................................................21
2.2.4. Methods of data analysis .............................................................................22
2.2.4.1. Quantitative method ..............................................................................22
2.2.4.2. Qualitative method ................................................................................22
2.2.4.3. Data collection and analysis procedure .................................................22
CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ...................................................23
3.1. Questionnaire findings ....................................................................................23
3.1.1. Students‟ need in listening task ...................................................................23
3.1.1.1 Students‟ needs in listening tasks related to code complexity ...............23
3.1.1.2. Students‟ listening needs in listening tasks related to cognitive
complexity ..........................................................................................................24
3.1.1.3. Students‟ needs in listening tasks related to communicative stress ......26
3.1.2. Evaluation of listening task complexity in the course book ........................27
3.1.2.1. Evaluation of listening task complexity in terms of code complexity ..27
3.1.2.2. Evaluation of listening task complexity in terms of cognitive
complexity ..........................................................................................................29
3.1.2.3. Evaluation of listening task complexity in terms of communicative
stress ...................................................................................................................31
3.1.3. Teachers‟ opinions on the book‟ changes in order to better meet their
students‟ needs .......................................................................................................33
3.2. Interview findings ...........................................................................................34
3.2.1. Students‟ needs in listening tasks ................................................................34


3.2.2. Students‟ opinions on listening tasks‟ changes in order to better meet their
needs ......................................................................................................................34
3.3. Discussion findings .........................................................................................35
3.3.1. Students‟ needs in listening tasks ................................................................35
3.3.2. Evaluation of listening task complexity in the course book New Headway
Pre intermediate for non- Engish major at HaUI as perceived by the Ss and Ts ..36

conduct a research on the topic: “An evaluation of listening task complexity in the
coursebook New headway Pre- intermediate to the non- English major students at
Hanoi university of Industry” with an expectation to make a small contribution
towards improving the quality of teaching and learning listening skill at HaUI with
listening tasks in the course book New headway Pre- intermediate.
2. Aims of the study
New Headway Pre- intermediate course book is used for the second year
students during two semesters or thirty weeks. Each unit is instructed in nine or ten
periods of teaching and learning. The listening component is studied in one or two
periods, including three or four tasks. The research aims to both evaluate the
complexity of listening tasks in the course book and determine whether the

1


complexity of listening tasks are suitable for teaching listening in the situation.
More specifically, this study seeks to examine the following research questions.
1. What are the non- major English students‟ needs when doing listening
tasks at HaUI?
2. To what extent does the complexity of the current listening tasks in New
Headway Pre- intermediate meet their needs from perspectives of teachers
and students at HaUI?
3. Scope of the study
Due to the small scale of the study as well as the limitation of time, this study
only focuses on evaluating the complexity of listening tasks in the coursebook New
Headway Pre- intermediate for non- major English students at HaUI from the
perspectives of the users of these materials (e.g. the students and teachers taking
part in teaching and learning with New Headway Pre intermediate in school year
2015-2016.)
4. Significance of the study

summary of the whole study. The limitation of the study and suggestion for further
study are also recommended.

3


PART II: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Task and task- based language teaching
1.1.1. Real – world tasks
Michael Long (1985, p.19) provides a definition of task in its everyday
meaning: “a piece of work undertaken for oneself or for others, freely or for some
reward. Thus, examples of task include painting a fence, making an airline
reservation, borrowing a library book, taking a driving test, typing a letter,
weighing a patient, sorting letters, taking a hotel reservation, writing a cheque,
finding a street destination and helping someone across a road. In other words, by
„task‟ is meant a hundred and one things people do in everyday life, at work, at
play, and in between. Tasks are the things people will tell you they do if you ask
them, and they are not applied linguists.”
In this sense, the concept of task is used when discussing human skills
performance models. Crookes (1986, p. 32) supposed that “It has been shown that
the category „task‟, as used by researchers generally, is widely applicable and has
psychological reality. Much, if not most, of human activity, whether in employment
or in the classroom can be seen a series of tasks – some having a communicative
aspect, others not”.
1.1.2. Pedagogic tasks
Skehan (1998, p. 95) identifies a series of defining traits most researchers
would agree on when conceptualizing a task: “a task is an activity in which
meaning is primary; there is some kind of communication problem to solve; there is
some sort of relationship to comparable real-world activities; task completion has


p.293) suggested that a task-based approach is generally based on language use,
that the language learning problem is how learners, from such use, develop a
system of rules, and that individualization is an important aspect of the learning
situation.
From different perspective, Ellis (2003) listed three arguments in favor of
task-based syllabi. According to him, "the rationale for task-based syllabuses that
has been advocated by SLA researchers draws on a variety of arguments. First, it is
based on the theoretical view that instruction needs to be compatible with the
cognitive processes involved in L2 acquisition. Second, the importance of
learner 'engagement' is emphasized. And third, tasks serve as a suitable unit for

5


specifying learners' needs and thus for designing specific purpose courses".
1.2.

Task complexity

1.2.1. Definition of task complexity
Robinson (2001b) argues that task complexity is the result of the
attentional,

memory,

reasoning,

and


operations which need to be carried out on such a code.
Candlin and Nunan (1987) have also suggested that activities can be graded
according to the general cognitive demands they make. Their scheme has four

8


levels as follows:
 Attending and recognizing: the learner's ability to notice what kind of input he
or she is being confronted with.
 Making sense: the learner's ability to make sense of the input as a particular
example of language, determining, for example, what particular language it is, how
it is organized, how it is classified and patterned.
 Going beyond the information given: the learner's ability to hypothesize, infer,
and make judgments, for example, about the underlying meaning of the test.
 Transferring and generalizing: the learner's ability to extrapolate from any
particular texts of same type, genre, and purpose, or transferring the information
gained from and about a particular text to other texts that may be of other quiet
different structure, channel and purpose.
Robinson (2001A; 2001B; 2003A) proposes a three-dimensional model that
distinguishes between three different types of factors
Cognitive factor

Interactive factors

Difficulty factors

Task complexity

Task condition


b, ability variables

b, Resource dispering

b, participant

aptitude

+/- Single task

variables

proficiency

+/ Prior knowledge

e.g gender

intelligence

No

reasoning

familiarity
power/ solidarity
Table 1: Robinson’ model of task complexity

9

affecting the complexity of a task. This framework is known as Trade- Off
Hypothesis.

10


Code complexity

Cognitive complexity

Communicative
stress

- linguistic complexity

Cognitive familiarity

- time limits and

and variety

- familiarity of topic and

time pressure

- vocabulary load and

its predictability

- speed of


- clarity and sufficiency
of information given
- information types
Table 2: Skehan’s model of task complexity
Code complexity deals with the linguistic demand of the task, the language
needed to complete the task. More complex tasks are hypothesised to be those
which require more advanced and a wider range of grammatical structures and
lexical items from the task performer. Cognitive complexity distinguishes two
areas: cogntive familarity and cognitive processing. Cognitive familarity concerns
the extent to which the learner can draw upon previous experiences of performing
such a task or similar ones. Thus, if the task itself or the topic of the task is not
familiar to the learner, it is hypothesised to be more complex. Cognitive
processing concerns the thinking that is required to perform the task. The more the
learner needs to organize the information or the more steps needed to complete the
task, the more demanding the task will be and thus more complex. The last set of
factors is referred to the term „communicative stress”. Time pressure refers to the
amount of pressure exerted on the learner to perform a task quickly, as little or no

11


planning time may make the task more complex. The other factors referred to speed
of presentation, number of participants, length of text used, response type and
opportunities to control. In addition to these three categories, Skehan recognizes
that learner characteristics, such as the learner‟s intelligence, breadth of
imagination and personal experience may also interact with the essential
complexity of the task to influence its difficulty for a particular learner.
In this study, the evaluation of task complexity will be mainly based on
Skehan‟ model because it is updated and the researcher finds it easy to follow.

1.3.2. Potential problems in learning listening comprehension
Underwood (1989) presents seven problems which learners often encounter
in learning listening. Firstly, it is difficult for them to catch speakers‟ speed.
Secondly, the listeners are not able to get things repeated. Another difficulty is
learners‟ limited vocabulary. The next, they are not able to recognize the „signals‟
by which a speaker can indicate that he/she is moving from one point to another, or
giving an example, or repeating a point, or whatever. Listeners‟ problems of
interpretation are also mentioned by Underwood. Students who are unfamiliar with
the recording may have considerable difficulty in interpreting the words even if they
can understand their „surface‟ meaning. Especially, this can even occur when the
speaker and listener are from the same background and use the same language.
Besides, inability to concentrate is a major problem to the listeners, because even
the shortest break in attention can seriously impair comprehension. The last
problem is learners‟ established learning habits due to the fact that their teachers
aim to teach them to understand everything in the English lesson. Consequently,
students are worried if they fail to understand a particular word or phrase when they
are listening.
Goh (2000) attributes ten listening comprehension problems in relation to
three cognitive processing phases – perceptions, parsing, and utilization. Firstly,
learners reported most difficult ones are: „do not recognize words they know‟,
„neglect the next part when thinking about meaning‟, „cannot chunk streams of
speech‟, „miss the beginning of texts‟, and „concentrate too hard or unable to
concentrate‟. Secondly, listeners complained of problems such as „quickly forget
what is heard‟, „unable to form a mental representation from words heard‟, and „do
not understand subsequent parts of input because of earlier problems‟. Third, in the
utilization stage, „understand the words but not the intended message‟ and
„confused about the key ideas in the message‟ were often mentioned (Goh, 2000).

13




While-listening stage
The while-listening stage involves activities that students are asked to do
during the time that they are listening to the text. This stage gives students a guide
of framework to practice listening. It helps students to listen better, more accurately
through carefully designed comprehension tasks. Good while-listening activities
help learners find the way through the listening text and build upon the expectation
raised by pre-listening activities.
Post-listening stage
Post-listening stage involves activities related to a particular listening text
(whether recorded or spoken by the teacher) which are done after the listening is
completed.
The purposes of post-listening activities are:
 To check whether the learners have understood what they need to or not.
 To see why some students have missed parts of message.
 To give the students the opportunity to consider the attitude and manner of
the speaker of the listening text.
 To expand on the topic or language of the message and to transfer learned
things to another context.
 To make introduction for the planned work.
1.4.

Needs analysis ( NA) in language teaching
From goal-oriented perspectives, needs can be defined as what students

should be able to do at the end of their language course or “what the user-institution
or society at large regards as necessary or desirable to be learnt from a program of
language instruction” (Mountford, 1981, p. 27).
According to Brindley (1984), needs refer to wants, desires, demands,