VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

University of Languages and international Studies
faculty of English language teacher education

NguyÔn ng©n hµ

Exploring the use of tasks in teaching grammar for grade 10 students in Hanoi: an action research

submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of bachelor of arts (TEFL)

Hanoi, May 2011 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
University of Languages and international Studies
faculty of English language teacher education

1

NguyÔn ng©n hµ

Exploring the use of taskS in teaching grammar for grade 10 students in Hanoi: an action research

submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of bachelor of arts (TEFL)

supervisor: TrÇn thÞ lan anh, ma.

Hanoi, May 2011

ACCEPTANCE
I hereby state that I: Nguyen Ngan Ha, from 07.1.E1, being a candidate for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (TEFL) accept the

2

requirements of the College relating to the retention and use of Bachelor’s Graduation Paper deposited in the library. In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper deposited in the library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in accordance with the normal conditions established by the librarian for the care, loan or reproduction of the paper. Signature

Date: …………………………..

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Had it not been for the valuable help that I have received during the implementation, this thesis would have remained a dream. First and foremost, I owe my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Ms. Tran Thi Lan Anh, who has given me continuous support to complete the writing of this thesis as well as in carrying out the challenging research that lies behind it. Secondly, I would like to gratefully acknowledge the support of Ms. Le Hong Nhung and Administrative Board of Cao Ba Quat High school, who gave me a precious opportunity to apply tasks in teaching grammar. I also appreciate the enthusiastic participation of every student in class 10A12, Cao Ba Quat high school in my lessons. Without them, my thesis could not be completed. My special thanks are also sent to all teachers of CLC Division, ULIS for providing me with valuable background knowledge on English teaching methodology and Research methodology. I would like to show my gratitude to many of my friends who shared their experiences of the thesis writing endeavor with me. Last, but not least, I thank my family for giving me unconditional support and encouragement to pursue my interests.

4

ABSTRACT
The study was to investigate students’ attitude towards task-based grammar lessons and the extent to which these lessons could motivate students in the Vietnamese high school context. The action research procedures were used to study the processes and outcomes. In this study, tasks were applied in teaching grammar for fifty grade 10 students in Cao Ba Quat high school. Data from Cycle One were analyzed and used to make improvements for Cycle Two. Data were collected through teacher’s observation sheets, questionnaires, post-tests and interviews. The results of the research indicated that students were more motivated by task-based teaching in grammar lessons than the traditional approach. There were some factors of a task-based lesson that have created these changes such as real-life goals, group work activities or useful materials. Finally, a suggested frame-work of a task-based grammar lesson has been drawn with some pedagogical implications so that a successful application of tasks can be made in the similar settings.

5

LIST OF TABLES
PAGE Table 1 - Willis’ framework of task-based teaching approach ............. 21 Table 2 - Seven principles of task-based language teaching ................. 23 Table 3 - The classification of English level of participants ................. 29 Table 4- Research tools ......................................................................... 34 Table 5 - Data collection procedure ...................................................... 38 Table 6 - Students’ opinion about the practice of language skills ........ 42 Table 7 - The results of post-tests of unit 12 ......................................... 49 Table 8 - The results of post-test of unit 13 .......................................... 49 Table 9 - Students’ assessment on tasks ................................................ 55 Table 10 - Results of two post tests of Unit 14 and 15 ......................... 63 Table 11 - Students’ opinions about the usefulness of tasks ................. 67 Table 12 - Frame work of task-based teaching in grammar lessons ..... 73

6

LIST OF CHARTS
PAGE Chart 1- Approaches in teaching grammar before the integration of task ................................................................................... 41 Chart 2- Students’ interest in grammar lessons without using tasks ...................................................................................... 42 Chart 3 – Students’ interest in grammar lessons with the use of task ....................................................................................... 50 Chart 4 - How classroom’s atmosphere changed with the use of tasks ....................................................................................... 52 Chart 5 - Effectiveness of task-based grammar lessons in supporting students’ grammar acquisition ........................... 53 Chart 6 - English skills practiced in grammar lessons with the use of task ............................................................................. 54 Chart 7- Students’ interest in task-based grammar lessons ................. 64 Chart 8 - Changes in classroom atmosphere of task-based lessons .................................................................................. 65 Chart 9 - Effectiveness of task-based teaching in comparison with the old method .............................................................. 66 Chart 10 - English skills practiced in grammar lessons with the use of tasks ........................................................................... 67 Chart 11 - Levels of students’ motivation ............................................ 69

7

LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE Figure 1 - A framework for analyzing communicative tasks ............... 17 Figure 2 - Steps in an action research cycle according to Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) ................................................................ 33

8

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS GTM CLT EFL ESL TBLT PPP Grammar Translation Method Communicative Language Teaching English as Foreign Language English as Second Language Task-based Language Teaching Presentation- Practice- Production

9

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS PAGE

Acknowledgement ............................................................................. i Abstract .............................................................................................. ii List of tables ....................................................................................... iii List of charts ...................................................................................... iv List of figures ..................................................................................... v List of abbreviations .......................................................................... vi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1. The statement of problem and rationale for the study ............... 1 1.2. Aims of the study ....................................................................... 3 1.3. Research questions ..................................................................... 4 1.4. Significance of the study ........................................................... 4 1.5. Scope of the study ...................................................................... 5 1.6. Organization of the study .......................................................... 5 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. Key concepts .............................................................................. 7 2.1.1. Grammar ............................................................................ 7 2.1.2. Approaches to grammar teaching ...................................... 9 2.1.3. Task .................................................................................... 12 2.1.4. Task-based language teaching ........................................... 19 2.2. Related studies ........................................................................... 23 CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY 3.1. Research design ......................................................................... 27 3.2. Participants and research settings .............................................. 29
10

3.2.1. Participants ......................................................................... 29 3.2.2. Research settings ............................................................... 30 3.3. Materials .................................................................................... 31 3.4. Action research cycles ............................................................... 31 3.5. Data collection ........................................................................... 34 3.5.1. Research tools .................................................................... 34 3.5.2. Data collection procedure .................................................. 38 3.6. Data analysis .............................................................................. 39 CHAPTER IV: ACTION RESEARCH CYCLE ONE 4.1. Introduction .................................................................................. 40 4.2. Planning ........................................................................................ 40 4.2.1. Current situation reflected in the questionnaire 1 ................. 40 4.2.2. Lesson plans ......................................................................... 43 4.3. Action and observation ................................................................. 44 4.3.1. Unit 12 .................................................................................. 44 4.3.2. Unit 13 .................................................................................. 47 4.4. Reflection ..................................................................................... 49 4.4.1. Students’ scores in the post tests .......................................... 49 4.4.2. Students’ attitudes towards the use of tasks ......................... 50 4.5. Changes for Cycle two ................................................................. 56 CHAPTER V: ACTION RESEARCH CYCLE TWO 5.1. Introduction .................................................................................. 58 5.2. Planning ........................................................................................ 58 5.3. Action and observation ................................................................. 59 5.3.1. Unit 14 .................................................................................. 59 5.3.2. Unit 15 .................................................................................. 61 5.4. Reflection ..................................................................................... 62

11

5.4.1. Students’ scores in the two post tests ................................... 62 5.4.2. Students’ attitude towards the use of tasks ........................... 63 5.4.3. Student-motivating factors of task-based grammar lessons ..................................................................................... 68 CHAPTER VI: SUGGESTIONS FOR THE SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION OF TASK IN GRAMMAR TEACHING 6.1. Frame-work of task-based teaching in grammar lessons ................ 73 6.2. Implications of using tasks in grammar lessons ............................. 75 6.2.1. Tasks are activities with real-life goals ................................ 75 6.2.2. Tasks encourage students to reach and show an outcome ................................................................................... 76 6.2.3. Tasks should help students practice other English skills ........................................................................................ 76 6.2.4. Tasks encourage students to interact in English .................. 77 6.2.5. The position of grammar instruction in a task-based grammar lesson ....................................................................... 77 CHAPTER VII: CONCLUSION 7.1. Summary of important findings ...................................................... 78 7.2. Limitations of the study .................................................................. 79 7.3. Suggestions for further studies ....................................................... 80 7.4. Conclusion ...................................................................................... 80 REFERENCES .......................................................................................... 82 APPENDICES ........................................................................................... 87

12

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, the reasons for conducting research will be mentioned. Besides, the aims, research questions, the scope and significance of the study will also be stated clearly. Lastly, there is an overview of the organization of the paper. 1.1. The statement of problem and rationale for the study In the book “How to teach grammar”, Thornbury (1999, p.21) states that “the history of language teaching is essentially the history of the claims and counterclaims for and against the teaching of grammar”. Indeed, the position of grammar instruction depends on different methods and approaches to language. For example, teachers who are in favor of Grammar-Translation Method (GTM) start lessons with an “explicit statement of the rules” followed by translation exercises. In the meantime, deep-end Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) rejects both grammar-based syllabus and grammar instruction. The choice of teaching methods seems to be dependent on a particular context of language teaching and differs from country to country. According to Hinkel & Fotos (2002), in regions where English is studied as a foreign language (EFL), GTM is still being used as a primary method of English instruction. In these classrooms, English is learned through translation into the native language and memorization of grammatical rules and vocabulary. Within the current context of Vietnamese educational system, where English is also learned as a foreign language, grammar learning and teaching play an important role because of the wash-back of examinations in which grammar is one of the focuses. Meanwhile, with improvements in the national

13

educational system, the traditional grammar instruction or GTM has been gradually changed into CLT approach with less emphasis on grammar in the English program for high school students. Like other English skills such as reading, writing, speaking and listening, grammar should be taught with the new approach. However, CLT is a “broad, philosophical approach to the language curriculum” (Nunan, 2004, p.10) with weak and strong versions of different contents and methodology. While the weak version “stresses the importance of providing learners with opportunities to use their English for communicative purposes”, the strong one emphasizes the acquisition of language through communication. In other words, the weak interpretation of CLT is “learning to use” English and the other is “using English to learn it” (Howatt, 1984, p.279). PPP is the methodology used to teach language

contents of the weak version and task-based teaching belongs to the strong one. Task-based teaching can be seen in another way in which CLT is considered as a big family with different realizations and task-based teaching is one of them (Nunan, 2004). A task as an educational activity is defined as “a piece of classroom work which involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language while their attention is primarily focused on meaning rather than form” (Nunan, 1989, p.10) or “activities where the target language is used by the learner for a communicative purpose (goal) in order to achieve an outcome” (Willis, 1996, p.12). According to Long & Norris (2000), task-based teaching is an attempt to get benefits of a focus on meaning while dealing with shortcomings of grammar accuracy through the use of a focus on form. Task-based teaching has been used widely in many countries

14

since 1970s (Hinkel&Photos, 2002) because it provides students with freedom of language control and chances to have “genuine communicative interaction”. With the consideration to the context of Vietnamese high schools where there is a need of teaching English grammar communicatively, task-based teaching can become a good option. Firstly, according to Thornbury (1999), task-based teaching seems to be appropriate with learners having grounding in basic grammar and vocabulary. Indeed, high school students are in this case have been taught English in secondary schools before entering upper grades. Secondly, task-based teaching works well with mixed ability groups since task achievement does not depend on having a specific level of ability (Thornbury, 1999). This feature of task-based teaching matches the current context of Vietnamese non-English specialized high schools, where English level of students varies considerably. Moreover, with practical effectiveness of communicative tasks in English lessons, task-based teaching is expected to bring significant improvements in the approach to grammar lessons of Vietnamese high schools. Finding the way to integrating tasks with grammar teaching and exploring the contribution of task-based teaching towards grammar lessons are what the current study-“Exploring the use of tasks in teaching grammar for Grade 10 in Hanoi- An action research” searched for. 1.2. Aims of the study The study is to explore the use of tasks in grammar lessons within the current context of Vietnamese educational system. Because task-based teaching is new to both teachers and learners in high schools where the traditional method with much emphasis on grammar not communicative competence still exists, tasks should be adapted and made suitable with the current situation. The purpose of this paper is to find a proper way to integrate
15

tasks in teaching grammar for 10th form students and explore the usefulness of tasks in motivating and improving the grammar acquisition of students. 1.3. Research questions The study is conducted to answer three specific questions: a. What is the attitude of students toward task-based teaching in grammar lessons? b. How can task-based language teaching motivate students during English grammar lessons? c. What factors contribute to the successful application of tasks in teaching grammar to Vietnamese students? 1.4. Significance of the study In the first place, students and teachers of high schools in Hanoi are those who directly benefit from the information of the research. English teachers, especially those who have never had an intention of integrating tasks to grammar teaching before will have a new look at the methodology of grammar teaching. The study hopes to be a sample or suggestion for them to develop tasks in grammar lessons as well as in other English skills lessons. The limitation of this study and problems during the application of tasks will be valuable for English teachers so that they can conduct task-based English periods more smoothly and successfully. For students, the new method is expected to bring a lively and interesting environment for grammar lessons in which students can benefit directly. They can experience a different way of learning grammar in and have more inspiration with grammar. In the second place, the study is expected to be useful for further studies of the same topic in the future.
16

In general, students, teachers and researchers are those who are likely to benefit from the study. 1.5. Scope of the study As stated in the previous part, the research targeted at 10th form students only as they were identified as “newcomers” who have been much influenced by the teaching methods of English teachers at high schools. Besides, the study was restricted to 10th form students studying at high schools in Hanoi. Moreover, the research was conducted to explore the use of task in grammar teaching in class. It means that other skills such as reading, listening, writing and speaking were not covered in this study. 1.6. Organization of the study The study contains seven chapters: Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Introduction Literature review which presents the background theory underlying the issue, including definitions and relevant knowledge around key concepts, followed by a review of related studies in the same field. Chapter 3 Methodology defining the methodology of the research including features of the participants, contexts, research instruments, data collection and data analysis procedure. Chapter 4 Action research Cycle One, which discusses findings and analysis in the first cycle. Chapter 5 Action research Cycle Two, which discusses findings and analysis in the second cycle.

17

Chapter 6

Implications

and

suggestions

for

the

successful

application of tasks in grammar teaching Chapter 7 Conclusion which summarizes significant findings,

highlights contributions of the research, and puts forward practical suggestions for future research as well as address notable limitations.

18

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter is to present the background theory underlying the issue, including definitions and relevant knowledge around key concepts, followed by a review of related studies in the same field. 2.1. Key concepts 2.1.1. Grammar Since first being defined, grammar has caused a number of confusions because the word “grammar” depicts different meanings. According to Mario Pei in the Glossary of Linguistic Terminology (1966, p.108), “grammar is that part of the study of language which deals with forms and the structure of words (Morphology) and with their customary arrangement in phrases and sentences (Syntax)”. Supporting this definition, Huddleston (1988)

emphasizes the components of grammar which are morphology and syntax. Morphology deals with forms of words while syntax deals with the ordering of the words to form sentences. The same concept can be seen in the definition of Nunan (2003). However, “syntax” and “morphology” are respectively expressed by the structure of a language and the way in which units such as words and phrases are combined to produce sentences in the language. Chomsky (1959, p.13) also suggests another definition of grammar that is “a grammar can be regarded as a device that enumerates the sentences of a language”. Five types of English grammar which may be used in the context of the EFL classrooms are mentioned by Bourke (2005): traditional prescriptive grammar, structuralist applied grammar, modern descriptive grammar, Chomskyan generative grammar and Hallidayan systemic functional grammar.
19

Bourke (2005, p.86) describes traditional prescriptive grammar as “lays down the norms of correct usage”. Traditional grammar is said to be inaccurate and subjective. Prescriptive grammar rules sometimes bear little relation to modern English usage. In other words, Medina (2010, p.2) claims that this type of grammar is based on “the prestige language, dialects of a community”. The second type of grammar is structuralist applied grammar. Bourke (2005, p. 87) points out that structuralist grammar viewing language as “a taxonomy of set structure or patterns, which act as templates for the generation of any number of sentences on the same pattern” has a long lasting and harmful effect on the teaching of English. The problem of this type is that the English syllabus focuses mainly on syntax. The structural inventory is derived not from the learners’ needs but from the grammarian’s analysis (Bourke, 2005). The audio-lingual method was an approach to language teaching based on structuralist linguistics and behaviorist learning theory. Nowadays, prescriptive grammar has been replaced by modern descriptive grammar which describes actual usage rather than enforces arbitrary rules (Chomsky, 1959). Descriptive grammar is focused in a particular language within a speech community, and tries to create rules for common utterances which they consider grammatically correct (Medina, 2010). It describes real English in examples taken from real context of English use and are not made up as in traditional grammars (Bourke, 2005). The last two types of grammar which are generative grammar by Noam Chomsky and the systemic-functional grammar by M.A.K. Halliday have an important contribution to the study of grammar (Medina, 2010). According to Chomsky (1959), a generative grammar formalizes an algorithm that generates valid strings in a language and is a description of how to write a language. It is

20

focused on language acquisition in general, not to describe specific languages. While Chomsky approached grammar from “a mentalist perspective” (Bourke, 2005, p.92), Halliday approached it from a social perspective. Bourke (2005) mentions Hallidayan systemic functional grammar with its basic claim that is the use of English decides the form of it for a specific purpose. He emphasizes the practical use of grammar under the view of Halliday and asserts that grammar is a tool for making meaning. However, this type of grammar is also said to be “messy and complex” (Bourke, 2005, p.93). In brief, it may be said that “language without grammar is not possible and it would be chaotic” (Medina, 20101, p.6). Moreover, it would be also impossible to teach and learn a language properly without using grammar. 2.1.2. Approaches to grammar teaching It seems that since the appearance of language teaching, language teaching approaches and methods have always been developed with the desire to find effective language pedagogy (Hinkel&Fotos, 2002). It is also true to grammar teaching; however, until now, there may be no single best approach that would be applied in all situations to the diverse types of learners a teacher can encounter. “Grammar teaching” is still a variable term with a number of definitions and the role of grammar differs from methods to methods. This difference depends on the way each method and approach answers the questions “should the method adhere to a grammar syllabus?” and “should the rules of grammar be made explicit?” (Thornbury, 1999, p.20). - Grammar-Translation (GTM): According to Thornbury (1999), this method focuses on grammatical analysis and translation. Grammar-translation courses follow a grammar syllabus and lessons with an explicit explanation of the rule, followed by exercises involving translation into and out of mother
21

tongue. This method can provide students with good knowledge of grammar and translation but they can hardly apply it into communication. More importantly, grammar-translation method emphasizes the dominant role of grammar. - Audiolingualism: Audio-lingual method derives its theoretical base from behaviourist psychology, which considered language as simply a form of behavior, to be learned through the formation of correct habits. The Audiolingual syllabus includes a graded list of sentence patterns which forms the basis of pattern-practice drills, the distinguishing feature of

Audiolingualism. This method “dismissed the study of grammar or literature as the goal of foreign language teaching.” (Richards & Rogers, 1986, p.35) Communicative language teaching (CLT): Communicative

Language Teaching began in Britain in the 1960s as a replacement to the earlier structural method, called Situational Language Teaching. The primary aim of the CLT is to prepare learners for meaningful communication, and errors are tolerated. It is a learner-centered approach to language teaching in which grammatical knowledge is argued to be only one component of “communicative competence”. It is defined as “knowing how to use the grammar and vocabulary of the language to achieve communicative goals, and knowing how to do this in a socially appropriate way” (Thornbury, 1999, p.18). However, Thornbury (1999) also mentions that different version of CLT emphasized different roles of grammar. The shallow-end or weak version of CLT considers grammar one of the main components of the syllabus of CLT courses. Nevertheless, grammar is hidden under the cover of “functional labels” such as: asking the way, talking about yourself, making future plans. (Thornbury, 1999, p.22). When the deep-end or strong version of CLT is

22

developed, grammar-based syllabuses and grammar instruction are totally rejected from this version. This version has a leading proponent who was N.S. Prabhu, a teacher of English in Southern India. With his project, he designed a syllabus of tasks in which no formal grammar instruction was used and the successful completion of tasks was the lesson objectives. This project was then considered “the predecessor of what is known as task-based teaching” (Thornbury, 1999, p.22). However, task-based teaching allows the revival of grammar under the concepts of “focus on form”. - Focus on form: In the view of Hinkel&Fotos (2002), a purely communicative approach which does not include explicit grammar teaching or correct, despite its positive aspects, still has limitations. Firstly, it is because explicit grammar can not be used in this approach, grammatical competence essential for communication may not be attained merely through exposure to meaningful input. Moreover, advanced proficiency and accuracy in spoken and written production are just gained when the instructed learning is required. In order to address these limitations, “focus on form”, a new approach with the combination of formal grammar instruction and communicative language use was developed. While only teaching grammar forms does not produce communicative competence and the neglect of grammar instruction in communicative syllabus causes “fossilization and classroom pidgins” (Hinkel&Fotos, 2002, p.5) , the integration of these two approaches has been proved to have help learners able to recognize the properties of target structures in context and develop accuracy in their use (Fotos&Ellis, 1991).

23

2.1.3. Task a. Task definition The term “task” is approached from various aspects, so it has a variety of definitions. It can be defined as simply as Long (1985) stated:
[a task is] a piece of work undertaken for oneself or for others, freely

or for some reward. Thus, examples of tasks include painting a fence, dressing a child, filling out a form, buying a pair of shoes, making a 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 the hundred and one things people do in everyday life, at work, at play, and in between. (as cited in Nunan, 1989, p.5)

However, this definition makes the term irrelevant to linguistics or language teaching. The outcome of examples that Long (1985) gives may not relate to language and also involve language use at all. For example, people can do the task “painting a fence” without talking anything. And such tasks like “borrowing a library book” or “sorting letter” do not need to have a linguistic outcome. Therefore, the word “task” in this study is a communicative task and meant to relate to language teaching and learning. While there has been no common definition of tasks, similar features still exist. From these features, a classification of “task” definitions has been suggested by Kris Van den Branden (2006). He raises three basis questions guiding curriculum design and based on that to group available definitions. According to him, in order to build a second language curriculum, the designers have to answer three questions: What is the goal of the lesson that learners have to reach? How to design class activities to help learners reach that goal? And how to assess and follow up students’ learning process and
24

outcomes? When using “task” definitions to answer these questions, Branden has found that most of the available ones tend to answer the second question and only few are relevant to the first one. These few definitions have one point in common which is “task are goal-directed activities”. From these definitions, Branden (2006) offeres a new one which refers to tasks as language learning goals:
A task is an activity in which a person engages in order to attain an object, and which necessitates the use of language. (p.4)

With the analysis of definitions which relate to his second question such as those of Richards, Platt& Weber, 1985; Krahnke, 1987, Breen, 1989, Branden does not give out a specific definition for “task” but his analysis is enough for a clear view of “task” in language teaching and learning. In the first place, task should be a life-related activity. The necessity of a close link between classroom and the outside world is emphasized. In the second place, a communicative task should facilitate meaningful interaction and provide opportunity for the leaner process meaningful input and produce meaningful output. In other words, tasks should drive the learner to act as “a language user” not “a language learner” (Branden, 2006, p.6). Besides Branden’s viewpoint, other definitions have been stated clearly. Nunan’s (1989) is one of the most popular pedagogical definitions of a classroom task:
[a 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 on form. (p.10)

While Nunan pays his attention to the meaningful use of language during the implementation of tasks, Willis (1996, p.53) emphasizes another

25

feature of task which is its goal when defining that task is “a goal-oriented activity in which learners use language to achieve a real outcome”. According to him, the most important characteristic of a task is that learners are required to complete an activity with a specific target and after the completion of task, an outcome should be visible. By mentioning “a real outcome”, Willis also agrees with Nunan’s definition that language use in task should be the refection of language use in the outside world. Tasks are different from other approaches in a number of ways in providing learners with purposeful learning experiences. Willis (1996) views a task as “a label for various activities including grammar exercises, practice activities and role plays” (p.23). Moreover, tasks should “focus on meaning and form and encourage learners to view language learning as a purposeful experience” (Hui, Oi-lin & Irene, 2004, p.34) While there had been no clear agreement on the common definition of “task”, Jane Willis and Corony Edwards (2006) suggests five features of a communicative task which are also standards to justify tasks designed during the implementation of this study. A task must be (1) an activity (2) having a real-life goal with (3) a clear outcome (4), using any or four languages skills (5) and having real-world language use. It is also necessary to distinguish “task” used in this research with other activities. Activities which are not counted as tasks require learners to do exercises applying language patterns they have just been taught, for example, a transformation exercise, drilling exercises or acting out dialogues. b. Task types When designing tasks for any language lesson, a teacher has a number of choices to make in terms of the type of task. The classification of tasks can

26

be different depending on the perspectives of the linguists or researchers. Some classifications are general and others are more specific. According to Willis (2006), there are many ways to define types of tasks based on different aspects of task. For example, Nunan (1989) suggests two big types of task: real-world tasks and pedagogical tasks. Whereas, Willis (1996) lists six types of tasks of TBLT in her A framework for task-based learning, which are: listing, ordering and sorting, comparing, problem solving, sharing experience and creative tasks. From easy to difficult, these six types of tasks all reveal the recognition process of students. The tasks in TBLT should be “comparable to real life which might help students accomplish the tasks and show their communicative competence in classroom teaching and real life situations”. (Willis, 1996, p.149). Meanwhile, other people can divide tasks according to types of topic, cognitive processes, language skills required or the outcome of the task. According to Nunan (1989), real-world tasks provide learners with chances to use language in the world beyond the class while pedagogical tasks require students to do things which unlikely happen in the real life. In fact, it is ideal if a teacher can design suitable real-world tasks for his/her lesson. However, it is unusual for real-world tasks not to be adapted so that they can be suitable with students’ level, classroom conditions or syllabus. For example, a piece of news for high school students might be re-recorded at a lower or played many times until they can catch the information. In the real life, this is impossible. Therefore, in order to increase learning opportunities in the classroom, Nunan (1989) thinks of the transformation from real-world tasks into pedagogical tasks. Nevertheless, the distinction between two types of task is not always clear. It is easy to distinguish a real-world task like “the learner will listen to a weather forecast and decide whether or not to take an
27

umbrella and sweater at school” and a pedagogical one like “the leaner will listen to an aural text and answer true or false questions”. However, as Nunan (1989) mentions, there are tasks which are in principle authentic but seem not to happen in the real life (for example, a speaking task for children, “Making a formal introduction”). In the mean time, there are pedagogical tasks having real-life context such as “listening to an aural text and write a sentence restating the gist”. Therefore, it is possible to say that there is no clear criterion to differentiate real-life task and pedagogical task. In the meantime, there are six types of tasks listed by Willis (1996, p.149) which relate to the recognition process of learners: (1) Listing: Including brainstorming and fact-finding. The outcome of this task is a completed list or draft mind-map. Listing tasks help train students’ comprehension and induction ability. (2) Ordering, sorting: Including sequencing, ranking, categorizing and classifying. The outcome of tasks is a set of information ordered and sorted according to specific criteria. These types might foster comprehension, logic and reasoning ability. (3) Comparing: Including matching, finding similarities or differences. After the completion of tasks, students will have the appropriately matched or assembled items, or the identification of similarities and/or differences. This type of task could enhance students’ ability of discretion. (4) Problem-solving: Including analyzing real situation, analyzing hypothetical situations, reasoning, and decision-making. The outcome might be solutions to the problem. The tasks can help foster students’ reasoning and decision-making ability.

28

(5) Sharing experience: Including narrating, describing, exploring and explaining attitudes, opinions, and reactions. The outcome usually can be largely social. This can help students to share and exchange their knowledge and experience. (6) Creative tasks: Including brainstorming, fact-finding, ordering and sorting, comparing, problem-solving and many others. The outcome might be end product which can be appreciated by a wider audience. Students can cultivate their comprehensive ability of solving problems with their ability of reasoning, logical and analyzing. In this research, tasks which are designed to use in grammar lessons are only pedagogical tasks according to the classification of Nunan (1989). c. Task components The introduction of task components given by Nunan (1989) will be the focus of the current research. According to him, a task should include six components: Goal Input Activities Teacher Learner Settings

TASK

Figure 1. A framework for analyzing communicative tasks Goals may be “a range of general outcomes (communicative, affective or cognitive) or may directly describe teacher or learner behavior” (Nunan, 1989, p.49). They can be stated clearly in each lesson or not and a task may have a variety of goals.
29

“Input refers to the data that form the point of departure for the task” (Nunan, 1989, p.53). Input for communicative tasks comes from a number of sources and it is not easy to count and classify all types of input. They may be authentic materials like letters, newspaper, drawings, invoices, menus, etc. They may also be provided by teachers or textbooks and even learners themselves. Input with or without authenticity is totally not the big matter because the matter lies in the creation and combination of input materials so that they can provide learners with optimal learning opportunities. Activities are what learners will actually do with the input during the task implementation. According to the Bangalore Project (as cited in Nunan, 1989, p.66), there are three principal activity types which are information gap, reasoning gap and opinion gap. Moreover, activities can be divided into more detailed types such as: questions and answers, dialogues and role-plays, matching activities, communication strategies, pictures and picture stories, puzzles and problems, discussions and decisions (Pattison, 1987). Roles refer to the part that learners and teachers are expected to play in carrying out learning tasks. Different approaches have different roles of learners and teachers. In task-based learning and teaching, teachers are believed to perform two main actions: motivating the learners and supporting them to perform task (Branden, 2006). Learners have an active role and they should contribute to the lesson as well as receive new knowledge (Nunan, 1989). Settings are “the classroom arrangements specified or implied in the task, and it also requires consideration of whether the task is to be carried out wholly or partly outside the classroom” (Nunan, 1989, p.91). Referring to “settings”, it is necessary to differentiate between “mode” and “environment”.

30

As introduced by Nunan (1989), “mode” is the way that the learner will take actions in the task. It can be an individual or a group basis. “Environment” refers to the location of the language learning process. 2.1.4. Task-based language teaching a. Definition of task-based language teaching For the past 20 years, task-based language teaching (TBLT) has drawn attention of second language acquisition researchers, curriculum developers, educationalists and teachers world wide. While PPP is considered the methodology used in the weak version of CLT, tasks has a dominant role in strong version of CLT (Ellis, 1999). In another view, task-based teaching is regarded as a particular realization of CLT. It is a teaching method in which tasks is the center and the aim of task-based learning is to make language classroom approximate to the target language environment, develop students’ ability to communicate. Nunan (1999, p.24) defines task-based language teaching as “an approach to the design of language course in which the point of departure is not an ordered list of linguistic items, but a collection of tasks”. In other words, in task-based language teaching, tasks become the center of the course. Without emphasizing the establishment of a task-based course, Richards and Rogers (2001) have given a more basic and simple definition of task-based language teaching as “an approach based on the use of tasks as the core unit of planning and instruction in language teaching” (p.223). In this definition, tasks are also the focus but they are mentioned in the role of a language teaching device. Ellis (2003) clarifies the meaning of TBLT by identifying its aim of engaging learners in authentic language through the completion of tasks to acquire new linguistic knowledge and proceduralize their existing knowledge.
31

However, TBLT is not a definite method that teachers must follow systematically. Skehan (1996) distinguishes task-based approach into two forms – strong and weak ones, “[a] strong form sees tasks as the basic unit of teaching and drives the acquisition process. A weak form sees tasks as a vital part of language instruction but as embedded in a more complex pedagogical context” (p.36). While tasks in the strong form of task-based approach are “communicatively oriented”, in the weak form, they are “structure oriented”. Skehan (1996) notes that the weak form of task-based instruction which facilitates language knowledge and performance “is clearly very close to general communicative language teaching” (p.39). He affirms the necessity of tasks in the weak form while accepting the focused instruction to precede or follow those tasks. Tasks in this form are roughly comparable to the production stage of PPP method. The definition of “the weak form” by Skehan (1996) is likely to similar to what Ellis (2003) calls “task-supported language teaching” in which tasks act “as a means by which learners can activate their existing knowledge of the L2 by developing fluency” (Ellis, 2003, p.30). In task-supported language teaching, focused tasks are defined as “have two aims; one is to stimulate communicative language use as with unfocused tasks, the other is to target the use of a particular, predetermined target feature in meaning-centred communication” (Ellis, 2003, p.65). These tasks are incorporated into traditional language-based approaches to teaching. For example, the PPP approach makes use of focused tasks in the final stage of a sequence of learning activities that begins with the presentation of a pre-selected linguistic form followed by controlled practice. Learners are made aware of the linguistic focus and the task serves to provide opportunities for learners to use the pre-selected language item in free production.
32

However, in this research, attention to form occurs in interaction and students were not made aware that a specific form was being targeted. They chose to use it so as to convey the meanings they wanted to. In other words, in this study, the task comes first and serves a diagnostic purpose. Task-based language teaching used in the current research can be understood as “the weak form” of this approach according to the classification of Skehan (1996). Nevertheless, “task-based” will be the only term used in this study. b. The framework of task-based language teaching: The most popular framework of task-based teaching is designed by Willis (1996). She provides the procedures of task-based language teaching into three stages (Table 1) and this is also the framework of task-based teaching used in this study. Table 1. Willis’ framework of task-based teaching approach Stages Pre-task Content Introduction to topic and tasks Task Task-cycle Planning Report Analysis Language focus Practice (Willis,1996)

33

At the first stage - Pre-task, teachers play an important role because they will provide necessary background, knowledge and procedure, help students get familiar with the topic and the task. At the second stage, there are three small phases which are task phase, planning phase and report phase. In the task phase, students will carry out the task, in pairs or in groups, while teachers are supervisors and monitors helping students complete the task. Before coming to the report phase in which learners are required to present the results of their task phase work to the whole class, they have to be sure that they have had a good preparation by the planning phase. In planning phase, students will prepare for the report and rehearse what they will say. The language focus stage includes two small phases: analysis and practice. This is the stage in which language knowledge will be revised or taught and activities are designed to help students practice what they have learnt through the task. c. Principles for task-based language teaching Nunan (2007) suggests seven principles for task-based language teaching and they are criteria for the researcher while designing and conducting grammar lessons with the use of tasks. Principle Content It means that students need support from teachers to complete tasks. Teachers should provide “a supporting framework within with the learning can take place” (Nunan, 2007, p.35) In a lesson, one task should be built on the foundation of previous task.
34

Principle 1: Scaffolding

Principle 2:

Task dependency Principle 3: Recycling Principle 4: Active learning Principle 5: Integration Principle 6: Reproduction to creation Principle 7: Reflection “Recycling language maximizes opportunities for learning and activates the “organic” learning principle.” (Nunan, 2007, p.36) Learners should be active during the lesson and use the language they are learning. There should be clear relationships between linguistic form, communicative function and semantic meaning in the lesson. “Learners should be encouraged to move from reproductive to creative language use”. (Nunan, 2007, p.37)

It is necessary for teachers to provide chances for students to show what they have learnt.

Table 2. Seven principles of task-based language teaching 2.2. Related studies Task-based is not a new approach in teaching methodology and its effectiveness in enhancing students’ communicating ability has been studied by a number of researchers. Both researchers and teachers attempt to seek for practicality in every aspect of language teaching and learning. It seems that it is possible to apply task-based teaching in any skill, reading, writing, speaking and listening with various purposes. For example, task-based writing activities could be a good way to improve reading comprehension, which was the finding of Tilfarlioglu and Basaran (2007) in their experimental study. While there is still a lot of controversy in whether or not should grammar be taught as other skills, task-based approach finds it own way in grammar teaching to make grammar lesson becomes easier and more

35

interesting, especially in countries where English is taught as second or foreign language. However, there are not many studies which have been conducted about applying task in grammar teaching. Zhu (2007) is among those who started studies on teaching grammar with the integration of task-based teaching. In the study “Integrating taskbased teaching approach into grammar teaching”, with the supposition that teaching English grammar in China traditionally made students get bored with the studies, he designed tasks in class based on the theory of task-based approach, especially the framework for task-based learning proposed by Willis (1996) including three stages: Pre-task, Task-cycle and Language focus. However, in the research, the type of communicative tasks was not specified. Basic knowledge on tasks and task-based approach was provided but the features of tasks used in teaching grammar were not clearly stated. These features were just simply demonstrated through his description of task cycle and small examples. However, in his own study, Zhu carried out grammar lessons integrating tasks as a new approach to grammar teaching at school and received positive reaction from students. Group work was proved to make the tasks and the overall lesson easier and more interesting. The researcher also showed advantages when applying tasks in grammar teaching. For example, students’ ability to communicate was improved clearly and they could get much meaningful language input. An effective way to improve grammar teaching was explored quite successfully in Chinese schools where the situation of English teaching and learning is quite the same as in Vietnam. Also studying task-based grammar teaching, Cuesta (1995) did not have any particular model of tasks for grammar lesson but she dug deep into the benefit of task-based in teaching and learning grammar. The study did not

36

deny the difficulties when applying task-based approach in L2 classes with limited- English ability students. However, it pointed out that when grammar was engaged in collaborative discourse, task-based grammar would provide learners with a richer source of language and proceduralize grammar in reallifer language use. Like Zhu, Cuesta did realize the outstanding profit of taskbased in teaching grammar which is the combination of grammar and real-life language and situation, so learners have more chance to communicate but still acquire grammar successfully. Another valuable study named “Designing and testing effective grammar-focused communicative tasks” was conducted by Alison Mackey & Akiko Fujii (2007). As its name, this research studied the effectiveness of grammar-focused communicative tasks. Although a model of task-based language teaching in grammar was not mentioned, the use of communicative tasks with the focus on grammar is of great value to research as a reference in designing tasks. Its remarkable feature is that the data were collected both from ESL and EFL classes, which brought a broader and more comprehensive view on the use of tasks for grammar teaching. The researchers intended to use explicit presentation of grammar and they were successful when the quality and reaction of students towards this approach were much positive. However, this presentation was separated from tailor-made communicative tasks. It means that communicative tasks were used as practice activities besides traditional ones, so it is easy to understand that the findings of this study could only prove that tailor-made communicative tasks were effective and feasible when they were involved in corrective feedback. In brief, related studies have proved a promising future of task-based approach in grammar teaching although an agreement on the same format of

37

tasks has not been reached. This affirms that task-based approach for grammar teaching can be accessed and applied in different ways. With the same objectives as these studies, this research attempt to find a feasible type of task for grammar teaching in EFL classes as well as the most proper way of integrating task in grammar lessons. However, it is expected that a model or a framework for teaching grammar through tasks will be established as the study is completed.

38

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY
In this chapter, the, selection of participants, research instrument, data collecting and analyzing procedures are systematically discussed. Before that, the research approach of this study is clarified. 3.1. Research design The research design of this study is action research. The idea of doing action research can be traced back to Kurt Lewin, a social psychologist and educator whose work on action research was developed throughout the 1940s in the United States. Action research is defined as “a process in which participants examine their own educational practice systematically and carefully, using the techniques of research” (Ferrance, 2000, p.1). This kind of research is said to base on three assumptions:
1. Teachers and principals work best on problems they have identified for themselves. 2. Teachers and principals become more effective when encouraged to examine and assess their own work and then consider ways of working differently. 3. Teachers and principals help each other by working collaboratively. 4. Working with colleagues helps teachers and principals in their professional development. (Watts, 1985, p.118)

Action research is considered a typical research of teaching and learning because it is undertaken in a school setting. Recently, action research has gained popularity in ELT. Different from other types of research, it can be evaluated as “practical research” because of the involvement to “people working to improve their skills, techniques, and strategies. It is not about learning why we do certain things, but rather how we can do things better”

39

(Ferrance, 2000, p.3). The practice of action research is visible and seen to hold great value as a tool for professional development (Ferrance, 2000). Brown (2005) suggests that: “Teachers will learn most effectively and change behavior in circumstances where there is personal engagement in identifying a practical concern as the focus of the research, designing the study, taking action, collecting evidence, formulating conclusions and feeding these back to practice.” (as cited in Songsiri, 2007, p.50) Regarding the features of action research, Setyanigrum (2010) states that action research is interactive, multiple-focused, interrelated, formative, concrete, rigorous, solid inquiry that strives to build for the individual teacher a sophisticated theory of learning, and radically integrated with practice. Whereas, Richards (2005, p.171) mentions some more detailed characteristics of action research which are improving teaching and learning in schools and classroom, being conducted during the process of regular classroom teaching, being small-scale and intended to help, resolving problems rather than simply be research for its own sake and carried out by teachers. With the consideration of the features of action research, the researcher was convinced that this was an appropriate method to use in exploring the use of task in grammar teaching for Grade 10 students. To monitor the outcomes and evaluate them, observations, questionnaires, interviews and post-tests were used. The details of instruments as well as procedure of the research will be mentioned in the next parts of this chapter.

40

3.2. Participants and research settings 3.2.1. Participants The scope of the study is grade 10 students in Hanoi. However, participants of the research are 50 students in one class whose major is natural science at Cao Ba Quat high school. Students in this class have a wide range of English proficiency. Grammar is taught more than other four skills (reading, listening, writing and speaking). Based on the average mark in English of 50 students, the researcher classified students in groups A, B, C, and D. The result of classification can be seen in the following table: Level of English proficiency A B C D Number of students 8 23 14 5

No. 1 2 3 4

Mark 8.5 – 10 7.0 – 8.4 5.5 – 6.9 <5.5

Table 3. The classification of English level of participants Despite learning all four skills in class besides grammar and pronunciation, grade 10 students almost focus on grammar because of the wash-back effects of the graduation exam and University entrance exam on English. Mastering grammar patterns should be considered their current goal of learning English as foreign language. Therefore, a focus on formS is what they are more familiar with than a focus on meaning.

41

3.2.2. Research settings This research was carried out with Group 10A12 in Cao Ba Quat high school, where the medium of instruction is English and Vietnamese and students study English as a foreign language. With the innovation in English textbooks and curriculum, all four skills are taught besides grammar but it is grammar that is of the most importance. In each unit, reading skill comes first, and then listening, speaking, writing. Language focus which includes pronunciation and grammar is the last part. Each period is in 45 minutes. As there are three English periods per week, grammar is taught every two weeks in 30 to 35 minutes besides 10 to 15 minutes of teaching pronunciation. The selection of grammar structure to teach does not depend on teachers but is predecided by the textbooks so the content of each English grammar lesson is the same in every class. Task-based language teaching used in this study was the weak form of the approach where tasks are “a vital part of language instruction, but […] are embedded in a more complex pedagogic context” (Skehan 1996, p. 39). Tasks were required to be completed by the teacher without noticing students to grammar contents of the lesson. After the completion of tasks, grammar points were presented and followed by controlled practice with exercises. The reasons for using this form of task-based approach were similar to what Hinkel& Fotos (2002) explain for their viewpoint that purely communicative tasks can be impossible in EFL classes. In the first place, due to the limitation of access to communicative target language, EFL learners cannot receive enough communicative input to acquire uninstructed target language forms. Secondly, EFL learners are said to have no real-world needs for specific communicative functions in the target language. In the context of this study,

42

the goal of high schools students is to pass English exams, especially the graduation and entrance exams to university. Therefore, for most of them, the real-world goal is to master grammar structures and attain the accuracy in using them. With these conditions, the use of tasks in grammar lessons did not reject the explicit of grammar instructions. Tasks were designed and assessed with criteria given by Willis (1996). Her frame work in which the explicit of grammar instructions was in the language focus was also applied. 3.3. Materials The text book used to teach during the study is Tieng Anh 10 for English non-specialized students. However, it is only considered a source of reference to the curriculum and the teaching contents. There was a wide range of adaptation of the textbook during the implementation of this research. The teacher based on required teaching contents to find materials and exercises for students. With the integration of tasks, other types of materials have been used, especially authentic ones such as English newspaper, magazines, radio recordings, films. These materials can be used to illustrate at all three stages of a lesson: the pre-task, task cycle and language focus. Besides materials served for interactive activities in structure-based tasks, students need materials to practice drilling exercises with the purpose of passing examinations. These are tailor-made materials which the teacher collected and revised to suit the content of each lesson. 3.4. Action research cycles Burns (2010) suggests four steps of a cycle in each action research: Planning, action, observation and reflection. Based on that, the researcher designed her own cycles of this study which included four steps:

43

- Step 1- Planning: At this step, problems that had occurred during previous grammar lessons were identified through observation. Moreover, a survey was delivered to investigate students’ attitude towards current grammar lessons and their assessment on the quality of these lessons. From this survey, the researcher re-defined the problems of grammar classes. After that, a hypothesis was drawn that students found grammar lessons not interesting enough and these lessons did not provide students with adequate opportunities to practice other skills which are important to improve their English competence. After the formation of the hypothesis, lesson plans and strategies were designed to solve problems. - Step 2 - Action: At this step, the researcher acted as planned. Students and the teacher together performed the plan. Grammar lessons were taught with the application of tasks. - Step 3 - Observation: Some instruments such as questionnaires, interviews, post tests and observation were used to collect data on the effects of actions and opinions of students about changes in the grammar lessons or task-based approach. - Step 4 - Reflection: At this point, the researcher basing on data collected reflected on, evaluated and described the effects of task-based approach in grammar teaching in order to make sense of what had happened and to understand the issue more clearly. At this step, changes in action were decided and applied in the next cycle. The illustration of these four steps was shown in Figure 2:

44

Figure 2. Steps in an action research cycle according to Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) In this research, there were two cycles which included all four above steps. For the first cycle, the researcher or teacher taught two grammar lessons and each lesson took up 30 minutes with the integration of tasks. Two units involved in this cycle were Unit 12 and Unit 13 in the textbook Tieng Anh 10. After each lesson, students had to do a post-test to check their understanding of grammar structures that had just been taught. After two lessons, questionnaires were delivered to investigate students’ attitudes and assessments towards changes in grammar lessons. Following the collection and analysis of data, the tasks and teaching method were revised to improve the program for the next cycle. In the second cycle, with improvement and changes from the previous cycle, the teacher taught two units: Unit 14 and 15 with the same steps as the first one. After the data collection, an evaluation of the final outcomes and suggestions for further studies were made.

45

3.5. Data collection In this part, the employed instruments and collection procedure will be explained clearly. 3.5.1. Research tools In action research, there is a range of observation and non-observation methods commonly used (Burns, 2010). Two major questions underlying these instruments are: What do I need to see? (Observation) and What do I need to know? (Non-observation). The following table shows the choice of research tools in this study: Table 4. Research tools Observation Self - observation Non-observation Interviews Questionnaires Post-test With this study, self-observation, questionnaires, interviews and posttests were fully employed. The combination of these instruments was expected to generate valid and reliable data. a. Observation Burns (2010, p.67) appreciates observing and describing as key factors in action research. Collecting data through observation in this type of research is considered to make familiar things strange because the teacher as well as a researcher will have to discover what he has never consciously noticed before. Among different modes of observation, this research chose “self-observation” as its instrument. Classroom’s activities observed would be noted down in the
46

observation notes which had been designed readily (See Appendix 4). The researcher noted what she recognized by herself during the lessons. Her description and comments on the lessons were then compared to data collected from students’ questionnaires and interviews in order to evaluate whether there is a similarity between teacher’s thought and students’ opinions. b. Questionnaires: Nunan (1989) states that through using questionnaires, one can inquire into any aspect within teaching or learning process. Teachers use questionnaires to have reliable data so they can derive conclusions from such data. Moreover, questionnaires is a device to ensure the quality of data as when the participants respond to the same questions in the same way, the answers become more reliable. Also, from reality, the researcher found it time and effort saving to conduct questionnaire surveys among a large number of students. This is also the advantage that interviews can not have. According to Dornyei (2007), questionnaires can bring three types of information: factual or demographic which describes interviewees and their background; behavioral which shows what they do or did in the past; attitudinal which focuses on finding attitudes, opinions, or beliefs of interviewees (as cited in Burns, 2010, p.91). In this study, there were three questionnaire papers which had been carried out and mostly collected attitudinal information from students. The questionnaire 1 (See Appendix 1) was delivered to fifty participants before the application of task-based teaching in grammar lessons. This questionnaire was designed to investigate students’ attitude toward grammar and grammar lessons and their assessment on the effectiveness of these lessons. Through this survey, they showed their concept of the importance of grammar in

47

English learning and in comparison with other four skills (reading, speaking, listening and writing). Besides, students also gave comments to many aspects of current grammar lessons such as teacher’s way of giving grammar instruction, classroom activities, or atmosphere. Especially, this survey aimed to figure out the effectiveness of grammar lessons before the application of tasks in the view of students. This questionnaire helped the researcher define the current situation of grammar lessons, strong and weak points of the teaching methodology to develop a proper form of task-based grammar lessons. The questionnaire 2 (See Appendix 2) was delivered to the same participants after the completion of integrating tasks into grammar teaching in Cycle One. In this cycle, this questionnaire was done by students to help researcher answer questions: What is the attitude of students towards taskbased teaching? What are strong and weak points of lessons with the application of tasks? From the results of this questionnaire, necessary changes would be made for Cycle Two. The questionnaire 3 (See Appendix 3) was delivered at the end of Cycle Two. This was not only to investigate students’ attitude towards and assessment on grammar lessons in Cycle Two but also the whole process. The results of this questionnaire helped researcher explore the effectiveness of task-based teaching in grammar lesson based on students’ opinion. The answer for the first research question would mostly be drawn from this questionnaire. c. Interviews Interviews are a classical way in research to conduct a conversation that explores the focus area of the study. In this study, semi-structured interviews
48

were a useful source of collecting data and valuable “follow-up” for the questionnaire 3 delivered at the third step of Cycle two. The results collected from this interview were used to mainly answer the second question of this study: How can task-based teaching motivate students in grammar lessons? While structured interviews are those which “closely allied to the questionnaire” (Leedy, 1997, p.199), semi-structured interviews are both structured and organized but also more open. According to Burns (2010), semi-structured interviews can enable the researcher to make some kinds of comparisons across participant’s responses but still ensure individual diversity and flexibility. Therefore, the research will get deeper opinions or ideas for her focus matter and so gain richer information. During the interview with each student, every question and answer as well as statements were recorded and taken note by the researcher. Despite having guiding questions, the interviewer with a notice of the characteristics of high school students carried out the interview in the form of informal talks. An informal talk like a chat between friends made students more comfortable, so their sharing was more open, frank and reflected their true opinion and attitude towards the new lesson. d. Post-tests In the study, it is necessary to realize whether task-based teaching is effective in helping students acquire grammar patterns in class or not. Therefore, the researcher designed post-tests (See Appendix 8) to evaluate students’ understanding and memory of grammar structures after each period with the application of task-based approach. That was the only objective of post-tests in both cycles. Due to the influence of objective factors such as students’ mood or classroom’s atmosphere, it is impossible to compare the
49

results of post-tests with previous results that students had gained before the use of tasks. Therefore, researcher had no intention of basing on post tests to compare the effectiveness of task-based teaching with the conventional method. These post-tests took five minutes to complete and were designed relating to the content of the lesson. Every participant had to do this test. 3.5.2. Data collection procedure The following table is the summary of the data collection procedure in this study: No. 1 2 3 3 4 Research instruments Questionnaire 1 Questionnaire 2 Questionnaire 3 and Interview Self -observation Post-tests Steps/cycle to use Step 1 – Cycle 1 Step 3 – Cycle 1 Step 3 – Cycle 2 Step 3 – Cycle 1 and 2 Step 3 – Cycle 1 and 2

Table 5. Data collection procedure In this research, the questionnaire 1 was used to provide data about students’ attitude towards and assessment on grammar lessons without the use of tasks. It was delivered before the use of tasks in grammar teaching or the first step of Cycle One. The observation sheets were collected after each lesson when tasks were applied in the second step of each cycle. The post tests were done by students and collected after each period of grammar lessons to check students’ understanding of the content that had just been taught. The questionnaires 2 and 3 and interviews were to investigate students’ attitude

50

towards the new method. However, after Cycle One, no interview was conducted. 3.6. Data analysis Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to analyze data collected in the study. Mechanical counting had to be performed to render specific statistic. These numbers were then put in charts and graphs for better illustration and explanation. This step also made that study more concise and scientific. This method was employed to analyze data from questionnaires and results of posttests. Qualitative methods were helpful when the researcher analyzed data from the interviews and observation notes. Facial expressions were read and languages used were taken into consideration too. As it is almost impossible to put these types of information into charts or graphs, the researcher often quoted the interviewees’ ideas to support the points or extracted from notes of the observer.

51

CHAPTER IV: ACTION RESEARCH CYCLE ONE
This chapter is aimed to report what had been done during Cycle One of the study. The data collected from students’ interviews, questionnaires and post tests are analyzed and some changes for Cycle Two will be recommended in this section. 4.1. Introduction This cycle is considered an introduction of task-based teaching applied in grammar lessons for the first time to discover changes in the class and students’ attitude towards grammar learning. Before the integration of tasks, a questionnaire had been delivered so that a general view of grammar teaching and learning at the high school could be achieved. This chapter is organized the procedure of the cycle including four steps: planning, action, observation and reflection. 4.2. Planning 4.2.1. Current situation reflected in the questionnaire 1 Questionnaire 1 (See Appendix 1) were delivered to students in class 10A12 to investigate the general situation and clarify students’ attitude towards grammar lessons a. A normal grammar lesson procedure When being asked to describe the typical procedure of the traditional grammar lessons, 90% of students (45 out of 50) said that their teacher often explained grammar rules before giving examples. Doing drilling exercises was the last step of a lesson. This procedure of grammar lessons matched the

52

“deductive approach which starts with the presentation of a rule and is followed by examples in which the rule is applied” (Thornbury, 1999, p.29). Chart 1. Approaches in teaching grammar before the integration of task
10%

Deductive approach Inductive approach

90%

Others

The deductive approach to language teaching “is traditionally associated with Grammar Translation Method” which has had a bad press (Thornbury, 1999, p.29). In the viewpoint of Thornbury (1999), GTM lost teachers’ interest partly because of the use of mother tongue in explaining grammar points which limits opportunity for students to practice the target language. Moreover, drilling exercises used in the lessons only involve reading and writing skill and little attention is given to speaking and pronunciation. Besides, the use of deductive approach had some possible disadvantages. For example, Thornbury (1999) claims that the presentation of grammar at the beginning of a lesson may caused displeasure to students, especially younger ones but encourage a teacher-centered style. It is this style that reduces students’ interaction and involvement in the lesson. In addition, explanation is mentioned as a less effective way in helping students memorize grammar points. In brief, the normal procedure of grammar lessons before the use of tasks with the deductive approach had shown its own limitations and it was necessary for the teacher to seek for another method to overcome these disadvantages.
53

b. Usefulness of grammar lessons In the questionnaire 1, students were required to evaluate their interest in lessons without the use of tasks. The following chart shows the results of this question: Chart 2. Students’ interest in grammar lessons without using tasks
2% 8%

Very interesting Interesting Normal
40% 50%

Boring Very boring

The chart shows that only four out of 50 students were interested in English grammar lessons. Moreover, grammar lessons were even boring to 40% of them, which presents the necessity of increasing students’ motivation towards grammar lessons. Table 6 - Students’ opinion about whether they have opportunities to practice other English skills in grammar lessons Statements I do not have many chances to practice other English skills in grammar lessons Agree Disagree Neutral 30 16 4

In terms of lessons’ effectiveness, 16 students claimed that these grammar lessons were not effective and useful for their English learning in

54

general. Nevertheless, the majority (75%) of students still agreed that these lessons were effective to some extent. However, when being asked about whether grammar lessons provided them with a variety of opportunities to practice other skills such as writing, listening, reading and speaking during these lessons, 60% of the students said “no”. In general, grammar lessons were acceptable to most students in terms of helping students improve their English grammatical knowledge. However, students were not really motivated in these lessons. Moreover, opportunities for them to practice other English skills (writing, reading, listening and speaking) were not sufficient. 4.2.2. Lesson plans Lesson plans with task-based approach were designed to gain three objectives: - Maintain or increase the effectiveness of grammar lessons - Raise students’ motivation and interest in grammar lessons - Provide chances for students to practice other English skills. In this cycle, two units (Unit 12 and Unit 13 of Tieng Anh 10) were selected. Lesson plans with the integration of task were designed to match the objectives of each unit and included all three steps of a task-based frame-work (by Willis, 1996): pre-task, task cycle and language focus. The following is the description of tasks used in Unit 12 and 13. Lesson plans and related materials can be found in Appendix 7.

55

* Unit 12: Wh-questions Task: Students are required to work in groups of four and provided with a passage about the band “The Beatles”. With that information, students will make a quiz about this band. Each member of groups will have to think and discuss with the others to finalize the quiz. After discussion, some groups will present their outcome by using this quiz to ask other groups. * Unit 13: Articles: a/an/the Task: In this task, students work in groups of four to design an ideal house so that it can prevent itself from damage by earthquakes and tsunami as what happened in Japan in March 2011. They then will draw that house. Finally, some groups will present their ideas before the class before the vote for the most impressive one. In this task, teacher provides a list of new words relating to houses and buildings so that it is easier for students to express their ideas. 4.3. Action and observation 4.3.1. Unit 12 * Pre-task - Introducing the topic: Teacher asked students about the theme of this unit (Music). After that, students were provided with a picture and guessed who were in the picture. The answer for the picture, “The Beatles”, was also the topic of the task. - Pre-task language activity: Students were asked to read through the handout about “The Beatles” and tried to understand new words listed at the end of the passage. This step, after that, was realized to be difficult for

56

students as most of them were not able to understand English explanation of new words. However, the problem was not raised until the task-cycle stage. - Giving task instruction: At this step, the teacher gave the requirement of the task that was students worked in groups of four or five to design a quiz about The Beatles for the collective activity at the weekend. After that, they would go the stage to present their outcomes. The teacher explained that students should write questions based on given information and note down the answer and that the quiz should include at least four questions. Finally, some sample questions were provided by the teacher so that students could design the quiz based on the examples. * Task-cycle - Task stage: At this stage, the teacher acted as a monitor. The class was divided into groups of four or five. In their groups, students chose information that they found useful for their quizzes. Good students in each group were the most active during this step. They read the information quickly and designed quizzes without much problem. However, because this was a group activity, other members of the group were still involved in the task. Even though they could not design question themselves, they observed the others with attention. The teacher went around and observed groups completing the tasks. Sometimes, comments on questions or encouragements were given to groups. During this stage, an unexpected problem occurred when students could not understand the meaning of new words because they were explained in English. Therefore, teacher, instead of just going around and observing, went to each group and asked whether her students met difficulties with new words or not. At this time, teacher realized that she did overestimate her students’

57

ability. New words which were asked by students were explained again in Vietnamese so that students had more time on the main task. - The planning stage: At this stage, the teacher acted as a language adviser. After stopping students discussing, teacher gave students three more minutes to revise their quizzes and prepare for presentation. Each group would have chance to give out three questions. While students were preparing, the teacher went around and gave corrective feedbacks on the quiz in terms of grammar, word choice. - The report stage: Due to time limitation, there was only three minutes for presentation; therefore, one group was called to read out their questions and other students raised their hands to answer. Before that, teacher required students to face down their handout so that they could not find information but had to recall it. While the presenting group was giving out their quiz, teacher wrote down those questions on board in order that students could realize the common structures of Wh-questions. Some questions were: - How many members are there in the Beatles? Who are they? - When did they “die”? - What are names before the name “the Beatles” ? The teacher let students ask and answer as if they were in a small game without the interference of teacher. Therefore, this part involved most of students and the atmosphere of the lesson was extremely relaxing and the atmosphere of the class became more lively and motivating.

58

* Language focus - Corrective feedback: After the report stage, the teacher drew students’ attention to questions on the board and asked students to give comments. Correction for these questions was made before the next step. - Language analysis and practice: From samples, students were asked to draw the common structure of Wh-questions. The second handouts on some popular questions were delivered to students. In the last minutes of the lesson, the teacher instructed students to do drilling exercises. These exercises were then completed at home. 4.3.2. Unit 13 * Pre-task - Introducing the topic and context: The time when the lesson plan was designed coincided with the news that caught attention of all people in the world: Earthquakes and tsunami destroyed Japan. Therefore, the teacher decided to attach the context of the task in Unit 13 with that real-life event. The context was “Japanese people need an ideal house which can protect them from natural disasters such as earthquake and tsunami. Let’s design such houses for them”. - Pre-task language activity: The teacher gave students a list of word relating to houses and buildings. Students were asked to guess the meanings of some popular words. - Giving task instruction: The teacher gave an introduction of the tasks more specifically: Students were required to work in pairs to discuss and draw the house that they thought suitable with the context. Before the task-cycle

59

stage, the teacher suggested students some topics to discuss about (Where was the house? What was it built from? What was it advantages?). * Task-cycle - The task stage; Drawing was an activity that could raise the atmosphere of the classroom. Every student was extremely excited to complete the task because drawing brought them the feeling of being relaxing not studying. Moreover, with the attachment to the real life event, their activity became authentic and more meaningful. Pair work made students more active and work harder than when they were in groups of four or five. However, drawing was both advantageous and disadvantageous. Some pairs was distracted by drawing and paid more attention to this activity than discussion. Therefore, the teacher always had to remind them to discuss and prepare to present their ideas to the class. - The planning stage: After ten minutes, students had two more minutes to prepare for their presentation. The teacher encouraged students to draw an outline of their presentation. - The report stage: Three pairs were called to be on stage to present. A number of interesting ideas about an ideal house with beautiful drawings were raised. Finally, all of the class voted for the most impressive house. This part made students more excited and relaxed. * Language focus - Corrective feedback: The teacher gave comments on students’ presentation especially the use of articles. - Language analysis and practice: The teacher gave some rules of using articles correctly. Exercises were delivered to students to practice at home.
60

4.4. Reflection 4. 4.1. Students’ scores in the post tests After each lesson, in order to assess students’ understanding of what had been taught, students were required to do a post test. The following table shows the results of two post-tests in Cycle one: Table 7. The results of post-tests of unit 12 No. 1 2 3 4 Marks 9-10 7-8.9 5-6.9 0-4.9 Number of students 21 20 9 0 Percentage 42% 40% 18% 0%

Table 8. The results of post-test of unit 13 No. 1 2 3 4 Marks 9-10 7-8.9 5-6.9 0-4.9 Number of students 25 16 9 0 Percentage 50% 32% 18% 0%

From the tables, it can be seen that the minimum score of each test was not lower than five, which indicates that students could understand the lesson but the level of understanding varied among fifty students. Half of students performed well in the test with the score ranging from nine to ten. Only 18% of students in both tests got marks under seven. Hence, the results of two post tests reveal the effectiveness of task-based lessons in helping students understand grammar knowledge. However, findings collected from the post tests were not to compare the effectiveness of the new with the conventional method. The results of these post tests only aimed to prove that the integration

61

of task in grammar teaching had an outcome. Indeed, it can be said that learning has resulted from TBLT. This was also the findings of Mackey’s (1999) research. Similar to this research, his study has not compared TBLT with other forms of instruction. Thus, he emphasizes that TBLT works but not that it is more effectiveness than explicit instruction. 4.4.2. Students’ attitudes towards the use of tasks a. Students’ interest
30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Very interested Interested It does not matter Bored Very bored

Chart 3. Students’ interest in grammar lessons with the use of task Among 50 students doing the questionnaires, there were 27 students liked changes in recent grammar lessons and half of them showed great interest in these lessons. Only seven students thought that these changes were unimportant and one student did not like them at all. However, 100% of the students agreed to continue learning with task-based teaching method in the next lessons when being asked “Do you want to continue learning English grammar with these changes?”.

62

Four reasons given for the interest in theses changes were synthesized from students’ opinions in the questionnaire: - Students did not think that they were learning but joining a game. Therefore, the atmosphere was relaxing and they seemed not to be forced to learn. They were able to understand the lesson more easily. This reason indicates that students learned grammar by doing tasks and grammar points were acquired “incidental rather than intentional” (Ellis, 2009, p.2). - Swan (1985) states that in TBLT, even in the strong form, “students should be exposed to appropriate samples of language and given relevant and motivating activities to help them learn” (p.9). Indeed, activities that students did in the tasks were valued as “interesting and creating a great deal of motivation” for students to learn English grammar. A student wrote

“students can practice English grammar through activities, which made the lesson less dry and boring”. - Willis (1996) emphasizes that exposure, use and motivation are essential conditions for language learning and task-based approach engage learners in real interaction and fulfill the above conditions. Tasks used in this cycle required students to work in pairs and groups so the interaction among students increased. It was interactions that made students more motivated. In a questionnaire, a student explained his interest in task-based lessons with the reason that “the lessons were very interesting. All members in the class interacted with each other more and there seemed to be no distance”. This reason is emphasized by Zhu’s (2007) finding that “teaching activities designed according to the theory of task-based approach could arouse students’ interest in the group work” (p.53). Moreover, he affirms that group work made the tasks more interesting and much easier while grammar was no

63

longer difficult and boring. It is similar to students’ opinions in the questionnaires. - Students shared that it was the relation of tasks and the real life that increased their interest in the lesson. This advantage of tasks in the relation with the real life was proved by the research of Rahman (2010). Learners in this study “got involved in the tasks, because the tasks were giving the feeling of real-life situation” (p.9) and they found the experience intrinsically interesting. b. Changes in class atmosphere The following chart shows students’ opinion towards how classroom’s atmosphere changed with the use of tasks. Chart 4. How classroom’s atmosphere changed with the use of task

19%
Changed clearly Changed but not clearly

81%

No change Changed to be more boring

The chart indicates that all of the students realized changes in the class atmosphere after the application of task-based teaching in two units. Moreover, there were 80% of them recognized the significant improvement in the atmosphere. These results match teacher’s observation during the grammar lessons and are emphasized by students’ comments in the questionnaire after

64

Cycle one. A student’s opinion was that “the lessons have been changed. The atmosphere was more lively and interesting. I did not feel bored as usual”. Changes in the classroom atmosphere show that greater motivation and interest had been raised in every student. This finding was supported by Zhu’s (2003) research on the same field. He finds that the task-based grammar lessons became easier and more interesting. Changes in classroom atmosphere are also mentioned as one of task-based approach benefits in the research of Ruso (2007) on the influence of this approach on EFL classroom. c. Students’ grammar acquisition According to Thornburry (1999), a task-based lesson tends to engage students more than a grammar-based one and offers a deeper language process. Moreover, a task-based approach, by offering the learners an opportunity to make meanings for themselves, “seems to replicate more closely natural acquisition approaches, in which accuracy develops out of fluency” (p.134). Ritchie (2003) states that input could become intake in taskbased lesson when students are given the chance to notice the form. In fact, these viewpoints can be seen through students’ reflection on their grammar acquisition supported by tasks when nearly 70% of students agreed that the new approach helped them understand grammar structure better than the previous one: Chart 5. Effectiveness of task-based grammar lessons in supporting students’ grammar acquisition
14%

Yes, better Yes, the same

18% 68%

Yes, but less helpful Not at all

65

d. The practice of language skills Ellis (2003) supposes that tasks, like other language activities, “can engage productive or receptive and oral or written skills” (p.64). In other words, the integration of language skills in tasks is encouraged. Moreover, one of features to ensure an activity to be a task suggested by Edwards & Willis (2005) is that it “uses any or all of the four language skills in its accomplishment” (p.19). Therefore, despite focusing on form, task-based grammar lessons were supposed to be able to improve students’ language skills. It has been proved by the collected result that almost all of the students stated grammar lessons did provide chances for them to practice other English skills. Chart 6. English skills practiced in grammar lesson with the use of tasks
100 80 60 40 20 0 Listening Speaking Reading Writing None of skills

However, skills were not used with equal frequency in these lessons.

With group work or pair work, the interaction among students was increased so it is possible for speaking to be the most practiced skill by the majority of students (80%). Listening skills ranked the second with approximately 40% of students reporting that they could use this skill during the lesson. Reading and writing were believed to be practiced in grammar periods by about 20% of students.

66

e. Tasks used in grammar lessons Table 9. Students’ assessment on tasks No. 1 Statements Tasks given by teachers suitable with my English level Tasks given by teachers useful for the use of English in real life Tasks were easy to understand and carry out Agree Disagree Neutral 36 3 11

2

47

1

2

3

50

0

0

From the table, it can be seen that 36 of the students thought tasks were suitable with their English ability. Moreover, the feasibility of tasks was confirmed by all of the participants, which might be one of factors increasing students’ motivation. According to Boekaerts (2002), the suitability of tasks can become a potential factor to motivate learners. It is claimed that “students are more interested in doing activities for which they have the necessary competence” (p.12). In addition to supporting students to learn grammatical knowledge, the application of tasks in grammar lessons was appreciated by 94% of the participants in developing their daily English. In other words, tasks used in this cycle showed one of advantages of task-based language teaching, which is “provides chances for learners to experience practical use of English according to their needs” (Hui, Oi-lin & Irene, 2004, p.19).

67

4.5. Changes for Cycle Two From students’ reflection and teacher’s observation, some changes were subjected to make in Cycle Two. Besides maintaining advantages of tasks and other aspects of the lesson, the teacher would make some improvements to better the lessons. * Time for doing exercises in the language focus step Despite appreciating the use of tasks in classroom, some students stressed the need for drilling exercises. A student had shared in the questionnaire when answering the question “Do you think the new method helped you to acquire new grammar knowledge?” I think we lacked time for practicing grammar structures at the end of each lesson. So I hope that we can have more time for exercises. In a grammar lesson, there were only 30 or 35 minutes for a task, from the pre-task to language focus. Therefore, the maximum time for the language focus stage, in which grammar points were presented and drilling exercises were delivered to students, was 10 minutes. In the mean time, grammar lessons without the use of tasks could spend almost all 30 minutes for grammar presentation and drilling exercises. Hence, it would have seemed unreasonable if a sudden change in a lesson like this had not caused any influence on students in learning grammar. It would even have been more absurd if all students had got used to the new method after only two lessons. Therefore, a little change in time allocation might be a good choice. Instead of paying attention to the presentation of grammar points, teacher would spend more time in giving examples and instructing students to do exercises as a tool

68

to help them consolidate what they have learnt. However, time allocation for three stages of a lesson would not be changed. * Clearer instruction In Cycle One, it was observed that students had to spend some minutes to ask other friends what they had to do because teacher spoke English at a high speed and the instruction was explained once at a time. Hence, in the Cycle Two, the teacher would pay more attention to her speed while giving instruction, especially instruction of tasks in each lesson. Instructions would be separated into steps so that it would be easier for students, especially those who were not good at English, to understand. Say-Do-Check strategy would be the main way of giving instruction. * Vocabulary pre-teaching In Cycle Two, the provision of vocabulary would be added in order that students could carry out the task smoothly. In Cycle One, an unexpected problem had happened when students did not understand the explanation of new words in the handout on “The Beatles” because the explanation was written in English. The teacher would avoid this matter by providing vocabulary in advance with Vietnamese translation. It would save more time for doing tasks.

69

CHAPTER V: ACTION RESEARCH CYCLE TWO
This chapter is aimed to report what had been done during Cycle Two of the research. Data collected are analyzed and discussed to answer research questions. 5.1. Introduction After completing Cycle One and defining some changes, the teacher continued Cycle Two. In this cycle, four basic steps were remained: planning, action, observation and reflection. Findings and reflections of the two cycles will be considered as the final results of the research and used to answer research questions raised at the beginning of the study. 5.2. Planning * Unit 14: “will” vs. “be going to” Task: Students work in groups of four to five. They have an amount of money to prepare for their mothers’ birthday. They have to discuss and make a plan so that their mothers can have a wonderful birthday party. Students are provided with a list of words that relates to birthday and party. The language focus stage aims to help student differentiate the use of “will” and “be going to”. Moreover, it can raise awareness of the differences between two tenses (simple future and near future) while they are talking or writing. * Unit 15: Defining and non-defining relative clause; “although” Task: This task is similar to the task in Unit 12. Students work in pairs to discuss and design a quiz. However, this quiz is about other friends in the class. After the quiz is completed, some pairs will read out their quizzes and the whole class will guess who is being talked about. In this task, the teacher

70

gives some examples of the quiz’s pattern which uses structures or grammar points that students are going to learn in the lesson. Moreover, some words to describe people’s appearance are provided. This task helps students write sentences with relative clauses and get used to the structure with “although”. 5.3. Action and observation 5.3.1. Unit 14 * Pre-task - Introducing the topic and context: The teacher asked some questions to lead in the introduction of the lesson’s topic and context such as “Have you ever had a party for your mother? In your mothers’ birthday what did you do?” By answering these questions, students understood that the topic was about “mother” . The teacher gave more details about the context: Mothers’ birthday was coming and students were preparing for birthday parties. - Pre-task language activity: The teacher required students to brainstorm words related to birthdays and parties before providing vocabulary about them. - Giving instruction: Requirements of the task were presented at this step. Students worked in groups of four or five. Each group had a certain amount of money that they had saved for their mother’s birthday. In fact, each group picked up a paper prepared by teacher to know how much money they had saved. This amount ranged from “no money” to “200,000 VND”. With that money, members of a group would discuss with the others and decide what they were going to do with the money for their mothers’ birthday party.

71

* Task-cycle - The task stage: Students had ten minutes to discuss in their groups to make a plan. Some groups caught the paper with “no money” were put into difficult situation, which made them even more eager to draw a perfect plan. As observed by teacher, this task involved every member of the group and was made to be easier by a handout with a draft outline of the party (e.g. time, place, guests, things to prepare). This handout aimed to drive students’ discussion into the right way. - The planning stage: After 10 minutes, each group had two more minutes to summarize their discussion and prepare to present their ideas. The teacher went to groups and reminded them to follow suggestions in the handout with the use of right tenses. - The report stage: Three groups were called to present their ideas. The representative of the first group which had saved no money was a bit shy so she only read out loud what was written abruptly. No full sentences were made during the presentation. After her speech, the teacher had to remind students of the use of tense when talking about future plan and the necessity of presenting in full sentences. The next two representatives were better when as they talked about their plans smoothly and even remembered to use “be going to” when describing the plan. However, most of the time, “will” and “be going to” were mixed. * Language focus - Corrective feedback: The teacher summarized students’ presentation and gave comments on their performance. Moreover, there was an emphasis on the use of “will” and “be going to” .

72

- Language analysis and practice: By relating to what students had done in the previous step, the teacher asked students to differentiate “will” and “be going to”. Students’ understanding was then consolidated by doing drilling exercises. 5.3.2. Unit 15 * Pre-task - Introducing the topic: The teacher introduced the topic directly to students: Classmates. - Pre-task language activity: A handout with words relating to describing appearance was delivered to students. They would base on the pictures and guess the meaning of words. The teacher asked students explain all the meanings before the introduction of tasks. - Giving task instruction: The task of this lesson was similar with the one in Unit 12. In this task, students worked in pairs and made quizzes about their classmates based on the description of their appearance. Questions were replaced by clues in the form of “This is the person who ….”; “She is the one who …”; “Although she…., ….” to ensure that grammar points in this unit were integrated in this task. The teacher gave each pair a handout so that they could write down the clues based on given examples. * Task-cycle - The task stage: After forming pairs, students did not meet any difficulties in designing the quiz. However, the teacher seemed to be too hasty to ask students to make the quiz by giving clues or statements as in the examples. Therefore, most of pairs did not pay attention to the examples and made questions like “Who is called “potato” in our class?” or” Who has the

73

longest hair in our class?” As a result, teacher had to go to each pair and reminded them to do as examples. This took a considerable amount of time because students had to spend time to listen to the teacher again and rewrite their quizzes. After 10 minutes, most of pairs had come up with a quiz. - The planning stage: The teacher required students to stop designing and finalize their quiz before presentation. - The report stage: Some pairs were called to go to stage and read out their quizzes. However, each pair was allowed to give only two clues. This stage was made to be a small game that motivated all students. * Language focus - Corrective feedback: Comments on quizzes in terms of content, language and grammar were given by the teacher. Besides, the teacher reminded students of the difference between defining and non-defining relative clauses that they had made mistakes about during the task cycle. - Language analysis and practice: The teacher asked students to differentiate the two types of relative clauses and the use of “although”. Drilling exercises were finally practiced. 5.4. Reflection 5.4.1. Students’ scores in the two post-tests After learning grammar with the use of tasks, all students were required to do a post-test which took about five minutes. The results of post-tests reflected how students understood and acquired new grammar contents of the lessons. The accepted level of understanding was at least mark 5. The following table illustrates the results of two post tests of Unit 14 and 15.

74

Table 10. Results of two post tests of Unit 14 and 15 Unit Mark Number of students Percentage 9-10 20 40% Unit 14 7-8.9 27 54% 5-6.9 3 6% 0-4.9 0 0% 9-10 19 38% Unit 15 7-8.9 16 32% 5-6.9 15 30% 0-4.9 0 0%

There was no student getting marks under 5 in both tests which was a positive sign. As for the post test of Unit 14, more than a half of students got scores higher than 7 and only three of them got mark 5. However, for Unit 15, there was a big change in the score range. The number of students having marks under 7 increased to 30 percent, equally to those who got mark from 7 to 8.9. Nevertheless, the largest portion belonged to students who could gain more than 9 in the post test. The results of the two post tests once again emphasized the effectiveness of task-based teaching in helping students understand grammar points of each unit, which had been shown in Cycle one and supported by other researchers (Mackey,1999). 5.4.2. Students’ attitude towards the use of task a. Students’ interest In response to the question “Do you like recent changes in the grammar lessons?”, most of the students showed their interest in learning with the use of tasks. This result is illustrated in the following chart:

75

Chart 7. Students’ interest in task-based grammar lessons
30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Very interested Interested It does not matter Bored Very bored

After two more lessons with the application of tasks, students showed more interest in changes of the grammar lessons, which was proved by 60% of students were “interested” in these changes and 30% of them felt “very interested”. The number of students having positive attitude towards taskbased lessons in this Cycle has increased in comparison with Cycle One. In the first cycle, only 14 students were “very interested” and 27 students were “interested” in grammar lessons. The reasons that students used to explain for their opinions were similar to those collected in the first cycle. For example, in this cycle, students still appreciated interesting and useful activities or increased interaction through group work and pair work. Besides, a new reason offered by students might be useful for assessing the success of task-based lessons. Students claimed that they liked these lessons because they were active in interacting with other friends and “could communicate themselves and wanted to communicate”. This is supported by Like Ruso’s (2007) findings, in which students appreciated the tasks because they found more chances to speak. Moreover, his students admitted that they benefited from the course after the application of tasks. These findings have been in line with the viewpoint of Murphy
76

(2003, p.354) that “tasks should therefore involve learners in reflecting on the way in which they carried them out, as well as on the language they used, thereby helping them the develop autonomy”. b. Changes in class atmosphere
4%

Change clearly

22%

74%

Change but not clearly No change No, even worse

Chart 8. Changes in classroom atmosphere of task-based lessons There were 37 students appreciating the use of tasks in grammar lessons with the emphasis on the effectiveness of the lessons in making them more excited about activities in class. The results of questionnaires matched students’ opinions in the interview. Student 3 said that “the atmosphere of the class was very motivating” and she had no fear of learning grammar. Student 9 emphasized it was the relaxing atmosphere that engaged him in discussion and “wanted to talk rather than listen to others”. These assessments indicate that task-based teaching had changed the classroom atmosphere in a positive way. This finding shares with the view of Zhu (2003), Akbarnetaj (2005), Ruso (2007) that tasks create a comfortable, cooperative and non-threatening

77

atmosphere of the classroom. Even the least confident students who normally refuse to speak in public wish to have public performances. c. Grammar acquisition Chart 9. Effectiveness of task-based teaching in comparison with the old method
4%

Yes, better

26% 70%

Yes, the same Yes, but less effective Not at all

The chart shows that 35 students in the survey agreed that the use of task helped them to understand grammar structures of the lesson better than the conventional method. Among the rest 30% of the students, 26% confirmed the efficiency of task-based teaching but emphasized the similar effectiveness of the two methods. These data reveal the efficiency of tasks in helping students acquire grammar knowledge or task-based teaching does work Mackey (1999). d. The practice of language skills Similar to Cycle one, Cycle two reflected the effectiveness of tasks in improving students’ language skills. According to students’ opinion, all four skills were used in task-based grammar lessons.

78

100 80 60 40 20 0 Reading Writing Listening Speaking None of skills

Chart 10. English skills practiced in grammar lesson with the use of tasks Speaking was still a skill that most of students thought that they had to use it in grammar lessons when it was the main device of students’ interactions while completing tasks. Listening ranked the second with about 60% of students’ agreement. e. Tasks used in grammar lessons Table 11. Students’ opinions about the usefulness of tasks No. 1 Statements Tasks given by teacher are useful for the use of English in my daily life. 2 Tasks are interesting and motivate me to learn English grammar 3 I became more active in grammar lessons 38 3 9 43 1 6 Agree 40 Disagree Neutral 2 8

According to the results collected in the questionnaire, tasks used in grammar lessons have made considerable changes in students’ attitude towards English studying. 43 students, equal to 86%, agreed that tasks in class inspired them better in learning English grammar. This is also the findings of
79

Hui et al. (2004) which refer to TBLT as a tool to increase learners’ motivation to learn English. Moreover, the application of tasks in grammar lessons created opportunities for students to be more active in class with 76% of students. It may be because the changes in the role of teacher and learners (Nunan, 2004). Nunan (2004, p.1) states that task-based language teaching strengthens the principle that “the linking of classroom language learning with language use outside the classroom”. In this study, it is proved by the confirmation of 40 students that tasks did improve their daily English. Hui et al. (2004) also emphasized that TBLT provided students with more opportunities to use their English, not only learn English. In brief, results of questionnaires and interviews reflected positive attitudes of students towards task-based grammar lessons. They were more interested in changes as they had opportunities to communicate naturally. Activities brought a comfortable and exciting atmosphere of the classroom. Moreover, students appreciated the effectiveness of task-based lessons in helping them both acquire grammar knowledge and practice language skills. Changes in grammar lessons brought changes in students. They realized that they were more active in joining activities and more excited about communicating with each other. With the learner-centered approach, students’ autonomy was improved in grammar lessons. Finally, students emphasized the practicality of task-based lessons in activating their daily English through tasks. 5.4.3. Student-motivating factors of task-based grammar lessons In order to answer the second question of the research “How can taskbased language teaching motivate students during English grammar
80

lessons?” , results from interviews with students and questionnaires of both cycles were analyzed and discussed. The following chart shows the level of students’ motivation raised by the use of tasks. Chart 11. Levels of students’ motivation
4%
Very motivating

16 54 26

Motivating Slightly motivating Not quite motivating Not motivating at all

As indicated in the chart, tasks used in the grammar lessons were claimed to be able to motivate students in these lessons. More than a half of the students found these tasks very motivating. 40% of them supposed that the use of tasks could motivate them to some extent. Some factors reflected through the interviews might be the reason for increasing motivation of students. * Interactions during the lessons Sano, Takahashi& Yoneyama (1984) praise the usefulness of interactions as “the most essential factor in successful language learning” (p.171). In fact, the use of task in grammar lesson has not only changed the atmosphere of classroom but also students themselves. It was the interaction that erased the feeling of being forced to study of students and “installed” in
81

their mind the thought of being chatting or playing game with friends. The relaxation while studying had great contribution to the natural acquisition of new knowledge. Student 1 and 3 shared:
“While doing tasks, I listened to my friends’ talking. That’s funny. I like to talk to them.” “I felt freer to raise my opinion. I was more active in learning grammar. Actually, I did not feel that I was forced to learn grammar or vocabulary.”

The students’ reflection indicates that task-based teaching used in both cycle had “an emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target language” (Nunan, 2004, p.1). When students thought they were not learning grammar but still acquired it, they were studying it incidentally rather than intentionally (Willis, 2009). Besides, “a task-based approach to learning implies the notion of learning by doing” (Ellis, 2003, p.54). Indeed, while students completed the tasks, they were learning grammar in the most natural way. * Pair work and group work A clear change that students could easily recognize in task-based grammar lessons was the use of pair work and group work. They quickly saw the benefits of cooperative learning.
“Working together is, of course, funny” “All members participate in the task and work together. The atmosphere was lively. I could understand the lesson easily”

In pairs or groups, students help themselves and the other to complete the tasks, through which they learn grammar. It is mentioned by Dornyei (2001) that cooperative learning helps them to reach their goal at their own pace. Students’ response to the effectiveness of pair work and group work also match Kohn’s (1992) view of collaborative learning that collaboration is more
82

effective than competition as a means of promoting effective learning. Moreover, cooperative learning has the ability to motivate students during the lesson. Brecke & Jensen (2007) state that in a cooperative atmosphere, students are motivated without a sense of obligation. Motivation is also sparked by giving students shared responsibility. The benefit of cooperative learning in task-based lessons of this study was similar to Zhu’s (2007, p.53) findings which emphasize that “task-based approach can arouse students’ interest in the group work. Group work makes the tasks more interesting and much easier”. * Tasks with relation to the real life Motivation of students can be created by tasks which were not too difficult or strange to them. Students agreed that tasks used in grammar lessons were “close to their real life”. A task with relation to the real life does not only create a sense of familiarity between students and tasks but also encourage students to activate their daily English. Richards & Rogers (2001) affirms that one strength of task-based approach is that a real-life task is motivational because of “the elicitation of authentic language, diversified formats and operation, inclusion of physical activities, learners’ own experience and use of a variety of communication styles” (p.229) * Useful materials make students excited Useful materials used in task-based grammar lesson did not mean that they contained a full theory of grammar but they provided students with information that they lacked in the real life. Students would find more eager to complete the task if they knew that they could learn something other than just grammar. Student 7 said that:
83

They [materials] were very useful and made me more interested in the lessons. I could know what I had not known before. If you had not provided it, I could never have discovered that information. In brief, task-based teaching had been proved to be effective in motivating students in grammar lessons. There was more than one aspect of the task that was able to draw students’ attention and interest. Firstly, high schools students would like to work in groups where they felt more confident and active. The interaction among students also encouraged the natural grammar acquisition. Secondly, a task with the context and goal close to real life could be powerful because students showed their interest in what they were familiar with. Lastly, high school students are those who were ready to learn more than what they are required. Useful materials with practical information could be a decisive factor in motivating students.

84

CHAPTER VI: SUGGESTIONS FOR THE SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION OF TASK IN GRAMMAR TEACHING
In this chapter, some implications and suggestions that have been drawn after the implementation of the study will be presented. The focus of these implications and suggestion is the way to make task-based teaching possible in grammar teaching within the context of Vietnamese high school. 6.1. Frame-work of task-based teaching in grammar lessons According to Willis (1996), the task-based teaching approach includes three stages: pre-task, task cycle and language focus. During the implementation of the action research, teacher as well as researcher had tried to maintain this frame-work in each lesson. The suggested frame-work for task-based teaching used in grammar lessons is explained in the following table: Table 12. Frame work of task-based teaching in grammar lessons Stage Name of stage Content This stage takes up about 5 minutes. This stage includes: a. Introducing the topic and context: Topic and 1 Pre-task context should be close to real-life. b. Pre-task language activity: At this step, teacher provides students with necessary

vocabulary or knowledge to carry out tasks.

85

c. Giving task instruction: A detailed instruction of the tasks will be given at this step. For high school students with limitation in English

proficiency, it is essential for teacher to give slow, clear instruction with the checking of their understanding. Moreover, at this step, teacher can give model of the tasks or samples as a support for students. Besides, samples may include grammar points of the lesson, which will be useful for the next stage. Teacher and students spend about 15 minutes at this phase. There are three stages: a. The task stage: Students work in groups or pairs to complete the task. It is unnecessary for teacher to interfere while students are working in groups or pairs. However, a close observation is needed because teacher should make sure that 2 Task-cycle students are going in the way that teacher has planned. Teacher also gives help and

encouragement while students are doing tasks. b. The planning stage: Students can spend about two to three minutes to finalize their outcome, note down important details for presentation. Teacher can give some suggestions or brief comments for their preparation.

86

c. The report stage: After discussion, students will attain a certain outcome and they are eager to show it off. Therefore, some minutes for presentation will be useful in improving the atmosphere of the class. As observed in grammar lessons, atmosphere was always relaxing

whenever students presented their ideas or outcomes of the discussion. a. Corrective feedback: Teacher gives comments on the use of language in students’ presentation and during the implementation of tasks. b. Language analysis and practice: This is the 3 Language focus stage where a clear and careful explanation of grammar structures is made. Despite interesting task and useful explanation, students will

appreciate the lesson if they have chance to practice the theory with drilling exercises in class. Therefore, teacher should spend at least 5 minutes to instruct them to do exercises. 6.2. Implications of using tasks in grammar lessons 6.2.1. Tasks are activities with real-life goals This is one of five criteria set by Willis and Edward (2006) for a communicative task. However, this requirement does not only to help teacher ensure that activities that he/she designs are tasks but also to motivate students. Students’ motivation could be increased by tasks which were related

87

to their real life. Therefore, it is suggested that a real-life related task will be more reasonable and acceptable for students to complete rather than a strange one. The task will attach closely to their normal life and doing the task is considered as doing an ordinary activity in their daily life. Hence, students will not have the feeling of being forced to study. 6.2.2. Tasks encourage students to reach and show an outcome The report stage in the task-cycle was often very interesting and motivating. In this step, students could present their outcomes and proved how well they had done. Like other people, students had their self-esteem and desire to show their ability. Task-based grammar lessons were appreciated because they provided them with chances to express themselves. Edwards & Willis (2005) in the book Teacher Exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching mentioned a case in which a teacher applied TBLT into grammar teaching. She reflected that her students were motivated significantly when they had chance to state their own views. Even the least confident students also became extremely excited. Therefore, in order to make students involved in tasks, teacher could have tasks with a clear outcome and especially provide them with opportunities to show their ability. 6.2.3. Tasks should help students practice other English skills From the definition of task, Nunan (1989, p.10) emphasizes that a task “involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language” so there is no reason for teacher to create a task without the use of other English skills (reading, writing, speaking and listening) in grammar lessons. One of the reasons for students’ motivation in task-based lessons was that they had chances to practice language skills

88

besides learning grammar points. Therefore, to make a lesson more useful and motivating, an integration of other skills in tasks is essential. 6.2.4. Tasks encourage students to interact in English Skehan (1996) emphasizes that through interactions or negotiation of meanings, students can eventually develop greater fluency. Moreover, students in this study had shown their great interest and motivation when they had chance to communicate with each other. They saw it as a way to learn and the communication also created a relaxing atmosphere during the lessons. 6.2.5. The position of grammar instruction in a task-based grammar lesson As Thornbury (1999) discusses, a task-based lesson is a challenge but engages the learner more than a grammar-based one. One principle underlined this fact is that learners tend to notice language features that they discover themselves rather than what are arranged for them. Therefore, task-based approach brings students opportunities to be closer to the natural acquisition of English language. However, when not being directed, students may not pay attention to what teacher wants them to focus. Hence, there should be an implication of form in designing tasks. In other words, teacher does not explain grammar rules right at the beginning of the lesson but implies these rules through examples or small reminders given to students during the completion of tasks. Teacher also can be the model using these rules while interacting with students. As a result, grammar rules that students have to learn in each lesson should be hidden in tasks and the natural acquisition of these rules may happen as expected.

89

CHAPTER VII: CONCLUSION
This chapter is the summary of most important findings of the study as well as raises some limitations when the research was conducted. Moreover, suggestions for related studies will be made at the end of this section. 7.1. Summary of important findings This is the first time that the students as the participants of the study have had the opportunity to learn grammar with the application of tasks. This change in grammar lessons received good comments and appreciation from students during the implementation of the study. In these lessons, students become more active and were the center of the lessons. This was mainly because tasks brought opportunity for students to interact with each other and acquire grammar knowledge naturally without the feeling of being forced to learn. Grammar contents of each unit were integrated in tasks and became easier to accept. Teacher observation and students’ response to surveys pointed out that tasks were more effective in motivating students to learn English than the conventional method. Students were inspired to join in lessons and desired to learn grammar to complete the tasks as well as communicate with friends in class. Moreover, they realized the usefulness of grammar in helping them organize their talks in English lessons. In other words, tasks have made students understand the meaning of their learning, that is, they were not only studying English to cope with examination but studying English to use it and when they were using it, they were also studying it. Another finding that proves task-based grammar lessons a meaningful change is that the atmosphere of these lessons had been improved. It was

90

activities which students had to do in a lesson to complete the task that brought about these changes. The grammar lessons were not the “monotonous conversation” in which teacher talks most of the time and students keep listening but they were made of various conversations and discussions. Data collected in each cycle also reflected factors in a task-based lesson that can motive students. Firstly, tasks were activities that required them to use other English skills such as listening, speaking, writing and reading to complete and increased chances for them to communicate with friends in English. Secondly, tasks with real life goals were the reason for students being more involved in the lessons. Moreover, settings or contexts to which tasks were attached were also daily situations that students could encounter in their life and made the requirement of task completion more reasonable. Lastly, materials used in tasks were proved to be useful in widening students’ knowledge. They were more interested in the lesson not only because tasks were funny, interesting and familiar but also useful for them. 2. Limitations of the study Despite positive results collected after two cycles, the study would be more satisfying if some limitations were overcome. The biggest matter was time limitation. Two cycles were carried out only in four units, two units for each. Such a short-term cycle made it impossible to assess students’ improvement in learning English grammar. Changes in students’ attitude or classroom’s atmosphere could be seen clearly but changes in students’ competence of using English grammar need more time to evaluate. Another problem also relates to time limitation. Each lesson in this study just was in 30 minutes. It was quite difficult for the teacher to design tasks that fit in the time allowance. Moreover, the lack of time forced the teacher to assign drilling
91

exercises to be completed at home. This did not satisfy some students who found these exercises important to their learning. Furthermore, the language focus stage had to stop at doing drilling exercises while it should have continued with other communicative activities that check and consolidate students’ understanding of the lesson. 3. Suggestions for further studies Task-based teaching is really a powerful one to develop students’ competences in English. There are many directions to approach this method. For examples, task-based teaching can be applied in teaching English skills such as reading, writing, listening or speaking. In terms of applying task-based method in grammar teaching, deeper look at the effectiveness of task-based teaching can open a new research process. Besides teaching grammar in taskbased method to high school students, other studies can explore the use of task in teaching grammar for secondary school students who are beginners in learning English. 4. Conclusion Findings of the action research indicate factors that teacher can consider before applying tasks in grammar lessons. Students will be more interested in the lessons if they see that their role in the class is appreciated. They are allowed to control that lesson and learn voluntarily. English learning should give students opportunities to use it frequently as a way of learning it. They will be more motivated with grammar lessons in which interaction and communication are encouraged. In addition, grammar contents are integrated in activities, which allows the most natural process of acquiring. Besides, tasks should be real-life activities and their outcomes also need
92

encouragement. Task-based teaching in grammar lessons actually requires much serious consideration before action. Teacher should investigate carefully the current situation before applying it so that practical results can be achieved. Moreover, observation and adjustment should always be ready to ensure a successful application of tasks, especially for a long-term purpose.

93

REFERENCES
Boekaerts, M. (2002). Motivation to Learn. International Academy of Education. Retrieved April 27th, 2011 from

http://www.ibe.unesco.org/publications/EducationalPracticesSeries Pdf/prac10e.pdf Bourke, J.M. (2005). The grammar we teach. Reflections on English Language Teaching 4 (2005). University of Brunei. Branden, K.V., (2006). Task-based language education: from theory to practice. Cambridge: CUP. 2-9 Brecke, R. & Jensen, J. (2007). Cooperative Learning, Responsibility, Ambiguity, Controversy and Support in Motivating Students. Insight:A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 2, 53. Breen, M.(1984). Processes in syllabus design. In C.Brumfit (ed). General English Syllabus Design. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching – A guide for practitioners. New York: Routledge Celce-Murica, M. (1985). Making informed decisions about the role of grammar in language teaching. TESOL Newsletter, 19 (1), 4-5. Chomsky, N. (1959). On certain formal properties of grammars, Information and control. Vol. 2, p.13

94

Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: OUP. Edwards, C.& Willis, J. (2006). Teachers exploring tasks in English language teaching. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p3-39. Ellis, N. (1995). Consciousness in second language acquisition: A review of field studies and laboratory experiments. Language awareness, 4, 123-146. Ellis, R. (1997). Research and language teaching. Oxford: OUP. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning. Oxford: OUP. Ferrane, E. (2000). Action Research. Brown University. Fotos, S. & Ellis, R. (1991). Communication about grammar: A task-based Hinkel, E. & Fotos, S. (2002). New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Hudleston, R. (1988) English grammar: An outline. Cambridge: CUP. Hui, Oi-lin & Irene (2004). Teacher’s Perceptions of Task-based Language Teaching: Impact on their teaching approaches. The University of Hong Kong. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed). Victoria, Australia: Deakin Universtiy Press.

95

Kohn, A. (1992) No contest: The case against competition. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. Leedy, P.D. (1997). Practical research: Planning and design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. p.199 Lívia, N. F. (2006). From Theoretical to Pedagogical Grammar: Reinterpreting the Role of Grammar in English Language Teaching. University of Pannonia. Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21: 557-587. Nunan, D. (1989). Designing task for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: CUP, 10-11. Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle, 24. Nunan, D (2003). Practical English language teaching. New York: Mc Graw Hill/Contemporary. Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: CUP. Odlin, T. (Ed). (1994). Perspectives on pedagogical grammar. Cambridge: CUP

96

Rahman, M. M. (2010). Teaching Oral Communication Skills: A Task-based Approach. ESP World, 1 (27), 9. Retrieved April 27th, 2011 from http://www.esp-world.info/Articles_27/Paper.pdf Richards, J. C. & Rogers, T. S. (1986). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP. Richards, Jack C. (2005). Professional Development for Language Teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press, p.171 Richards, J. & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching: A Description and Analysis. Cambridge: CUP. Ritchie, G. (2003). Presentation-Practice-Production and Task-Based Learning in the Light of Second Language Theories. The English Teacher, 6, 2, 112-124. Ruso, N. (2007). The Influence of Task Based Learning on EFL Classrooms. Asian EFL Journal.18 (2). Retrieved February 24th, 2011 from http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/yousif/3422/The%20influence%20of%20 TBL.pdf Sano, M., Takahashi, M., & Yoneyama, A. (1984). Communicative Language Teaching and Local Needs. English Language Teaching Journal, 38(3), 170-177. Setyanigrum, R. (2010). Task-based language teaching to teaching writing for 7th grade students.

97

Skehan, P. (1996). Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching. Oxford: Heinemann. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: OUP. Songsiri, M. (2007). An action research study of promoting students’

confidence in speaking English. School of Education Faculty of Arts, Education and Human Development, Victoria University. Suter, C. (2001). Discussing and Applying Grammatical ConsciousnessRaising. University of Birmingham Swan, M. (1985). A Critical Look at the Communicative Approach. ELT Journal. 39 (1),9. Pei, M. (1966). Glossary of Linguistic Terminology. New York: Columbia University Press. Thornbury, S (2004). How to teach grammar. London: Longman, 21-23. Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Longman. Watts, H. (1985). When teachers are researchers, teaching improves. Journal of Staff Development, 6(2), 118. Zhu, X. (2007). Integrating task-based teaching approach into grammar teaching. 4 (9).

98

APPENDIX 1 QUESTIONNAIRE 1
This questionnaire was delivered to students before the action of Cycle one and translated into Vietnamese for better understanding.

PHIẾU ĐIỀU TRA
Cô là Nguy Ngân Hà, khoa Sư phạm tiếng Anh, trường Đại học ễn Ngoại ngữ, Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội. Hiện nay, cô đang tiến hành nghiên cứu với đề tài: “Khám phá việc áp dụng nhiệm vụ trong việc giảng dạy ngữ pháp lớp 10 tại các trường trung học phổ thô ng trên đ bàn Hà Nội”. ịa Những câu hỏi dưới đây nhằm tìm hiểu ý kiến của các em về việc học ngữ pháp tiếng Anh cũng như các tiết học tiếng Anh trên trường phổ thông. Những câu hỏi sau đây sẽ phục vụ cho nghiên cứu và câu trả lời của các em cho những câu hỏi đó là vô cùng hữu ích để cô có thể hoàn thành đề tài này. Câu trả lời của các em được đảm bảo giữ bí mật hoàn toàn trong suốt quá trình làm nghiên c và không ảnh hưởng đến kết quả đánh giá môn ứu tiếng Anh của các em trên lớp. Câu 1. Em thấy các tiết học ngữ pháp tiếng Anh trên lớp như thế nào ? Khoanh tròn vào chữ cái trước lựa chọn của em. a. Rất thú vị b. Thú vị c. Bình thường d. Nhàm chán e. Rất nhàm chán

99

Câu 2. Em đánh giá thế nào về hiệu quả của các tiết học ngữ pháp trên lớp đối với việc học tiếng Anh nói chung của em ? Khoanh tròn vào chữ cái trước lựa chọn của em. a. Rất hiệu quả b. Tương đối hiệu quả c. Không hiệu quả d. Phản tác dụng Câu 3: Em thấy các tiết học ngữ pháp trên lớp của em thường đi theo trình tự như thế nào ? Khoanh tròn vào chữ cái trước lựa chọn của em. a. Cô giáo giới thiệu kiến thức ngữ pháp mới, đưa ví dụ và hướng dẫn học sinh làm bài tập áp dụng. b. Cô giáo đưa ví dụ trước, rồi gọi học sinh rút ra kiến thức ngữ pháp mới từ ví dụ và sau đó đưa bài tập áp dụng. c. Trình tự khác: (Em hãy nêu cụ thể trình tự đó) ………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………… ………………………… Câu 4: Em hãy cho biết ý kiến của mình về những nhận định dưới đây bằng việc đánh dấu X vào ô thích hợp: TT Nhận định Trên lớp, em thường làm bài tập trong sách giáo 1 khoa và bài tập bổ sung của cô giáo để hiểu và nhớ các kiến thức ngữ pháp vừa học. 2 Trong tiết học ngữ pháp, không có nhiều các hoạt động theo cặp hay nhóm như thảo luận, thuyết trình. Đồng Không ý đồng ý Không có ý kiến

100

3

Em không có nhiều cơ hội luyện tập các kỹ năng tiếng Anh khác trong giờ học ngữ pháp. Không khí học trong các tiết học ngữ pháp thường không sôi nổi bằng các tiết học kỹ năng tiếng Anh (nghe, nói đọc, viết) Cảm ơn các em rất nhiều !

4

101

QUESTIONNAIRE 1
I am Nguyen Ngan Ha, from 07E1, Faculty of English language teaching education, University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi. I am conducting a study with the title: “Exploring the use of tasks in grammar teaching to Grade 10 students in Hanoi high schools”. These questions are to investigate your opinions and attitudes towards English grammar studying and current English grammar lessons. Your answers are important data for the completion of this study. All of the information will be appreciated and kept confidential during the research and will not affect your English results in class. Thank you very much ! Question 1: What do you think about your English grammar lessons in general? Circle the letter before your choice. a. Very interesting b. Interesting c. Normal d. Boring e. Very boring Question 2: What do you think about the effectiveness of English grammar lessons in helping you learn English? Circle the letter before your choice. e. Very effective f. Effective g. Not effective h. Counter-effective

102

Question 3: What is the usual procedure of your English grammar lesson? Circle the letter before your choice. d. Teacher explains new grammar structures, gives examples and requires students do exercises. e. Teacher gives examples, requires students to draw new grammar structures from examples and requires students do exercises. f. Other processes (Explain specifically) ……………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………… Question 4: Please give your opinions about the following statements by ticking (x) in the appropriate column: No. Statements I often do exercises in the text book and 1 supplemental materials given by the teacher to understand and remember new knowledge in grammar lessons. 2 In the grammar lessons, there is not much group or pair work. I do not have many chances to practice other English skills in grammar lessons. The atmosphere of grammar lessons usually is 4 not as lively as other lessons (listening, speaking, reading and writing) Agree Disagree Neutral

3

Thank you very much !

103

APPENDIX 2 QUESTIONNAIRE 2
This questionnaire was delivered to students after the action of Cycle one and translated into Vietnamese for better understanding.

PHIẾU ĐÁNH GIÁ CỦA HỌC SINH
Đối với các tiết học ngữ pháp sử dụng các nhiệm vụ dạy học (tasks)

Em hãy cho bi t ý kiến của mình về các tiết học ngữ pháp đã sử dụng ế “nhiệm vụ” vừa qua. “Nhiệm vụ” có thể hiểu là những hoạt động theo nhóm, hay theo cặp mà em đã thực hiện để hoàn thành một yêu cầu nào đó mà giáo viên đưa ra. Đó là những hoạt động có mục đích rõ ràng, gần với thực tế cuộc sống. Để thực hiện được các nhiệm vụ này, em cần sử dụng các kỹ năng thực hành tiếng như nghe, nói, đọc, viết và trao đổi với các thành viên khác trong nhóm hoặc trong cặp của mìn h. Sau khi hoàn thành ột nhiệm vụ, em có m được một thành quả cụ thể. Bên cạnh đó, những kiến thức ngữ pháp mới của bài học đã được “lồng” vào trong các nhiệm vụ. Câu 1: Em có thích nhng thay đổi trong các tiết học ngữ pháp vừa qua ữ không ? Khoanh tròn vào chữ cái trước lựa chọn của em. a. Rất thích b. Thích c. Bình thường, thấy việc thay đổi hay không không quan trọng. d. Không thích e. Rất không thích Em hãy giải thích cho lựa chọn của mình: …………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………

104

Câu 2: Em có thích những tiết học ngữ pháp tiếp tục được dạy theo cách mới như vậy hay không ? a. Có b. Không c. Không có ý kiến Câu 3: Em thấy tiết học ngữ pháp với phương pháp mới có giúp ích cho em trong việc tiếp thu các kiến thức ngữ pháp mới không ? a. Có, chúng giúp em học ngữ pháp tốt hơn so với phương pháp cũ. b. Có, nhưng em thấy hiệu quả của phương pháp cũ và mới là như nhau. c. Có, tuy nhiên phương pháp cũ vẫn giúp em học ngữ pháp tốt hơn. d. Hoàn toàn không. e. Ý kiến khác: ……………………………………………………………………… Câu 4: Em thấy trong các tiết học vừa qua, có những kỹ năng tiếng Anh nào của em đã được sử dụng ? a. Kỹ năng nghe b. Kỹ năng nói c. Kỹ năng đọc d. Kỹ năng viết e. Không có kỹ năng nào Câu 5: Theo em việc áp dụng phương pháp mới trong giờ học ngữ pháp có giúp tiết học trở nên sôi nổi và sinh động hơn không ? a. Có, không khí trong lớp thay đổi rõ rệt b. Có nhưng những chuyển biến là không rõ c. Không, không khí học vẫn không thay đổi. d. Không, trái lại còn khiến các tiết học trở nên nhàm chán hơn. Câu 6: Em hãy cho biết ý kiến của mình về các nhận định sau. Đánh dấu x vào ô trống phù hợp: Nhận định Các nhiệm vụ do cô giáo đưa ra phù hợp với trình độ tiếng Anh của em.
105

TT 1

Đồng Không ý đồng ý

Không có ý kiến

2

3 4 5 6

Các nhiệm vụ do cô giáo đưa ra giúp em luyện tập được thêm các kĩ năng thực hành tiếng như nghe, nói, đọc, viết. Các nhiệm vụ cô giáo đưa ra có ích cho việc sử dụng tiếng Anh trong thực tế của em. Các nhi m vụ thú vị và giúp em có nhiều cảm ệ hứng học ngữ pháp tiếng Anh hơn. Trong các tiết ngữ pháp tiếng Anh, em đã trở nên năng động hơn. Cách cô hư ớng dẫn thực hiện các nhiệm vụ dễ hiểu và dễ theo dõi.

Câu 7: Em cho bi t đánh giá của mình về một trong những khía cạnh sau ế bằng việc đánh dấu vào một trong các ô số từ 1 đến 5 (1 tương ứng với rất tốt, và 5 tương ứng với rất không tốt) : 1 2 3 4 5 Rất tốt Rất không tốt TT 1 2 3 4 Khía cạnh Phương pháp truyền đạt của giáo viên Nội dung của bài học Các hoạt động trong giờ học Bài tập ngữ pháp áp dụng Cảm ơn các em rất nhiều ! 1 2 3 4 5

106

QUESTIONNAIRE 2
Assessment and attitudes of students towards task-based grammar lessons

This questionnaire is to investigate your opinion about grammar lessons with the use of tasks. “Tasks” can be understood as group work or pair work activities that your have to do to complete a requirement of teacher. These activities have a real-life goal. In order to complete the tasks, you have to use other English skills such as reading, writing, speaking and listening and interact with your partners. After the completion of tasks, you will have a particular outcome. Moreover, grammar knowledge of the lesson is integrated with these tasks. Question 1: Do you like changes in the grammar lessons with the use of tasks? Circle the letter before your choice. a. Very interested b. Interested c. Neither interested nor uninterested. Changes do not matter. d. Bored e. Very bored Please explain your choice: …………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………

Question 2: Do you want next grammar lessons to be taught in this new method? Circle the letter before your choice. a. Yes b. No c. Neutral Question 3: Do you think that these grammar lessons are effective in helping you understand new grammar knowledge? Circle the letter before your choice.

107

Yes, they are more effective than previous ones with the old method. Yes, but they are as effective as previous ones with the old method. Yes, but previous lessons with the old method were more effective. No, not at all Other opinion: ……………………………………………………………………… Question 4: In these grammar lessons, which skills have you used? You can choose more than one option. a. Listening b. Speaking c. Reading d. Writing e. None of them Question 5: In your opinion, has the new method made grammar lessons more lively and interesting? a. Yes, the atmosphere changed clearly b. Yes, but changes were not clear. c. No, there was no change. d. No, even lessons became more boring. Question 6: Please give your opinion about the following statements. Put (x) in the appropriate column that shows your opinion. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Statements Tasks were suitable with my English level. Tasks helped me practice other skills such as reading, speaking, listening and writing. Tasks were helpful for my English use in the real life. Tasks were interesting and motivated me to learn English grammar. In grammar lessons, I became more active. Teacher’s instruction was easy to understand and follow.
108

a. b. c. d. e.

Agree Disagree Neutral

Question 7: Please show your assessment on the following aspects of the grammar lessons by ticking in column 1 -5 (1 is “very good” and 5 is “very bad”) 1 2 3 4 5 Very good Very bad No. 1 2 3 4 Aspect Teacher’s instruction and teaching manner Lesson’s content Tasks Practice exercises Thank you very much ! 1 2 3 4 5

109

APPENDIX 3 QUESTIONNAIRE 3
This questionnaire was delivered to students after the action of Cycle two and translated into Vietnamese for better understanding.

PHIẾU ĐÁNH GIÁ CỦA HỌC SINH
Đối với các tiết học ngữ pháp sử dụng các nhiệm vụ dạy học (tasks) Câu 1: Em có thích nhng thay đổi trong các tiết học ngữ pháp vừa qua ữ không ? Khoanh tròn vào chữ cái trước lựa chọn của em. a. Rất thích b. Thích c. Bình thường, thấy việc thay đổi hay không không quan trọng. d. Không thích e. Rất không thích Em hãy giải thích cho lựa chọn của mình: …………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………… Câu 3: Em thấy tiết học ngữ pháp với phương pháp mới có giúp ích cho em trong việc tiếp thu các kiến thức ngữ pháp mới không ? a. Có, chúng giúp em học ngữ pháp tốt hơn so với phương pháp cũ. b. Có, nhưng em thấy hiệu quả của phương pháp cũ và mới là như nhau. c. Có, tuy nhiên phương pháp cũ vẫn giúp em học ngữ pháp tốt hơn. d. Hoàn toàn không. e. Ý kiến khác: ……………………………………………………………………… Câu 4: Em thấy trong các tiết học vừa qua, có những kỹ năng tiếng Anh nào của em đã được sử dụng ? a. Kỹ năng nghe b. Kỹ năng nói c. Kỹ năng đọc
110

d. Kỹ năng viết e. Không có kỹ năng nào Câu 5: Theo em việc áp dụng phương pháp mới trong giờ học ngữ pháp có giúp tiết học trở nên sôi nổi và sinh động hơn không ? a. Có, không khí trong lớp thay đổi rõ rệt b. Có nhưng những chuyển biến là không rõ c. Không, không khí học vẫn không thay đổi. d. Không, trái lại còn khiến các tiết học trở nên nhàm chán hơn. Câu 6: Em hãy cho bi ý kiến của mình về các nhận định sau. Đánh dấu x ết vào ô trống phù hợp: Nhận định Các nhiệm vụ cô giáo đưa ra có ích cho việc sử dụng tiếng Anh trong thực tế của em. Các nhiệm vụ thú vị và giúp em có nhiều cảm hứng học ngữ pháp tiếng Anh hơn. Trong các tiết ngữ pháp tiếng Anh, em đã trở nên năng động hơn. Đồng Không ý đồng ý Không có ý kiến

TT 1 2 3

Câu 7: Em cho bi t cảm nhận của mình (sự hứng thú, thích thú) đối với ế những yếu tố trong tiết học ngữ pháp dưới đây bằng việc đánh dấu vào một trong các ô số từ 1 đến 5 (1 tương ứng với rất hứng thú, và 5 tương ứng với rất không hứng thú) : 1 2 3 4 5 Rất hứng thú Rất không hứng thú TT 1 2 3 4 Khía cạnh Phương pháp truyền đạt của giáo viên Nội dung của bài học Các hoạt động trong giờ học Bài tập ngữ pháp áp dụng Cảm ơn các em rất nhiều !
111

1 2 3 4 5

QUESTIONNAIRE 3
Assessment and attitudes of students towards task-based grammar lessons

Question 1: Do you like changes in the grammar lessons with the use of tasks? Circle the letter before your choice. a. Very interested b. Interested c. Neither interested nor uninterested. Changes do not matter. d. Bored e. Very bored Please explain your choice: …………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………

Question 3: Do you think that these grammar lessons are effective in helping you understand new grammar knowledge? Circle the letter before your choice. a. Yes, they are more effective than previous ones with the old method. b. Yes, but they are as effective as previous ones. c. Yes, but previous lessons with the old method were more effective. d. No, not at all e. Other opinion: ……………………………………………………………………… Question 4: In these grammar lessons, which skills have you used? You can choose more than one option. a. Listening b. Speaking c. Reading d. Writing e. None of them Question 5: In your opinion, has the new method made grammar lessons more lively and interesting? a. Yes, the atmosphere changed clearly

112

b. Yes, but changes were not clear. c. No, there was no change. d. No, even lessons became more boring. Question 6: Please give your opinion about the following statements. Put (x) in the appropriate column that shows your opinion. No. 1 2 3 Statements Tasks were helpful for my English use in the real life. Tasks were interesting and motivated me to learn English grammar. In grammar lessons, I became more active. Agree Disagree Neutral

Question 7: Please show your interest in the following aspects of the grammar lessons by ticking in column 1 -5 (1 is “very interested” and 5 is “very bored”) 1 2 3 4 5 Very interested Very bored No. Aspect 1 2 3 4 5 1 Teacher’s instruction and teaching manner 2 Lesson’s content 3 Tasks 4 Practice exercises Thank you very much !

113

APPENDIX 4 OBSERVATION NOTE
1. General comments a. Teacher’s ways of explaining grammar structure:  Very good  Good  Normal  Bad  Very bad b. The suitability of task to students’ English level:  Suitable completely  Suitable, to some extent  Not suitable  Not suitable at all c. The level of relevance between tasks and the content of lesson:  Completely match each other  Quite relevant to each other  Not very relevant  Irrelevant completely d. The atmosphere of the class:  Interesting  Normal, not so interesting  Boring 2. Other comments ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………

114

APPENDIX 5 INTERVIEW SCHEDULE
Following is the schedule for interviewing with ten selected students. Firstly, the researcher introduced herself again and gave brief introduction to the research and how the interviewees were chosen. Besides, confidentiality is confirmed again. Hello! Thank you for joining this interview. ……………………………………………………………………………….... Today, I would like to ask you some questions about tasks and grammar lessons used tasks that you have learnt recently. Question 1: Firstly, can you give me some general comments on grammar lessons with tasks again? ……………………………………………………………………………….... Question 2: What do you think about tasks that you had to complete, in general? ……………………………………………………………………………….... Question 3: What do you think about materials that had been used in tasks? ……………………………………………………………………………….... Question 4: Do you think you have changed in these lessons? ……………………………………………………………………………….... Question 5: What do you think about activities that you had done to complete the tasks? ………………………………………………………………………………… Question 6: Do you think the role of teacher had changed or remained? …………………………………………………………………………………

115

Question 7: Can you give me some opinions about the settings of tasks? ……………………………………………………………………………….... Question 8: Do you have other comments on tasks and grammar lessons? ……………………………………………………………………………….... Thank you very much for your cooperation!

116

APPENDIX 6 INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTION
Following is the translation version of the interview with student S1. Nine other interviews with other students are available at request Interviewer: Hello! Thank you for joining this interview. Can you introduce yourself? Interviewee: ………………………………………………………………….. Interviewer: Thank you. In this interview, I am going to ask you some questions related to grammar lessons that I have taught you and especially, tasks that you had to do in these lessons. All information will be kept secret. Do you understand? Interviewee: Yes, of course. Interviewer: Firstly, can you give me some general comments on grammar lessons that I have taught? Interviewee: I saw it was very funny and interesting. I felt relaxed. Quite different from other lessons (without the use of tasks) Interviewer: Ok. What do you think about tasks that I have used in these lessons? Interviewee: They were very interesting and I had a lot of fun. Interviewer: Why did you have a lot of fun? Interviewee: Because every one worked together. Funny! Interviewer: I see. What was the aspect of the lessons that motivated you most? Interviewee: They were tasks! Working together was exciting. I could learn grammar better because every one had to think to complete the

117

tasks. It was easier to learn English. I was not afraid of English any more. Interviewer: Ok. I understand. So, in your opinion, how were materials that I had used for those tasks? Interviewee: They were very useful and made me more interested in the lessons. I could know what I had not known before. If you had not provided it, I could have never discovered that information. Interviewer: Can you give me some examples? Interviewee: For example, information about “The Beatles”. I did not know this band before. If you had not given us, I would have never found it. Interviewer: Yes, I see. Besides that, what else do you like about those tasks? Interviewee: While doing tasks, I listened to my friends’ talking. That’s funny. I like to talk to them. However, I was still shy because my grammar is not good. Interviewer: Yes, I see. I think grammar is not a decisive factor of a good speech. Don’t worry. Interviewer: Do you think you have changed in grammar lessons with tasks? Interviewee: Yes, of course. I became more active. I did not feel asleep anymore. I felt freer to raise my opinion. I was more active in learning grammar. Actually, I did not feel that I was forced to learn grammar or vocabulary. Interviewer: Uh huh ! Did you see the role of teacher remained or changed? Interviewee: Changed. I found teacher friendlier. You helped me do tasks and gave clear instruction. Interviewer: Ok. I understand. The last question. Have you ever paid attention to the settings or context of tasks?
118

Interviewee: Yes, of course. We had to understand to know what we have to do and why we have to do the task. Interviewer: Good. So what do you think about it? Interviewee: The settings were quite proper. They were close to my life. We knew them clearly and could understand. Hence, it was not difficult to do the task. Moreover, I paid attention to your way of speaking and I learnt from it. I found sentences that you used easier to remember than grammar. Interviewer: Ok. Do you have other comments? Interviewee: No. Interviewer: Ok. Thank you so much for your cooperation! Interviewee: You are welcome!

119

APPENDIX 7 LESSON PLANS

*** LESSON PLAN
Language focus: Grammar Date: ........

Unit 12: Music
1. Class description: Fifty 10th grade students 2. Time: 35 minutes 3. Objectives: - Students can design a quiz based on available information. - After the lesson, students recall some familiar Wh-questions and common structure for those questions. - Students are able make Wh-questions in writing and speaking. 4. Assumed knowledge: Students have already got familiar with some kinds of Wh-questions 5. Anticipated problems: 6. Teaching aids: Handouts, board 7. Procedure: Stage Time Teacher Activities Students

* T gives introduction of topic: Music - Listen to T Pre-task 10’ (The Beatles) * Pre-task language activity: Teacher - Read through the will provide students with an information passage to catch the

120

sheet about the band “The Beatles”. They main idea and locate read through the passage to catch the new words. main idea and locate new words listed at the end of the paper * T gives instruction of the task: + Imagine that you have to prepare a - Listen to T game in the collective activity at the weekend. This week has the theme: Music. + Work in groups of four or five to design a quiz relating to provided information in 10 minutes. + After discussion, one group will go to the stage and present their outcome. Teacher then needs to provide some sample questions that can be used in the quiz. *The task stage: - T helps Ss divide groups - Ss form groups of four or five Task cycle 15’ While students are reading the - In groups, read the sheet, design

information and design questions, teacher information goes around and helps if necessary. Ss and may need more explanation of new words questions. or structures of Wh-questions. * The planning stage:

121

- T stops students’ discussion and asks - Finalize the quiz them to finalize the quiz to prepare for report. * The report stage - T calls one group to read their quiz - One group does as while the others guess the answer. required. The rest of

- T acts as a judgment and decides which class listens to the questions and answers are acceptable. questions answer. and

*

Corrective

feedback:

T

gives - Listen to T

comments on students’ design of quizzes, especially the form of questions. * Language analysis and practice: T Language focus 10’ asks students to draw a common structure - Answer questions of Wh-questions and provides handouts that relate to Wh-questions, types and structure - T instructs students to do drilling - Do exercise. exercises

122

LESSON PLAN
Language focus: Grammar Date: ........

Unit 13
1. Class description: Fifty 10 grade students 2. Time: 35 minutes 3. Objectives: - Students practice the way to express their opinions. - Students are able to describe the appearance of familiar things. - After the lesson, students understand the use of articles: a/an/the and apply in conversations, discussions and presentations. 4. Assumed knowledge: Students have known some usages of articles a/an/the. 5. Anticipated problems: 6. Teaching aids: Handouts, board 7. Procedure: Stage Time Teacher Activities Students
th

* T gives introduction of the - Listen to T topic: Houses and buildings. * Pre-task language activity: T - Read the words and Pre-task 7’ provides Ss with words relating to guess houses and buildings. Through meanings. teacher’s suggestions, Ss guess the meaning of some words which have not been explained. their

123

* T gives task instruction; + Context: Japanese people are suffering from earthquakes and tsunami last week. Many of them had lost their houses because these houses were destroyed by these disasters. + Students will work in pairs to design houses for Japanese people so that they can protect them from the natural disasters. Discuss with the partner and draw a picture of the ideal houses in 10 minutes. + Some pairs will present their ideas and the class vote for the most impressive house. * Preparation time: because the Think of the for

task is new to students, teacher answers spends time instructing students to questions discuss by guiding questions such as: Where will the house be? How does it look like? What is it made from? Task cycle * The task stage - T helps students form pairs and - Form pairs

124

start to discuss 18’ - T goes around and helps Ss if - Work in pair to necessary. brainstorm and draw their ideal houses. * The planning stage - T stops the discussion and asks Ss - Prepare to share to prepare to express their ideas (based on guiding

- T may need to help Ss prepare for questions) sharing part. * The report stage - T calls some pairs to show their - Some pairs share pictures and present the ideas with the whole class.

- T listens and asks Ss to give - Vote comments and vote for the most impressive house. * Corrective feedback: T gives Listen to the

comments on the use of articles in teacher the Language focus 10’ presentation and other

important points (if any) * Language analysis and practice - T asks Ss to repeat the use of - Answer questions. article - T delivers exercises. - Do exercises

125

LESSON PLAN
Language focus: Grammar Date: ........

Unit 14
1. Class description: Fifty 10 grade students 2. Time: 35 minutes 3. Objectives: - Students learn to plan for a party, express intentions and projects in the future. - After the lesson, students can differentiate the use of “will” and “be going to” in talking about future and use them correctly in speaking and writing. 4. Assumed knowledge: Students know the structure with “will” and ‘be going to’ 5. Anticipated problems: 6. Teaching aids: Handouts, board 7. Procedure: Stage Time Teacher Activities Students
th

* T gives introduction of the topic: - Listen to T Mother (Mother’s birthday) * Pre-task language activity: Pre-task 10’ T - Brainstorm

asks students to brainstorms words relating to birthday and party before providing vocabulary handout. * T gives task instruction - Name: SPECIAL GIFT FOR

126

MOTHERS - T explains the task: Ss work in - Listen to T groups of four to five. Each group will pick up a paper on which an amount of money is written. This is the money that Ss have saved to prepare for their mothers’ birthday. They will then discuss how to celebrate that day. - T asks some students about their - Answer question. intentions with the money (What will you do with ….?) to help them generate ideas. * The task stage: - T helps Ss form groups - Form groups

- T goes around and helps Ss if - In groups, Ss discuss necessary. Task cycle 15’ T encourages students and decide what they are to going to do with the money.

participate in the tasks actively * The planning stage

- T stops the discussion and asks Ss - Ss plan their talk to prepare for the presentation of ideas. * The report stage - T calls some representatives to talk - Share with the whole about their plans class.

127

- Listen and give comments.

- Vote for the most impressive idea

* Corrective feedback: T gives - Listen to T comments on students’ performance as well as the use of tense futures when talking about plans. Language focus 10’ * Language analysis and practice: - T asks students to distinguish the - Answer question difference between “will” and “be going to” from the presentation - Ss do drilling exercises with the - Do exercise. instruction of T.

128

LESSON PLAN
Language focus: Grammar Date: ........

Unit 15
1. Class description: Fifty 10 grade students 2. Time: 35 minutes 3. Objectives: - Students practice the way to describe people and design a quiz as they learned in previous lessons - After the lesson, students can differentiate the use of non-defining and defining relative clause. 4. Assumed knowledge: Students have learnt relative clauses. 5. Anticipated problems: 6. Teaching aids: Handouts, board 7. Procedure: Stage Time Teacher Activities Students
th

* T gives introduction of the - Listen to T topic: Classmates * Pre-task language activities: - Read the handout T provides students with a and find the meanings Pre-task 10’ handout. In this handout, there of words are words describing people’s appearance. Their meanings are explained by pictures. T asks students to explain words’

129

meaning based on pictures. * T gives task instruction: + Students will work groups of four to come up with a quiz about other classmates in their class. This quiz includes clues with the form of statements. The examples have been given. + After designing, some - Listen to T

groups will be called to present their outcome. * The task stage: - T helps students form groups - In groups, Ss discuss

- T goes around and helps Ss if and write down clues necessary. 15’ * The planning stage: - T asks students to spend 2 - Finalized the quiz Task – cycle minutes to finalize their quizzes and prepare to report. * The report stage: - T calls some groups to give - Some groups will out the quiz read out the quizzes and the other groups guess the name. - Listen and give comments. for quizzes

130

* Corrective feedback: T gives - Listen to T comments on students’ quiz. The focus is their use of relative clauses. Language focus * 10’ Language Ask analysis students and - Do as required to

practice:

differentiate the defining and non-defining relative clauses based on examples from the task and teacher’s comments. - Help students do exercises - Do exercise.

131

APPENDIX 8 POST TESTS ***
1. UNIT 12 POST TEST
I. Choose the best answer:
1. "........." is your favourite Vietnamese singer ? "Trong Tan and My Linh " A. Whom B. What C. Who 2. ".............do you like classical music?" " Because it helps me relax" A. How B. Why C. Which 3. ...........is it from here to the theater ? A. How B. How far C. How often 4. " ......... are you learning Chinese for ?" " To sing Chinese songs." A. Why B. What C. How 5. .............was " Heal the world " written ? A. By who B. Who C. By whom

D. Whose

D. What D. How long

D. Which D. Whom

II. Make question for the underlined part:
1. He studies piano at the university. (what) ……………………………………………………………………. 2. The party lasted all night. (how long) ……………………………………………………………………. 3. I find a part time job to have enough money to take the English speaking course. (what for)

132

2. UNIT 13 POST TEST
I. Choose the correct answer. 1. 'Do you think Margaret will take the job you offered her'?' 'I don't know. She seemed …….. in it, however. a. interest b. interesting. c. interested d. interestingly 2. 'The students all went to the circus yesterday.' I heard it was really ……. a. amused b. amusing c. amuse d. amusingly 3. It was ............ that Jan couldn't come to the party.' 'Her boss made her work overtime. a. disappointing b. disappointedly c. disappoint d. disappointed 4. 'What a terrible football game!' I thought it was ……… a. delightful b. delighting c. delight d. delighted 5. 'How ....... we are to hear that you got the scholarship!' `Thank you. It was really a surprise.' a. pleasing b. pleased c. pleasingly d. please 6. We'd better go. We've been here for ..........hour.' 'That was.............. fastest hour I've ever spent.' a. a/ the b. an/ the c. an/ a d. θ / the 7. Don't forget we're meeting on ............Friday for ............ lunch. a. a/ a b. a/ θ c. θ / the d/ θ / θ 8. 'I've got .........headache. I've had it all day' 'Why don't you go to …. health center? It's open until six.' a. a/ a b. θ / the c. a/ the d. a/ θ 9, 'I've got some problems with my phone bill. Can 1 see someone about it?’ Yes, go to fifth floor, ...........lift is along the corridor.' a. the/ A b. the/ The c. θ! A d. the/ θ 10. 'Excuse me. I'd like to rent ........... new game.” Here you are. Sega Genesis. Please take it to ............ cashier over there.' a. al the b. the/ the c. θ / the d. a/ a II. Rewrite the following sentences, using It was not until 1. No one could leave the stadium until 2.30. 2. She wasn't allowed to open her presents until her birthday. 3. We didn't have any holiday until last summer.

133

3. UNIT 14 POST TEST
I. Choose the correct answer: 1. I'm turning the cupboard into a darkroom. I .........my own films. A. develop B. am developing C. am going to develop D. will develop 2. " Van is in hospital". - Yes, I know. I ..........her tomorrow. A. will visiting B. go to visit C. am going to visit D. will visit 3. That bag looks heavy. I .........you with it. A. am going to help B. am helping C. help D. will help 4. I think Tam .........the job. She has a lot of experience. A. is going to get B. gets C. will get D. is getting 5. Mai and I have decided to have a party. We ..... lots of people. A. have invited B. will invite C. are going to invite D. are inviting 6. " I'm catching the 7.00 train". " So am I. I ....... you a lift to the station" A. going to give B. am giving C. shall give D. will give II. Choose one correct sentence: 7. There is an interesting football match. __________________ A. There are going to be lots of people at the match tonight. B. There are lots of people at the match tonight. C. There will be lots of people at the match tonight. D. There should be lots of people at the match tonight. 8. A: “I don’t have enough money to buy this book.” – B: “__________________ .” A. I’m going to lend you some B. I’m lending you some C. I lend you some D. I’ll lend you some 9. The traffic is terrible. __________________ A. We'll miss our flight. B. We're going to miss our flight. C. We’re missing our flight. D. We have to miss our flight. 10. Look! There are no clouds in the sky. __________________ A. It is going to be rainy. B. It is going to be warm. C. It will be rainy. D. It won’t be warm.
134

4. UNIT 15 POST TEST
Choose the best answer. 1. In a desert, there are places _________________ some water is available and a few plants grow. a. that b. which c. where d. when 2. We decided to keep walking _________________ the rain. a. in case b. in spite of c. because of d. due to 3. _______________ I heard my mobile phone ringing, I didn’t answer it. a. Even though b. Despite c. In spite of d. Only if 4. Tokyo, _____________ was badly damaged in World War II, has recovered quickly. a. that b. who c. what d. which 5. I appreciate these engineers ____________ is very important. a. whose contribution b. that contributes c. who contribute d. whom contribution 6. They don’t want to live in a big city, _____________ they know its advantages. a. but b. and c. although d. as if 7. ______________ declared the martial law. a. Abraham Lincoln, who was President at the time, b. Abraham Lincoln, that was President at the time, c. Abraham Lincoln, whom was President at the time, d. Abraham Lincoln whom was President at the time, 8. England is one of the few countries _________________ people drive on the left. a. which b. where c. that d. whom 9. ____________ cutting my finger very deeply, I didn’t need any stitches. a. Although b. In spite of the fact that c. Despite d. Even though 10. That’s the businessman _________________ company is so successful. a. whose b. of which c. who’s d. of whom

135

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful