The impact of task-based language teaching on grammar learning at Long Thuong High School

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY

NGUYEN THI HONG THAM

THE IMPACT OF TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING

ON GRAMMAR LEARNING

AT LONG THUONG HIGH SCHOOL

MASTER OF ARTS IN TESOL

HO CHI MINH CITY - 2019

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY

THE IMPACT OF TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING

ON GRAMMAR LEARNING

AT LONG THUONG HIGH SCHOOL

MASTER OF ARTS IN TESOL

Submitted by NGUYEN THI HONG THAM

Supervisor: Dr. LE THI THANH THU

HO CHI MINH CITY - 2019

i

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

I certify that the thesis entitled “The impact of task-based language teaching

on grammar learning at Long Thuong high school”is my original work. All sources used in this thesis have been documented. The work has not been

submitted to Open University or elsewhere. Ho Chi Minh City, June 25

th

, 2019

Nguyen Thi Hong Tham

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am really grateful for the help of many people who have assisted and given

me many advice as well as encouragements to complete this thesis. First of all, I would like to express my sincere thanks to my supervisor, Dr. Le

Thi Thanh Thu for her valuable assistance. Without her help, I could not complete

this study, especially, when I was in difficulty during my nine-month pregnancy. Secondly, I want to send my deep gratitude to my family who constantly

encouraged me whenever I lost confidence and wanted to stop due to my bad health. Finally, I would like to thank to my colleagues as well as the participants in

two Grade 11 classes - 11A3 and 11A4 for their support and cooperation. Ho Chi Minh City, June 25

th

, 2019

Nguyen Thi Hong Tham

iii

ABSTRACT

This study was conducted with the aim to investigate the impact of Task- Based Language Teaching (TBLT) on Grade 11 students’ grammar achievement

and its influence on learning motivation toward the study of English grammar at

Long Thuong high school. Quasi-experimental was employed with the participation of two classes

divided into two groups which are the control group (CG) and the experimental

group (EG). As the sample of the study could not be chosen randomly but

conveniently, the group with lower result in the pretest was assigned as the EG and

the other was the CG. The former was taught with traditional grammar teaching

practice whereas the latter was applied task-based language teaching. Tests were

applied to measure students’ grammar achievement meanwhile Questionnaire was

utilized to investigate students’ motivation toward the learning of grammar with

TBLT.The results revealed that TBLT had positive influence on EFL learners’ grammar achievement and their motivation in grammar learning. Results collected

from the tests indicated that though participants in the EG did not surpass the CG in

the mean score, they outperformed the CG in term of grammar’s score improvement. Thus, the implementation of TBLT had positive effects on helping students obtain

knowledge of grammar structure. Results collected from the Questionnaire reflected

that a predominant number of participants admitted their original motivation to

learn English grammar was due to its integral role in testing and they might not

fully appreciate the role of grammar in developing other English skills. But most of

them showed their awareness of great benefits of TBLT applied in their grammar

class, and showed their interest and expectation to the new task-based grammar

class with attractive task-based activities. Key words: Task-based language teaching (TBLT), task-based grammar, grammar

achievement, grammar learning motivation.

iv

ABSTRACT (VIETNAMESE VERSION)

Nghiên cứu này được thực hiện nhằm mục đích điều tra sự tác động của

phương pháp dạy học giao nhiệm vụ đối với thành tích học ngữ pháp và ảnh hưởng

của phương pháp này đối với động lực học ngữ pháp của học sinh khối 11 ở trường

THPT Long Thượng. Nghiên cứu định lượng được áp dụng với sự tham gia của học sinh thuộc hai

lớp 11 tại trường THPT Long Thượng. Hai lớp này được chia ra thành hai nhóm đối

tượng nghiên cứu gồm nhóm kiểm soát (CG) và nhóm thực nghiệm (EG). Vì đối

tượng nghiên cứu không thể đươc chọn một cách ngẫu nhiên mà phải được chọn

theo một sự sắp xếp sẵn, để đảm bảo kết quả nghiên cứu có ý nghĩa, nhóm học sinh

có điểm số thấp hơn trong bài kiểm tra đầu khóa được chọn làm nhóm thực nghiệm

và nhóm còn lại với điểm số cao hơn được chọn làm nhóm kiểm soát. Trong đó

nhóm kiểm soát được học ngữ pháp bằng phương pháp truyền thống trước đây

trong khi nhóm thực nghiệm được học ngữ pháp bằng một phương pháp mới - Phương pháp dạy học giao nhiệm vụ. Các bài kiểm tra đánh giá được sử dụng để đo

lường về thành tích học ngữ pháp thông qua sự tác động của phương pháp dạy học

giao nhiệm vụ, trong khi bảng câu hỏi được sử dụng để điều tra về sự tác động của

phương pháp này đối với động lực học tập ngữ pháp của học sinh

Các kết quả thống kê thu thập được cho thấy phương pháp dạy học giao

nhiệm vụ đã có tác động tích cực đến thành tích cũng như động lực học ngữ pháp

của người học trong việc học ngữ pháp tiếng Anh. Cụ thể, các kết quả thu thập được

từ các bài kiểm tra trước và sau thực nghiệm cho thấy mặc dù nhóm thực nghiệm

không vượt trội hơn nhóm kiểm soát về mặt điểm số nhưng họ đã có sự tiến bộ vượt

trội hơn về khả năng cải thiện ngữ pháp Tiếng Anh. Do đó có thể kết luận rằng việc

thực hiện phương pháp dạy học giao nhiệm vụ có ảnh hưởng tích cực trong việc

giúp học sinh lĩnh hội được các cấu trúc ngữ pháp trong Tiếng Anh. Các kết quả thu

thập được từ bảng câu hỏi cho thấy phần lớn các học sinh nhận định rằng ban đầu

v

động lực học ngữ pháp Tiếng Anh của họ bắt nguồn từ tầm quan trọng của ngữ

pháp trong các bài kiểm tra thi cử, và họ cũng chưa hoàn toàn nhận thức được vai

trò của ngữ pháp trong việc phát triển những kĩ năng Tiếng Anh khác. Nhưng sau

khi được trải nghiệm lớp học ngữ pháp bằng phương pháp dạy học giao nhiệm vụ

họ dần dần nhận ra những lợi ích tuyệt vời từ phương pháp này, từ đó cảm thấy

hứng thú và mong chờ đến giờ học ngữ pháp với những hoạt động học tập thú vị.

vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CEFR: Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

CG: Control Group

CLT: Communicative Language Teaching

DOET: Department of Education and Training

EFL: English as a Foreign Language

EG: Experimental Group

GTM: Grammar Translation Method

L2: Second Language

MOET: Ministry of Education and Training

PPP: Presentation – Practice – Production

TBLT: Task-based Language Teaching

TESOL: Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Task types................................................................................................ 15

Table 2.2 Pre-task phase’s activities........................................................................22

Table 2.3 Description of task-based language teaching framework.......................24

Table 3.1 Description of participants.......................................................................38

Table 3.2 Grammatical structures for Grade 11...................................................... 41

Table 3.3 Teaching techniques between the CG and the EG..................................44

Table 3.4 Sample teaching plan of Unit 5............................................................... 45

Table 4.1 The Pretest’s results.................................................................................53

Table 4.2 The Posttest 1’s results............................................................................ 54

Table 4.3 Posttest 1 vs. Pretest................................................................................ 56

Table 4.4 The Posttest 2’s results............................................................................ 57

Table 4.5 Posttest 2 vs. Posttest 1............................................................................58

Table 4.6 The Posttest 3’s results............................................................................ 59

Table 4.7 Posttest 3 vs. Posttest 2............................................................................60

Table 4.8 Results of Question 1, 2, 3 ......................................................................64

Table 4.9 Results of Question 4, 5, 6, 7...................................................................67

Table 4.10 Results of Question 8, 9, 10, 11............................................................ 70

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1. Test’s data analysis methodology......................................................... 51

Figure 4.2. Mean scores of two groups in the study............................................... 61

Figure 4.3. Percentage of weak students in the Pretest and Posttests.....................62

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP......................................................................i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................. ii

ABSTRACT............................................................................................................iii

ABSTRACT (VIETNAMESE VERSION)..........................................................iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................. vi

LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................. vii

LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................... viii

TABLE OF CONTENT.........................................................................................ix

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION

1.1. Statement of the problem................................................................................ 1

1.2. Purpose of the study........................................................................................ 4

1.3.Research questions ......................................................................................... 4

1.4. Scope of the study........................................................................................... 5

1.5. Significance of the study.................................................................................5

1.6.Background of the study................................................................................. 6

1.7.Organization of the study ...............................................................................8

CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Grammar......................................................................................................... 9

2.1.1. Definitions of grammar.........................................................................9

2.1.2. The importance of grammar in second language learning...................10

2.2. The history of L2 grammar teaching approaches...........................................11

2.2.1. Grammar translation method................................................................ 11

2.2.2. The direct method (DM)....................................................................... 12

2.2.3. The reading method.............................................................................. 12

2.2.4. Audiolingualism....................................................................................12

2.2.5. Communicative language teaching (CLT)........................................... 13

x

2.3. Task-based language teaching........................................................................13

2.3.1. Task....................................................................................................... 13

2.3.1.1. Definitions of task....................................................................... 13

2.3.1.2 Task types.....................................................................................15

2.3.2. Task-based language teaching.............................................................. 18

2.3.2.1. Concept........................................................................................18

2.3.2.2. Principles of task-based language teaching................................ 19

2.3.2.3. Task-Based Language Teaching Framework............................. 21

2.3.2.4. Benefits of task-based language teaching...................................25

2.3.2.5. Difficulties of task-based language teaching in Vietnam...........26

2.4. Learner motivation..........................................................................................27

2.4.1. Definitions of motivation......................................................................27

2.4.2. The importance of learner motivation.................................................. 28

2.4.3. Types of learner motivation..................................................................28

2.4.4. Learner motivation and language achievement....................................30

2.5. Previous studies.............................................................................................. 30

2.5.1. Studies related to TBLT on grammar learning in foreign

Countries..........................................................................................................31

2.5.2. Studies related to TBLT on grammar learning in Vietnam..................33

2.5.3. Implication for the present study.......................................................... 35

2.6. Chapter summary ...........................................................................................36

CHAPTER 3 – METHODOLOGY

3.1. Research setting.............................................................................................. 37

3.2. Participants......................................................................................................38

3.3. Research design.............................................................................................. 39

3.4. Experimental procedures................................................................................ 41

3.4.1. Grammar teaching procedures for the control group........................... 43

3.4.2. Grammar teaching procedures for the experimental group..................43

3.5. Data collection instruments............................................................................ 46

xi

3.5.1. The pretest ............................................................................................46

3.5.2. Posttests.................................................................................................47

3.5.3. The questionnaire..................................................................................48

3.6. Chapter summary ...........................................................................................49

CHAPTER 4 - DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Data analysis methodology.............................................................................50

4.1.1. Tests.......................................................................................................50

4.1.2. Questionnaires.......................................................................................52

4.2. Research question 1’s analysis and discussions.............................................52

4.2.1. Before the treatment..............................................................................52

4.2.2. Posttest 1............................................................................................... 54

4.2.2.1. Posttest 1 between groups........................................................... 54

4.2.2.2. Posttest 1 within groups.............................................................. 55

4.2.3. Posttest 2............................................................................................... 56

4.2.3.1. Posttest 2 between groups .......................................................... 57

4.2.3.2. Posttest 2 within groups.............................................................. 58

4.2.4. Posttest 3............................................................................................... 59

4.2.4.1. Posttest 3 between groups........................................................... 59

4.2.4.2. Posttest 3 within groups ............................................................. 60

4.3. Research question 2’s analysis and discussions.............................................63

4.3.1. Students’ motivation in learning English grammar..............................64

4.3.2. Students’ recognition of the benefits of learning English grammar

with TBLT......................................................................................................66

4.3.3. Students’ attitudes toward the application of TBLT in

grammar learning............................................................................................ 69

4.4. Chapter summary............................................................................................72

CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Conclusions.....................................................................................................73

5.2. Suggestions for implementation.....................................................................75

xii

5.3. Recommendations for further study...............................................................78

5.4. Limitations ..................................................................................................... 78

REFERENCES......................................................................................................... 80

APPENDIX A: FORM-FOCUS INSTRUCTION LESSON PLAN...................89

APPENDIX B: TBLT LESSON PLAN................................................................. 91

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF LESSON PLANS FOR THE CG................... 94

APPENDIX D: SUMMARY OF TBLT LESSON PLANS FOR THE EG....... 99

APPENDIX E: PRETEST.....................................................................................107

APPENDIX F: POSTTEST 1............................................................................... 111

APPENDIX G: POSTTEST 2...............................................................................115

APPENDIX H: POSTTEST 3...............................................................................119

APPENDIX I: QUESTIONNAIRE (Vietnamese version)................................ 124

APPENDIX J: QUESTIONNAIRE (English version) ......................................127

APPENDIX K: TABLES OF INDEPENDENT AND PAIR SAMPLES T- TESTS......................................................................................................................130

1

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION

Being a language of internet and modernity, English is utilized by most

publications and website materials as their powerful means of communication. Thus, the need to get as well as exchange information and experience urges people to

master this kind of dominated language. In Viet Nam, English is especially

important as it is chosen as one of the three compulsory subjects together with

Mathematics and Literature in schooling system. However, after many years

studying English at school, the English proficiency level of students is generally not

as good as expected. One of the main reason of this is due to the lack of

communicative opportunity and insufficient knowledge of linguistic elements, especially grammar. The study is conducted with an effort to investigate the impact

of a teaching approach that can motivate and improve students’ grammar learning in

a more communicative context – Task-based language teaching. The chapter begins with background of the study. Then statement of the

problem in which the necessity of the study is emphasized. Followed by the main

purposes of the study, the two research questions are presented in section four. The

scope and significant of the study are orderly mentioned in the last two sections of

this chapter. 1.1. Background of the study

The study was conducted at Long Thuong high school - a small public school

in rural area of Long An province. Most of the students are local people. Since

English is not widely used in society, students rarely have chance to practice using

English outside the classroom, thus, they cannot apply what have been learned into

real communication. In addition, a large number of students are timid and not very

confident in learning and using English. Though most of them can get good grades