The effect of task-based language teaching on EFL learners' writing performance at Tien Giang University

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY

----------------------------

THE EFFECT OF TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING

ON EFL LEARNERS’ WRITING PERFORMANCE

AT TIEN GIANG UNIVERSITY

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE

OF MASTER OF ARTS (TESOL)

Submitted by NGUYEN THI MY HANH

Supervisor: Dr. LUU TRONG TUAN

HO CHI MINH CITY, 2017

i

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

I certify that the thesis entitled “The effect of Task-Based Language Teaching on

EFL Learners’ Writing Performance” is my original work. All resources used in

the thesis have been documented. The work has not been submitted to Open

University or elsewhere.

Ho Chi Minh City, March 7th, 2017

Nguyen Thi My Hanh

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I have secured a lot of assistance and advice from many people in order to complete

my thesis. I am very grateful for this help.

First of all, I would like to express my sincere thanks to my supervisor, Dr. Luu

Trong Tuan for his considerate assistance and invaluable advice. Without his help,

the study couldn’t have been completed.

Secondly, I want to express my deep gratitude to the Management of Tien Giang

University and the Leaders of Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities for their

permission and support.

Finally, I would like to sincerely thank my colleagues for their support as well as

the students in two classes 0728201 and 0728202 for their cooperation.

iii

ABSTRACT

The present research is aimed at investigating the effect of Task-Based Language

Teaching (TBLT) on EFL learners’ writing performance and learner writing

motivation considered as a mediating variable in enhancing writing performance of

EFL learners at Tien Giang University. The quasi-experimental design was

employed with the participation of 40 freshmen (20 in CG and 20 in EG). The

analysis of the data collected from the participants’ pretests and posttests, pre￾questionnaires and post-questionnaires indicated that TBLT had a positive influence

on EFL learners’ writing performance and their writing motivation. EFL learners

made significant progress in all five components of a writing (vocabulary, content,

grammar, organization and mechanics) and two factors in learner writing motivation

(perceived value of writing and writing self-concept). In addition, there was a

positive correlation between learner writing motivation and writing performance.

Learner writing motivation contributed 37% to the improvement of writing

performance.

Key words: Task-based language teaching (TBLT), writing performance, learner

writing motivation.

iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CG Control Group

CLT Communicative Language Teaching

EFL English as Foreign Language

EG Experimental Group

ESL English as Second Language

L2 Second Language

SCT Social-Cultural Theory

TBLT Task-Based Language Teaching

TESOL Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages

ZPD Zone of Proximal Development

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2. Task types 10

Table 3.1 Characteristics of participants 39

Table 3.2 Writing topics for each week 40

Table 3.3 Items of pre-questionnaire on learner writing motivation 43

Table 3.4 Items of post-questionnaire on learner writing motivation 44

Table 3.5 Structures of pre-questionnaire and post-questionnaire of CG and EG 45

Table 3.6 Summary of traditional lesson plans for fifteen weeks 46

Table 3.7 Summary of TBLT lesson plans for fifteen weeks 50

Table 4.1 Correlation of two raters’ pretest scores of CG 65

Table 4.2 Correlation of two raters’ pretest scores of EG 65

Table 4.3 Descriptive statistics of the pretest scores 66

Table 4.4 Independent samples t-test results of the pretests 67

Table 4.5 Correlation of two raters’ posttest scores of CG 68

Table 4.6 Correlation of two raters’ posttest scores of EG 68

Table 4.7 Descriptive statistics of the posttest scores 69

Table 4.8 Independent samples t-test results of the posttests 69

Table 4.9 Descriptive statistics of the pretest scores and posttest scores 70

Table 4.10 Pair sample t-test results of the writing tests 72

Table 4.11 Descriptive statistics of each component of the writing tests 73

Table 4.12 Independent samples t-test results of each component of writing tests 74

Table 4.13 Descriptive statistics of each component before and after the treatment75

Table 4.14 Pair sample t-test results of the components of writing tests 76

Table 4.15 Item-total statistics of the pre-questionnaire of CG 78

Table 4.16 Item-total statistics of the pre-questionnaire of EG 79

Table 4.17 Rotated components matrix of the pre-questionnaire of CG 80

Table 4.18 Rotated components matrix of the pre-questionnaire of EG 81

vi

Table 4.19 Descriptive statistics of the pre-questionnaires of CG and EG 82

Table 4.20 Independent samples t-test of the pre-questionnaires 83

Table 4.21 Item-total statistics of the post-questionnaires of CG 84

Table 4.22 Item-total statistics of the post-questionnaires of EG 85

Table 4.23 Rotated component matrix of the post-questionnaire of CG 85

Table 4.24 Rotated component matrix of the post-questionnaires of EG 86

Table 4.25 Descriptive statistics of the post-questionnaires 87

Table 4.26 Independent samples t-test results of the post-questionnaires 88

Table 4.27 Descriptive statistics of the scores of the pre-questionnaires and

post-questionnaires 90

Table 4.28 Pair sample t-test results of the pre-questionnaires and post-

questionnaires of learning writing motivation 90

Table 4.29 Descriptive statistics of the two factors of the questionnaires 91

Table 4.30 Independent samples t-test results of the each factor

of the questionnaires 92

Table 4.31 Descriptive statistics of the each factor of the questionnaires 93

Table 4.32 Pair sample t-test results of the each factor of the questionnaires 94

Table 4.33 Correlation between learner writing motivation

and writing performance in EG 96

Table 4.34 Regression between learner writing motivation

and writing performance 97

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Task-Based Language Teaching Framework 16

Figure 2.2 Research model 34

Figure 4.1 Mean score of the pretests and the posttests 71

Figure 4.2 Mean score of the pre-questionnaire and post-questionnaires 89

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

ABSTRACT iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS iv

LIST OF TABLES v

LIST OF FIGURES vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS viii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Statement of the problem 1

1.2 Purposes of the study 5

1.3 Research questions 5

1.4 Significance of the study 5

1.5 Organization of the study 6

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 7

2.1 Concepts 7

2.1.1 Tasks 7

2.1.1.1 Definition of task 7

2.1.1.2 Task types 9

2.1.2 Task-Based Language Teaching 12

2.1.2.1 What is Task-Based Language Teaching 12

2.1.2.2. Underlying theories for Task-Based Language Teaching 13

2.1.2.3 Principles of Task-Based Language Teaching 15

2.1.2.4 Task-Based Language Teaching Framework 16

2.1.2.5 Benefits of Task-Based Language Teaching 19

2.1.3 Learner writing motivation 20

ix

2.1.3.1 What is learner motivation 20

2.1.3.2 Types of learner motivation 21

2.1.3.3 Learner motivation in writing 22

2.1.4 Writing performance 22

2.1.4.1 What is writing 22

2.1.4.2 Writing performance 23

2.2 Hypothesis development 24

2.2.1 Task-Based Language Teaching and writing performance 24

2.2.2 Task-Based Language Teaching and learner writing motivation 29

2.2.3 Learner writing motivation and writing performance 32

2.3 Chapter summary 35

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 36

3.1 Research setting 36

3.2 Research design 37

3.3 Data collection procedures 38

3.3.1 Participants 38

3.3.2 Materials 40

3.3.3 Instruments 41

3.3.3.1 Pretest and posttest of writing 41

3.3.3.2 Pre-questionnaire and post-questionnaire of learner writing motivation 42

3.3.4 Experimental procedures 45

3.3.4.1 Teaching procedures for control and experimental groups 45

3.3.4.2 Procedures of data collection 59

3.4 Data analysis approach 60

3.4.1 Normal distribution of the sample 60

3.4.2 Validity and reliability of instruments 60

3.4.2.1 Pretest and posttest 61

3.4.2.2 Questionnaire for learner writing motivation 61

3.4.3 T-test 62

x

3.4.4 Correlation and regression analysis 62

3.4.4.1 Correlation analysis 62

3.4.4.2 Regression analysis 63

3.5 Chapter summary 63

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS 64

4.1 Research question 1: To what extent does TBLT influence EFL learners’

writing performance at Tien Giang University? 65

4.4.1 Before the treatment 65

4.1.2 After the treatment 67

4.2 Research question 2: To what extent does TBLT influence learner writing

motivation at Tien Giang University? 78

4.2.1 Before the treatment 78

4.2.2 After the treatment 83

4.3 Research question 3: To what extent does learner writing motivation

influence EFL learners’ writing performance at Tien Giang University? 95

4.3.1 Correlation between learner writing motivation and writing performance 95

4.3.2 Regression between learner writing motivation and writing performance 96

4.4 Chapter summary 97

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSIONS 98

5.1 Research question 1: To what extent does TBLT influence EFL learners’

writing performance at Tien Giang University? 98

5.2 Research question 2: To what extent does TBLT infuence learner writing

motivation at Tien Giang University? 100

5.3 Research question 3: To what extent does learner writing motivation

influence EFL learners’ writing performance at Tien Giang University? 102

5.4 Chapter summary 102

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS 104

6.1 Conclusions 104

xi

6.2 Implications 106

6.2.1 For teachers 106

6.2.2 For students 106

6.3 Limitations 107

6.4 Recommendation 108

REFERENCES 109

APPENDICES 122

Appendix A: Pretest 122

Appendix B: Posttest 123

Appendix C: Marking Scale 124

Appendix D: Pre-questionnaire of learner writing motivation for CG and EG 128

Appendix E: Pre-questionnaire of learner writing motivation for CG and EG

(Vietnamese version) 129

Appendix F: Post-questionnaire of learner writing motivation for CG 131

Appendix G: Post-questionnaire of learner writing motivation for CG

(Vietnamese version) 132

Appendix H: Post-questionnaire of learner writing motivation for EG 134

Appendix I: Post-questionnaire of learner writing motivation for EG

(Vietnamese version) 135

Appendix J: A sample traditional lesson plan 137

Appendix K: A sample TBLT lesson plan 139

Appendix L: Samples of the students’ paragraphs 143

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

There are five sections in chapter 1. The first section is statement of the problem.

The second section mentions three purposes of the study. Based on the three

purposes, three research questions are presented in the third section. Significance of

the study is mentioned in the fourth section. The last section is organization of the

study which consists of six chapters namely introduction, literature review,

methodology, results, discussions and conclusions, implications, limitations and

recommendations for further research.

1.1 Statement of the problem

For English language learners, writing is a very important skill (Al-Shourafa, 2012).

Wolff (2000) states that “writing is not only a means of communicating, but also a

tool of learning a language” (p. 111). According to Mohamed (2003), writing helps

non-English native students to learn because it enhances the grammar, structure

idioms and vocabulary, gives them chances to experience the language, to go

beyond what they have just to say and to take risks and become involved with the

new language. Abdali and Fatemipour (2014) indicate that “EFL learners should

write reports, thesis, essays, and compositions so as to meet the demands of their

authorities” (p. 730). In addition, writing is necessary for students’ learning, career

and their daily communication (Al-Shourafa, 2012).

In spite of its important roles, it is difficult to acquire this skill (Tribble, 1997).

Zhaochun (2015) argues that writing is the most difficult skill to master. According

to Byrne (1979), writing is the transformation of thoughts into language. This

means that writing requires writers’ both mental and physical activities to

2

communicate with readers or enable them to understand writers’ feeling and

thought. Unlike speaking skill, there is no feedback between writers and readers in

writing skill, which makes writing skill more difficult than speaking skill.

According to Al-Shourafa (2012), it requires L2 writers “to use a second language

writing system and simultaneously perform a range of complex cognitive tasks such

as making a decision on content relevant to a topic, selecting proper vocabulary and

grammar to form sentences, organizing sentences into a paragraph and consider the

writing purpose and intended audience” (pp. 1-2). Furthermore, learning a foreign

language in the context where learners’ exposure to language is just for few hours

each week makes writing become a demanding activity (Kim & Kim, 2005).

Because writing is a very difficult skill to master, learners need to be provided a lot

of opportunities to improve their writing skills. However, Trinh and Nguyen (2014)

stated that “in most academic writing classes in the Mekong Delta, the teacher

provides learners with a topic and a related model text. The teacher picks out

sentences from the model texts for learners to study grammatical structures; how

and what to write are seldom discussed. The communicative purpose and audience

of the texts seem to be ignored. The teacher does not focus much on the content of

the model texts, but focuses more on form.” (p. 64). Teaching writing in such a way

does not give learners many opportunities to interact with one another and express

their ideas. Willis (1996a) emphasizes that through meaning-focused activity,

interaction and a removal of teacher dominance, tasks can help enhance fluency and

natural acquisition. Moreover, teachers dominate the class and learners become

passive in their study. Teacher-dominated class is boring and it kills the students’

interests (Kundo & Tutto, 1989). Similarly, at Tien Giang University, teaching

writing has also focused on form rather than meaning. Students have to spend most

of the time doing grammatical exercises rather than interacting and negotiating with

one another. In reality, the average score of writing tests of EFL students at Tien

Giang University in the academic year 2014-2015 was quite low, at 6.1 (Center of

3

educational testing and quality assessment of Tien Giang University). In addition,

English writing teachers said that in general EFL students at Tien Giang University

were not interested in their writing class. This indicates that it is very necessary to

have an effective method for teaching writing to enhance EFL learners’ writing

performance and to improve their writing motivation which contributes to EFL

learners’ writing performance.

Many methods for teaching writing have been introduced to foster learners’ writing

skills. Among them is Process Approach which focuses on “the steps involved in

drafting and redrafting a piece of work” (Nunan, 2001, p. 272). Nevertheless, this

approach has some limitations. First, it ignores the accuracy in favor of fluency

(Reid, 2001). Paying less attention to grammar and structure negatively affects the

quality of writing. Furthermore, Process Approach emphasizes the process of

producing a writing product regardless of the time it takes (Sadeghi, Hassani &

Hemmati, 2013). With the emphasis on the relationship between text-genres and

their contexts, Genre-based Approach has also been proposed as an approach in

teaching writing (Hyon, 1996). Nevertheless, Badger and White (2000) argue that

“the negative side of genre approaches is that they undervalue the skills needed to

produce a text and see learners as largely passive” (p. 157). Moreover, Bawarshi

(2000) indicates that while the strength of genre-based approach is that it helps

learners to identify and interpret literary texts, its weakness is that it interferes with

the learners’ creativity.

In the process of searching for a better way to promote learners’ writing

performance, a number of researchers have also indicated that it is beneficial to

apply Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) which is based on communicative

and interactive tasks, requiring meaningful communication and interaction among

learners (Bygate, Skehan, & Swain, 2001; Nunan, 2004b). It is a logical

development of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) (Richards and Rodgers,