The impacts of task-based instruction on grammartical performance of pre-intermediate non-English majors at Van Lang University

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY

ĐỖ THỊ HUYỀN

THE IMPACTS OF TASK-BASED INSTRUCTION ON GRAMMATICAL

PERFORMANCE OF PRE-INTERMEDIATE NON-ENGLISH MAJORS

AT VAN LANG UNIVERSITY

MASTER OF ARTS IN TESOL

Ho Chi Minh City, 2019

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY

ĐỖ THỊ HUYỀN

THE IMPACTS OF TASK-BASED INSTRUCTION ON GRAMMATICAL

PERFORMANCE OF PRE-INTERMEDIATE NON-ENGLISH MAJORS

AT VAN LANG UNIVERSITY

Major: Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages

Major code: 60140111

MASTER OF ARTS IN TESOL

Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. PHAM VU PHI HO, PhD.

Ho Chi Minh City, 2019

i

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

I certify that this thesis entitled “The impacts of Task-based Instruction on

grammatical performance of pre-intermediate non-English majors at Van Lang

University” is my own work.

Except where reference is made in the text of the thesis, this thesis contains

any material published elsewhere or extracted in whole or in part from a thesis by

which I have qualified for or been awarded another degree or diploma.

No other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the

main text of the thesis.

This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in

any other tertiary institution.

Ho Chi Minh City, September 2019

DO THI HUYEN

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Firstly, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor,

Ass. Prof., Dr. Pham Vu Phi Ho, who spent his valuable time on giving me

instructions, advice, constructive comments, and encouragement. This thesis would

not have been completed if it had not been for his great support.

Secondly, I would like to thank my colleagues and classmates who encouraged

me and shared with me much experience in thesis writing.

Thirdly, I am also grateful for all lecturers and staff at the Open University,

Ho Chi Minh City, who instructed me and equipped me with relevant information

and shared knowledge.

Finally, thanks to all my beloved first-year students at Van Lang University,

the data collection and teaching procedures could be finished on time.

iii

ABSTRACT

The quasi-experimental research was conducted to investigate the impacts of

Task based Instruction on Pre-intermediate non-English majors at Van Lang

Univerisity. Mixed method was employed using Pre-test, post-test and interview to

respond to the three research questions. The research lasted eight weeks on two

groups of students (1) the control group studying grammar through PPP (2) the

experimental group studying grammar through TBI with five grammatical points.

The findings indicate that TBI approach has a significant impact on the pre￾intermediate non-English majors’ grammatical performance. The students’ attitudes

towards TBI group is more positive than that towards PPP group. However, in terms

of grammatical performance in writing and speaking, TBI model is not superior to

PPP model.

Key words: Task based Instruction, grammatical performance, PPP,

attitudes, speaking, and writing.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…..……………………………………………………..ii

ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………..iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………...iv

LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………….ix

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

ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………………...xi

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION .............................................................................1

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

1.2. Statement of the problems................................................................................5

1.3. Aims of the study..............................................................................................8

1.4 Research questions.............................................................................................8

1.5. Significance of the study ..................................................................................9

1.6 Structure of the study.........................................................................................9

CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................12

2.1. Theoretical framework....................................................................................12

2.1.1. Definition of grammar..............................................................................13

2.1.2. Grammatical performance........................................................................13

2.1.3. How to teach grammar.............................................................................14

2.2. Previous studies ..............................................................................................28

2.3 Research gaps ..................................................................................................34

2.4 Chapter summary.............................................................................................36

CHAPTER 3 – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ....................................................37

v

3.1 Research design ...............................................................................................37

3.2. Research setting and participants....................................................................38

3.2.2. Participants...................................................................................................39

3.3. Instruments......................................................................................................41

3.3.1. Pre-test and Post-test ................................................................................42

3.3.2. Interview...................................................................................................45

3.4. Research procedure.........................................................................................47

3.5 Training procedure...........................................................................................50

3.5.1 Traditional PPP lessons.............................................................................50

3.5.2. TBI lessons...............................................................................................51

3.6 Data Collection and Analysis ..........................................................................55

3.7 Chapter summary.............................................................................................56

CHAPTER 4– RESULTS, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ..................................57

4.1 Reliability of the marking of speaking and writing.........................................57

4.2. Grammatical performance of the two groups before the treatment................58

4.2.1. Pre-grammar paper test ............................................................................58

4.2.2. Pre-writing test .........................................................................................59

4.2.3. Pre-speaking test ......................................................................................59

4.3. Research question 1 ........................................................................................60

4.3.1. Comparison of the pre-grammar test & post-grammar test .....................61

4.3.2 Comparison of the post-grammar test .......................................................62

4.4. Research question 2 ........................................................................................63

4.4.1. Comparison of the pre-speaking test & post-speaking test......................63

vi

4.4.2. Comparison of the post-speaking tests of the TBI group and PPP group64

4.4.3. Comparison of the pre-writing test & post-writing test ...........................65

4.4.4. Comparison of the post-writing test.........................................................66

4.5. Research question 3 ........................................................................................67

4.5.1 Interviews after each lesson ......................................................................67

4.5.2. Interviews after the whole treatment........................................................75

4.6. Discussion.......................................................................................................79

4.6.1. The impacts of on the pre-intermediate non-English-majors' grammatical

performance in the grammar-paper test at Van Lang University.......................79

4.6.2. The impacts of on the pre-intermediate non-English-majors' grammatical

performance in speaking and writing test Vat an Lang University....................81

4.6.3. The attitudes of learners towards the teaching grammar through TBI and

PPP .....................................................................................................................81

CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

...................................................................................................................................85

5.1. Summary of the research findings..................................................................85

5.2 Conclusion .......................................................................................................86

5.3 Pedagogical implications.................................................................................87

5.4. Limitations and recommendations..................................................................88

References.................................................................................................................90

APPENDIX A – LESSON PLAN.............................................................................97

LESSON 1 – PRESENT CONTINUOUS FOR FUTURE USE...........................97

LESSON 2 – MUST/MUSN’T/HAVE/DON’T HAVE TO/CAN/CAN’T ........101

LESSON 3 – MIGHT/MAY/WILL PROBABLY ..............................................104

vii

LESSON 4 – ZERO CONDITIONAL ................................................................110

LESSON 5 – FIRST CONDITIONAL................................................................112

APPENDIX B- TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW AFTER EACH LESSON .......114

APPENDIX C –TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW AFTER THE WHOLE

TREATMENT.........................................................................................................128

APPENDIX E – POST-TEST.................................................................................142

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 3.1 English training program at Van Lang University according to CEFR

……………………………………………………………………………………...38

Figure 3.2 Demographics of participants ………………………………………....39

Figure 3.3 Correspondence between the research questions and the

research instruments ………………………………………………………………46

Figure 3.4 Training procedure for PPP lessons …………………………………...52

Figure 3.5 Training procedure for TBI lessons ……………………………………53

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 3.1 The participants of the study……………………………………………40

Table 3.2 Specifications of the pre-test and post-test (Adapted from A2 Key exam

forma KET – Cambridge English) …………………………………………….......43

Table 3.3 Assessment scales for grammatical performance in writing and speaking

……………………………………………………………………………………...44

Table 3.4 Time allocation for the study …………………………………………..48

Table 3.5 Production activities ……………………………………………………49

Table 3.6 Types of task used in the treatment …………………………………….50

Table 4.1 Reliability Statistics of the test scores marked by the interraters ………57

Table 4.2 Summary of pre-grammar test result …………………………………...57

Table 4.3 Independent samples t-test of pre-wiring test…………………………...58

Table 4.4 Independent samples t-test of pre-speaking test………………………...59

Table 4.5 Paired samples t-test of grammar-paper test (PPP)……………………...60

Table 4.6 Paired samples t-test of pre-test & post-test of grammar paper test

(TBI)………………………………………………………………………………..61

Table 4.7. Independent samples t test of post-grammar test ………………………62

Table 4.8. Paired samples t-test of pre-speaking and post-speaking tests

of TBI & PPP group ……………………………………………………………….63

x

Table 4.9. Paired Samples t-tests of post-speaking tests between TBI group and PPP

group ………………………………………………………………………………64

Table 4.10 Paired Samples t-tests of pre-writing test and post- writing test

………………………………………………………………...................................64

Table 4.11 Paired samples t-test of post-writing test ……………………………...66

Table 4.12 Students’ understanding of the lesson …………………………………69

Table 4.13 Students’ preferences ………………………………………………….72

Table 4.14. Difficulties ……………………………………………………………74

Table 4.15. Expectations …………………………………………………………..74

Table 4.16 Findings of the interviews after the whole treatment …………………78

xi

ABBREVIATIONS

CEFR : Common European Framework of References for Languages

EFL : English as a Foreign Language

ELT : English Language Teaching

ESL : English as a Second Language

PPP : Presentation, Practice, Production

TBI : Task Based Instruction

L1 : First language or mother tongue

L2 : Second language

SLA : Second Language Acquisition

1

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1 includes six sections to provide an overview of the research.

Firstly, it provides a background of the study which states the current teaching of

grammar and language teaching and learning in Section 1.1. It is followed by

Section 1.2 to address the problems in the TEFL in general and in the researcher’

teaching practice. The next section reveals the research rationale. In the fourth

section, research questions are presented as the guidance to carry out the research.

Section 1.5 discusses the significance of the study. The last section summarizes the

structure of the study.

1.1 Background of the study

As can be seen from the history of teaching and learning English as a foreign

language, grammar has received much attention among the ELT experts. Crystal

(2004) highlighted the importance of grammar that it was the skeleton or even the

nervous system of a language. It helps to express ourselves as a structural basis,

increase precision and decrease ambiguity. Over the centuries of ELT research,

experts have acknowledged the importance of teaching grammar in any courses.

Without grammar, words can become chaotic and meaningless. Therefore, teaching

and learning grammar is also vital in the language learning process.

However, grammar has become the central controversy on the teaching

methods along with the trends towards language teaching approaches. It was once

the utmost factor in Grammar Translation Method while experts in Direct Method

believed that grammar had no significant role to play in the FL learning process

(Klapper, 2006).

Despite of that, in recent research, many researchers agreed that learners who

have exposure to linguistic form during communicative interaction are more

2

successful than those who have never been awarded of form or who are only

exposed to decontextualized grammar lessons (Larsen-Freeman, 2003). Ellis (2006)

argued that “Grammar Teaching involves any instructional technique that draws

learners’ attention to some specific grammatical form in such a way that it helps

them either to understand it metalinguistically and / or process it in comprehension

and / or production so that they can internalize it.” (p. 84). Also, Azar (2007)

mentioned that those who were exposed to grammar instruction had better language

comprehension than those who had not. The mentioned findings can highlight the

significance of grammar teaching in the second language acquisition.

Despite the importance of grammar in the process of language learning,

grammar has appeared to be the most difficult aspect for learners to learn (Sawir,

2005). Accordingly, it has become one of the problems that EFL learners normally

face. Shatz and Wilkinson (2010) highlighted that second language (L2) learners

usually cannot express their complex thoughts because they are unable to produce

complex sentences. Azimi (2016) found out that many learners had difficulties in

applying grammar in real-life situations. They couldn’t express themselves clearly.

To investigate the causes of grammar difficulties, in a study conducted in

Saudi Arabia, Alhaysony & Alhaisoni (2017) pointed out that learners’ motivation

is one of the main factors that is involved. The researchers stated that many learners

lack of motivation to use the grammar appropriately and even to learn grammar.

In addition to learners’ motivation, teaching methodology is the leading

feature that affects the learning outcome. Widdowson (1979) argued that learners

‘success to use the language could be traced back to teaching and learning

approach. As can be seen in the history of EFL learning and teaching, different

approaches have been introduced and practiced. EFL practitioners and learners have

experienced Grammar Translation Method (GTM), Direct Method (DM), Audio