VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES
************************

LÊ THỊ THANH

APPLYING TASK-BASED APPROACH IN TEACHING ENGLISH

GRAMMAR: ACTION RESEARCH AT UNIVER ENGLISH CENTER

Áp dụng đường hướng dạy học thông qua nhiệm vụ để dạy ngữ pháp:
nghiên cứu hành động ở trung tâm Anh ngữ Univer

M.A. COMBINED PROGRAM THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology

Code: 60140111

HANOI – 2016
 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES
************************

LÊ THỊ THANH

APPLYING TASK-BASED APPROACH IN TEACHING ENGLISH

GRAMMAR: ACTION RESEARCH AT UNIVER ENGLISH CENTER

Áp dụng đường hướng dạy học thông qua nhiệm vụ để dạy ngữ pháp:
nghiên cứu hành động ở trung tâm Anh ngữ Univer

M.A. COMBINED PROGRAM THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology

Code: 60140111
Supervisor: Dr. Dương Thị Nụ

HANOI – 2016
 DECLARATION OF ORINALITY

I declare that this thesis submitted for the Master of Art degree at the
University of Languages and International Studies is a presentation of my own
research and has not been previously submitted at any other universities for any
degrees. Wherever contributions of other researches are involved, every effort is
made to indicate this clearly, with due reference to the literature, and
acknowledgement of collaborative research and discussion. The work was done
under the guidance of Doctor Duong Thi Nu, at University of Languages and
International Studies.

Hanoi, 2017

L Th Th nh

i
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To complete this thesis, I owe profound indebtedness to many people who

have assisted me a lot when I carried out the research.

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Duong

Thi Nu, for all the helpful support, guidance and encouragement she gave me while
I was conducting the research. I am truly grateful to her for her advice and
suggestions right from the beginning when this study was only on its formative
stage.

I would like to send my sincere thanks to all other teachers and lecturers at
Faculty of Graduate and Postgraduate Studies for all the valuable and priceless
knowledge and experience they have transferred to me and to all my students at
Univer English Center who have enthusiastically participated in the study. Without
their assistance, it would have been impossible for me to handle this work.

I owe a great debt of gratitude to my family and friends for all the support I
received to finish this thesis.

ii
 ABSTRACT
Grammar plays a crucial role in English language learning and teaching,
establishing the ground for every other aspect of language. Yet the use of grammar
in practices such as writing and speaking is not flexible to many of the students.
Moreover, students get bored of the traditional approaches and quickly forget the
knowledge or get troubles applying it in real life. That is especially true for
university students of low level at Univer English Center who are seeking for better
English for their job in the future. Task-based approach designed with activities
around a focal task that is similar to the task in real world, promoting students to use
language into practical context to accomplish a specific purpose, is expected to be a
resolution to the dilemma.

This study is aimed at investigating the application of tasks in teaching

gr mm r to find out students’ opinionss towards grammar and learning grammar
through t sks, the extent to which the use of t sks to te ch gr mm r ffect students’
learning and the constraints to this application. The study was conducted in an
action research, realized by means of survey questionnaire, performance tests,
collections nd te cher’s journ l to chieve the desired ims.

The results indicate that the students hold positive opinionss towards
grammar and learning grammar through tasks. Students are in favor of this learning
and teaching approach for its effectiveness, appeal and applicability. The analysis of
students’ test results lso show th t students h s m de positively significant
improvement in their language proficiency particularly grammar. It is also revealed
that the low language competence of students as well as the limits in a private center
hindered the application of tasks in grammar teaching.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Declaration of originality…………………………………………………... i

Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………. ii

Abstract……………………………………………………………………... iii

Table of contents…………………………………………………………… iv

List of Abbreviations………………………………………………………. vii

List of tables………………………………………………………………… viii

PẢRT A: INTRODUCTION………………………………………………. 1

1. Rationale……………………………………………………………... 2

2. Aims and objectives of the study…………………………………… 3

3. Scopes of the study………………………………………………….. 3

4. Significance of the study……………………………………………. 3

5. Design of the study…………………………………………………... 3

PART D: DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………. 5

1.1. Approaches in English Language Teaching…………………….. 5

1.2. Task-based language teaching approach………………………… 8

1.2.1. R tion le……………………………………………………… 8

1.2.2. Definition of t sk……………………………………………... 11

1.2.3. Identifying t sk……………………………………………….. 16

1.2.4. Task types…………………………………………………….. 17

iv
 1.2.5. T sk cycle…………………………………………………….. 18

1.3. Grammar teaching and learning………………………………… 20

1.4. Task-based language teaching approach and grammar teaching 21

1.5. Task-based language teaching in Vietnam………………………. 24

1.6. Review on previous studies……………………………………….. 25

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY…………………………. 28

2.1. Research questions………………………………………………… 28

2.2. Method……………………………………………………………... 28

2.3. Design……………………………………………………………… 33

2.4. Participants………………………………………………………… 33

2.5. Procedure and instruments……………………………………….. 34

2.6. The action research cycles………………………………………… 36

2.6.1. Research cycle 1……………………………………………… 37

2.6.2. Research cycle 2……………………………………………… 40

CHAPTER 3: DATA ANALYSIS AND 41

DISCUSSIONS…………………
3.1. What are learners’ opinions towards learning grammar
through tasks?.......................................................................................... 41

3.2. To what extent does the teaching of grammar through tasks

help learners acquire and use grammar?.............................................. 52

3.3. What are the constraints and obstacles to students in learning

grammar through tasks?......................................................................... 61

PART C: SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND 66

CONCLUSION…

1. Recapitulation……………………………………………………….. 66

v
 2. Recommendations…………………………………………………… 68

3. Pedagogical implications and suggestions for further research..… 72

4. Limitations of the study……………………………………………... 74

5. Conclusion …………………………………………………………... 76

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………... 78

APPENDICES……………………………………………………………… I

Appendix I: Survey questionnaire………………………………………… I

Appendix II: Lesson plans for the study group…………………………... VII

Appendix III: Pre-test……………………………………………………… X

Appendix IV: Post-test……………………………………………………... XIII

Appendix V: Raw data of the questionnaire survey……………………… XVI

Appendix VI: Raw data of the pre-test and post-test results……………. XVII

vi
 LISTS OF ABBREVIATIONS

TBLT: Task-based language teaching

TBLL: Task-based language learning

TBA: Task-based approach

ELT: English language teaching

PPP: Presentation-Practice-Production

FLT: Foreign language teaching

CLT: Communicative language teaching

SLA: Second language acquisition

GT: Grammar-Translation

vii
 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Figure 1: TBLT fr mework…………………………………………………… 18

T ble 1: Students’ gener l inform tion1……………………………………… 42
T ble 2: Students’ gener l inform tion 2…………………………………….. 43
Figure 2: The degree of interest to students…………………………………… 44
Figure 3: The degree of important to students………………………………… 44
Figure 4: The degree of difficulty of grammatical structures
to students’ perceptiveness…………………………………………………… 44
Figure 5: The degree of difficulty to do exercises…………………………….. 44
Figure 6: The degree of students’ int ke fter being t ught…………………... 45
Figure 7: The degree of students’ bility to use gr mm tic l knowledge…….. 46
Figure 8: The degree of application in other activities and contexts………….. 47
Figure 9: The grammar role in language learning…………………………….. 47
Table 3: Students’ ev lu tion on le rning gr mm r vi t sks………………… 48
Figure 10: The interesting degree of learning grammar via tasks…………….. 49
Figure 11: The effectiveness degree of learning grammar via tasks………….. 49
Figure 12: The degree of task difficulty………………………………………. 50
Figure 13: The degree of task suitability……………………………………… 50
Figure 14: The degree of t sk’s likeness to re lity……………………………. 51
Figure 15: The degree of t sk’ pplic bility…………………………………... 51
Table 4: Paired Sample T-test Statistics………………………………………. 52
Table 5: Paired Sampled T-test p-value……………………………………….. 54
T ble 6: Students’ difficulties in le rning gr mm r…………………………... 61

viii
 PART A: INTRODUCTION

1. Rationale

Grammar has been holding a crucial role in language learning and

cquisition, s Wood (1995) used to s y “nobody c n doubt th t good knowledge
of the grammatical system is essential to master a foreign language and it is also one
of the most import nt p rts of communic tive competence”. It is greed th t without
comprehensive gr mm tic l knowledge, le rner’s l ngu ge development will be
limited. Learning and teaching language without grammar will lead to the fact that
students produce clumsy, inappropriate and meaningless sentences. Thus, grammar
is a framework without which language cannot be constructed and communication
cannot be performed smoothly and fluently. However, grammar teaching is still one
of the most controversial topics and remains hot in debate on language teaching.

In Vietnam, the teaching and learning of grammar seem to mainly focus on

teaching rules and grammatical structures which are inherently boring and difficult
for students. As a result, students are gradually tired of studying grammar again and
again without much success. Grammar has been taught as a major concern for
students since they were in grade 6. However, many of them seem to clear out all of
grammatical knowledge taught to them when they move to next grammatical items
or next stage. They can know the rules and structures but they are unable of using it
in doing cumulative exercises or in practical tasks. They are not able to accumulate
their grammar knowledge to apply in practical uses and to carry out communicative
tasks in real world using language. They make grammatically inaccurate sentences,
which demotivates them from studying more grammar.

The Task-based approach emerging from Communicative language teaching

as a practical method with real-life tasks is expected to be the possible solution to
the problem. In fact, TBA has been applied in many countries and regions

1
particularly in Asia with some examples of Hong Kong, China and Japan. In
Vietnam, the teaching of grammar mostly deals with doing exercises and drills
rather than do practice. Task-based language teaching has been also adapted in
Vietnam but has met a lot of challenges and obstacles.

Therefore, the study is carried out to find out the application of TBA in
teaching grammar as well as to give more grounds and examples for teachers to
actively and enthusiastically apply this approach to teach grammar. It is hoped that
teaching grammar using tasks would help students to understand grammatical
structures and rules better with more practical perspectives and that they could
produce sentences and communicate more flexibly and grammatically accurately.

2. Aims and Objectives of the Study

The study aims at finding out new way to teach grammar to students
practically, to teach grammar via pedagogical tasks. Thus, as the title suggests, the
overarching aim of the study is to investigate the use of tasks in teaching grammar.

To get those aims achieved, the following objectives are meant to be filled:

- To investigate students’ opinions towards grammar and grammar learning

through tasks
- To ex mine the imp ct of t sks on students’ gr mm r le rning
- To find out the constraints and obstacles to students in learning grammar
through tasks
- To suggest some recommendations to make the application of tasks more
successfully and widely

3. Scopes of the Study

The study is conducted in a 13-student English class for non-English major

students aging from 18-21 who are at elementary level of language and want to
improve their English firstly grammatical knowledge. The lesson designed

2
according to TBA are transferred to students and have them do tests to examine the
change in language competence.

4. Significance of the Study

The finding of the study are hoped to contribute to promote the application of
tasks and TBA in teaching grammar to students. If the use of tasks is proven to be
effective and useful in helping students learn grammar, it will be practiced as an
ltern tive method to te ch gr mm r to improve students’ l ngu ge competence.

5. Design of the Study

The study consists of three main parts namely Introduction, Development, and
Conclusion.

Part A: Introduction

The rationale, the aims and objectives as well as the scopes of the study, the
significance and the design of the study are presented in this part

Part B: Development

This part is comprised of three chapters:

- Chapter 1: Literature review

In this chapter, the theory and rationale for TBA, grammar teaching, the
relationship between the two are discussed along with the review of some
other approaches and previous studies
- Chapter 2: Methodology
This chapter presents research questions, method, design, participants,
procedures and instruments as well as describes the cycles of action research
- Chapter 3: Data analysis and discussions
Data collected are analyzed and discussions are made with regards to the
findings and analysis.

3
Part C: Summary, recommendations and conclusion

This final part summarizes the research and then gives some
recommendations, limitations of the study; state some pedagogical significance of
the study as well as suggestions for further study. The conclusion is also presented
to put the study in a nutshell.

The reference is given afterwards, followed by the appendices

4
 PART B: DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1. Approaches in English Language Teaching

Nowadays, English has become crucial and popular along with the growth of
international relations and the development of our country in almost every aspect of
life. The more crucial and popular English is especially in helping people to
communicate with each other and integrate into global world, the more people
desire to acquire it. As a result, English language teaching (ELT) has been paid
more attention than ever before. In the last few decades, language teaching
professionals and linguists have developed intensively and extensively and formed a
really dynamic worldwide language community striving to improve the quality of
language teaching and learning. They have attempted to identify and examine
related key concepts and issues that shape the design and delivery of language
teaching (Richards and Renandya, 2010). In other words, it is the work of finding
more effective approaches and methods of language teaching.

In 19th century and the first part of 20th century, the Grammar-Translation
approach dominated foreign language teaching. The main focus of this approach is
carefully teaching students grammatical rules, followed by the practice of
translating sentences and texts. Students are strictly required to learn and memorize
grammatical rules, vocabulary, syntactic structures and translate literally the
sentences and texts. The method gives emphasis on reading and writing and very
little attention is paid to speaking and listening (J. C. R. Richards, Theodore S. ,
1995). Meanwhile, the grammar is taught deductively and vocabulary is taught in
lists of isolated words. The approach puts students under enormous pressure of
memorizing endless grammatical rules and vocabulary, even many of which are
unusable. The grammar and vocabulary taught in this approach seems to be too

5
academic for students. The students can understand and translate literacy texts but
they struggle to speak out, even a simple sentence. Their speaking and listening
knowledge are very limited, which is not suitable for the demand of communication
in real world.

In the middle of 20th century, following the Structur l Methods’ te ching

sequence, Presentation-Practice-Production (PPP) approach was adopted and
implemented widely all over the world. Many Foreign Language Teaching (FLT)
books and syllabus based on this sequence and it is still appreciated today. In fact,
most teachers are familiar with PPP paradigm than any other methods. In Vietnam,
PPP remains a common teaching model in most language teaching classrooms.

It is rgued th t PPP is neither “method” nor n “ ppro ch” but is model,

a pedagogical strategy to teach language items. In this paper, the researcher calls it
PPP approach as Skehan (1998) used because it is a framework from which
language is teach and it actually does reflect a model or theory. PPP approach, as
cle rly defined by Tomlinson, is “ n ppro ch to te ching l ngu ge items which
follows the sequence of presentation of the item, practice of the item and then
production of the item”.

Accordingly, the sequence of a PPP lesson will be: first, teacher presents a
specific item of language in a context to show how it is used; then, students are to
complete a controlled practice stage via drills; finally, students move to a free
practice stage or production stage in view to produce the target language to
complete the “t sk” ssigned. This ppro ch is definitely logic l nd e sy-to-follow
for teachers to design their lesson plans and carry out the lessons in a clear and
controlled sequence. With this approach, teachers are able to manage their class and
avoid unexpected factors.

On the other hand, this approach seems to be rigid with fixed stages, not
generating much creativity and motivation for both teachers and students. To

6
students, this approach is in line with psychological theory to gradually and
automatically develop language competence by giving them input and then practice
to create output. According to skill theory, students will acquire language in three
consecutive stages: cognitive, associative and autonomous stages (DeKeyser, 1998).
Especi lly, this ppro ch helps to develop implicit gr mm r knowledge “by
providing frequent occurrence of p rticul r form” (Hedge, 2000, p. 167) so th t
students notice it and practise to use it. Obviously, this approach is suitable to teach
grammar or specific structures, which is maybe the reason why teachers in Vietnam
still prefer this one in teaching grammar and language. It also attracts teachers
because it is easy for teacher to identify what to test and what to teach, which serves
best for their students in examination.

However, there occur many problems with this approach. At first, students
are probably happy and interested in being exposed to new language and practicing
that language. They can produce the language but usually trying to produce that
language makes them overuse the language, making it unnatural. Moreover, a time
later, it turns out that students do not remember properly or even forget the
language; thus, they are not able to produce the language properly, some even are
not able to produce at all. This approach also shows ineffectiveness in term of
communication because it focuses on structures and teaches discrete items so
students may use that item separately without connecting or combining with other
languages. People who criticize this approach put the emphasis on the focus on
lexicon and meaning instead of grammar and structure. The representatives of this
criticism can be listed as Communicative Language Teaching approach (Lewis),
Task Based Language Teaching (Willis and Willis), Lexical Approach.

In 70s and 80s, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) emerged as a

response to shortcomings of previous approaches and the need for communication
of the globalized world. Its theory is that the primary function of language is
communic tion nd it ims t developing le rners’ communic tive competence.

7
Thus, this approach focuses language teaching on communicative proficiency rather
than the mastery of structures (J. C. R. Richards, Theodore S. , 1995). In a CLT
lesson, most of the time students are engaged in communication, trying to negotiate
meaning. It is believed that students will learn language best through using it to
communicate. CLT approach considers using tasks such as problem-solving tasks as
an organizational principle. Students work in pairs or groups employing their
available language resources and teachers only provide grammar if needed; indeed,
teachers cannot know exactly what language students will use in completing the
task. Clearly, this approach gives top priority to meaning and communication and
seems to disregard grammar. The tasks and materials here are authentic, non-
ped gogic, directly linked to “re l-world” ctivities nd situ tions. However, the
aforementioned authenticity in meaning and communication is not implemented and
cquired properly in pr ctice. According to the book “Pe rson Educ tion Asi
Limited 2008”, in Asi contexts, CLT h s been misunderstood or oversimplified
because of having no clear and structured syllabus, leading to the general failure.
The problem is students are taught by making conversations which are somehow
vague, repeating set dialogs or substitution drills. The questions raised are whether
students like the communicative topics or whether they are forming sentences
correctly?

1.2. Task-based Language Teaching Approach

1.2.1. Rationale

Growing out of CLT, Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT) has developed

and attracted the attention of second language acquisition (SLA) researchers (e,g.
Long, 2014; Skehan, 2011; Ellis, 2003), curriculum developers, educationalists,
teacher trainers (e.g. Willis, 2996) and language teachers worldwide for the past 30
years (Branden, 2006). Richards and Rodgers (2001, p.223) defined task-based
appro ch “ n ppro ch b sed on the use of t sks s the core unit of pl nning nd
instruction in l ngu ge te ching”. TBLT rose when criticism of CLT exploded nd

8
it was argued that both grammar and meaning should be taught at the same time
(Skehan, 2003). Though TBLT has shared some principles with CLT such as taking
more focus on meaning and preferring communicative activities, it goes beyond the
desire of meaning. It values the practical use of language that is language needs to
be transferrable to real-life activities.

The goals of TBLT is not much of which particular and specific words or
grammar items to teach or to learn, rather than in term of the purposes people learn
and use language. In other words, TBLT goal is to make learners complete or
perform a task by using language, helping them to develop their ability to take part
in different spontaneous and meaningful communication in real life. Thus, the
language teaching has to be organized around tasks to get those objectives and goals
done successfully (Skehan, 1998; Willis, and Willis, 2001). That is to say, in TBLT,
tasks are central to teaching. In TBLT, learners are expected to perform a task
without being explicitly taught grammatical structures. Long (1985), Prabhu (1987)
and Robinson (2001) all shared the idea that this approach creates more favorable
and better conditions for language development and language acquisition. TBLT
also get supports from many advocators, particularly Ellis (2003) with rationale
from psycholinguistic perspective and Skehan (1998, 2003) with the perspective
from cognitive approach.

In field of SLA, a common question to be concerned is that how language is

taught or organized to facilitate language learning and second language acquisition.
The previous approaches like Grammar-Translation, PPP are more of linguistic
approaches which take elements of linguistic system as a basis to teach separately in
a specific sequence. It is argued that learners need to remember and know well each
small items to accumulate and come up with a more profound and holistic
knowledge of language. In this case, the acquisition is a process of gradual
accumulation of small pieces (Branden, 2006). This is obviously contradictory with
SLA theory and research. In fact, what is taught is not necessarily what is learnt,

9
which has been already proved through Grammar Translation, PPP or even CLT.
SLA research has also showed that learners can hardly master new language items
in just one step as expected. They cannot be likely to move from zero to hero. SLA
is the process involving both psychology and cognition, it is inseparable from
cognitive development and socialization ability.

Actually, learners do not learn isolate items in L2 in one time but rather as a
relationship with others. Language teaching does not lie in expensive equipment or
sophisticated linguistic analyses, but in a full utilization of the language each has,
using languages for a purpose and real communication. That is what TBLT does.
TBLT does not “chop up l ngu ge into sm ll pieces, but take a holistic, functional
nd communic tive “t sks”” (Br nden, 2006, p. 5). Cle rly, TBLT considers
language as a whole, elements connected closely to one another, cooperating with
each other, from pronunciation, lexis to grammar to perform the task or activity.
TBLT gives learners confidence and willingness to have a go by providing plenty of
opportunities to use language without being afraid of making mistakes. They will
exert every effort and utilize not only their language knowledge but also their
background knowledge to make people understand them, to get the communication
performed successfully.

A task-based framework can help situate consideration of key issues relevant

to all language teaching, one of which is the relationship between focus on meaning
and focus on form. In the view of pedagogy, according to Nunan (2004), TBLT has
focused on six principles and practices:

- A need-based approach to content selection

- An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target
language
- The introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation
- The provision of opportunities for learners to focus not only on language but
also on the learning process itself

10
 - An enh ncement of le rner’s own person l experiences s import nt
contributing elements to classroom learning
- The linking of classroom language learning with language use outside the
classroom

It can be interpreted from those principles that TBLT takes a more focus on
meaning and content by using texts in real life and tasks for the purpose of real
language use as well as providing a natural or natural-like context for language
study. It also offers a rich and comprehensive exposure to language in use for
learners, motivating them to improve and build on whatever language they have
already acquired in formal as well as in informal studying. TBLT seems to contain
or be able to create all required conditions for language learning: exposure, use of
language, motivation and instruction. All of those conditions and other activities are
performed around the central concept of TBLT-“t sk”.

1.2.2. Definition of task

So, wh t is “t sk”? There re m ny discussions of te chers, curriculum

developers, researchers and linguistic specialists on TBLT and the definition of
“t sk”. The term of “t sk” is interpreted in a number of ways for different purposes
by different people nd groups of people, so v rious definitions of “t sk” in wide
range of scopes and perspectives have been offered. A collection of definitions from
literature can be list in chronological order as following:

 A task is a piece of work undertaken for oneself or for others, freely or for
some reward. Thus examples of tasks include painting a fence, dressing a
child…In other words, by “t sk” is me nt the hundred nd one things people
do in everyday life, at work, at play and in between.

(Long, 1985)

11
 An activity or action which is carried out as the result of processing or
understanding language, i.e. as a response. For example, drawing a map
while listening to a tape, listening to an instruction and performing a
command, may be referred to as tasks. Tasks may or may not involve the
production of language. A task usually requires the teacher to specify what
will be regarded as successful completion of the task. The use of a variety of
different kinds of tasks in language teaching is said to make teaching more
communic tive…since it provides a purpose for classroom activity which
goes beyond practice of language for its own sake.

(Richards, Platt&Weber, 1985)

 A piece of work or an activity, usually with a specified objective, undertaken

as part of an educational course, at work, or used to elicit data for research.
(Crookes, 1986)
 Any structured language learning endeavor which has a particular objective,
appropriate content, a specified working procedure, and a range of outcomes
for those who undert ke the t sk. “T sk” is therefore ssumed to refer to
range of workplans which have the overall purpose of facilitating language
learning from the simple and brief exercise type, to more complex and
lengthy activities such as group problem-solving or simulations and decision-
making.
(Breen, 1987)
 An activity which required learners to arrive at an outcome from given
information through some process of thought and which allowed teachers to
control and regulate that process was regarded as a task.
(Prabhu, 1987)
 A task [is] any activity in which a person engages, given an appropriate
setting, in order to achieve a specifiable class of objective.
(Caroll, 1993)

12
 An activity that involves individuals in using language for the purpose of
achieving a particular goal or objective in a particular situation.
(Bachman and Palmer, 1996)
 Activities where the target language is used by the learner for a
communicative purpose (goal) in order to achieve an outcome.
(Willis, 1996)
 An activity in which:
- meaning is primary
- there is some communication problem to solve
- there is some sort of relationship to comparable real-world activities
- task completion has some priority
- the assessment of the task is in terms of outcome
(Skehan, 1998)
 (1) A classroom activity or exercise that has: (a) an objective obtainable only
by the interaction among participants, (b) a mechanism for structuring and
sequencing interaction, and (c) a focus on meaning exchange; (2) a language
learning endeavor that requires learners to comprehend, manipulate, and/or
produce the target language as they perform some set of workplans.

(Lee, 2000)

 An activity, influenced by learner choice, and susceptible to learner

interpretation, which requires learners to use language, with emphasis on
meaning, to attain an objective
(Bygate et al, 2001)
 A workplan that requires learners to process language pragmatically in order
to achieve an outcome that can be evaluated in terms of whether the correct
or appropriate prepositional content has been conveyed. To this end, it
requires them to give primary attention to meaning and to make use of their
own linguistic resources, although the design of the task may predispose

13
 them to choose particular forms. A task is intended to result in language use
that bears a resemblance, direct or indirect, to the way language is used in the
real world. Like other language activities, a task can engage productive or
receptive, and oral or written skills, and also various cognitive processes.

(Ellis, 2003)

 A piece of classroom work which involves learners in comprehending,

manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language while their
attention is primarily focused on mobilizing their grammatical knowledge in
order to express meaning, and in which the intention is to convey meaning
rather than form. The task should also have a sense of completeness, being
able to stand alone as a communicative act in its own right with a beginning,
a middle and an end

(Nunan, 2004)

Those definitions are interestingly similar but also interestingly different. For
some like Long, Crookes, Carroll, Bachman & Palmer and Bygate et al., tasks are
activities that are more of goal-directed but each contains distinctive emphases.
Long (1985) and Crookes (1986) emphasized the real-world relationship for an
ctivity to qu lify s t sk. Long lso viewed “t sks” s things people do, not
necessarily related to language or language use. Bachman & Palmer (1996) and
Bygate et al. (2001) shared the idea of getting a specific purpose but clearly
indicated the necessity of using language. Carroll (1993), Willis (1996), Bachman
and Palmer (1996) slightly downplay the relationship, instead focus more on the
meaning not language to achieve an objective. Here, task is considered as real-
world or target task rather than task used for educational purpose. Therefore, those
definitions are not compatible with the perspective of teaching language via tasks in
this thesis.

14
 The t sk used for educ tion l purpose in cl ssroom is c lled “ped gogic l
t sk” by Nun n (2004). Richards, Platt & Weber (1985) supported the term
“ped gogic l t sk” while giving emph sis on the completion of t sk s “ result of
processing or underst nding l ngu ge”, not limited to the pr ctice of l ngu ge.
Ellis’s definition (2003) covers ne rly all typical features of a task and also views
t sk with s new concept s “workpl n for le rner” which requires nd c n
develop le rner’s cognition, nd involving ny of four skills in the le rning process.
Breen (1987) had similar idea of workplan in with wide ranges of activities even
exercises, somehow showing the explicit focus on form. Breen’s bro d definition is
good but it implies anything that might happen in classroom; thus, it is not helpful
to ch r cterize TBLT. With the “structured l ngu ge le rning”, Breen indic ted the
ways that pedagogic tasks give learners control their own task. In contrast, Prabhu
(1987) clearly indicated and valued the room for teacher intervention and control
the learning. Learners are not free to choose what they want or what they use as
cle rly defined in Byg te et l. (2001). Skeh n’s definition (1998) is quite complete,
including main features of focus on meaning, task outcome, task completion and
real-world relationship. However, it does not mention to the use of language and
expressly show the nature of pedagogical task.

Nunan (2004) defined pedagogical task the most profoundly and holistically.
He defined t sk “is piece of cl ssroom work th t involves le rners in
comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language while
their attention is focused on mobilizing their grammatical knowledge in order to
express meaning, and in which the intention is to convey meaning rather than to
manipulate form. The task should also have a sense of completeness, being able to
stand alone as a communicative act in its own right with a beginning, a middle and
n end”. The “t sk” in Nun n’s definition involves not only four skills but also
cognitive bility to process l ngu ge. The focus of “t sk” here is on me ning r ther
than form. However, it does not relieve the importance of grammatical knowledge
in expressing meaning, grammar is a basis that enables the language user to express

15
different communicative meanings effectively and correctly. The purpose of using
grammar here is not of practicing it but of helping convey meaning. Nunan clearly
mentioned grammatical knowledge as a part constituting task, unlike most other
definitions. He also emphasized on completing the task. Task has sub-stage in its
own process: beginning, middle and end, which is performed as a task cycle to be
mentioned in the next part. For the purpose of investigations in the research, the
thesis will base on and adopt this definition of Nunan to carry out research as well
as design lesson plan for TBLT with pedagogical tasks transformed from real-world
tasks.

1.2.3. Identifying task

All the definitions implicitly focus on est blishing threshold of “t ckiness”,

which r ises questions “Wh t is qu lified s t sk?” nd “How is t sk-like
ctivity become t sk?”. Willis and Willis (2007) offer the following criteria to
identify which one is task:

“The more confidently you c n nswer yes to e ch of these questions, the

more task-like the activity.

1. Will the ctivity eng ge le rners’ interest?

2. Is there a primary focus on meaning?
3. Is there a goal or an outcome?
4. Is success judged in terms of outcome?
5. Is completion a priority?
6. Does the ctivity rel te to re l world ctivities?”

Those criteria add a notion of engagement in TBLT and Task-based language

learning (TBLL) because if learners do not engage with genuine interest, there is no
outcome or completions made. Those criteria do not necessarily identifying task,
rather than they are used as a guideline for us to design activities to turn them into

16
tasks. Lessons designed to carry the action research in this thesis will base on those
criteria to identify a task or task-like activities to upgrade them to tasks.

1.2.4. Task types

When designing or selecting tasks to use, we have many choices in terms of

type of tasks. Each type will have its own pros and cons as well as more effective in
specific cases. Understanding types of tasks will assist teachers in deciding which
tasks to use and when to use so that the language teaching can be more effective.
Distinguishing different tasks is crucial, allowing teacher or researcher to
investigate which types most effectively facilitate learning.

Task types are identified in a number of ways. Nunan (1989) divided tasks
into two types: real-world tasks and pedagogic tasks. The tasks in each category
continued to be put into smaller by communication function such as problem-
solving, decision-making or opinion exchange or by cognitive process,
interpersonal, linguistic, affective and creative such as listing, ordering, classifying,
role playing, summarizing, reflecting and brainstorming, and so on. This
classification is clear with specific category but in fact it is quite complicated with
too many details, some even overlap one another. Long (1989) identified two types
of tasks: open and closed. Closed tasks are highly structured with specific goals
such as comparing task. In opposite, open tasks are loosely structured with less
specific goal such as exchanging opinion. We can see that all the tasks (including
the ones classified by others) can be put into those two broad categories. Willis
(1996) basically has the same idea with Nunan but she mainly classify and put
emphasis on six major types: listings and/or brainstorming, ordering and sorting,
matching, comparing, problem-solving, and sharing personal experiences and story
telling. The three later types are more complex and can involve the use of previous
simpler ones.

17
1.2.5. Task cycle

We h ve lre dy given r tion le for “t sk” nd TBLT, the question now is

how do we implement the principles of TBLT and TBLL in a classroom context? In
other words, what is the framework for applying TBLT? Many scholars such as
Nunan (1989), Skehan (1998), Willis and Willis (1987) have proposed different
models for task-based instruction in classroom. All of which, framework of Willis
(1996) emerged to be practical and straightforward. In fact it is the most common
model mentioned and employed by teachers and researchers. The framework is
illustrated in the following chart:

Figure 1. TBLT framework (A framework for Task-based learning, Willis J. , 1996)

18
 To make it more practical and easily to interpret, we consider this whole
framework as a task cycle with three phases: pre-task, task and post-task. In the pre-
task phase, the teachers introduce and explore topic with the class, help them to
understand instruction and prepare for them. In the task phase, the activities are
performed in three stages. The first stage of the phase is task with students doing the
task in pair or groups while teachers monitor. After that, students will move to
planning stage, they prepare to report to the class their result of doing task. In this
stage, teachers support students with problems related to language and the report.
Also, students are expected to focus on form and try to produce more complex
language to form a good preparation for the report. Then the students come into
report stage by presenting their product to the class and exchanging with each
other’s ideas. The teachers coordinate and give feedback. Finally, the task phase
will be followed by the post-task phase in which language is focus. The language
intended to be taught in the lesson or the one that best used to complete the task will
be discussed here. The students are asked to examine and analyze specific features
under the instruction of teacher. When items have been analyzed, the teacher will
conduct practice works and have students practiced by doing drills, exercises or
other communication activities.

This task cycle is clearly organized with each phase or stage fully prepared
and supported for the next one, contributing to help student complete the task using
both four skills and cognitive ability. The language and grammatical items are
taught in the final phase of lesson. Willis argued that meaning is the starting point
for language development. It may be well necessary to introduce and provide a
number of vocabulary items to enable students to complete the task but there is no
need to focus on grammar before beginning the task. Nunan (2004), however, has
the idea of giving students both vocabulary, language and structures as well as
context for preparing the task in the very first two steps of his teaching sequence.
Willis’s direction is of course in line with the spirit of TBLT but it is more suit ble
with intermediate and advanced students who have a quite language background to

19
facilitate themselves to finish the task. With lower level students, they are going to
get stuck because of not having enough vocabulary and structures even the basis
ones to express the meaning as expected.

Regard the fact that students participating in the action research of this thesis
are mainly at beginner level, the framework of applying TBLT in this thesis is of
Willis’ t sk cycle with the d pt tion combining with Nun n’s steps in the first
phase of the cycle. In other words, the lessons will be carried out in task cycle of
three phases in which the first phase is filled with the introduction of topic and task,
preparation for the task by providing basic vocabulary and possible structures for
students. The language will be discussed again more deeply in the last phase of the
cycle.

1.3. Grammar Teaching and Learning

The grammar teaching and grammar learning and acquisition have been a
controversial topic in ELT and SLA. Likewise, the role of grammar and how to
teach grammar are one of the most controversial issues in language teaching. A
great deal of research has been conducted on how grammar is acquired, how
grammar should be taught or whether grammar should be taught explicitly.
Common questions raised are how much grammar one need, particularly to
communicate comfortably, whether grammar is important as long as learners can
get the meaning across in language or whether grammar is best taught in isolation or
in context.

In the early twentieth century, grammar teaching played such a vital role in
language instruction that other aspects of language learning were ignored or
downplayed. The teaching of language forms, grammar and structures, was firmly
established for a long time with the domination of Grammar-Translation approach.
Then, the status of grammar-focused teaching, recently referred to form-focused
instruction, has undergone a major reassessment since 1970s (Richards, 1999) when

20
emerging the argument if one who knows the grammatical rules of language is able
to use it for communication. Language teaching approaches developed there after
such as CLT did not put too much emphasis on grammar. That led to the fact that
grammar teaching was less dominant even abandoned in some times.

Grammar teaching has regained its appreciation and rightful place in

language teaching since knowledge of grammar is one of many important
components comprising communicative competence and without comprehensive
gr mm tic l knowledge, le rner’s l ngu ge development will be limited. It is now
undeniable that grammar be so important that we cannot ignore. The questions now
are about which grammar items do learners need most? How do we go about
teaching grammar in the most effective way? Are they best taught inductively or
deductively, or implicitly or explicitly? Should grammar be taught separately or
integrated into the four skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing? (J. C.
Richards & Renandya, 2010)

1.4. Task-based Language Teaching Approach and Grammar Teaching

The advent of communicative language teaching (CLT) had led to the

emergence of fluency-b sed ped gogy in which students’ need re determined on
their performance on fluency tasks. A core component of this pedagogy is task
work. Here, the movement from grammar-focused instruction to task-focused
instruction occurs. As Van Patten (1993), Ellis (1994), Skehan (1966a, 1966b) and
other linguists draw out, there are five stages in language learning and use: input,
intake, acquisition, access and output. Grammar-focused instruction sees that the
focus on grammar can be addressed at many different stages of learning and
teaching. Meanwhile, task-focused instruction considers the focus on form as part of
the very first and overall communicative approach to teaching, and that the form
“ent ils prerequisite eng gement in me ning before ttention to linguistic fe tures
can be expected to become effective” (Doughty nd Willi ms, 1998, p. 3). It is,

21
therefore, clear that there is special link between grammar and task work and the
focus of grammar items can be provided effectively and naturally in task work.

It is true that TBLT emphasis on meaning rather than form and not strongly
endorse the importance of grammar at the outset. From this point, many argued that
focus on form or grammar is not necessary in TBLT. However, the definitions of
“t sk” c n shed light on the rel tionship between gr mm r nd TBLT. In Nun n’s
definition, doing task is closely involving the mobilization of grammar to express
meaning. And although the main focus is on convey meaning not on form, it is
necessary to use grammatical knowledge to get this purpose done. Indeed, TBLT
does not exclude the focus on form or grammar but it considers focus on form sub-
ordinate to focus on meaning and it has to be performed last in the cycles. Skehan
(1998), Long & Norris (2000) even claimed that the marriage of meaning and form
constitutes one of the key features of TBLT.

There are some good reasons for the focus on form in TBLT. First of all,
though vocabulary is central to communication and meaning is the most important
factor to get communication, and it is definitely possible to tell a story quite
adequately with a string of words and limited grammar, for example, it does not
mean that grammar is not necessary. We need to use full resources of grammar to
achieve the best and fastest communication. In fact, grammar is vital if we want to
make things reasonably easier for listeners or readers, particularly in the case of
expressing abstract meanings (Willis and Willis, 2007). Secondly, though students
are free to use any language of their disposal so in most cases, it is hard to predict
firmly the exact grammar structures they use, it is clear that there are some certain
forms of language that are completely possible to arise naturally during the course
of the task. The reason is that those forms or languages are naturally used to serve
the topic and requirements in the task as well as give the best performance for the
task, creating a higher level of language proficiency. Thus, the grammar teaching
here serves not only for the sake of task performance but also for the sake of the

22
grammar itself when it is put into really practical context to use, which helps
students to acquire the grammar knowledge practically and comprehensively.
Doughty & Williams (1998), Long (1998), Skehan (1998), Long & Norris (2000)
and Ellis (2003) all agree that the tasks be designed in a way promoting learners to
naturally pay attention to particular aspects of language code in that meaningful
activity context because this is believed to strongly promote SLA. Similarly,
students may also avoid using certain forms that they are expected to use but which
maybe beyond their ability to handle comfortably. This may also prevent them from
experimenting with the language and achieving higher levels of complexity in
language use, which cause grammar gap. To deal with this problem, a focus on form
must be need. Skeh n (1998, p.4) pointed out this issue th t “the ch llenge of
task-based instruction is to contrive sufficient focus on form to enable interlanguage
development to proceed without compromising the naturalness of the
communic tion th t t sks c n gener te”.

To put in a nutshell, I will explain the reason why I decided to use TBLT to
teach grammar. To its nature, TBLT seems to be more suitable to teach speaking or
other language skills. However, it is indeed a framework of practical learning and
teaching. We can easily see that students may know the forms, do exercises well but
when it comes to practice, especially in real situation, they can not use the forms or
their language knowledge properly. They still use or produce sentence like “I felt
not confident”, “The te cher is be utiful who is Th nh” or “Where you re go?”.
Not to say some even can not make sentence out loud. They can not explore their
language resources to produce their own language. It seems that they have acquired
nothing through a long learning process. However, when come back to them being
given grammar drills, they can do the drills quite well without so many struggles.
The problem is the gap between the theory or the grammatical forms and knowledge
they learn and the practice according to that knowledge is too big. All other
approaches and methodologies such as Grammar-Translation and PPP failed to
bridge the gap. TBLT is different, it can provide learners full time of learning and

23
practicing by putting them in practical situations and tasks. TBLT requires learners
to mobilize all their language knowledge to use it to complete the tasks or activities.
This will help learners not only study the usage of grammar items but also practice
them in real communication. Through the task cycle and task types, their study is
not solely learning any more but a process of cognition development. It is expected
to be the preeminent method for SLA.

1.5. Task-based Language Teaching in Vietnam

In Vietnam, though English is not an official language as a second language,

it still has a significant role to play. English is a crucial, even compulsory subject at
schools and needed for people especially those working in tourism, business,
technology, and service sections. However important it is, students have very
restricted use in society in large and just small number of English learners is able to
use English fluently. The reason maybe comes from the lack of professional
development s C nh (2002, p.33) cl imed th t “te chers are generally incapable of
teaching English communicatively in their real-world cl ssroom”. Despite the
innovation in education and curriculum as well as language teaching methodology,
many teachers still use the traditional approach and seem to keep preferring PPP,
not wish to change their methods. To a large extent, this is maybe due to the strong
washback effect of the national examinations, in which the skills of speaking and
listening are not tested and only multiple-choice test to assess grammatical and
vocabulary accuracy (Canh & Bernard, 2009). Thus, the main focus of teaching is
still on grammar with a lot of exercises and drills.

The past two decades have witnessed dramatic transformations in English

teaching and learning in Vietnam. Educationists, linguists as well as teachers have
been thriving to find ways and methods, or to renovate English teaching, to put
English in pr ctice nd to s tisfy le rners’ need for English study to h ve l ngu ge
competence. Along with the transformations are the changes in perspectives of what
to teach and how to teach and of several issues in language teaching, the role of

24
grammar and the grammar teaching get the concerns and draw attention of many
educators, teacher trainers, teachers, linguistics and researchers.

TBLT has been adopted in several English language classrooms through

Asian countries including Vietnam but the adaptation has met a lot of challenges
and not yet gotten its popularity. Though TBLT with its conceptual framework,
models of task-based cycles and design of task-based units helps practitioners,
particularly teachers, to rationalize their approach and language teaching and
le rning, seeming positive nd nice, m ny te chers cl im th t the ppro ch won’t
work in their classes. The problem lies in the fact that most of the researches
concerning about TBLT have been conducted under laboratory conditions and the
common assumption that researchers and linguistic presenters teach in ideal
classrooms and the readers, audiences who are actual teachers do not. Besides, there
have been few empirical researches on what and how tasks are used as the basic
units for the organization of educational activities in real language classrooms. All
of the above leave me with desperate desire to find out the way TBLT is applied in
cl ssroom nd the effect it will h ve on students’ l ngu ge le rning, p rticul rly
grammar learning in this case.

1.6. Review on Previous Studies

Since the TBLT was introduced, numerous researchers have done research
on task-based language learning and teaching and its related issues. In regards to
how tasks are perceived and applied in classroom context, a number of research
have been released. Noticeably, in a research of Bugler & Hunter (2002) carried out
at a Japanese university to investigate how tasks were implemented, the findings
indicated that students found task-based teaching and learning interesting and
helpful as well as felt more motivated when learning by doing tasks. Another study
was conducted by Lopez (2004) in explore the differences when using TBLT in a
school in Brazil instead of Presentation-Practice-Production, it was found out that
students learned English more effectively in classroom as well as could handle

25
situations in real life better because of having been exposed to authentic materials in
real-life tasks. Similarly, Mohammadi (2006) in his study of the effects of TBLT on
elementary students showed that TBLT had a signific nt imp ct on students’
le ning but did not gu r ntee students’ over ll success.

In tandem with the trend, there has been increasing number of studies
concerning the relation between TBLT and grammar teaching and instruction.
Though the idea of teaching grammar in real context or through tasks is still
controversial and seems to be in conflict with the use of already teaching methods
especially grammar teaching methods such as Presentation-Practice-Production
approach or Grammar-Translation methodology, various researchers as well as
studies have shown new and innovative perspectives towards grammar teaching.

In their study of using task-based materials in language classroom in 1988,

Rogers and Medley showed that grammar learning in English language learners
developed through exposure to task-based materials and activities and their real-life
use of grammar showed to improve as well. In other perspective to grammar and
communication, Fotos and Ellis (1991) in their study of choosing TBLT in teaching
language in Japan revealed that task-based approach was helpful to both grammar
learning and communication; moreover, by learning grammar within
communicative activities in tasks, Japanese students could understand difficult
grammatical forms much better and quicker. Indeed, these ideas about grammar
teaching were not original but originated from the ideas of several researchers or
theorists who had already investigated the nature of grammar teaching within a
communicative or task-based approach.

In its instruction and description documents of applying task-based

curriculum, Hong Kong Council of Curriculum Development (1999) even
acknowledged that grammar was best learnt or taught in context in cooperation with
other grammar teaching methods and grammar teaching could take place at different
stages of the TBLT. A number of prominent task-based researchers such as Willis

26
(1996), Skehan (1998), Richards (1999), Ellis (2003) and Nunan (2004) also
suggested that grammar could be taught at various stages of task-based teaching and
learning. It is agreed that adjustments and flexible use of TBLT and grammar
teaching would make the two more compatible.

On exploring the impacts of task-b sed te ching on Ir ni n students’

grammar learning, Tale (2014) concluded that TBLT had a significant impact on
promoting the grammar proficiency of language learners. The findings also revealed
th t students’ motiv tion w s high during the rese rch period, much higher th n the
ones who did not participate in the study. On her experimental research to compare
the effect of a task-based teaching and traditional method in teaching grammar in
Vietnamese upper secondary schools, Thao (2009) found out that teaching grammar
through task-based approach was more effective than the Grammar-Translation
method although teaching methods being currently used still remained important.
The comparative study also showed that task-based approach help students not only
in producing their own meaningful and grammatical sentences in writing but also in
communicating more accurately.

To sum up, previous studies indicates more bright sides of TBLT and
application of using task-based approach in teaching and learning grammar. This
study is expected to investigate the use of tasks in teaching grammar and then draw
out findings with comparisons and reflections with the results of those mentioned
studies.

27
 CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY

2.1. Research Questions

Grammar has been taught as a major concern for students since they were in
grade 6. However, many of them seem to clear out all of grammatical knowledge
taught to them when they move to next grammatical items or next stage. More
importantly, students are not able to accumulate their grammar knowledge to apply
in practical uses and to carry out communicative tasks in real world using language.
The research aims at finding out new way to teach grammar to them practically, to
teach grammar via pedagogical tasks and then assess the effectiveness of this
method on the way students learn grammar and their improvement as well as
identify adaptability and applicability of this method in language teaching in reality.

Thus, to get those objectives done, the research has to answer the following
questions:

1. Wh t re le rners’ opinions towards learning grammar through tasks?

2. To what extent does the teaching of grammar through tasks help
learners use grammar?
3. What are the constraints on using tasks to students in learning
grammar through tasks?

2.2. Method

Action research with the adaptation of research model of Kemmis and

McTaggart (1988) has been used as the methodological framework for the study.
We do research with the desire to get to know something that we did not already
know. Through research, we could tell something about what we are concerning, at
least to some extent. As a very novice in research field, it is important that I conduct
research in a practice basis to have better explanation of what is going on. Also, I
have a frantic fascination about the practicality of language teaching and learning,

28
which means that the teachers can transfer knowledge in a friendly and active way
and the students can utilize the language they have learnt into real life to its best.
Studies such s Pine’s (2009) showed th t since 1970s, there h s been dr m tic
surge in the practice and popularity of action research especially in the language
teaching practice, providing teachers with opportunity to investigate and reflect on
their own practice. I, when involved in the research and teaching, hope to try new
ways of teaching to further my own teaching ability as well as to be more sensitive
to classroom variables after having done some research in it. Action research is
supposed to lead to change and improvement in what are happening in classrooms.
This fundamental notion of changing and improving practice is in line with my
desire and the goals of my enquiries. It is essential to clearly note that I would write
about classroom problems honestly and naturally as they happened though
sometimes it is quite primitive, as I see the teaching as well as the research more as
a learning process and my own professional development and improvement.

The concept of action research was first developed by Lewin (1946) and then
supported by Burn (2005) with the major concerns with taking action in order to
investigate human behavior and social world. It was later developed by educators as
a means for teacher to control their teaching practice, thus this research method is
directly relevant to the ongoing work of practitioners. Richards & Farrell (2005)
points out th t “Action research can be a powerful way for language teachers to
investig te their own pr ctice”. W ll ce (1998) sh res the ide when stressing the
n ture of ction rese rch s “the system tic collection nd n lysis of d t rel ting
to the improvement of some spects of profession l pr ctice”. Stringer (1996) states
the aims of action research are to enable investigation and solutions of problems
experienced by practitioners and participants and to examine the effectiveness of
their work practices then to take action to solve the problems.

Using the term “cl ssroom rese rch”, Allwright nd B iley (1991) consider
action research as exploratory teaching which focuses on understanding what is

29
going on in the classroom, both successes and failures. Teacher here plays many
roles at the same time, the observer, the doer, the thinker and the understander. This
perspective shows that action research aims at doing and exploring, no matter the
results are, to figure out the reality in teaching practice and draw out perspectives to
teaching.

Reason (2001) is more of emphasizing the development of practical

knowledge nd theory by doing re l pr ctice when st ting th t “the rese rch h s
primary purpose to develop practical knowing embodied moment-to-moment action
by practitioner; h s coll bor tive intent; rooted in e ch p rticip nt’s in-depth,
critical and practical experience of the situation to be understood and acted in; truth
is not solely a property of formal proposition but is a human activity that must be
managed for human purposes, and aims to develop theory which is not simply
bstr ct nd descriptive but is guide to inquiry nd ction in present time”. This
focuses more on the research aspect of action research by doing action.

Kemmis and McTaggart give a more comprehensive and full-like definition

of action as following:

“Action rese rch is form of collective self-reflective enquiry

undertaken by participants in social situation in order to improve the
rationality and justice of their own social or educational practices, as well as
their understanding of these practices and the situations in which these
practices are carried out.”

Kemmis and McTaggart has already put all major aspects of action research
defined by other scholars in a concise definition. They also highlight the link
between the action or practice and the research or theory. Thus, as its name implies,
action research has two major goals: action and research. The action is to bring
about change or improve practice and the research is to increase or generate or

30
justify the knowledge and understanding of researcher in general and in specific
context.

Kemmis nd McT gg rt lso st te th t “A distinctive fe ture of ction

research is that those affected by planned changes have the primary responsibility
for deciding on courses of critically informed action which seems likely to lead to
improvement, and for evaluating the results of strategies tried out in practice.
Action rese rch is group ctivity”. So educ tion l ction rese rch h s following
features: conducted by classroom practitioners, collaborative and aims at bringing
about change. The above goals and features are in accordance with those of my
research study.

Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) also point out other characteristics of action
research:

1. Self-critical: openness to surprises, responsive to unexpected opportunities,

aiming at understanding of the relationship between the actions,
circumstances and consequences in the given situation
2. Systematic: data or observation-based: keeping records, collecting
observational data (field notes); keeping a personal journal on reflections and
learnings
3. Critical understanding: systematic analysis of observations, building records
of changes
4. Developing a rationale: for what we are doing, justifying our educational
actions to others, documenting them by empirical evidence
5. Self-reflective and spiral: plan  act  observe  reflect and then revise
plan  act  observe  reflect….

Those characteristics strictly define the techniques and procedures I use in carrying
out my research study.

31
 The framework of action research by Kemmis and McTaggart that I adapt
follow is cyclic with three steps: plan  act and observe  reflect. Those steps
recur in a similar sequence and the doing of this cycle is responsive. It means that it
responds to the emerging needs of the situations. The early cycles are used to plan
for the next cycles, the results from the early cycles help to decide how to conduct
the later cycles with the suitable changes to situation. In the later cycles, the
problems and interpretations in the early cycles can also be tested, challenged and
refined.

Because of it nature, this framework is more of qualitative and reflective. It

deals more often with languages through records or observation rather than with
numbers. And to achieve the action the responsiveness, each cycle must has critical
reflection on the process and outcomes.

The “Pl n” sometimes is not sep r te nd prior step but embedded in the action
and reflection. The reflection itself is also partly embedded in the action and
observation. The reflection leads on to the next stage of planning.

2.3. Design

Though theoretically action research is often associated with a kind of

qualitative tradition because most of the time it uses language rather than numbers,
many studies and reports on action research reveals the use of both qualitative and
quantitative approaches, either separately or combined in one single study. The
present study dealt with both quantitative and qualitative research questions with the
null hypotheses. Therefore, as it was an action research conducted in a classroom
setting supported by all the instruments and techniques to collect data with a view to
finding out the imp cts TBLT on students’ gr mm r le rning, it h d the form of
quantitative research complemented by a qualitative research. The research was
conducted in a single class using TBLT with no control, following steps in a cycle
of an action research. During the course, all the activities of students and the

32
cl ssroom’s situ tion were recorded; lso, students were given pre-test in the
beginning of the study and then post-test at the end of the course after having
experience the treatment.

2.4. Participants

The research was conducted in a class of 15 students at Univer English

Center. In fact, there were only 13 who regularly went to class and did the
homework and assignments given. All the students are university students in
Natural Science, Technology or Economics majors from Universities in Hanoi such
as Hanoi University of Science and Technology, Academy of Finance and
Accounting, Hanoi Open University, University of Civil and Engineering,
University of Business and Technology, so on. Most of the students are in first year
or second year, only two are in the last year at university. They are all from
countryside and provinces going to Hanoi for study.

The students re t king the course “Zero to Hero” t the Center, which is for
those who are at “Zero” in English. The course is one ye r long nd ims t
teaching students basic grammar and vocabulary then have them communicate and
interact effectively in English at basic level in common situations and prepare them
for their TOEIC test at schools, equal to pre-TOEIC level. Most of the students
were less able and had inadequate even poor competence for English. They had
learned English for at least 7 years but there was a little left in their minds. They
had studies the same grammar points many times but they could not remember
anything. In secondary and high school, they were taught little pronunciation and
speaking so their pronunciation was quite bad and they could hardly speak a full,
clear and correct sentence at the beginning of the course. They were like beginners
at the time. They wanted to regain their knowledge on grammar, learn more
vocabulary and to be able to communicate in English.

33
 The students are busy with their study and extra-curriculum activities at
schools so they only could study on Friday and Sunday evenings from 6.00pm to
8.00pm. Some lives near the center and some are really far from the center and it
usually takes those students one hour to go to class. Many of students are not truly
interested in English, they took the course just because it is necessary for them to
prepare for TOEIC test at schools and they want to get a good job when they
graduate from universities.

2.5. Procedure and Instruments

The research was conducted in a period of two months with 16 lessons. Each
lesson lasts two hours from 6:00pm to 8:00pm every Friday and Sunday.

The study was designed using mainly quantitative data with the support of
qu lit tive d t nd judgments of rese rch outcomes were b sed on students’ work
and their target language performance. Therefore, the instruments used in the study
are various in order to get sufficient data for the research and to increase the
credibility of the obtained data. The instruments used are following:

1) Performance test: Pre-test was done by students at the beginning of the

course with all the grammatical points that would be taught to them in the
two phases of action research. This test was to determine the level of the
students at the time, which language knowledge they had, which
grammatical section they were better or worse at. The test was as well
considered proficiency test to check students’ l ngu ge proficiency level.
Post-test was taken by students at the end of the study, also with all the
grammatical points and vocabulary range they had studied, in order to assess
their performance after participating in a new method, or in other words,
after having been experienced treatment. The results of the two test would be
put together to compare. That gave specific figures with quantitative data

34
 showing how the TBLT h d n imp ct on the students’ le rning nd the
progress they had made.
2) A survey questionnaire was delivered at the end of the study in the view to
finding out how students think of grammar and studying grammar and to
p rtly explore students’ comments on TBLT method that they had studied.
The questionnaire was designed by the researcher, then reviewed and
commented by expert. Right before finalizing the survey and questions
designated in the questionnaire, the researcher had a friendly talk with all
students in the cl ss to h ve b sic ssessment on students’ interest nd
concern, and to find out possible answers to tentative enquiries. The
questionnaire then was designed with fix-response questions, most of which
were designed according to Likert scale and some of which were multiple
choice questions.
3) Students’ writing collection was used as a means of assessment with a view
to me suring students’ progress. The collection included series of students’
writings or reports after each lessons. The writings were assigned by the
researcher and were closely related to the topic and grammatical points the
students had finished studying in class. That would help to evaluate how
students acquired the knowledge targetedly transferred and to what extent
they could apply that knowledge into real-like task. It was originally
expected that each student would write daily report about what they had
learnt and how they thought and assessed the lessons, which would give the
researcher a more valuable and deeper judgment. However, the students were
not familiar with that kind of dairy or report; also, they were quite passive in
their learning so they seemed not to be able to accomplish a desirable one if
the task was not specific and directly linked to them. That was the reason
why the research conductor decided to give them clear-cut tasks to work on.
Along with the collection, series of video w s recorded during the students’
p rticip tion in ctivities s well s when they were going on “st ge”

35
 performing their reports so that the opinions and progress the students made
were lively reflected and then reviewed carefully and more accurately,
enabled more profound assessment of the teaching and learning.
4) A te cher’s journ l, described by Miller (2004) s n excellent w y to
monitor the practice of teaching in a systematic but flexible way, was used as
a minor support in order to gain a thorough view and insight of the teaching
and learning. The journal helps to keep track of every single activity and
move during the te ching process. Murphy (2001) considered te cher’s
journal as a valuable source to get data and information about te cher’s own
judgment and evaluation of their own teaching. The journal was written with
an account of what really happened in class based on whatever I noticed and
remembered while teaching after each lesson. It was the record of all actual
activities and events, the reactions and responses of students, the atmosphere
in the cl ss, showing the students’ l ngu ge bility nd interest s well s
cooperation in joining in activities and lesson given.
2.6. The Action Research Cycles

This research was to explore the impacts of TBLT approach in teaching

gr mm r nd to find out the f ctors th t ffects my students’ l ngu ge le rning:
which motivated and facilitated them, and which hindered them from obtaining the
language. The study aimed at investigating how students view grammar, its
importance and the practice of teaching and learning grammar in a real language
classroom.

All the activities and tasks designed were undertaken in forms of group
work, pair work as well as individual. The research project was divided into two
cycles, each of which included four steps of plan, act, observe and reflect following
the model of action research by Kemmis and Mc Taggart (1982) and consisted of 8
teaching periods and lesson in class. Each cycle lasted for four weeks.

36
 In the process of carrying out the action research, the research conductor was
able to realize and study events happening in the class and then to have suitable
steps to solve the problems and change the teaching and learning practice.

Before the action research, the students were informed and introduced in
advanced about the study. All the information and details of the research such as
objectives, TBLT approach, activities, data collection and how data would be used
were explained carefully to all the students. They all agreed to participate in the
research.

2.6.1. Research cycle one

a) Planning stage

The grammatical points and learning content were carefully prepared

after I had considered the context and every related element to the
situation such as level of students, their learning styles, my own
teaching ability and so on. I decided to start with the traditional basic
knowledge of grammar, that is tenses, to carry out teaching. As the
nature of TBLT is to have tasks similar to real life ones that students
would definitely encounter in the future, I had to study and then
designed the tasks according to and compatible with each grammatical
point. Also, it was ensured that in carrying out the task, that grammar
was naturally and unavoidably used. Moreover, the knowledge and
the task must be simple enough for the students to complete
successfully and be taught carefully with proper pace so that students
could absorb, acquire and keep the knowledge for a longer time. That
is because, as mentioned above, the level of students at the time, both
grammar and vocab, are critically limited and it was necessary to
make them feel interested and motivated in taking part in activities,
not to make difficult for them.

37
The t sks were designed with reference to Ellis’ t sks nd lesson plan
samples and adaptation from tasks in Destination book series (from
grade 6 to grade 9) by Oxford press.

The lesson schedule of research cycle one as following:

Lesson Grammatical point Topic and task

1 Present simple and present At a party
continuous
2 Present simple and present Visiting a friend or
continuous relative
3 Be going to and future simple Plan a night out
4 Future simple and future continuous Me in the next 5
Review with be going to years
5 Past simple and past continuous A baseball match
6 Present perfect Write a reminding
note
7 Past simple and present perfect My hometown has
changed
8 Present and past tenses review A busy day

b) The act and observation stage

Each lesson was taught within a period with the tasks mainly related
speaking or writing activities. There are five main sub-stages in each
lesson: pre-task, task, planning, report and language focus. The lesson
always started with some warm-up activities, helping to introduce the
topic and the lesson. After that, teacher motivated students to
brainstorm the vocabulary they may need in order to accomplish the
task, corrected their spelling and added some others. Along with that,

38
students were showed several videos or listened to some typical
recording similar to the topic to have a vivid understanding of the task
and how to complete it. Then, students were paired up or divided into
groups to prepare and later to report their work, sometimes by
speaking, sometimes by writing. Finally, teacher gave comments on
their performance, corrected the mistakes, then explained the
grammatical pointed appropriate to deal with the task and gave them
practices.

During the lesson, the teacher acted as instructor and facilitator

supporting students to complete their task. It was seen that students
got some trouble with finding words as well as grammar to use. Yet
they were really interested in the tasks because those tasks made them
feel active and funny. It turned out that they just did whatever they
know both lexical and grammatical resources so long as they could do
the tasks. Thus, even with the direction and guidance of teacher, many
a time the grammatical points needed in that task were not used at any
time. However, the tasks were still completed and the purposes were
reached.

c) The reflective stage

Then the researcher decided not to have students engage in tasks right
in the beginning of a lesson. It was suggested that a lesson using task
should be embedded into a lesson using present, production and
practice model. It meant that the teacher would first introduce the
language and present the grammatical point to student then let them
practise that knowledge through doing a task. That would help
students to be able to accomplish the task better with the use of
required language and grammar.

39
 It was also suggested that in phase 2, the teaching and learning
process be performed at a lower speed with some revisions inserted
during the period so that students could have more chances and extra
time to revise the knowledge they had acquired before, including the
ones in phase 1.

2.6.2. Research cycle two

The research cycle two was carried out with all stages as in cycle one with
some adjustments and modification as suggested from the observation and
reflection stage. The content in this phase as following:

Lesson Grammatical point Topic and task

1 Conditional – Type Zero Facts and Superstitions
and 1
2 Conditional – Type 2 and What would our life be?
3
3 Revision on verb forms
4 Modal verbs: Present When in cl ss…
5 Modal verbs: Past Being a detective: what
had happened?
6 Comparisons: A films review
Comparative and
Superlative
7 Comp risons: s…. s, My progress in study
double comparisons
8 Final revision and Test

40
 CHAPTER 3: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS

In this research, the data was put into SPSS software, a popular application
supporting the presentation, description and analysis of data, giving the output data
which were then analyzed and compared to provide answer to each research
question.

The results from the two performance tests: pre-test and post-test were
compared being used to draw some conclusions. Observations through journals
were analyzed to have a better subjectively evaluation in the change in language
perform nce nd students’ re ction to the te ching ppro ch. The data collected
from the questionnaire survey were coded in put into SPSS and get the frequencies
and descriptive data for analysis.

3.1. What Are Learners’ Opinions towards Learning Grammar through

Tasks?

Survey questionnaire was distributed to students in the class so that it can

reveal their perspectives and opinions towards grammar and grammar learning in
general and learning grammar through tasks in particular. Therefore, the
questionnaire was designed with 12 big questions covering six main contents
namely students’ general information (question 1 and 2 – Q1, 2), their opinionss
toward grammar (Q3, 4), their evaluation of grammar learning (Q5, 6, 7), their own
assessment of using, applying and practicing grammar (Q8, 9, 10), the obstacles and
difficulties they face when studying grammar (Q11), their opinionss and evaluation
toward learning through tasks (Q12 with 6 sub-questions). Apart from question 11
(Q11), all other questions in the questionnaire were used to answer research
question one.

It is necess ry to h ve n over ll view on students’ opinions bout gr mm r

and grammar learning before getting to know in details those about the learning of
grammar through tasks since the generic believes definitely and virtually have

41
effects on and close relationship with the specific ones; also, it is also helpful to
compare between the two to show the changes and differences.

The descriptive data of question 1 and 2 is shown below:

Statistics

TT1 TT2

N Valid 13 13

Missing 0 0

Mean 9.46 1.62

Median 10.00 2.00

Mode 10 2

Minimum 5 1

Maximum 12 2

Table 1: Students’ general information1

TT2

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Valid Không 5 38.5 38.5

Có 8 61.5 61.5

Total 13 100.0 100.0

Table 2: Students’ general information2

It can be seen from the table that students have at least five years of learning
English and the most with 12 years and the majority of them, accounting for more
than 61 percent, studied grammar at the same time they started learning the

42
language. The value of Mean is 9.46 so the average time of learning English for all
students is nearly nine and a half year. Thus, it is concluded that students have a
long time contacting with the language as well as have a quite extensive exposure to
grammar.

So when it comes to grammar, wh t re students’ opinions? This chart below

shows the responses of all students on the aspect of interest.

Degree of interest

Very interesting
Interesting
Normal
Not interesting

Figure 2: The degree of interest to students

The students have full range of evaluation on the degree of interest from not
very interesting to very interesting, out of which “Norm l” criteri m kes up for the
highest proportion. Nearly half of the students find it neither interesting nor boring
and over 30 percent finds it interesting to study grammar. However not so
compelling it is, most students recognize the importance of grammar and its
learning when up to 93 percent agrees that grammar has a significant role in English
learning. 46 percent of which sees that grammar is important, over 15 percent thinks
that it is very important and just over 30 percent shares the idea that grammar is
quite important.

The figure is shown in this chart:

43
 Degree of importance

Very important
Important
Quite important
Not important

Figure 3: The degree of important to students

Beside the interest and importance criteria, it is also necessary to find out
students’ views when they actually learn grammar in terms of difficulty of
grammatical structure in remembering and in doing exercices.

Degree of difficulty to Easy to

remember Degree of difficulty to do
perceptiveness exercises
Can be
remembered Easy

Confusing Normal

Quite difficult
Remember
when studying Difficult
then easily
forget

Figure 4: The degree of difficulty of grammatical

Figure 5: The degree of difficulty to do exercices
structures to students’ perceptiveness

The chart above illustrates the frequency data of students’ feedb ck on how
difficult it is to remember and learn grammatical structure. In general, the results are
quite even showing that the responses are various. The majority of students find it
easy to absorb the language at the time of studying but later it is also easy to be

44
forgotten and fade away. A lower number of students with the same proportion of
23.1 percent agree that grammatical forms can be remembered or easy to remember.
Only a small proportion finds it difficult. In general, grammar and grammatical
structures are quite an average and acceptable level of difficulty for students to learn
and acquire.

Likewise, the majority of students do not get trouble when doing exercises,
seeing it quite ordinary to deal with grammatical exercises. About 30 percent of the
students find it rather difficult and another 23 percent finds it difficult, only one
student accounting for a fairly tiny proportion sees it easy to make those exercises
done.

Degree of intake

Really understand

Understand

Quite understand

Understand a
little

Figure 6: The degree of students’ intake after being taught

The similar pattern and trend are seen in the figure 5 which demonstrates the
perceptive ability of the students. A great number of students, making up 46.2
percent, comment that they quite understand the knowledge after being taught a
specific grammatical point. The second highest number reveals that they do
understand, later about one-sixth of the students says that they really and fully
understand the content, only a very minority feeds back that they can hardly take
anything in. Thus, the majority of the students are able to acquire the knowledge
when and after being taught.

From the above-mentioned analysis, it can be concluded that there is a

relationship nd consistency between the students’ over ll perspectives nd their
actual learning, as well as a relationship among the degree of difficulty of grammar

45
that students evaluate and the degree they understand, remember and acquire the
knowledge. A large percentage of students agree that grammar plays an important
role in language learning along with a medium level of interest in studying it.
Subsequently, the majority of them have no troubles in taking in the grammar,
remembering it as well as doing drills to practise it though after a while they may
forget some of the knowledge transferred to them.

So to what degree can the students use grammatical knowledge they have acquired
into practice?

Degree of flexibility

Use all the time

Realize and use

Use a little

Be confused and
mixed up

Figure 7: The degree of students’ ability to use grammatical knowledge

In term of doing cumulative exercises for the grammatical points taught

before, as illustrated in the figure above, nearly all of the students were able to use
the ones they had studied but at different levels, out of which only a fraction could
realize and take it in practice most of the time, a large portion of just over a third
respective could manage to apply it at the time then forgetting and mixing it up and
were limitedly doing practice. An extremely tiny fraction admitted that they were
constantly confused and mixed everything up.

Regarding to the application of grammar in other activities and skills, more

than half of the students conceded that encountering a task or requirement such as in
speaking and writing, they needed some time to identify which grammar was
suitable and served the enquiry best. Nearly 40 percent said that they just followed
their intuition in doing the task and only one student making up a very small
percentage admitted not knowing what to do. The figure can be seen below:

46
 Degree of application

Need time to
realize

Do as I like

Be confused and
mixed up

Figure 8: The degree of application in other activities and contexts

Taking the application and significance of grammar in language learning in

general, likewise, the majority of students making up to more than 60 percent share
the same idea that grammar help their language learning and using easier and better.
However, a quite large number also comments that they see no really explicit use of
grammar except for doing exercises and other drills. It is illustrated in the chart
below:

Grammar role

Easier to learn Figure 9: The grammar role in

language learning

Nothing changes

The survey questionnaire was sent out at the end of the research period so we
can accept that all the results and data except for questions about general
information and opinionss are the ones after being treated and all are about grammar
and learning grammar through tasks.

To make it more in details, wh t re students’ ev lu tions of learning

grammar via tasks? Based on the theories on task-based language learning, the

47
definition of task and criteria for being a task, the tasks and their practice in
grammar teaching and learning were evaluated according to six main aspects
namely the degree of interest, effectiveness, difficulty and complexity, suitability,
likeness to reality, and application.

All the six criteria were designed in Likert scale and then values in each
section were accordingly coded in SPSS from 1 to 4 with 1 is the highest and 4 is
the lowest. The general descriptive data as following:

Statistics

ĐG1 ĐG2 ĐG3 ĐG4 ĐG5 ĐG6

N Valid 13 13 13 13 13 13

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 2.23 2.23 2.46 2.31 2.23 2.00

Mode 3 2 3 2 2 2

Std. Deviation .832 .725 .660 .630 .725 .707

Variance .692 .526 .436 .397 .526 .500

Sum 29 29 32 30 29 26

Table 3: Students’ evaluation on learning grammar via tasks

It can be easily seen that students have been positive about tasks and their
uses with the Mean values are around 2.0 and the most frequent answers are 2 and 3
respectively. Some students even commented with the highest degree. The
Variance and Std. Deviation values are all under 1.00, showing that all scores are
quite close to Mean with not much variation.

Taking a closer look at each criterion, it is better to analyze one in

comparison with another. To begin with, the data shows that most students are quite
affirmative as the learning through tasks was interesting and effective, helping them
to make some progress. As for the degree of interest, the majority of students shared

48
the idea that the tasks were just ordinary and quite caught their attention and
interest. Meanwhile, about one third of the students saw that the use of tasks in
learning was interesting and nearly one fourth found it very interesting in studying
via accomplishing a task. Though the majority saw learning grammar through tasks
as normal and ordinary in term of interest, they agreed that it was effective in
helping them to study, and 15 percentages even commented that it was extremely
effective. It is also noted that no students saw tasks and its approach were
uninteresting or ineffective. The figures can be seen in these following descriptive
charts:

Degree of interesting Degree of effectiveness

Very interesting Very effective

Interesting Effective

Normal Normal

Figure 10: The interesting degree of learning

Figure 11: The effectiveness degree of
grammar via tasks learning grammar via tasks
Regarding to the degree of difficulty and suitability, it can be seen from the
data that most students felt that the task are difficult and suitable enough for them
and basically matched with their ability. In term of difficulty and complexity, more
than half of the students saw that they could take in the knowledge without exerting
too much effort and just over a third of the students saw it difficult, and a tiny
faction found it very difficult because they need a lot of effort even out of their
present ability. The percentages are the same in suitability aspect but with a little
different in distribution. Likewise, 53.8 percent of the students said that the tasks
were suitable to them while 38.5 percent of them found it suitable at average level
and a tiny faction saw that the tasks fitted them well. In general, the tasks and

49
learning via tasks are difficultly and suitably satisfactory to students. The data are
shown in the following figures:

Degree of task Degree of task suitability

difficulty

Very difficult Very suitable

Difficult Suitable

Normal Normal

Figure 12: The degree of task difficulty Figure 13: The degree of task suitability

Finally regarding to the degree of likeness to reality and applicability, all

students had positive feedbacks on the two criteria and it is seen that there is a co-
relation between the two. Considering the likeness to reality, the majority of the
students saw the tasks similar to the ones in real life and over 15 percent of them
even said the tasks were nearly exactly the same as they are in reality; meanwhile,
the rest saw no particularly special relation between their studying with tasks and
their use of language in practical life. In term of applicability, the students’
responses are more easily seen. Most of the students agreed that the tasks and
learning using them helped them in their real life and could be applicable in
practical situations with more than 53 percent of the students said the tasks had
applicability and over 23 percent of them found the tasks high and strong in
application whereas another 23 percent saw no specific and clear application of
those tasks. In short, all of the students are positive about the likeness to reality and
applicability with the majority is in favor of those two criteria. It is also necessary to
note that the feedbacks of the students on how similar the tasks to the ones in real

50
life are compatible with their responses on how applicable and practical those tasks
are in practice. The charts below illustrate the features:

Degree of likeness to Degree of applicability

reality
Highly
Very similar applicable

Applicable
Similar

Normal
Normal

Figure 14: The degree of task’s likeness Figure 15: The degree of task’ applicability
to reality

In conclusion, though having a long time exposure to English and generally

realize the importance of grammar in studying English, the majority of the students
do not have much interest and attention to it. There seems to have a relationship
between how they perceive grammar and the way they study it. Eventually, most of
them are basically able to remember the grammar structure and absorb the amount
of knowledge taught to them and do the according practice exercises. However, the
majority of them have got some difficulties using their previous learning into
accumulative practice and into practical application in their daily life though they
are aware that grammar helps them in bettering their language ability.

After having experienced studying grammar through tasks, all the students
have positive responses, showing that they see the treatment is quite interesting and
effective with an appropriate difficulty, complexity and proper suitability. The tasks
are considered fairly similar to the ones in real life so that they can be quite
applicable.

51
3.2. To What Extent Does the Teaching of Grammar through Tasks Help
Learners Use Grammar?

To explore the extent to which teaching of grammar through tasks help

learners use gr mm r, proficiency tests nd students’ collection were used. The test
results of the performance tests which are quantitative data served as the main
source for evaluating the effectiveness and drawing conclusions, along with the
support of the n lysis of some qu lit tive d t got from students’ collection.

The results of the pre-test and post-test are put into SPSS and then analyzed
using Paired Samples T-test to show the differences and the relationship between
the two. Paired Samples T-test is used based one group of individuals who
experience both conditions of the variables of the interest in order to reveal the
changes.

Paired Samples Statistics

Std. Error
Mean N Std. Deviation Mean

Pair 1 Test scores in the

6.0308 13 1.58713 .44019
beginning

Test scores at the end 6.9846 13 1.26547 .35098

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 Test scores in the

beginning & Test scores 13 .825 .001
at the end

Table 4: Paired Sample T-test Statistics

52
 From the above tables, the Mean values in two variables test scores in the
beginning and test scores at the end are different, showing that a change has
happened during the research period. Moreover, the Mean value in the pre-test
scores is 6.0308 while the Mean value in the post-test scores is much higher at
6.9846. The figures indicate that the results of the students after being treated with
learning grammar through tasks are better than before experiencing that teaching
and learning approach. It means that the students have improved their language
competence particularly regarding grammar knowledge.

Besides, the Std. Deviation value which shows the standard deviation of the
different scores is 1.58713 for the pre-test scores, slightly higher than that for the
post-test scores at 1.26547. It can be inferred from the figure that there are greater
differences between scores, or in other words between the students, in the beginning
of the research course than at the end of the course, showing that students after
getting treatment are more even in language competence.

The Correlation value (r = 0.825) shows that the scores in the beginning and
the scores at the end are significantly positively related. Thus, there is a
considerable positive relation between pre-test results and post-test results.

The table below shows a more holistic view:

53
Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Std. Std. Error Sig. (2-
Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df tailed)

Test scores in the

beginning – - -
.89779 .24900 -1.49637 -.41132 12 .002
.95385 3.831
Test scores at the end

Table 5: Paired Sampled T-test p-value

It can be easily seen that the Mean value in the paired differences is 0.95385,
which means on average the test scores at the end of the course is nearly one point
higher than in the beginning. The t-value is minus 3.831 with the degree of freedom
df-value is 12 indicating that there is a difference between pre-test scores and post-
test scores. The Sig. or p-value is 0.002, less than 0.05, so all the statistics and
figures are statistically meaningful. Thus, it can be concluded that there is a
statistically significant difference between the test scores in the beginning of the
course and at the end of the course that are clearly presented in the Mean values.
Since the Paired Samples Statistics box reveals that the Mean number of pre-test
scores is greater than the Mean number for the post-test scores, we can conclude
that students are better at grammar and English and get higher results after
experiencing learning grammar through tasks than before.

Through students’ collections, it can also be seen that students made fewer
mistakes in general and far fewer common mistakes. Moreover, their uses of
language seemed to be a little more flexible with a better use of vocabulary and
grammar.

54
 In the very first lesson of Present simple and Present continuous, which are
also two very basic tenses, students were asked to complete a table with simple
sentences about “Wh t I do nd wh t I m doing”. Six of the students could
complete the tables with no major mistakes, three of them made some mistakes on
vocabulary, prepositions or using V-ing without to be; for example, I go to back
hometown, I go to at home, I do feed pet at 6pm, I watching film in the cinema at
present or I am girlfriend home at the moment. Two of the students could not finish
the table and two of them filled with mistakes in all sentences they made, especially
with the basic one, using tobe and verbs together in a simple sentence. The pictures
below show some:

55
 After another four lessons, in the lesson of Past simple and Past continuous,
ten out of thirteen students were successful in writing a full about 100-word essay
of their own. They could basically use past tenses in telling a story. One third of the
students had meaningful writing with barely major mistakes, another one third
basically completed the task with average five to seven mistakes on verbs and
vocabulary. The rest mainly got troubles with some sentence structures and words
orders . Some mistakes were found with the conjugation of verbs, mixed uses of
verb tobe and other verbs, mixed uses of present and past tenses. The most
noticeable errors met were ungrammatical sentences because students put words in
wrong orders.

The pictures below show the examples of three groups respectively:

56
57
 In phase two of the research session, most students could make and create
their own sentences with no major errors of verb conjugation or mixed uses of verb
tobe ad verb. The performance can be seen in the lesson of Comparisons and
Conditionals as following:

58
59
 The te cher’s journ l along with some extracts from class videos also
showed that through tasks with specific life-familiar topics and mostly speaking
activities, students could not only improve their grammar and grammatical
application particularly in terms of accuracy but also their speaking skill, in terms of
both fluency and accuracy.

In summary, it is proved from both quantitative data of test results and

qu lit tive d t of students’ collections long with te cher’s observ tion nd journ l
that the majority of students performed better not only in their performance in test
but also in their ability in using language in other writing practices after having
learnt grammatical points though tasks with specific topics. The application of tasks
in te ching students gr mm r, therefore, h d some positive imp cts on students’
learning progress.

60
3.3. What Are the Constraints and Obstacles to Students in Learning
Grammar Through Tasks?

In order to answer the research question, question of the questionnaire was

used long with te cher’s journ l which w s recorded by the researcher during the
action time. The questionnaire was to find out which difficulties the students faced
with during their English and grammar learning. The obstacles that were given in
advance for students includes the lack of lexis, inability of using the words though
knowing them, inability to recall and apply the suitable grammar, being able to
remember grammatical knowledge but be confused of which to use, knowing the
words and grammar but get difficult to make it into one complete sentence and
thought.

The students’ feedb cks re shown in the following t ble:

Difficulty Frequencies

Responses
Percent of
N Percent Cases

Kho_khana KK1 11 31.4% 84.6%

KK2 2 5.7% 15.4%

KK3 4 11.4% 30.8%

KK4 10 28.6% 76.9%

KK5 8 22.9% 61.5%

Total 35 100.0% 269.2%

Table 6: Students’ difficulties in learning grammar

61
 What can be noticeably seen from the table is that students have struggled
with all the problems raised with different degrees. Out of which, three most
frequent obstacles are the lack of lexical resource, confusion about which
grammatical formation should be used, tangle of arranging vocabulary and grammar
into a meaningful sentence.

The majority of students, approximately one third of all the students,

revealed that they do not have enough vocabulary to fulfill the tasks, even fully
understand exercises or tasks given to them. Roughly over 28 percent of the
students admitted that they could not identify which grammar was suitable and best
fitted the tasks although they all had already learned and known the knowledge
before. In contrast, nearly 23 percent said that they could identify the grammar to
use but they got confused and lost in a tangle when putting all of the grammar,
vocabulary and ideas into a meaningful and accurate sentence.

The two least mentioned hindrances that prevented students from learning
English and grammar are the inability to mobilize and use the words though
knowing them and the failure to recall and apply suitable grammar. Only a small
number of students (5.7 percent) could say that they knew some vocabulary but got
troubles in putting it into practice when necessary. The other 11.4 percent even
could not recall grammar and then choose the right one to apply in the context.

Looking separately into each hurdle, we could see that the pattern was
similar to the general picture with the corresponding percentage. Most of the
students, nearly 85 percent, got troubles with vocabulary, which means that most of
them did not have sufficient lexical resource to complete the task. Coming next is
the students who might have the grammar in their mind but did not know which one
to choose, making up 76.9 percent. The third is with the students who could identify
the grammar needed but could not put the words and arrange ideas in a right order,
accounting for 61.5 percent. In contrast, 30.8 percent of the students had difficulties

62
in recalling grammar to use and only 15.4 percent had troubles in using and
applying the words they already knew into specific situations.

In summary, it can be concluded from the descriptive data extracted from the
questionnaire survey that the major obstacles and difficulties for students in learning
grammar in particular and English in general are the lack of vocabulary and failure
in employing suitable grammar and applying their knowledge grammatically and
meaningfully accurately.

The record from te cher’s journ l during the rese rch period proved the
conclusion as well. The most noticeable and common problem that the teacher saw
during the course is that students were critically short of vocabulary and lexical
resource. Due to their very beginner level as well as the fact that most of their time
in learning language before was for grammar and all the knowledge was used
nowhere except in doing exercises, they generally did not have any ranges of words
even with the basic and most common ones. In fact, they might have learnt the
words before, but because they did not have chance to use that vocabulary, it
gradually faded away and disappeared. It is clear that words which are not used
regularly or in a regular basis will soon become old and disappear, replaced by the
new ones.

For example, when studying Present simple and Present continuous with the
topic “Visiting friend or rel tives”, students were b rely ble to extr ct voc bul ry
to talk about what they usually do every day and what are they doing on the day.
The most frequent verbs and phrases they could brainstorm were go to bed, go to
school, do homework, play games, watch TV, cook. Otherwise, teacher played the
key role in helping them with vocabulary. Similarly, in the lesson of Future simple
nd Ne r future with the t sk “Pl n night out”, though h ving listened to video
showing two people plan a night with related vocabulary, the words the students
could speak out were only go out, go shopping, play games and eat. Even after
teacher had helped them with all the words needed, they could not make use of that

63
resource and maximize the use of the lexis given. They got trouble in making all the
ideas connected to have a better, more meaningful and logical dialogue.

In the context of priv te center, besides the limit in students’ own l ngu ge
competence, the teaching of grammar through tasks faced with several other
obstacles as well.

Due to the f ct th t the Centre h d no policy or punishment on students’

attendance, plus it is a private center which students chose themselves to help to
improve their English, the students were not forced or had no obligation to attend all
classes. Therefore, the students sometimes missed lessons causing discontinuous
pattern in the process of studying. Moreover, except for their own intrinsic
motivation, they did not have much motivation to get better mark as they did at
school.

That the lack of attendance also made the class connection among students
loose, along with their being shy and resistant to speak, created barriers for students
when they worked together in pairs or in groups which are two major forms of
activities of tasks. Not all of them could find suitable partners to pair up or work,
plus all mentioned conditions, making the students less cooperative in working in
teams. Besides, most of them lacked team working skills. All combined together
hindered the completion of tasks from being fully successful.

In short, the inherently poor language competence especially grammar and

lexis in students themselves who sought for improvement in private establishment
long with the conditions nd students’ m n ging mech nism in the priv te center
itself were the primary obstacles that caused obstruction to the learning through
tasks of students.

To sum up, this chapter had answered all the three research questions. By
n lyzing the d t collected from questionn ire survey, perform nce test, students’

64
collections nd te cher’s journ l, the researcher have drawn out some main findings
as following:

- Students realized the importance of grammar and grammar learning but

found it unappealing. They could remember grammatical structures,
understand the rules and usages but had great difficulty in using those
structures into doing cumulative exercises especially in speaking or writing.
- Students found learning grammar through tasks more interesting and
effective. They also saw that learning grammar through tasks promote and
facilitate them in using the knowledge in real life better. In general, they are
all in favor of this teaching and learning approach.
- Students’ perform nce in both tests nd other pr ctic l skills like writing nd
speaking was higher after the study course. Their language competence
improved considerably.
- The application of tasks in teaching grammar got some difficulties because
the language proficiency level of the students was too low and the students
critically lacked of vocabulary, which hindered the approach from being
fully effective. Besides, the conditions and management mechanism of a
private center were obstacles for the research as well.

65
 PART C: CONCLUSION

In this part, the researcher would summarize the research scopes and results
as well as present some recommendations for further implementation of task-based
approach, ending up with conclusions.

1. Capitulation

As stated previously, the study was an action research with a view to

examining the use of tasks in teaching grammar in the context of a private center to
see students’ perspectives bout gr mm r nd the approach, impacts the approach
had on students and the constraints of application.

The teaching using tasks were carried out for 8 weeks with 16 periods,
divided into two phases. The pre-test and post-test were given to students in order to
get results to assess their performance. Then the T-test was used to statistically
analyze the results, giving conclusion of whether students improve their language
proficiency or not; to dr w more comprehensive conclusion, the students’
collections nd te cher’s journal were used to give some supports and more
convincing data. The survey questionnaire was also delivered to students following
the end of the study to thoroughly explore what they think of grammar and learning
it through tasks. The survey along with teacher’s journ l nd observ tion reve led
the obstacles for applying tasks to teach grammar particularly in a private center as
well.

Accordingly, both quantitative and qualitative data with descriptive statistics

and pictures showed that there is statistically significant difference between pre-test
performance and post-test performance. The mean score of the test results at the end
of the research was found considerably higher than the ones at the beginning. Plus,
the p-value was lower than 0.05, therefore, the null hypothesis that there would not

66
be any difference between the language competence of students before and after the
study was rejected. Instead, the alternative hypothesis was drawn for conclusion is
that teaching grammar through tasks or in other words, by using task-based
approach, was effective.

As a result, it is concluded that after having experienced 8 weeks of research,

students performed significantly better than they did before thanks to the exposure
to learning grammar via tasks.

The points analyzed and discussed according to research questions are

compiled hereafter:

- The students had positive views on grammar and learning grammar with a
clear perception of grammar significance and some interest put in it.
- The students could take the knowledge and language in but had difficulty in
using it in a larger and more complicated context and often got confused in
the combination with many other grammatical points.
- After experiencing studying grammar through tasks, students performed
better in respect to grammar, both in performance test and in producing
meaningful and grammatical sentences and short paragraph to express their
own ideas.
- The activities and tasks did help students to improve their speaking skill
especially in terms of fluency and accuracy. The pair work and group work
activities also encourage students to work side by side each other, to
cooperate with other friends; therefore, the tasks were found suitable in
promoting team and group work skills as well as cooperation skill. The
natural use of pair work and group work in tasks caused some obstacles for
students particularly at the first stage if they were unsuitable matched or
teamed up.
- The students viewed tasks and the studying through tasks positively. Their
clear-cut responses regarding the criteria of interest, effectiveness, suitability,

67
 complexity and applicability proved that they were in favor of this approach
and the knowledge they learnt could be practical in real life.
- Due to their low language proficiency from the start, the students got a bunch
of obstructions during their study, the two most common and noticeable out
of which were the lack of vocabulary to complete the tasks or exercises and
unst ble gr mm tic l r nge. Besides, students’ shyness s well s their we k
interpersonal and team work skills also caused obstructions for them.
- The application of tasks in teaching grammar in a private center had its own
constraints as well. That it is a private center and students had no obligation
to attend all the lessons as well as fulfill other requirements such as score as
in their universities to some extent hindered the teaching and lessened the
effectiveness of the approach
2. Recommendations

The researcher had gone through almost all important issues related to the
study, all research questions had been answered and some conclusions had been
drawn out. Before going to give some recommendations, it is essential to point out
the benefits of integrating task-based approach with the use of tasks in teaching
grammar to students:

 T sks nd the ccording ctivities triggered students’ interest nd

motivation as well as enhanced their involvement in learning grammar

Learning grammar was more interesting and enjoyable to students

when they were involved in meaningful activities that were quite similar to
the ones in the real life. Being able to see the benefits and application of
those activities by themselves, students would also be more motivated and
would more actively and enthusiastically participate in the lessons because
those tasks were authentic and beneficial to them not only right then but later
in their learning and real lives.

68
 Also, though when accomplishing tasks, the students tended to focus
on the task and completion of that task rather than learn language, they
unconsciously recall and reinforce all their language knowledge including
lexical resource and grammatical structures in that attempt to fulfill the task.
Therefore, they naturally achieved language knowledge during the process.

In the desire to complete a meaningful and better task in compared to

other teams or students, the students were also motivated to improve their
language proficiency by seeking help from the teacher and from other
partners.

 The use of tasks facilitated students to use grammar knowledge into

practice

The t sks put students in “ uthentic” nd “re l” situ tions or

situations relevant to their lives so that to be a part of the contexts, students
had to mobilize all their grammatical structures to make them understood, to
make their speech or writing meaningful to others. The grammar use in the
specific cases like that by students themselves would be kept in students
mind longer and more deeply. The students would bear in minds
grammatical structures as well as the usages so that they could bring them
out and use later in other situations and practice.

 The t sks could not only improve students’ gr mm r knowledge nd

writing skill but also their speaking skill both fluently and accurately

The tasks were designed with mainly speaking activities; thus, doing
tasks required student to speak a lot and subsequently would facilitate the
communication and interaction among students. Nunan (1991) also proved
that impact when stating that task-based language teaching had the emphasis
on learning to communicate via interaction in the target language.

69
 In the accomplishment of tasks, students also had more time of
exposure to language and more interaction with others through frequent in-
class discussion, pair work and group work.

 Tasks encouraged students to work with others and then promoted their
team working skill as well as their cooperative and collaborative learning.

Most of the tasks related to pair work or team work, so students were
required to work closely in groups, working with each other to successfully
fulfill the tasks, at the same time demonstrating their own ideas and
individual strengths.

Those are the benefits of using tasks in teaching language in general and
grammar in particular. To make the best of tasks, that is to promote the highest
beneficial effects of task-based approach while reducing the difficulties or obstacles
during the teaching, it is necessary to thoroughly understand both its benefits and
the obstructions for applying it.

Going through all the strengths and weaknesses of using tasks, the researcher
could give some recommendations for the application of tasks in teaching grammar:

 Students who involve in the learning should be at specific level of

English, not too low so that they can successfully fulfill the tasks as well
as make the best use of tasks. Otherwise, the tasks should be used in
combination with other approach such as Presentation-Practice-
Production; for example, use tasks in the Production stage of PPP
approach.
 Since the tasks should be implemented in action and specific actual
situ tion, the t sks should be designed to m tch with students’ l ngu ge
proficiency and interest, neither too demanding to students nor too easy
to them, so that their interest will be promoted and their competence and
potential are exploited and enhanced.

70
 In order that the students would be able to flexibly use English language
in real social context, lesson of grammar and language should be
delivered applying tasks to encourage students make use of all their
language knowledge into serving a clear purpose. That would help them
remember the structures and usages longer and more deeply, also
encourage them to interact to others, so both their communication and
written skills are improved.
 The tasks, therefore, should be designed in natural and actual situations
th t re close to students’ re l lives so th t students re interested in doing
tasks and complete the tasks successfully acquiring the target language.
 The teacher is an instructor and supervisor to give instructions, guidance
to students and supervise the flow of doing the tasks. Moreover, the
teacher is supposed to be a participant in the class, serving as an assistant
to provide help when necess ry to reduce students’ frustr tion s well s
the difficulty of the tasks.
 Though having to fully support students, teachers should not interfere too
much on students’ work bec use th t would c use interruption to
students’ ide s or flow of completing the tasks. The tasks should be the
work nd chievement of students with te cher’s guid nce nd support.
Willis (1996) lso st ted th t “for the te cher who h s just introduced nd
set up a task-based cycle for the first time, the biggest challenging of all
is processing the strength of mind to stand back with confidence and to
let le rners get on with their own le rning”. The te cher should only
intervene when students focus too much on completing the tasks and then
ignore grammatical aspects that cause basic and serious mistakes.
 After each lesson or even within the lesson, the teacher should have the
assessment and evaluation of the teaching and studying to have suitable
and timely adjustment.

71
  Teachers who apply task-based approach should have some experience in
language teaching because the nature of flexibility, complication and
creativity of tasks require some specific level of experience and expertise
from teacher to implement tasks.
 Therefore, as language teachers, the teachers should constantly update
their professional knowledge and gain experience as well as lessons from
other colleagues especially the senior ones so that teachers could deal
with problems arising during the teaching. It is better for teachers decide
which teaching strategies are appropriate and later can adjust them
ccording to their students’ psychologic l ch r cteristics nd b sed on
actual contexts. Besides, it is essential that the teachers be flexible and
active in their teaching methods, skills, and be creative in choosing and
using activities.
 The application of tasks and task-based approach should be carried out in
an appropriate scale, for example in many different classes in a school or
institution, both intensively and extensively so that lessons and issues
related can be discussed together and have suitable solutions. The use of
tasks by only one or some teacher or in one class would lead to real
problems when the teacher encounters difficulties but lack of expertise
and profession to tackle the problems themselves.

3. Pedagogical Implications and Suggestions for Further Research

By getting students to do tasks especially with the final objective of learning

grammar which strongly show the conflicting demands of task-based approach and
grammar teaching, a lot of information can be found and analyzed. The information
of the study provides some worthy d t bout students’ gr mm r perspectives nd
learning, therefore, giving direction to improve it.

72
 The results may be of relevance and even importance for teachers and some
novice researchers to have better understanding of task-based approach and the
relationship between tasks and learning grammar. The lessons used in the study can
be used as a reference for other teachers to design tasks and improve them to serve
the purpose of teaching grammar best.

The types of tasks in the study may be given as a measure to teachers when
choosing which task and grammatical structure are suitable and compatible and
when deciding the appropriate time allocated to each structure or each stage of a
task cycle.

The study as an action research can become another evidence to prove for the
application of tasks in language teaching particularly in teaching grammar. Along
with other previous ones, those kinds of study seem to make teachers who are about
to use the approach or who are still skeptical or resistant to the practice feel more
comfortable and more confident in applying tasks and task-based approach in
language classes.

The following studies can replicate this study with appropriate adjustments
and adaptations as suggested in the limitations such as to a bigger population so that
they can draw their own conclusions while accepting the above ones with
confidence.

The study has investigated the applying of tasks in teaching grammar in a

form of an action research making use of various research methods and instruments
in examine the actual process of teaching and learning grammar via tasks, the
students’ perspectives, nd contextu l f ctors ffecting the pplic tion. Such
research direction may be more fruitful if other further research follow the direction
appropriately and properly.

73
 The researcher, therefore, should suggest some topics and to-be-considered
questions to other research in task-based approach and in applying tasks in teaching
grammar in the future:

- Improving grammar and accuracy in speaking skill by applying task-based

approach
- Using tasks to teach grammar to students of good language proficiency
- The application of task-based teaching and learning to students of different
language levels
- Students’ motiv tion when studying gr mm r through tasks in comparison
with Presentation-Practice-Production approach
- Students’ motiv tion when studying gr mm r through t sks in comp rison
with Grammar-Translation methodology
- Cooperating task-based approach and Presentation-Practice-Production
methodology in teaching grammar
- What types of tasks do students perceive as more effective to their grammar
learning?
- Wh t imp cts does e ch type of t sks h ve on students’ le rning?
- What are constraints and obstacles to teachers when teaching grammar using
tasks?
- What re te chers’ perspectives of te ching gr mm r through t sks?
- What activities can be used in doing tasks?
4. Limitations of the Study

Though the study has drawn some significant insights into the teaching of
grammar via task particularly in the context of a private center, contributing a
moderate part in the vast universe of research and studies on task-based language
teaching, it does have some certain limitations and drawbacks as any other studies.

The study was carried out in only one small class with 13 participants;
therefore, the sample size or population was not large enough to find significant

74
relationships from the data. Hence, the results and findings of this study can be only
applied and restricted to the scope and context of the study in a private center, and
cannot be generalized. The model of the study can be applied more successfully and
reliably when being carried out in a larger scale with bigger population.

The qu lit tive d t from students’ collection might not be completely

reliable because the students were required to do writings in some lessons not all;
besides, not all students did every single writing task given to them. Moreover, each
student could have some preference and better knowledge in some specific
grammatical points, and they could get help from others or on Internet or from other
tools when they did at home. Those are reasons why the collections may not fully
reflect students’ l ngu ge competence nd improvement. Th t is lso the re son
why this type of data was not mainly or thoroughly used and analyzed but only
served as a supporting one. This limitation can be overcome by the regular writing
collection after every lesson with some active writings right in the classroom.

In addition, the teacher and the researcher is just more than a novice with a
little experience in teaching especially in doing research, so there did appear some
obvious mistakes during the teaching and carrying out the study. For example, the
teacher sometimes found the time allocation for each part mixed up during the
lesson, sometimes lacked of time and had trouble with time management as well as
monitoring the class and lead them to the path that the teacher wanted them to.
Although the problem was anticipated before the research, it was not thoroughly
resolved in the study though the researcher had done her best. Moreover, the study
was carried out in a small private center and the academic team was not so strong
that the teacher did not receive any support from the center in terms of profession.
Other research or studies with more experienced teachers as well as in formal or
state schools or more professional education institutions would certainly make the
better, creating more complete and meaningful pictures.

75
 Also owning to the fact that it was a private center, the quality of students as
well s students’ opinions to their study were not ensured, affecting the quality of
data and the study.

5. Conclusion

This study, which was carried out in the form of an action research with
various quantitative and qualitative instruments to get both types of data, though
limited in scope and resources, was an attempt to explore the application of tasks in
teaching grammar in a private English center. The theory of task-based approach
that the study followed and modified and adapted is of Nunan (2004), Willis and
Willis (1996) in the model of action research of Kemmis and McTaggart (1988).
The findings have shed new light on the use of task-based approach in teaching and
the impact of applying tasks in improving students’ gr mm r le rning. The survey
questionnaire indicated favorable opinionss and perspectives of students toward
grammar and grammar learning through tasks. The results of the study provided
obvious evidence that task-based approach had positively significant influence on
the grammatical and language proficiency of low-level students. The students after
having experienced learning grammar via doing tasks performed better than before.
The t sks h d improved students’ gr mm r competence in exercises drilling,
writing and to some extent in speaking. The findings also showed the constraints
and difficulties in applying tasks in teaching grammar particularly in the context of
priv te center th t were m inly due to the le rners’ in dequ te nd poor l ngu ge
competence as well as the managements and academic limits from the center itself.
All means that task-based approach and the application of tasks had a positive and
significant effect on language learners in grammar learning through this method of
teaching and learning.

The study may be useful in providing teachers with some insight into how
important task-based approach in the process of teaching and learning grammar;
thus, may encourage teachers to utilize task-based language teaching and learning in

76
practice as well as find better techniques on how to apply tasks in teaching
grammar. It will also motivate and promote positive and active opinionss towards
the use of tasks in grammar instruction. Obviously, task-based language teaching
and learning can become a promising path for teachers to do further research,
optimize the pr ctic l uses of resources, nd ultim tely m ximize students’ le rning
grammar. It is also hoped that the limitations from the study be fixed and improved
and all the findings from this study will contribute to encourage language teachers
to continue this type of pedagogy, especially in teaching grammar to make this
well-known boring section more interesting and practical in real life.

77
 REFERENCES

Allwright, D. & Bailey, K. (1991). Focus on the language classroom (1st ed.). Cambridge
[England]: Cambridge University Press.

Bachman, L. & Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford Unversity Press.
Branden, K. V. d. (2006). Task-based language education: from theory to practice.
Cambridge University Press.
Breen, M. (1987). Learner contributions to task design. In C. Candlin & D. Murphy (eds.),
Language Learning Tasks.
Bugler, D. & Hunt, A. (2002). Implementing task-based language teaching.

Burns, A. (2005). Action research: An evolving paradigm. Language Teaching, 38, 57-74.

Bygate, M., Skehan, P. & Swanin, M. (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks: second
language language learning. Longman Press.
Canh, L.V (2002). Sustainable professional development of ELF teachers in Vietnam.
Teacher’s Edition, 10.
Canh, L. V., & Banard, R. (2009). Ciricular innovation behind closed classroom doors: A
Vietnam case study. Prospect, 24 (2).
Carroll, J. (1993). Human cognitive abilities. Cambridge University Press.
Crookes, G. (1986). Task classification: A cross-disciplinary review. University of Hawaii
Curriculum Development Council. (1999). Syllabuses for Secondary Schools: English
Language (Secondary 1-5). Hong Kong: Education Department.

DeKeyser, R (1998). Beyond focus on form: cognitive perspectives on learning and

practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty and J. William, Focus on form
in classroom second language acquisition (p. 423-43). New York: Cambride
university press

Doughty, C. & William, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language

acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
Edwards, C. & Willis, J. (2005). Teacher exploring tasks in English language teaching.
Ellis, N. (2001). Memory for language. In P. Robinson, Cognition and second langauge
instruction. Cambridge University Press.

78
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language teaching and learning. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R. (2014). Taking the critics to task: the case for task-based teaching. Proceedings of
ClaSIC 2014.
Fotos, S. & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar. A task based approach.
TESOL Quarterly, 25, 605-628

Hedge, T (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroon. Oxford: Oxford
University Press

Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (1982). The action research reader . Deakin University
Press, Australia.

Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research reader. Deakin University
Press, Australia.

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second language acquisition.

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems.

Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: some questions and suggestions.

Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based
langauge language teaching.
Long, M. (1998). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. University of Hawaii
Working Papers in ESL.
Lopez, J. (n.d.). Introducing TBI for teaching English in Brazil.

McKay, S. L. (2002). Teaching English as an international language: rethinking goals and

approaches.
Miller, L. (2004). Teacher as researchers: Teacher journals. MET Journal. 13(14), 39-41.

Mohammadi, M. (2006). The effect of Task-based method on learning of There is/ There
are in English. M.A Thesis. Isfahan, Isfahan University.

Murphy, M. J. (2001). Reflective Teaching in ELT. Teaching English as a Second or

Foreign Language, 499-514.

Norris, J. (2000). Purposeful language assessment. English Teaching Forum, 38.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge
University Press.

79
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-Based Language Teaching: Cambridge University Press.
Pine, G. J. (2009). Teacher action research: Building knowledge democracies. SAGE
Publications, Inc.

Prabhu, N. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford University Press.

Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (2001). Handbook of action research (1st ed.). SAGE
Publications.
Richard, J. C. (1991). The context of language teaching.
Richards, J. C. (1999). Addressing the grammar gap in task work. Prospect, 141(1), 4-19.
Richards, J., Platt, J. & Weber, H. (1985). Longman dictionary of applied linguistics.
Longman Press.
Richards, J. C., & Farrell, T. C. (2005). Professional development for language teachers:
Strategies for teacher learning. Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2010). Methodology in language teaching: an

anthology of current practice. 5-19, 145-167. Cambridge University Press.
Rodgers, J. C. R. a. T. S. (1995). Approaches and methods in language teaching.
Cambridge University Press.

Rogers, C. V. & Medley, F. W. (1988). Language with a purpose: Using authentic

materials in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annuals, 21, 467-
478.

Shehadeh, A. & Coombe, C. A. (eds) (2012). Task-based language teaching in foreign

language contexts.

Skehan, P. (1996a). Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In

Willis, J., & Wilis, D. (1996). Chanllenge and change in languae teaching.

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press

Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language teaching Journal.

Skehan, P. (2003). Focus on form, tasks and techinology. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 16.

Stringer, E. T. (1996). Action research: a handbook for practitioners. SAGE Publications

80
Tale, S. M. (2014). The impacts of task-based teaching on grammar learning by Iranian
first grade high school students. International Journal of Applied Linguistics &
English Literature, 4.

Thao, L. T. P. (2009). A Comparative study of the effect of a task-based teaching and

traditional method to grammar instruction at Vietnamese upper secondary schools.
M.A Thesis.

Wallace, M. J. (1998). Action research for language teachers. Cambridge University

Press.

Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based language learning. Longman Press.

Willis, J & Willis, D. (1996). Challenge and change in language teaching.

Willis, J & Willis, D. (2001). Task-based language learning.

Willis, J. & Willis, D. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford University Press.

Wood, E. (1995). Introduction to grammar. Penguin Books Ltd.

81
 APPENDIX I

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

This questionn ire ims t investig ting students’ opinionss towards grammar and
grammar learning through tasks. This questionnaire will be used for the purpose of
data analysis only. We would highly appreciate if you could respond to the
questions below. Your confidentiality is assured in any circumstances.

1. How long have you learned English?

2. Did you learn grammar at the same time you started learning English
A. Yes
B. No

If your nswer is “No”, when?

3. To you, grammar is:

1. Very 2. Interesting 3. Normal 4. Boring 5. Very
interesting boring

4. How important is grammar to your English learning?

1. Very important 2. Important 3. Quite important

4. a little important 5. No important

5. To you, grammatical structures are:

1. Very easy to 2. Easy to remember 3. Can be remembered

remember
4. Confusing 5. Can remember when 6. No way to remember
studying then easily
forget

6. At present, grammatical exercises you are doing are:

1. Very 2. Easy 3. Normal 4. Quite 5. Difficult 6. Very
easy difficult difficult

7. After being taught a grammar lesson, how much do you understand?

1. Really 2. 3. Quite 4. 5. Not

I
 understand Understand understand Understand a understand
little

If you choose 1/2/3/4, please continue:

8. How can you use the grammar in doing exercises:
1. Can use all the time freely
2. Can realize and use
3. Can use after studying but forget later
4. Can use a little
5. Be confused and mixed up with others
6. Can not use

9. When you get a task (speaking, writing,…), you:

1. Can immediately choose the right grammar and use
2. Need a while to realize what to use
3. Do as you like as long as the others understand
4. Get confused and do not know what to do

10. After learning grammar, you see:

1. It is e sier to le n other skills such s writing, spe king….
2. No use rather than doing exercises
3. Nothing changes
4. Others:

11. Your difficulties in learning English and grammar:

1. Lack of vocabulary
2. Know the words but can not use
3. Cannot remember grammar to use
4. Know all grammar but do not know what to use
5. Know the grammar but do not know how to make correct sentence
6. Others

II
12. How do you see the learning grammar through tasks? Tick 1-4 in which
1 is the highest degree and 4 is the lowers degree. For example: 1-Very
interesting, 2- Interesting, 3- Normal, 4- Not interesting

1 2 3 4
Interesting
Effective
Difficult
Suitable and appropriate
Similar to real life
Applicable

Thank you for your answers!

III
 PHIẾU HỎI KHẢO SÁT

Phiếu câu hỏi nhằm mục đích nghi n cứu khảo sát thái độ củ sinh vi n đối với việc
học ngữ pháp và học ngữ pháp thông qua các nhiệm vụ. Phiếu câu hỏi được sử dụng
cho mục đích phân tích số liệu nhằm phục vụ chỉ cho nghiên cứu này. Chúng tôi rất
trân trọng nếu bạn có thể phản hồi cho các câu hỏi dưới đây. Ý kiến cá nhân của bạn
sẽ được giữ bí mật trong mọi trường hợp.

1. Bạn đã học tiếng anh được bao lâu rồi?

2. Bạn có bắt đầu học ngữ pháp từ khi học tiếng anh không
C. Có
D. Không
Nếu không. Bạn học từ khi nào:

3. Bạn thấy ngữ pháp và việc học ngữ pháp:

1. Rất thú v 2. Thú v 3. Bình 4. Chán 5. Rất chán
thường

4. Theo bạn ngữ pháp có vai trò như thế nào với việc học tiếng anh và khả
năng tiếng anh của bạn:
1. Rất quan trọng 2. Quan trọng 3. Khá quan trọng

4. Ít quan trọng 5. Không quan trọng

5. Bạn thấy các cấu trúc ngữ pháp tiếng anh:

1. Rất dễ nhớ 2. Dễ nhớ 3. Có thể nhớ được

4. Hay b nhầm lẫn, khó 5. Khi học thì nhớ 6. Không thể nhớ nổi
nhớ nhưng một thời gian lại
quên

6. Hiện tại khi làm bài tập ngữ pháp, nhìn chung bạn thấy các bài tập ngữ
pháp
1. Rất dễ 2. Dễ 3. Bình 4. Hơi khó 5. Khó 6. Rất khó
thường

IV
7. Khi được dạy xong một đơn vị ngữ pháp, bạn thấy:
1. Rất hiểu 2. Hiểu 3. Hiểu tương 4. Hiểu ít 5. Không
đối hiểu

Nếu chọn 1/2/3/4, vui lòng làm tiếp các câu sau
8. Bạn có thể sử dụng kiến thức về ngữ pháp đã học như thế nào khi làm
bài tập thực hành?
7. Luôn dùng và áp dụng được khi cần
8. Có thể nhận biết và áp dụng
9. Áp dụng được khi học xong nhưng s u đó lại quên
10. Biết dùng và áp dụng một chút
11. Thấy nhầm lẫn với các kiến thức khác, không biết dùng cái nào
12. . Không biết áp dụng

9. Khi gặp một yêu cầu (viết, nói..) , bạn:

5. Có thể ngay lập tức xác đ nh được cấu trúc ngữ pháp cần dùng hoặc dùng
hiệu quả nhất
6. Phải làm một lúc mới nhận r được cấu trúc nên dùng hoặc phải dùng
7. Làm theo cảm tính miễn là khiến người khác hiểu
8. Lúng túng, không biết làm thế nào

10. Khi học xong một đơn vị ngữ pháp, bạn thấy:
5. Dễ dàng hơn trong việc dùng tiếng anh của mình: nói, viết, đọc,…
6. Không dùng gì hơn ngoài làm bài tập
7. Không th y đổi gì
8. Ý kiến khác:

11. Khó khăn hiện tại khi bạn học ngữ pháp nói riêng và tiếng Anh nói
chung là:
7. Thiếu vốn từ vựng
8. Biết từ nhưng không thể dùng
9. Không thể nhờ được ngữ pháp để dùng
10. Nhớ được các cấu trúc ngữ pháp nhưng không biết dùng cái nào
11. Biết được ngữ pháp nhưng không biết sắp xếp từ thế nào cho đúng nhất
12. Ý kiến khác

V
12. Bạn thấy việc học ngữ pháp như trong thời gian vừa qua như thế nào?
Tick vào ô tương ứng từ 1-4 với 1 là cao nhất và 4 là thấp nhất: Ví dụ: 1-
Rất thú vị, 2- Thú vị, 3- Bình thường, 4- Không thú vị
1 2 3 4
Sự thú v
Hiệu quả
Độ khó
Độ phù hợp
Độ giống với hoạt động
thực tế
Tính ứng dụng

Cảm ơn vì các câu trả lời của bạn!

VI
 APPENDIX II
LESSON PLANS FOR THE STUDY GROUP

Lesson 1: Present simple and continuous

WHICH PARTY ARE YOU AT?

Material: Page 5 (Solution 7)

1. Pretask (10ms)
- Look at the picture: What are they doing? Use the word in box
2. Task (10ms)
- Now work in pair: Your friend is in the party, Let find which party he/she is
at?
- One ask questions and one has a picture to answer. Then the one who is
finding must identify the party out of 8 pictures on the board.
3. Planning (10ms)
- Practice with each other and then try to identify which party are they at?
4. Report (20ms)
- Teacher and students listen and then teacher correct mistake in the
conversation
5. Language focus (50m)
- No.3 and 4 in page 5.
- Do exercises
- Listening to Exercise no. 5.
- Make sentences to fill in handout

VII
 What I do and what I am doing!
Usually What I do But What I am doing
Every day Today

In the morning This morning

In the afternoon This afternoon

In the evening This evening

After school Now

At weekends This weekend

At 7.30 everyday At the moment

Every month At present

VIII
IX
 APPENDIX III
PRE-TEST
Time allowed: 30 minutes

Name:

I. Choose the best answer

1. Water ______ at 100 degrees Celsius.

A. boiling B.boils C.is boiling D.boil
2. Bettina usually ______ television in the evening.
A. watches B.watching C.watch D. has watched
3. Rosemary ______ to agree with us now.
A. is seeming B.seem C.seemed D.seems
4. Look! That man ______ your bike!
A. is stealing B.steals C.stealing D.stolen
5. I’m sorry I ______ to do my homework yesterd y.
A. am forgetting B.have forgotten C.forgot D.forget
6. We ______ any interesting films lately.
A. didn’t see B.h ven’t seen C.saw D.have seen
7. Eric _____ fl t yet, so he’s still living with his parents.
A. found B.didn’t find C.is finding D.h sn’t found
8. They _____ running their own company in 1980.
A. started B.have started C.are starting D.start
9. She’s l w student nd she ______ for four ye rs now.
A. studied B.is studying C.has been studying D.did study
10. I think I _____ my door key. I c n’t find it ny where.
A. lost B.have lost C.am losing D.will lose
11. The film _____ when we arrived at the cinema.
A. has begun B.begun C.had begun D.begins
12.I w sn’t thirsty because I _____ some milk.
A. drunk B.have just drunk C.just drank D.had just drunk
13. Don’t phone me between 7 and 8. We ___________dinner then.
A. will have B. are having C. will be having D. have
14. He has been working all day. He ____________be tired.
A. must B. can C. may D. should
15. Yesterday, I ____________shopping when I _________her across the street.
A. was going/ was seeing B. went/ was seeing
C. was going/ saw D. went/ saw

X
II. Write the right form of words in brackets, add words if necessary (ex: the,
than...)
1. Huyen's hair is ----------------------my hair (long)
2. My brothers and I, each of us has a car. Mine is _____________car (large)
3. Max is __________________John (thin)
4. Your mother is __________________driver I have ever known (careful)
5. Your baby is _____________boy in the world (happy)
6. I am ___________________today than I was yesterday. (busy)
7. Thang's house is _________________from school than Huan's house is. (far).
8. But Ms. Trang's house is _________________(far).
9. My grandfather is ________________man in the world. (gentle)
10. O.Henry is one of _______________American writers in the 19th century.
(famous)
III. Give the correct forms for the verbs in brackets

1. If Mr Brown ____________(sell) his car last year, he would have got more
money for it.
2. If Susan takes her driving lessons regularly, she ____________ (pass) her driving
test.
3. If Mr Jones ____________ (watch) the news every evening, he would know more
about politics.
4. If Charlie____________ (not stop) eating these green pples, he’ll soon feel sick.
5. If you had told me the truth, I ____________ (help) you.
6. If old Mrs White heard a strange noise, she ____________ (call) the police.
7. If I____________ (have) good luck, I would have won the first prize.
8. If I____________ (be) you, I would throw away all this old junk.
9. If you (need) ____________ any help, call me.
10. If you (put) ____________ water into a freeze, it (become) ____________ ice.

XI
 APPENDIX IV
POST-TEST
Time allowed: 90 minutes

Name:………………………………………………
I. Choose the best answer.
1. Who ..................... playing the guitar?
a. enjoys b. is enjoying c. enjoy d. enjoying
2. Tom and Jill .......................... for their holiday on March 1 st
a. are leaving b. are going to leave c. will leave d. leave
3. My f ther’s p rtner is ill nd d d ........................ overtime this week.
a. works b. worked c. is working d. working
4. I’ll c ll you if I ....................... your help.
a. need b. needed c. will need d. am needing
5. Only Terry ............. the answer.
a. know b. knowed c. knew d. was knowing
6. Tim is .................... person I’ve ever met.
a. the more annoying b. the most annoying c. more annoying d. most
annoying
7. Students in our school .......................... wear uniforms.
. mustn’t b. must c. don’t h ve to must d.
shouldn’t
8. – Your room is a mess!
- I know Mum, I .............. after my music lesson.
a. will clean b. am cleaning c. am going to clean it d. clean it
9. I’ve known John ................... ye rs.
a. of b. since c. from d. for
10. I’ll sk mum s soon s she ............... home.
a. will come b. come c. comes d. is coming
11. Gerry was born in London but he ................ in Liverpool for the last ten
years.
a. lives b. has lived c. lived d. is living
12. Where ......................... before she moved to Glasgow?
a. would she live b. used she to live
c. was she used to live d. did she use to live
13. Jill went to the UK .................... at university
a. to study b. study c. to studying d. for studying
14. Tome and Mary ....................... TV at six p.m. yesterday.

XII
a. watched b. was watching c. watch d. were watching
15. They ...................... painting the kitchen.
a. have just finished b. just finished c. are just finishing d. just finish
16. This is the match ..............we played yesterday
a. who b. what c. when d. which
17. If Bob ............... the answer he would surely tell you.
a. knows b. would know c. will know d. knew
18. Mum is very tired because she ................. all day.
a. has cleaned b. cleaned c. was cleaning d. has been
cleaning
19. Jack was late for the bus so when he came to school lessons
............................. .
a. had already started b. already started c. have already started d. were
already starting
20. My computer is the same ....................... yours.
a. than b. as c. to d. from
21. I ........................ Tim in the office at 6 p.m. so I can give him your message.
a. meet b. will meet c. am meeting d. am going to
meet
22. If Jim ................... late again the teacher ................ very angry with him.
a. is/will be b. was/would be c. will be/will be d. will be/is
23. J mes ....................... t home yet. He doesn’t finish work until six p.m.
a. must be b. can’t be c. can be d. mustn’t be
24. The policeman told me ...................... the car.
a. to leave b. left c. be leaving d. to have left
25. Mum asked me where ........................ the CD.
a. had I put b. did I put c. I put d. I had put
26. My father wishes he .......................... his job.
. didn’t lose b. would lose c. had lost d. h dn’t lost
27. If only I ................ some more money.
a. have b. had c. would have d. have had
28. I ................ l te for school yesterd y if I h dn’t overslept.
. wouldn’t be b. wouldn’t h ve been c. would have been d. had been
29. I don’t h ve ...................... money but I will be h ppy to lend you wh t I h ve.
a. many b. little c. few d. much

30. They have to do the work .........................

a. themself b. themselves c. theirself d. theirselves

XIII
II. Choose the best answer.

1. In my free time I often ………………… sk tebo rding.

a. go to b. play c. go d. ride
2. S lly didn’t t ke her ………………… kit so she didn’t h ve ny lipstick or
mascara with her.
a. painting b. make up c. make over d. decorating
3. Jason felt very ………………… before the ex m. He w s sure he would do well.
a. confident b. nervous c. depressed d. guilty
4. You c n ………………… lot of money by lw ys turning the light off when
you are not in the room.
a. waste b. lend c. save d. lose
5. My sister finds it difficult to …………………decisions.
a. make b. do c. get d. have

III. WRITING

1. Imagine you are on holiday by the sea. How are you spending your time?
What is the weather like? Are you having a good time? Write part of a
postcard to friend.

2. When did you last go to a party? Write some sentences about it. Use some of
these ideas: whose party? Where? What did you wear? Music, food, drink?
Good time?

XIV
3. Which of the things in the box you have done today? Which haven’t you
done? Write six sentences
Clean my teeth have breakfast write a letter
Buy a newspapers watch films surf web

XV
 APPENDIX V

RAW DATA OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY

XVI
 APPENDIX VI

RAW DATA OF THE PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST RESULTS

XVII