The effects of task-based grammatical instructions on primary students' productive skills and learning attitudes

Ho Chi Minh City Open University

Graduate School

97 Vo Van Tan, Dist.3, HCMC, Vietnam

ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET AND REPORT

MASTER in TESOL

Name of candidate: Nguyễn Thị Thu Hiền

Student No: 1781401110007

Email address: [email protected]

Name of coursework subject: Thesis

Title of this item of work: The effects of task- based grammatical

instructions on primary students’ productive skills and learning attitudes

Name of instructor: Assoc. Prof. Pham Vu Phi Ho, PhD

Due date:

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP: I certify that the above assignment is my original

work; it is based on my own research. All sources used by me have been documented.

No other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement. This piece of

work has not previously been submitted for assessment in this or any other subject or

course at this University or elsewhere. Student’s

Signature……………………………………… Date………………………...

Ho Chi Minh City Open University

Graduate School

97 Vo Van Tan, District 3, HCMC, Vietnam

Name: Nguyễn Thị Thu Hiền

Student Number: 1781401110007

Email Address: [email protected]

Name of Coursework Subject: Thesis

Title of This Item of Work: The effects of task- based grammatical

instructions on primary students’ productive skills and learning attitudes

Name of instructor: Assoc. Prof. Pham Vu Phi Ho, PhD

I

Certificate of Originality

This is to certify that this thesis entitled “The effects of task-based grammatical

instructions on primary students’ productive skills and learning attitudes” is my work

and does not contain any material previously published or written by another person,

nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award at any

universities.

I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own

work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project’s design and

conception or in style is acknowledged.

Ho Chi Minh City, November, 2019

Student’s signature

Nguyen Thi Thu Hien

II

Acknowledgement

First, most of all, I would like to thank Assoc. Prof. Pham Vu Phi Ho, PhD, for

his expertise, assistance, guidance, and patience throughout the process of completing

this thesis. Without his help, this thesis would not have been possible.

I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to my managers Nguyen Thi Ngoc

Diep and Nguyen Thi Ngoc Lan in the Asian International primary school in Cong Hoa

Campus for many generous and helpful suggestions.

I would like to give special thanks to all of my colleagues for supporting me,

sharing valuable information and encouraging me to finish this thesis.

Last of all, I would like to thank my family for keeping me company on long

walks.

III

Abstract

Task- based has been applied to teach speaking for students who are in

intermediate or upper levels, yet there are few researches in using TBLT in teaching

grammar to improve students’ writing and speaking. Moreover, the effects of task￾based in low- level students are also limited. This research aims to analyze the effects

of task-based grammatical instructions on primary students’ productive skills and their

learning attitudes in Asian International primary school context. The quasi￾experimental research design and mixed- methods approach were used to find out the

answers to the research questions. There are 40 students taking part in this research

divided into two groups- experimental and control groups. The experimental group was

taught with task- based grammatical instruction, while the control group was taught

with Grammar translation method in 8 weeks. Both groups also had a same pre-test and

post-test to measure their improvement after treating with two methods. The score of

the tests was marked by two raters to ensure the reliability. The attitudes of students

towards task- based grammatical instructions and GTM (grammar-translation method)

were found out based on semi-structured interview. The findings revealed that students

learning with task- based grammatical instructions have a better speaking performance

than those learning with GTM. However, there is no difference between the scores of

writing outcome in two groups. The students’ attitudes towards task- based

grammatical instructions are more positive than those towards GTM. The results also

pointed out implications for teachers in the future, especially in their way of choosing

suitable tasks for their students.

Key words: task- based grammatical instructions, grammar translation method,

speaking performance, writing outcome

IV

Table of contents

Certificate of Originality ....................................................................................................... I

Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................... II

Abstract .............................................................................................................................. III

Chapter 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background of the study ............................................................................................. 1

1.2 Statement of the problems .......................................................................................... 2

1.3 Definition of key terms ........................................................................................... 4

1.3.1 Grammar ............................................................................................................... 4

1.3.2 Task- based language teaching ............................................................................. 4

1.3.3 Young learners ..................................................................................................... 5

1.3.4 Productive skills ................................................................................................... 5

1.4 Purpose of the study .................................................................................................... 5

1.5 Research questions ...................................................................................................... 6

1.6 Hypothesis .............................................................................................................. 6

1.7 Significance of the study ............................................................................................ 6

1.8 Organization of the study ............................................................................................ 7

1.9 Chapter summary ........................................................................................................ 7

Chapter 2 Literature review .............................................................................................. 9

2.1 Theorical background ................................................................................................. 9

2.1.1 Methods in teaching grammar .............................................................................. 9

2.1.2 Grammar teaching: Explicit or Implicit? ........................................................... 10

2.1.3 Task- based language teaching ........................................................................... 13

2.1.4 Task and exercise ............................................................................................... 14

2.1.5 Types of tasks ..................................................................................................... 15

2.1.5.1 Closed/ Open tasks ..................................................................................................... 15

V

2.1.5.2 Information gap tasks ................................................................................................. 15

2.1.5.3 Opinion gap/ Reasoning gap tasks............................................................................ 16

2.1.5.4 Information processing tasks ..................................................................................... 16

2.1.5.5 Social interactive tasks ............................................................................................... 17

2.1.6 Requirements in task- based language teaching ................................................. 17

2.1.6.1 Review of learner errors ............................................................................................ 17

2.1.6.2 Consciousness’s raising tasks.................................................................................... 17

2.1.6.3 Production practice activities .................................................................................... 17

2.1.6.4 Noticing activities ....................................................................................................... 17

2.2 Previous studies .................................................................................................... 18

2.3 Research gaps ....................................................................................................... 23

2.4 Chapter summary .................................................................................................. 23

Chapter 3 Methodology.................................................................................................. 24

3.1 Research design ........................................................................................................ 24

3.2 Research setting and participants.............................................................................. 25

3.2.1 Research setting .................................................................................................. 25

3.2.2 Participants ......................................................................................................... 25

3.3 Research procedure ................................................................................................... 26

3.4 Teaching procedure .................................................................................................. 27

3.5 Instruments................................................................................................................ 30

3.5.1 The tests and rubrics for the tests ....................................................................... 30

3.5.2 The pre-test and post-test writing ....................................................................... 30

3.5.3 The pre-test and post-test speaking .................................................................... 31

3.5.4 Inter-rater reliability ........................................................................................... 31

3.5.5 Test reliability..................................................................................................... 32

3.5.6 Interview ............................................................................................................. 38

3.6 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................ 38

VI

3.7 Chapter summary ...................................................................................................... 39

Chapter 4 Result and Discussion........................................................................................ 40

4.1 A comparison between the pre-test speaking and writing of two groups ................. 40

4.1.1 A comparison of students’ speaking scores in the pre-test ................................ 41

4.1.2 A comparison of students’ writing scores in the pre-test ................................... 43

4.2 Research question 1 .................................................................................................. 45

4.2.1 A comparison of students’ speaking results between pre-test and post-test ...... 45

4.2.1.1 Control group: A comparison of speaking results between pre-test and post￾test ............................................................................................................................................. 45

4.2.1.2 Experimental group: A comparison of speaking results between pre-test and

post-test .................................................................................................................................... 47

4.2.2 A comparison of students’ posttest speaking results between two groups ........ 50

4.3 Research question 2 .................................................................................................. 52

4.3.1 A comparison of students’ writing results between pre-test and post-test ............. 52

4.3.1.1 Control group: A comparison of writing results between pre-test and post￾test ............................................................................................................................................. 52

4.3.1.2 Experimental group: A comparison of writing results between pre-test and post-test .... 54

4.3.2 A comparison of students’ posttest writing ........................................................ 56

4.4 Research question 3 .................................................................................................. 57

4.4.1 Interview after the whole course ........................................................................ 57

4.4.1.1 The interest of teaching method ................................................................................ 57

4.4.1.2 The drawbacks that students have when learning with current method……60

4.4.1.3 Expectations that students want in the process of learning .................................... 61

4.5 Discussion of the findings ........................................................................................ 63

4.6 Chapter summary ...................................................................................................... 65

Chapter 5 Conclusions and recommendations for upcoming studies ................................ 66

5.1 Summary of research results ..................................................................................... 66

VII

5.2 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 67

5.3 Implications for the study ......................................................................................... 67

5.4 Restrictions and recommendation for further study ................................................. 68

References .......................................................................................................................... 70

APPENDIX A .................................................................................................................... 77

RUBRICS FOR WRITING ASSESSMENT ..................................................................... 77

APPENDIX B .................................................................................................................... 79

RUBRICS FOR SPEAKING ASSESSMENT .................................................................. 79

APPENDIX C: TWO TESTS ............................................................................................ 81

APPENDIX D .................................................................................................................... 91

INTERVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 91

APPENDIX E ..................................................................................................................... 92

LESSON PLAN ................................................................................................................. 92

APPENDIX F ................................................................................................................... 102

THE CONTENT OF INTERVIEW ................................................................................. 102

VIII

List of tables

Table 2.1 Framework of task- based teaching ................................................................... 14

Table 3.1 A comparison of writing pre-test of two pilot groups ....................................... 32

Table 3.2 A comparison of speaking pre-test of two pilot groups ..................................... 34

Table 3.3 A comparison of writing pre-test and post-test .................................................. 35

Table 3.4 A comparison of speaking pre-test and post-test .............................................. 36

Table 4.1: The comparison the scores of speaking in control and experimental groups

before treatment. ................................................................................................................ 41

Table 4.2: The comparison the scores of writing in control and experimental groups

before treatment. ................................................................................................................ 43

Table 4.3 A comparison of pre-test and post- test speaking score (control group) ........... 46

Table 4.4: The table compares the scores of pre-test and post- test speaking of the

experimental group ............................................................................................................. 48

Table 4.5 A comparison of the post-test speaking results between control and experimental groups 50

Table 4.6 The table shows the comparison between the scores of pre-test and post-test

writing of the control group ............................................................................................... 53

Table 4.7 The comparison between the scores of pre-test and post-test writing of the

experimental group ............................................................................................................. 54

Table 4.8 A comparison of post-test writing in both groups ................................................ 56

1

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Background of the study

English is currently widely used in many countries around the world. Therefore,

learning English well is very beneficial for students in the future with many new

opportunities and doors open to them thanks to their skills. There are four skills in

English including listening, reading, speaking and writing, which is divided into two

main kinds such as receptive skill and productive skill. Listening and reading are

considered as receptive skill and the rest are productive skill which contributes a lot in

daily communication of human beings (Golkova & Hubackova, 2014). Among four

skills, speaking and writing skills are the most important, they appear quite a lot in real

life such as presentations, giving a speech or lecture, writing letters, etc. It is a tool to

express ideas, feelings and emotions. To learn these skills well, grammar knowledge is

required because it helps students know how to put sentence patterns together (Ur,

1999). It provides learners with knowledge to grasp spoken language in listening and

understand information in paragraph, passage and text (Corder, 1988). Good study of

grammar also helps students express their ideas appropriately, accurately and

meaningfully not only through writing but also communication (Doff, 2000).

According to Kohli (1984), a person who knows grammar will be like a driver who

understands the motives of an engine, otherwise he is just the driver who can drive

ionly and when something goes wrong, he will feel helpless and cannot do anything. It

means that when people speak and write, it is necessary to rely on grammar to use

structures to express meaningful sentences to make others understand. Grammar is

considered as a difficult subject for both native and second-language speakers,

especially applying it into communicative tasks, so that different generations of

teachers should use a variety of approaches in teaching it (Widodo, 2006). Learning

grammar is not just to know and to understand that language but to use it in life so that

choosing a method that helps students use the target language fluently is not easy. In

2

the past, grammar translation method predominates in most grammar lessons (Widodo,

2006), because students just learn the grammar rules, remember them and then apply

into other examples (Larsen- Freeman, 2000) but today, when society becomes more

developed, teachers are willing to adapt more effective methods to achieve better

results in teaching grammar. Currently, there are no separate grammar lessons taught in

public primary schools to help students consolidate their grammar knowledge. Instead,

it is put into sentence patterns which both new vocabulary and new grammar structures

given. Students in these schools only learn 2 to 3 English classes a week, so they do not

have chance to practice. On the contrary, in spite of being at the same level as the other

public schools, students in Asian International Primary school have their own grammar

lessons, have time to learn and practice. However, these students still have problems

with communicating and are not confident to express their ideas. Therefore, it is

imperative that there is a teaching method to help students become more confident,

speak and write more fluently.

1.2 Statement of the problems

In Asian International primary school, many students try to use their first

language to communicate in class especially for slower students. Some of them spend

too much time expressing ideas when they describe pictures in their writing despite

spending many years of studying English. Take one class for an example, some slower

learners seem to be unable to answer any questions and communicate with their

teachers or friends, they often only use words to express their ideas or even take a lot

of time to translate the meaning of sentences into English. For those who are quite

good, there are many mistakes in language they produce in the process of studying.

Most of them tend to feel bored in class, good students predominate the slower ones in

all activities.

Going back more than 10 years ago when the researcher was a middle and high

school student, at that time, every lesson in English grammar was extremely boring, all

3

the knowledge was taken from the textbook, teachers then rewrote on the board, used

mother tongue to explain about the structures and their usage. Our job was to simply

memorize and do the same exercises. No games or any activities were given in the

class.

If this method is applied in teaching, it will certainly make students feel

depressed, lose interest in learning, and it will be unable to meet the requirements and

standards set by the school for international students that they can communicate

fluently and confidently. Similarly, Skehan (1996) argued that almost all students fail

to use English fluently and accurately when learning grammar if providing them with

knowledge and structures in advance. For instance, in the teaching process, PPP

includes three steps such as presentation, practice and production which is called free

stage. Although presentation in the first stage can help students remember and

understand grammar points quite well, practice and production do not seem to be

effective. In the study of Willis (1996), it showed that students can mimic mechanically

with examples provided by teachers and then continue to produce forms that have been

made clear before. He emphasized that this kind of production does not mean free.

Therefore, it is necessary to find out an effective way that can help students have a

rapid progress and apply their knowledge into actual conversation. Task- based

language teaching has received many consensus and positive feedbacks from educators

like Willis (1996), researchers in second language acquisition such as Long (2014);

Skehan (2011); and Ellis (2003). Although there has been a lot of researchers about

using task- based language teaching, there are also some limits in low level.

This present study was designed to investigate the effectiveness of task-based

grammatical instruction on primary students’ productive skills and students’ attitudes

when learning with this new approach. From all the results taken from the research,

teachers can apply task- based instruction effectively in teaching grammar.

4

1.3 Definition of key terms

1.3.1 Grammar

Grammar is the study or use of the rules about how words change their form and

combine with other words to make sentences to express meaning (Richards, 2002). It is

a set of principles or rules that defines the grammatical system of a language.

Grammatical rules enable language users to put patterns into sentences appropriately

(Ur, 1999). Thus, teaching grammar is to focus on grammatical rules, sentence

patterns, meaning and use (Yusob, 2018).

1.3.2 Task- based language teaching

According to the study of Willis published in 1996, task- based language

teaching is an approach that involves in students’ production of four skills including

speaking, writing, listening and reading through tasks given by teachers at the

beginning of the lessons. This approach is different from DM (Direct Method), ADL

(Audio lingual method) and PPP (Presentation, Practice and Production) because it

focuses on form at the end of the process of teaching. It means that students carry the

tasks by using knowledge and language they have from the previous lessons, then talk

or write how they did the tasks. After a process of finding and studying, they get a

product and reach an outcome of target language (Moor, 2006). During the task

execution process, students need to focus on meaning rather than a form because if

they pay more attention to structures when they are making language, it will affect their

fluency (Willis, 1996). There are two types of tasks including “real world” and

“pedagogic” (Nunan, 1989). Real world task is a combination of context and

interaction between people in that context. Pedagogic task is an activity in which there

is only interaction, information exchange between leaners, not associated with actual

activities.