Group 5_WritingPG_Midterm 1

Lecturer: Nguyễn Thị Kiều Thu, Ph.D.

Class: TESOL - 13B
Group 5:
1. Nguyễn Hải Thụy (Group leader)
2. Nguyễn Ngọc Thủy
3. Lý Thị Hồng Trâm
4. Nguyễn Thị Họa Mi

REVIEW
Teachers’ Perceptions in Using Task-Based Instruction (TBI)
for the teaching of Grammar (Choo, J.P.L. & Too, W.K., 2012, 47-64)

Traditionally, PPP Approach or Grammar Translation has been used to teach grammar.
For improvement of Grammar teaching, a lot of teaching methods and strategies are
proposed. However looking for a best method in language teaching is still a
controversial issue among language teachers and researchers. In 2012, Choo J.P.L. and
Too W.K from University of Nottingham, Malaysia Campus published the article
“Teachers’ Perceptions in Using Task-Based Instruction (TBI) for the teaching of
Grammar” in Journal of Interdisciplinary Research in Education. The purpose of the
article is to explore teacher’s perceptions in using Task-based Instruction in grammar
teaching. Wei Keong Too, one of the two authors of the article, is an Undergraduate
Programmes Coordinator of Faculty of Social Sciences of University of Nottingham,
Malaysia. Since 2003, Too W.K has done a lot of research on education. His research
interests focus on reflective practice, technology enhancing language learning,
ESL/EFL teacher professional development, young adult literature, and literature
teaching. He is particularly interested in exploring how teaching and learning of
English as a second and foreign language are presented in the context of classroom,
technological and social environment at large. By doing an objective survey and
giving concrete statistical figures in the journal, the authors provide the readers with
the path from the theory to the practical application of TBI for the teaching Grammar.
Group 5_WritingPG_Midterm 2

The arguments and findings about TBI in the article are invaluable for teachers who
are interested in applying TBI approach in teaching grammar. After reading this
article, each teacher might obtain a general knowledge on TBI and take it into
consideration on whether to apply TBI in teaching grammar. As a result, it is clear that
this is the authors’ success.

The article includes five adequate sections based on a standard research article’s
framework which consists of introduction, literature review, methods, discussion, and
conclusion .The introduction provides background information and the rationale
behind the article. In literature review, the authors give a brief history of TBI, a
definition of “task”, supportive and criticism ideas on TBI. In discussion, the authors
mention three main points, namely teachers’ feedback on the TBI lesson plan they
were provided with, teacher’s feedback on TBI as an approach to teach grammar and
the adaptability of the course book respectively. In conclusion, the authors summarize
findings, implications and the feasibility of the study.

After doing the research on teacher’s perceptions in using Task-based Instruction in

grammar teaching, Choo J.P.L. and Too W.K come to conclusion that TBI is just one
of considered approaches that teachers can utilize. Teachers might choose whatever
method they think is the best. Furthermore, they should try different methods so as to
prevent their lessons from being routine and to maintain students’ interests and
motivation.

The strengths of the article are deeply identified through relevance of the research
questions to the main topic, the accurateness of the facts mentioned, the
appropriateness and objectivity of methodology, and the involvement of discussion
with the findings.

Firstly, it is noticeable that the three research questions are pertinent to the article’s
topic which shares the focus on teachers’ perceptions in applying task-based
instruction (TBI) to grammar teaching. Specifically, the first question which asks for
the information of teachers’ feeling about TBI in teaching grammar focuses a great
deal on the key words teachers’ perceptions of the main topic. In addition, the second
Group 5_WritingPG_Midterm 3

question on the comparison between TBI and teachers’ traditional method of teaching
is virtually supplemented into the main topic. The third question which is on the
adaptability of the course book to TBI is for the empirical aspects of the study.

Secondly, the exactness of the facts which are mentioned in the article is vital to
inspect. Our findings shows that many conferences was held by the Japan Association
for language teaching and the Biennially Conference on task-based language teaching
since 2005 which “aim to bring together researchers and educators with interests in
tasks and task-based language teaching.” (Vercoe, 2013, para. 2). Hence, the argument
of the acceptance of TBI in EFL classrooms is not controversial. Choo & Too (2012)
stated that Willis’s structure for TBI (1996) is the most applicable one for
practitioners. One supportive idea for this is that in spite of supplying with theoretical
basis, Willis and Willis (2007) have shown the empirical aspects of TBI, which means
how to apply it to teaching and how to design the tasks based on the theory. (Gaining
ground in teaching – resources)

Thirdly, the appropriateness and objectivity is revealed through subjects of survey,

procedure of survey and lesson plan. For the sake of diversification, the authors have
chosen eight teachers of around two to twenty years teaching experience who had
never experienced TBI lessons before. Furthermore, these teachers had received the
same TBI lesson plan which is clear enough to understand and well-prepared on TBI
framework by Willis (1996) including pre-task, task-cycle and language focus. As a
result, this assures the objectiveness of the survey. In addition, it is claimed that the
authors have been well-prepared for the study when providing the teachers with a
mock lesson in which the participants could raised any questions to obtain a full
understanding on how to conduct a TBI lesson. So as to be assured of the
completeness of the survey, the authors also allowed an additional period of one to two
weeks for teachers to search for more information about TBI.

Last but not least, the data analysis, namely discussion, is another essential factor to be
taken into account. In general, the authors have discussed and clarified clearly by
using bar charts and shown the objective viewpoint when discussing the result of the
survey. The most remarkable point is that the authors’ conclusion have reflected
Group 5_WritingPG_Midterm 4

correctly on the figures three, four, and five although it was contradictory among these
figures and against the authors’ argument.

Not only do we find the remarkable strengths but also the weaknesses throughout the
main structure of the article. On the whole, the authors have suffered from some
drawbacks on the reliability of provided information in literature review, methodology
and limitations of the study.

The authors have mentioned the various names of TBI and its affiliation with the CLT
but no additional information on this. In addition, it is questionable that the definition
of task which the authors have supplied is reliable enough. It is fundamental to give
explanation on the vertical axis of the bar chart which the authors have used in their
study.

In the methodology, the reason is not mentioned when six out of eight teachers
participated in the mock exam. This is the key feature to determine the objectivity of
the study. Furthermore, it is not enough to decide the sufficient intensity and quality of
data collected because the duration of the study, the number of classes taught have
been not referred to. The audience might not evaluate the correctness of the lesson
plan if they have no background knowledge on the TBI framework by Willis (1996). It
is advisable that the authors include the TBI framework in their article.

The proficiency level of students of pre-intermediate, which means from average to

good, accompanied by familiar taught grammar may lead different results for students
of other levels. Depending upon the limitation, the conclusion or the generalization is
not qualified that “application of this method will possibly only occur as a secondary
approach to more traditional approaches such as PPP (Choo & Too, 2012, p. 59)”.

In conclusion, although there are no clear findings in the research because of the
contradictions in the result of the research, the research is still valuable on the whole.
To be concluded, the researchers have withdrawn a conclusion that TBI is less
applicable than traditional teaching methods; however, teachers might vary among
these methods. TBI and its application have been under discussion. Hence, this
research has given a precious contribution to further study in the future.
Group 5_WritingPG_Midterm 5

Reference list

Choo, J. P. L. & Too, W. K. (2012). Teacher’s perceptions in using task-based

instruction (TBI) for the teaching of grammar. Journal of Interdisciplinary Research

in Education (JIRE), 2 (1), 47-64.

Gaining ground in teaching – resources. Task-based language teaching. Retrieved Oct

15, 2013 from http://gaining.educ.msu.edu/resources/node/412

Vercoe, T. (2013). 5th Biennial International Conference on Task Based Language

Teaching. Retrieved Oct 15, 2013 from http://www.tesolgames.com/ai1ec_event/5th-

biennial-international-conference-on-task-based-language-teaching/?

instance_id=106

Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Hallow: Longman.