Abstract

Task-based approach has been widely adopted since 1980’s, and it is also one of the
approaches, which put emphasis on learning process, recommended to be applied in senior
middle schools by China’s Ministry of Education. This study explores and analyzes the
feasibility of task-based language teaching in secondary normal school to improve the
learners’ speaking skill. The experimental results suggest that flexibly arranging tasks in
English class according to the students’ real situations can arouse and foster students’ interest
in learning English, improve their confidence and performances of speaking skill.
Part one briefly points out the problems that task-based language teaching intends to
solve and its characteristics. Hence, the reasons and aims are put forward.
Part two cites the definitions of task, introduces the theoretical foundations, main
features, principles and framework of task-based language teaching.
Part three illustrates the background and the procedures of the application of TBLT in
oral class.
Part four introduces the experimental aims, subjects and methods. Two classes are
selected, as the subjects of the study, with one class as the experimental class and the other as
the control class. A questionnaire is also given to the students in the experimental class to
collect the data. Then I analyze the collected data and summarizes the findings.
The last part makes a conclusion and offers some suggestions for task-based language
teaching.

Key words: task-based language teaching; EFL teaching; speaking skill; feasibility

I
 摘 要

任务型语言教学是二十世纪八十年代以来外语教学研究的重要课题，国家教育部在
新的英语课程标准中明确提倡任务型语言教学,它是强调学习过程的一种语言教学途径
和方法。本研究分析了任务型语言教学在中师英语课堂中提高学生口语技能的可行性。
笔者对此进行了实验研究。实验结果表明英语课堂中根据学生实际情况灵活设置任务，
有利于激发和培养学生学习英语的兴趣，使学生树立自信心，提高学生的英语口语技能。
论文首先简要介绍了任务型语言教学意欲解决的教学问题及其特点，并由此提出了
本实验研究的原因与目的。
第二部分阐述了任务的定义、任务型语言教学的理论基础、特征、原则、 模式以
及相关的理论。
第三部分阐述了在英语口语课中实施任务型语言教学的具体步骤以及教师和学生
在课堂中的作用。
第四部分介绍了实验的目的、对象与方法。为了检验英语课堂教学实践的效果，笔
者从所在学校抽取两个班，一个为实验班，另一个为对照班，实验班的英语课堂教学采
用任务型学习，对照班则采用传统的以教师为中心的课堂教学方法。经过为期一年的实
验，以两个班的口语成绩作对比。并用调查问卷和访谈的方式了解学生对任务型语言教
学的反馈。在实验过程中，对学生的表现进行观察。然后对所得到的数据资料进行整理
分析，得出以下结论。学生对任务型语言教学持积极态度,任务型语言教学在中师英语
教学中提高学生口语技能是可行的。
最后，本文在前几部分分析和讨论的基础上得出结论，并且说明了在任务型语言教
学中存在的一些问题，并提出可行性。

关键词： 任务型语言教学；英语教学；口语技能；可行性

II
 Contents

English Abstract………………………………………………………..........………………...I
Chinese Abstract……………………………………..…………………………………..….II

Part One Introduction……………………………………………………………………..1

Part Two Literature Collection of TBLT…………………………………………...…….3
2.1 General introduction of TBLT…………………………………………...…………..3
2.1.1 Task-based language teaching…………………………………………………3
2.1.2 The definitions of tasks………………………………………………..............4
2.2 The rationale for task-based language teaching……………………………..............6
2.2.1 Theory of language……………………………………………………………6
2.2.2 Theory of learning……………………………………………………..............7
2.2.3 The hypotheses of input, interaction and output within SLT theory…..............7
2.2.4 The social-cultural theory……………………………………………………..9
2.3 The principles of task-based language teaching……………………………………10
2.3.1 Willis’ principles of task-based language teaching…………………..............10
2.3.2 Skehan’s principles of task-based language teaching………………..............10
2.4 Willis’ framework for task-based language teaching………………………………12
Part Three The Application of TBLT in Oral Class……………………………………14
3.1 Background………………………………………………………………..............14
3.2 Procedures of the application of TBLT in oral class……………………………….15
3.2.1 Task design…………………………………………………………………..15
3.2.2 Procedures of implementation of TBLT…………………………….............17
3.3 Roles of the teacher and learners………………………………………….............24
Part Four The Experimental Research…………………………………………………27
4.1 Aims and subjects ………………………………………………………………..27
4.2 Data analysis………………………………………………………………………27
4.2.1 Analysis of pretest and posttest……………………………………..............27
4.2.2 Analysis of the questionnaire……………………………………………….30
4.3 Summary of findings…………………………………………………...…………33
Part Five Conclusions and Suggestions…………………………………………………35
References………………………………………………………………………….……….37
III
Appendix…………………………………………………………………………………...40
Acknowledgements

IV
 Part One Introduction

The research and application of task-based language teaching (TBLT) has been spread
throughout our country since it was recommended as an effective teaching method in English
Curriculum Standards for Secondary School Students which is the document issued by the
Ministry of Education in the year of 2003. It aims at changing the traditional forms of English
teaching, in which knowledge is transmitted from a dominant teacher to a class of silent,
obedient, passive learners, to a form, in which the learners and their learning are the focus of
attention, and the learners can play more active roles in discovering and processing
knowledge.
The traditional teacher-dominated classroom mostly focuses on grammar-translation,
reading and vocabulary, which are the indispensable foundations of developing
communicative competence, and puts emphasis on language forms and on facilitating
internalization process.
Schmidt (1990:149) summarized recent psychological research and theory on the topic
of consciousness and concluded that “subliminal language learning is impossible, and intake
is what learners consciously notice.”[1] He supported the notion that a consciousness-raising
process is necessary for adults to learn language form, especially for redundant and
communicatively less important grammatical features. Scott (1989), analyzing data from oral
and written tests taken by students of French, found that students who were taught the target
structures explicitly performed better overall than those who had an implicit method of
instruction. [2] A thorough search of the literature reveals that a variety of research findings
favor conscious grammar learning/teaching, and the traditional grammar-translation approach
just follows it.
However, many learners can only produce a limited range of communicative functions
and their communicative competence is restricted. Although, the teachers also employ
activities to complement the weakness of it, the activities are not so effective, such as free
talk.
TBLT pays appropriate attention to language form and the cultivation of communicative
competence.
TBLT was developed from the communicative approach. Task-based learning is one of
the principles in it. Prabhu (1987)[3] used a task-based approach on his Communicational
Teaching Project in Bangalore, India. He used tasks as the unit around which the course was
1
organised. Afterwards, Willis (1996)[4], Skehan (1999)[5], Nunan (2004)[6] carried out a
thorough research on it and improved it. It became a comprehensive approach with the merit
of both structural and communicative approach.
TBLT is well supported by such theories as language, learning, second language
acquisition and social-cultural theories. TBLT starts from a theory of language as
communication, which perceives the goal of language teaching as developing communicative
competence. TBLT is also based on the theory of learning, which concludes that second
language acquisition is an unconscious process resulting from experience in language use.
The theory of second language acquisition, which emphasises comprehensible input,
negotiation of meaning and production of modified output, also supports TBLT. And TBLT is
also supported by social-cultural theory, which emphasises the co-construction of knowledge.
TBLT originated in the foreign countries, where English is taught as second language
and the learners have the integrative motivations, while English is taught as foreign language
in China, most learners only have the instrument motivations. Nowadays, the researchers in
China have different views on TBLT, an imported teaching approach. Some researchers
advocate it and some criticize it.
As a teacher, I am trying to see if TBLT is a useful and feasible approach for the learners
majoring in English education in secondary normal school to improve their speaking skills.
The English teaching goal of secondary normal school is to develop the learners to be
qualified English teachers in the primary schools. They shoulder heavy responsibilities for
educating a new generation. Thus, helping them to become individuals of the all-round
development is our end goal. Firstly, it is required that they should improve the four language
skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing), especially speaking skills, which is often the
students’ weak point and an important quality as English teachers in primary schools.
Therefore, it is only required that they should master the basic grammar rules, not the
complicated ones as the high school learners should learn. It is also required that they should
enlarge their vocabulary as the foundation of listening and speaking. In brief, it is required
that they should improve their synthetic language skill, especially speaking skill. Meanwhile,
improving their quality, including the learning ability, positive affections, the healthy
personality and right outlook on life, is also the important goal for us to achieve, as the
learners are going to be pupils’ teachers after three years of education in our school.
To see whether TBLT is feasible for the learners majoring in English education in
secondary normal school, I made an experimental research. The subjects were the new comers
of our school, whose major was English education.

2
 Part Two Literature Collection of TBLT

2.1 General introduction of TBLT

2.1.1 Task-based language teaching
TBLT uses tasks as the unit around which the course is organised, and the tasks drive the
learners’ learning language knowledge, cultivate learners’ language application competence,
and improve the learners’ development of cognition, affection, etc.
TBLT was developed from the communicative approach, and was met with approval and
recommendation as the communicative approach was carried out. During the development, it
was well supported by the theories, such as language, learning, second language acquisition
and social-cultural theories. It is now a moderate eclectic approach with the merit of both
structural and communicative approach.
The origins of TBLT date from the 1970s. Prabhu (1987) [7] used a task-based approach
with secondary school classes in Bangalore, India, on his Communicational Teaching Project,
beginning in 1979. In the experiment, he used tasks as the unit around which the course was
organised. It is believed that learners will learn the language in the process of finishing a task
and in the interaction of communication with others. However, he favoured “meaning
methodology”, which rejects explicit grammar teaching, expecting learners to deduce the
rules of grammar from sufficient input (Long and Crookes, 1992: 36).[8] His rejection of any
“form-focused activities” relies on his assumption that learners can internalise some system of
grammar through focusing on meaning.
Later, this assumption has been challenged by theoreticians. A focus on form and
grammar is now seen as essential for efficient learning and effective communication. Nunan
(1989: 13) states that “there is value in language activities which require learners to focus on
[9]
form [and that] grammar is an essential resource in using language communicatively.”
TBLT, indeed, with a focus on form (in the context of meaning) is gathering support from
SLA research. Long and Robinson (1998) [10], in particular, stress the importance of focus on
form for L2 learning by drawing students’ attention to linguistic elements, not as discrete
items presented to the learner, but as they arise in a meaningful classroom context. Long and
Robinson (1998: 23) define focus on form as “consists[ing] of an occasional shift of attention
to linguistic code features … triggered by perceived problems with comprehension or
production”.[11] The purpose is to deal with the limitations of a pure focus on meaning.
3
 It is now widely accepted that drawing learners’ attention to the formal properties of the
L2 is also important for language learning, but only if it is done while maintaining emphasis
on meaning, communication and fluency. This assumption constitutes one of the basic
premises of TBLT.
The essence of task-based learning is “learning by doing” (揭和娟, 2003: 17),[12] a
process during which learners engage in naturalistic learning processes through experiencing
and exploring language, through cycles of analysis and synthesis so as to develop their own
interlanguage systems. TBLT focuses as much on the process of learning as on its products.
With the development of the research, today’s TBLT is some different from that
advocated at first by the communicative approach linguists. It not only has the characteristics
of the communicative approach, but also carries forward the good points of the traditional
approach. It puts emphasis on both language meaning and forms and on both language
knowledge and communicative competence.
The central idea of TBLT is that students will learn the language in the process of
finishing a task and in the interaction of communicating with others. Nunan (2004: 1)
summarizes six major features of TBLT:
1) A needs-based approach to content selection.
2) An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target language.
3) The introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation.
4) The provision of opportunities for learners to focus not only on language but also on
the learning process itself.
5) An enhancement of the learner’s own personal experiences as important contributing
elements to classroom learning.
6) The linking of classroom language learning with language use outside the
classroom.[13]

2.1.2 The definitions of tasks

TBLT is not only a concrete teaching approach, but also a teaching ideology. To really
understand TBLT, the tasks in it must be got clear.
A number of definitions of the concept of “task” exist in the literature in which there is a
distinction between real-world and pedagogical tasks. Real-world tasks refer to uses of
language in the world beyond the classroom; pedagogical tasks are those that occur in the
classroom. Below are commonly applied definitions of tasks.
Long (1985: 89) argues that a target 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

4
child, filling out a form, buying a pair of shoes … and helping someone across a road. In
other words, by “task” is meant the hundred and one things people do in everyday life, at
work, at play, and in between.[14] The tasks that he refers to include the ones needing language
to complete, such as buying a pair of shoes, and the ones not depending on language to
complete, such as dressing a child.
Richards, et al (1985: 289) offer a definition of a pedagogical task: 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 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 different kinds of tasks in language teaching is said to make language
teaching more communicative ... since it provides a purpose for a classroom activity which
goes beyond the practice of language for its own sake.[15] Evidently, according to this
definition many activities can be called tasks.
Skehan (1996: 38), drawing on a number of other writers, puts forward that a task is
taken to be an activity in which meaning is primary; there is some sort of relationship to the
real world; task completion has some priority; and the assessment of task performance is in
terms of outcome.[16]
Ellis (2003: 16) defines a pedagogical task as a task is 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 them to choose particular
forms. A task is interned 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. [17]
Nunan’s (2004: 4) definition is that a pedagogical task is a piece of classroom work
which involves learners 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 an end.[18]
These definitions are roughly arranged in terms of a continuum of “real world” to
“pedagogical” perspectives on what tasks are. This distinction between the “real” world and
the classroom does not imply that the classroom is not a valid social context in its own right

5
(Breen, 1985).[19] Nor, indeed, are real world and pedagogical tasks mutually exclusive: there
is no reason why tasks cannot have both real world and pedagogical dimensions.
As a matter of fact, the understanding of tasks is a dynamic process. Cheng Xiaotang
(2004: 2) asserts that a rough definition is preferable to a detailed one and a broad one to a
narrow one. If the tasks are limited to a narrow range, designing and transacting tasks will
lack flexibility. [20] Most people would probably agree on the following basic characteristics of
tasks. Tasks are activities in which students work purposefully towards an objective. The
objective may be one that they have set for themselves or one which has been set by the
teacher. Tasks may be carried out individually or (more often) in groups. Tasks may be carried
out in competition with others or (more often) in collaboration. The outcome may be
something concrete (e.g. a report or presentation) or something intangible (e.g. agreement or
the solution to a problem).

2.2 The rationale for task-based language teaching

2.2.1 Theory of language
Language is primarily a means of making meaning. Task-based learning emphasizes the
central role of meaning in language use. Skehan (1998: 98) notes that in task-based learning,
“meaning is primary…the assessment of the task is in terms of outcome” and that task-based
learning is not “concerned with language display”.[21]
Multiple models of language inform task-based learning. Advocates of task-based
learning draw on structural, functional, and interactional models of language. This seems to
be a matter of convenience. Therefore, task-based learning is not linked to a single model of
language but rather draws on all three models of language theory.
In TBLT, attention is primarily paid to what learners can do with language, and secondly
to the forms of language, integrated-skills are used to promote the learning of real content, not
just dissection of language forms. Learners are exposed to authentic language and challenged
to interact in language. The integration of the four skills is the only plausible approach to take
within a communicative, interactive framework (Brown, 1994).[22] In this way, learners can
benefit from practicing all the language skills in a natural, communicative way.
Lexical units are central in language use and language learning. Vocabulary is here used
to include the consideration of lexical phrases, sentence stems, prefabricated routines and
collocations, and not only words as significant units of lexical analysis and language
pedagogy. Many task-based proposals incorporate this perspective.
Conversation is the central focus of language and the keystone of language acquisition.
Speaking and trying to communicate with others is considered the basis for second language
6
acquisition in task-based learning; hence, the majority of tasks that are proposed within TBLT
involve consideration (Richards and Rodgers, 2001).[23]

2.2.2 Theory of learning

Task-based learning shares the general assumptions about the nature of language learning
underlying Communicative Language Teaching. Some learning principles play a central role
in task-based learning.
Tasks provide both the input and the output processing necessary for language
acquisition. Drawing on Second Language Acquisition research on negotiation and interaction,
TBLT proposes that the task is the pivot point for stimulation of input-output practice,
negotiation of meaning, and transactionally focused conversation. Learning occurs when
learners engage in and reflect on sequences of tasks. The active involvement of the learner is
therefore central to the TBLT, and a rubric that conveniently captures the active, experiential
nature of the process is learning by doing. That is to say, takes the learner’s immediate
personal experience as the point of departure for the learning experience.
Task activity and achievement are motivational. Tasks are also said to improve learner
motivation and therefore promote learning. This is because they require the learners to use
authentic language, they have well-defined dimensions and closure, they typically include
physical activity, they involve partnership and collaboration, they may call on the learner’s
past experience, and they tolerate and encourage a variety of communication.
Learning difficulty can be negotiated and fine-tuned for particular pedagogical purposes.
Specific tasks can be designed to facilitate the use and learning of particular aspects of
language as they provide a vehicle for the presentation of appropriate target language samples.
They can also be used “channel” learners toward particular aspects of language (Richards and
Rodgers, 2001).[24]

2.2.3 The hypotheses of input, interaction and output within SLA theory
TBLT is well supported by the SLA theory, in which the hypotheses of input, interaction
and output are the important ones.
The input hypothesis, put forward by Krashen (1985), proposed that comprehending
input is necessary for second language acquisition.[25] If exposed to comprehensible input
which “contains l forms a little beyond their current stage of development”, learners will
acquire new linguistic forms as a result of this (Ellis, 2003: 343).[26] Long(1985), however,
argues that interactive input is more important than non-interactive input. He stresses the
importance of interactional modifications (negotiation moves) that occur when

7
communication problems arise.[27] Form an input-processing perspective, the interactionist
researchers claim that comprehension of meaning is necessary if learners are to internalize L2
forms and structures (Pica, 1994),[28] that interactional modifications (Long, 1996) [29] brought
about through negotiation of meaning facilitate language learning, and that some form of
conscious awareness is beneficial if not required for language learning to occur (Schmidt,
1993).[30]
The interaction hypothesis argues that negotiation of meaning provides learners with
opportunities for both the provision of comprehensible input and the production of modified
output, which are both believed to be necessary for language development. Long (1996)
asserts that exchange of information gives learners the opportunity to receive feedback on the
level of their comprehension in L2.[31] This results in negotiated modification of conversation
which renders the subsequent interaction more understandable, ie it becomes comprehensible
input (Krashen, 1985).[32] Long further argues that negotiation serves to draw learners’
attention to linguistic form as they attempt to produce the target language. This attention to
linguistic form is believed to be necessary for L2 learning because it creates a favorable
context for the negotiation of meaning that “serves as the means by which learners ‘data
needs’ can be effectively met” (Ellis, 2000: 199).[33] Tasks can stimulate negotiation of
meaning, and can provide the conditions necessary for language development to occur.
Input is necessary but not sufficient for acquisition. In addition to input, learners need
opportunities to produce the target language. This is because production involves different
psycholinguistic process from comprehension. In comprehending an utterance in a target
language, one can largely bypass the syntax and “go for meaning”. However, in order to
produce a comprehensible utterance, one has to “syntacticize” the utterance, that is, encode it
grammatically.
Swain’s (1985) output hypothesis focuses on learner production. Swain views output as a
part of the actual learning mechanism.[34] Swain argues that output “forces” learners to move
from semantic analysis of the target language to a more syntactic analysis of it, to test out
hypotheses about the target language, and to reflect consciously on the language they are
producing (Swain, 1998:79).[35] In doing so, they may modify a previous utterance or they
may try out forms they had not used before. That is, output provides the learner the
opportunity to produce language and gain feedback, which, by focusing learners’ attention on
certain aspects of their speech, may lead them to notice either a mismatch between their
speech and that of the interlocutor or a deficiency in their output and that this noticing will
then lead to learning. Therefore, Swain (1985) suggests the crucial role of output
(comprehensible or pushed output) in second language development.[36]

8
 Researchers have been able to demonstrate that task-type does provide learners with
varied opportunities toward modified output. Iwashita (1999), for example, found that
one-way tasks provided learners with greater opportunities to modify their output toward
comprehensibility than two-way tasks.[37] Similarly, Shehadeh (1999) found that a
picture-description task (one-way task) provided significantly greater opportunities than an
opinion-exchange task (two-way task) toward modified output.[38]
Similarly, in a series of studies Swain and her colleagues (1998) have demonstrated that
students were able to solve linguistic problems jointly by negotiating target language forms
during the process of achieving a communicative task goal, by determining which form to use
in order best to convey their message accurately and coherently.[39] Further, it was also found
that the solutions reached during collaborative dialogues were retained in the learners’
interlanguage system (Swain, 1997).[40] These findings can be interpreted as meaning that if
learners’ production of modified output was found to be integral to successful L2 learning, as
suggested by Swain, the different task-types, variables and dimensions would have varying
effects on the progress and development of the learners’ L2 development because they have
varying effects on the opportunities for the learners’ negotiation of meaning, negotiation of
form and learners’ output modifications.

2.2.4 The social-cultural theory

The social-cultural theory proposes that learners collaboratively construct knowledge as
a joint activity. Activities that learners engage in are co-constructed according to learners’
social-cultural history and the locally determined goals of these activities. It has been argued
that such co-construction of knowledge engages learners in cognitive processes that are
implicated in L2 learning (Lantolf, 1996).[41]
This perspective is originally inspired by the works of Vygotsky (1987),[42] looks at how
tasks are jointly accomplished by learners, and how the process of accomplishing a task can
contribute to L2 learning. The combination of tasks and language activity made sense for
Vygotsky. By means of research he saw that language and action converged to function in the
goal oriented activity of a task. TBLT attempts to shift the language teaching focus from a
product to a process approach. In SLA, products consist of “what” is to be learned, the
learning and acquisition of discrete grammar in isolation. Processes consist of “how” or “the
way” things are learned, learning through participation and the use of language in tasks. This
is consistent with Vygotsky’s (1978: 64) push for a “need to concentrate not on the product of
development but on the very process by which higher forms are established”.[43] That is, the
activity under which language is built up.

9
 Vygotsky disagreed with focusing on language form stripped from its meaning (Wertsch,
1985: 88).[44] It has a strong congruence with tasks which emphasize combining language
form with its meaning. This is consistent with TBLT’s emphasis on meaning through the use
of language. Vygotsky’s theory, therefore, can be supportive and beneficial for TBLT.

2.3 The principles of task-based language teaching

With the development of the TBLT, the researchers suggest the principles of the
implementation of it based on the theories and the investigation. Below are the famous
principles suggested by Willis (1996) [45]and Skehan (1999: 130-132). [46]

2.3.1 Willis’ principles of task-based language teaching

Willis (1996) offers five principles for the implementation of a task-based approach.
These provide input, use, reflection on the input and use, and some attention to affect:
1) There should be exposure to worthwhile and authentic language.
2) There should be use of language.
3) Tasks should motivate learners to engage in language use.
4) There should be a focus on language at some points in a task cycle.
5) The focus on language should be more and less prominent at different times.[47]

2.3.2 Skehan’s principles of task-based language teaching

Skehan (1999: 130-132) also proposes five principles that constitute a model for
task-based instruction, paying greater attention to affect, but still largely ignoring
socio-cultural aspects, based on his “cognitive” approach framework and findings from
previous experimental studies:
1) Choose a range of target structures. Learners do not simply learn what teachers teach
at one time. It is futile to fix on a particular structure and expect it to be learned. On the other
hand, there is a need for systematicity in language development. Therefore, a range of target
structures should be chosen as the basis of task design.
2) Choose tasks which meet the utility criterion. After choosing a range of target
structures, the teacher can only create appropriate conditions and hope the learners will avail
themselves of the possibilities to use certain structures, but cannot force the learners to
employ any particular structure. Learners (and native speakers) are adept at evading the use
of any particular structure.
3) Select and sequence tasks to achieve balanced goal development. In the process of
doing tasks, to accomplish the tasks, especially the communicative tasks, the learners may
10
overly employ communicative strategies, or depend on the vocabulary to communicate, or not
pay attention to language forms at all, because sometimes the tasks are too difficult for them
or for other reasons. Consequently, overly focusing on meaning will make it less likely that
continuing interlanguage growth will occur. To avoid these situations, teachers should work
out the tasks, not too difficult and not too easy, based on the learners’ situations. Moreover,
tasks should address fluency, accuracy and complexity, which are the three pedagogical goals,
separately. Thus, it can avoid the learners’ attention overly focused on fluency and meaning,
not focused on forms at all, which fails to achieve the other two goals. Through the reasonable
task design and reasonable task sequence, balanced goal development can be achieved.
4) Maximize the chances of focus on form through attentional manipulation. “Focus on
form refers to how the [learner’s] focal attentional resources are allocated. Although there are
degrees of attention, and although attention to form and attention to meaning are not always
mutually exclusive, during an otherwise meaning-focused classroom lesson, focus on form
often consists of a shift of attention to linguistic code features — by the teacher and/or one or
more students — triggered by perceived problems with comprehension or production.” (Long
and Robinson, 1998: 23) [48] The volume of learners’ attentional resources is limited. When
learners employ language, their attention is directed to meaning, and their attention directed to
forms will inevitably decrease. However, meaning and forms are assumed to be essential for
language learning. Either of them cannot be ignored. Thus, in the implementation of the
task-based teaching, conditions need to be established to maximize the chances of noticing
forms, based on meaning as priority.
During the stage of carrying out tasks, the learners’ attention focuses on meaning. At this
time, we must reasonably control the difficulty of tasks to ensure that transacting tasks does
not consume all attentional resources. The rest attentional resources will be directed to forms.
In addition, before transacting tasks, doing warm-ups can benefit the allocating attentional
resources. After tasks, there must be an opportunity for reflection and awareness of the
language they have employed during the tasks. Then, they can consolidate and strengthen the
weak points.
This principle, the most important one of the five principles, basically decides the
process of the implementation of TBLT.
5) Use cycles of accountability. The key to making progress is to draw learners into
consciously engaging in cycles of evaluation. As mentioned above, TBLT cannot ensure the
learners learn what teachers teach at one time. And TBLT can only choose a range of target
structures. But it is not clear which target structure has been mastered. Thus, it is necessary
for teachers and learners to check what they have learned, to discover what they have learned

11
to use and what they have to continue to learn. Thus, teachers and learners all are aware of the
present studying situation. Meanwhile, it is a monitor of systematic language development.
And it can be the evidence of the afterwards task design and the implementation of
teaching.[49]
Willis’ (1996) and Skehan’s (1999) principles (above) provided a benchmark for the
design of the interactive learning materials in this research.

2.4 Willis’ framework for task-based language teaching

Jane Willis (1996: 155) proposes for task-based learning the following framework, which
is a flexible model of teaching in which learners are free to learn by doing, by experiencing
what they already know and by moving ahead, working on the whole body of language and
by being attentive to meaning:
1) Pre-task
The topic and the task are introduced. The teacher introduces and defines the topic, use
activities to help students recall/learn useful words and phrases, ensure students understand
task instructions, and may play a recording of others doing the same or a similar task; the
students note down the useful words and phrases from the pre-task activities and/or the
recording and may spend a few minutes preparing for the task individually.
2) Task Cycle
Firstly, the students do the task, in pairs/small groups. It maybe based on a
reading/listening text; the teacher acts as monitor and encourages students.
Secondly, the students prepare to report to the class how they did the task and what they
discovered/decided, rehearse what they will say or draft a written version for the class to read;
the teacher ensures the purpose of the report is clear, acts as language adviser, help students
rehearse oral reports or organize written ones.
Then the students present their spoken reports to the class, or circulate/display their
written reports; the teacher act as chairperson, selecting who will speak next, or ensuring all
students read most of the written reports, may give brief feedback on content and form and
may play a recording of others doing the same or a similar task.
3) Language Focus
Analysis activities come first. The students do consciousness-raising activities to identify
and process specific language features from the task text and/or transcript, may ask other
features they have noticed; the teacher reviews each analysis activity with the class, brings
other useful words, phrases and patterns to students’ attention and may pick up on language
items from the report stage.
12
 The teacher conducts practice activities after analysis activities where necessary, to build
confidence; the students practice words, phrases and patterns from the analysis activities,
practice other features occurring in the task text or report stage, and enter useful language
items in their language notebooks.[50]
This framework has resemblance with the traditional PPP (presentation, practice, and
production) model. The essential point of TBLT is doing things by language. The task will
enable the learners to notice what they need to be able to say in order to transact the task. The
purpose is to get learners to be sensible with form and input which will be helpful for them.
The teacher’s role is to notice what language learners require and to supply this language.
After the task is done, it is important to reflect and analyze the language they’ve used so as to
avoid the pitfall on learners’ part to simply transact the task. In other words, the task generates
a language need, and the teacher ensures that new forms are integrated and consolidate.

13
 Part Three The Application of TBLT in Oral Class

3.1 Background
At present, it is taken for granted that English is important due to its international nature.
This conclusion logically leads to the acceptance that English should be taught around our
country. English is a compulsory course in middle schools and universities. Even the pupils
begin to learn English from Grade One in cities. The English teachers’ quality in primary
schools, therefore, seems significant. The secondary normal schools accordingly have a grave
responsibility for training the qualified English teachers in primary schools.
TBLT is an imported method and the researchers in China hold different views on it.
Some argue that it should be introduced to the class after some reformation, and some assert
that it does not accord with the situation of our country and it cannot be implemented in a
large scale. However, all these proposals are put forward to the learners who take the
nine-year compulsive education, high school education and the university education.
Secondary normal school education is some different from high school education, so whether
TBLT is effective to the English learners in secondary normal school is still a question to us.
Secondary normal school’s English pedagogic goals are somewhat different from those
of high schools. Nowadays, most English teachers in high schools still adopt the traditional
way of teaching, though they have been advocated to employ the TBLT method in class. That
is, the teacher explains the language items in details in front of the class and the students
make notes and review them after class to prepare for the tests. They complain that the TBLT
method is time-consuming. Furthermore, the emphasis of English teaching in high schools is
on the written form, while the emphasis in secondary normal school is on the application of
English both in written form and the oral form. Thus, the learners’ speaking skill must be
attached much importance to. According to the theories elaborated above, TBLT can create
many opportunities for learners to speak English to improve their speaking skill, so maybe we
can try TBLT to achieve our pedagogic goals. Finally, most of our school learners come from
country towns and villages. They are weak in speaking, which I know through the entrance
interview every year. Improving their speaking skill, therefore, is one of the significant goals
for us to achieve.
The task, rather than being a unit of grammar to be digested, or a collection of lexical
items to be remembered, is a means of using the language in order to learn the language. The
14
task has meaning for students (Skehan, 1996: 38)[51] who have to solve communication
problems, and that meaning, along with the authenticity in the use of real-life situations,
becomes internalized as linguistic competence. Lastly, the process of understanding,
performing and reflecting on the task produces a wealth of “real” use of the target language
(e.g. agreeing, suggesting, questioning, explaining, checking for understanding, asking for
clarification), fostering learning in a cyclical, ongoing manner. Therefore, the application of
TBLT in oral class may improve the students’ speaking skill effectively.

3.2 Procedures of the application of TBLT in oral class

The goals of oral class are to improve the students’ speaking skill and provide
opportunities for exercising initiative, leadership, and practicing organizational and
participation skills in group situations.

3.2.1 Task design

Once the goals of the course are set, the next step is to designing suitable tasks. The task
was the unit around which the course was organized. Therefore, the task design was very
important for TBLT. When the tasks were designed, the following were taken into
consideration:
1) The difficulty of tasks
TBLT carried out teaching through accomplishing tasks in class. If the tasks couldn’t be
accomplished, the teaching process would be hindered and the students’ confidence and
initiative would be decreased. Therefore, the difficulty of the task was a key factor. Besides,
the students’ attentional resource was limited. If the task was too difficult, the students would
focus on the accomplishment of the task and overly depend on communicative strategies and
vocabulary, neglecting language forms, even not using target language. Then the accuracy and
complexity couldn’t be achieved. So the tasks tried to be designed at an appropriate level of
difficulty to achieve balanced goal development.
In general, the language skill that the students employed to accomplish the task was a
little beyond their current stage of development. It would drive the students to develop and
achieve success.
2) The diversified forms of tasks
Meaning and form are assumed to be essential for learning. The aim of TBLT is to enable
learners to use language to do things and experience language through using it. Without basic
linguistic structures, there is no way to achieve this goal. So a focus on language form was
taken into account. Tasks were designed to make the use of structures easier without their
15
being compulsory. Communicative function is the end goal to achieve. So a focus on meaning
was also taken into account.
Accomplishing various kinds of tasks could achieve different goals. Because the
students’ attentional resource was limited, the fluency, accuracy and complexity usually
influenced each other and few outcomes would achieve. Therefore, according to the students’
situation, various kinds of tasks were selected to achieve the goals respectively and balance
the development of the three goals. Thus the integrated speaking skill would be ultimately
improved.
Meanwhile, diversity would arouse interest in students who tended to be bored at the
repeated types of tasks.
3) The feasibility of tasks
Tasks were the units of TBLT, so the feasibility of the tasks was also a key factor for the
successful implementation of it. When designing tasks, we firstly took into consideration the
teaching content, conditions and the students’ situation.
Firstly, we didn’t assign tasks that the students couldn’t find resource to help them. For
example, before introducing a topic about “Aswan Dam”, I wanted the students to consult
data and introduce Aswan High Dam in class. Considering it was difficult for them to gain the
data, I assigned them to introduce the Great Wall of China instead. Both of them are the
famous man-made projects in the world. Using the introduction of Great Wall of China led in
the lesson “Aswan dam”. The students’ curiosity was also aroused to know more about Aswan
dam. Besides, in terms of real-world tasks, we also took into consideration whether there were
the teaching resources in our school for the students to accomplish the tasks. For example, it
was impossible for the students to call a foreigner to gain experience of communicating with
foreigners by telephone. If the task had been assigned to them, few would have done it,
because there were no conditions for most of them to find a foreigner and telephone them.
This task was not feasible.
Secondly, the tasks were designed closely with the real life, the students’ personal
experience and meaningfully to them as much as possible. Thus the students’ interest and
desire could be aroused and then they could initiatively participate in the task and have
something to say. In this way, their opportunities towards modified output were increased. For
example, when a topic about Computers was presented to the students, they were asked in
groups of four to design their own computer, draw their models on their small blackboard
after class, and introduce it to the whole class from color, size, shape, material, features, cost
and so on in the next class. The whole class were enthusiastic about the task and in the next
class they successfully described their unique models which gave me a big surprise and I

16
appreciated their imagination.
Generally speaking, the task design was mainly around the teaching content. First, the
teaching content and the students’ need analysis were analyzed and the teaching goals were
set. Then, the tasks were selected from the teaching books or from the other data or designed
by myself. According to the present conditions and teaching requirements, some of the tasks
were adapted when necessary.
4) The structured sequence of tasks
It is important to make a structured sequence of tasks in the classroom, rather than the
disconnected and directionless mixture of game-like activities that can result from an
uninformed application of task-based ideas. Usually the tasks were structured as the checklist
offered by Candlin (1987). Easy tasks came before difficult tasks; simple tasks (only one step)
came before complex tasks (many steps); and “present time” tasks should come before ones
using the past or the future. [52]

3.2.2 Procedures of implementation of TBLT

In the TBLT model, students are relatively free to learn by doing, by experiencing what
they’ve already known and by moving ahead, working on the whole body of language and by
being attentive to meaning, as well as forms. The purpose of tasks is to increase relevant
exposure of learners to written and spoken English. This is achieved though interaction in
meaning activities in which communication is of primary importance. According to Willis
(1996) [53] and Zhang Zhengdong (2004) [54], procedures were designed as follows.
1) Pre-tasks designed
The teacher introduced the topic to get the learners to know about the new text, and the
learners engaged in activities that either helped them to recall words and phrases that would
be useful during the performance of the main task or to learn new words and expressions that
were essential to the task. The students noted down the useful words and phrases. That is the
input. Without it, there would not be output.
Firstly, warm-up activities were used as the opening of a lesson to help learners to relate
the content of the new lesson to that of the last or previous lessons, to assess relevant
knowledge, to allow “tuning-time” — which might be especially important in situations
where learners had come directly from radically different environment, and to get the learners
stimulated, relaxed, motivated and attentive. Sometimes they were asked to report a summary
of the previous lesson or to act out a play adapted from the previous lesson. In general, these
light-hearted oral activities were communicative because they could make the class enjoyable.
More importantly, they were good opportunities for students to involve in communication by

17
creatively using the language they had learned.
Secondly, the focus was on the lesson topic; either verbal or nonverbal evocation of the
context that was relevant to the lesson point; learners’ attention was directed to the topic by
questioning, or picture presentation, or possibly a tape recording, or a video tape. For example,
when a topic about American country music was introduced, a piece of music was first played
and John Denver’s portrait was presented for the students to guess who was the man in the
picture, what kind of music he sang and what the name of the music was. It aroused the
students’ interest and the topic of the lesson was also naturally introduced.
There were two ways also usually used to introduce the topic. One was the picture
description. The learners were asked to describe the pictures in the book to introduce the topic.
It aimed at cultivating their observing and describing ability. From the description the teacher
naturally led them into the new lesson and got them interested in the content through
introducing relative settings or background. The other was the information report. The
learners reported the information about the topic that the teacher had assigned them to collect
the related information after class. This was a kind of information conveyance in target
language. It could enlarge their reading volume, broaden their eyes and promote the
production of target language.
Thirdly, the teacher presented new words and expressions in order to check the
pronunciation and the meaning. It aimed at raising the students’ consciousness of the form of
language to form the foundation of accurately speaking. It also ensured that the students were
equipped with the necessary vocabulary and expressions to carry out the following tasks. A
more interesting way of presentation of words was that the teacher asked the representatives
of the groups to write the words on the blackboard in a limited time that they prepared before
class about some specific topic, such as sports, and rewarded the group that listed the most
words. Then the representatives explained them. When necessary, the teacher assisted them.
This task could stimulate the students to enlarge their vocabulary.
To check whether the students had mastered the words or expressions, a word-guessing
game was organized. The class was divided into two groups and both groups selected one
representative to go to the blackboard and face the rest of the students. The teacher then wrote
the words they had just learned one by one on the blackboard for them to compete who could
think up and say the words out on the blackboard first. The other students provided for them
with the information of the words through explanation in English or gestures, but their speech
couldn’t include the words on the blackboard. This task was very effective in helping students
to acquire the vocabulary, since the task of explaining the meaning of the words to another
student required that they should comprehend those meanings themselves, and that they

18
should transfer the meanings in successful communication with their peers. This task also
motivated learners to engage in language use.
The new words and expressions are central in language use and language learning, as
illustrated in the theory of language. The explicit explanation of them, therefore, was
necessary for our learners as the foundation of modified output. The teacher guided the
learners to focus on language forms and organized simple tasks to apply them. For example,
the teacher asked the learners in pairs to make up a dialogue using two or more words or
expressions; the teacher asked the learners to make up a story using the specific words or
expressions; the teacher asked the learners to make up sentences in a specific situation using a
certain sentence pattern; the students individually did some actions and asked the other
students to describe using the expressions they had just learned, etc. The tasks involved the
learners’ interaction and negotiation of meaning and provided the conditions for language
development to occur, as illustrated in the interaction hypothesis.
Learning of language forms was the foundation of accomplishing tasks and it ensured the
learners to accurately use language to transact tasks.
2) Task Cycle
During this stage, pair work and group work were the main types of activities. The
teacher acted as organizer, monitor and encouraged students. Through doing tasks, students
knew the main ideas of the text, obtained essential information, and integrated the usage of
some new vocabulary and language structures. Meanwhile, their using target language to do
the tasks could improve their speaking skill. The contents of the activities consisted of three
parts.
a) A sequence of tasks from easy to difficult ones.
b) Summary of the process, the outcomes, and the problems occurred during the
transacting tasks. That was the formative evaluation.
c) The presentation of the groups’ reports for the whole class in spoken form.
The activities were different according to the materials and we usually adopted the
following tasks.
First of all, a jigsaw task (see Appendix I) was designed. It was a special activity that
each member of a group was given different pieces of information and the goal was to pool all
information to form a whole.[55] The basic unit of the jigsaw task was the “jigsaw group” or
“home group”, which usually contained between three and five students. Each student in the
group had a different but complementary sub-task. For example, four members of a group
each had one part of the passage that was usually a story. At first, they must read and get the
meaning of the part they held. Then, they respectively introduced the general idea of the part

19
they held or read them to the others and then they decided how the story was constructed,
using communication skills, comprehension gambits (“What did you say?”) and peer-error
correction. Thus the students “own” the text, having constructed it together, and having
discovered the general idea together. Finally, they chose a reporter to tell how the story was
constructed. The task was to involve the students in the learning process, to get them to grasp
the meaning of the passage and to negotiate with each other using target language that had
been processed by them. That would be helpful for them to improve their speaking skill.
For some units of work, the teacher organized so-called “expert groups”. These were
groups in which students came together to process the same material and share ideas on it. For
example, the four students in each jigsaw group had been asked (respectively) to watch a
video, to gather classmates’ opinions, to read a simple newspaper article and to read a more
demanding article on a topic of current interest. After the jigsaw groups had met to get an
overview of the topic as a whole (or even before they meet), students might form groups with
others who had been assigned the same sub-task, so that they could help each other and share
ideas on the sub-task. These expert groups might be more homogeneous in terms of
proficiency level or interests. Students then returned to their home groups, where they
contributed their knowledge and ideas to the “jigsaw”.
An information-gap task was also designed. One student or group had a set of
information and another student or group had a complementary set of information. They had
to negotiate and found out what the other party’s information was in order to complete an
activity. It was characterized by its primary attention to information and not to language forms.
The information that students must seek could range from very simple to complex. Prabhu
provides the example of pair work in which each member of the pair has a part of the total
information and attempts to transfer it verbally to the other. For example, five pictures of
growing vegetables were given to two students. One had two pictures and the other had three.
They could not see the other one’s pictures. And they described the picture one by one to
know the correct order of the five pictures. Then they reported the result. To accomplish the
task, the two students must employ a series of target language they had learned to describe the
pictures and they must understand each other. It involved negotiation of meaning and
modified output.
A problem-solving task was used. It focused on the group’s solution of a specified
problem. Students had to talk and gather information together. For example, after a topic
about the environment was introduced, the students were asked to discuss in groups of four
and find out what they could do to protect our environment. The students gave the following
solutions: picking up the rubbish from the ground, not using plastic bags, recycling batteries,

20
keeping off grass, planting trees and so on. One group gave as many as 11 solutions. The task
was closely related to the learners and through their own personal experience they suggested
the solutions in target language. It motivated learners to engage in language use, so it could
improve their fluency in speaking skill.
Two useful techniques for stimulating students to produce or analyze a number of ideas
on a topic, for instance, were “Forward Snowball” and “Reverse Snowball”. “Forward
Snowball” was especially useful when the aim was to generate as many ideas as possible on a
topic, for example, in preparation for an essay or presentation. It could be particularly helpful
with groups of students who were inhibited when asked to “brainstorm” about an issue. Each
student was given a set period of time (e.g. three minutes) in which to list four facts or ideas
related to a theme or issue. Students then formed pairs and were given a similar period (or
slightly longer) to combine and expand their ideas into a list of eight. Pairs then formed
groups of four, who produced a combined list, deleting ideas which were repeated but
attempting to add more to produce sixteen. The snowball might finish there or continue to
groups of eight, who would produce a further combined list. “Reverse Snowball” was
especially useful for the opposite function to snowball, namely: to agree on what were the
most essential factors or aspects of a topic. It was the same as forward snowball so far as the
grouping sequence was concerned, but successive groups had to reduce rather than expand.
Each student was given three or four minutes to write down three or four ideas or
characteristics on a given topic (e.g. four statements about money or the four most important
qualities of a teacher). Students in pairs then attempted to reduce their combined list (which
could contain up to eight items) by agreeing on the four (or five) most essential points. Pairs
formed groups of four, who again reduced their combined list to produce an agreed list of
most essential points. At this point the snowball might proceed to groups of eight, or the
whole class might be asked to agree on a list of essential points, or students might produce
group or individual tasks (e.g. essays on the topic).
A decision-making task was also carried out in class. It was simply one kind of problem
solving where the ultimate goal was for students to make a decision through negotiation and
discussion. Some problem solving tasks did not involve a decision about what to do. Others
did involve such decisions. For example, when learning something about environment,
students were asked to discuss and decide what they could do to protect our environment in
our daily life. They suggested many solutions, from which the class voted to choose that they
would recycle the batteries as the project they would do from then on. That was their decision
and they have been doing it. The task was a real-world task. The students actively participated
in it. For another example, the students had a map of London with bus and underground

21
routes. They discussed and selected the best route for going from one point to another
according to a set of given variables (price, time, distance, comfort, etc.). It offered
opportunities for the students to develop their speaking skill through discussion.
The opinion exchange tasks were more difficult tasks for students to do. The students
were asked to express different ideas or different views about some issues (龚亚夫、罗少茜:
2003).[56] It was required that the teacher should give the students opportunities to express
their own thoughts and should give their guideline proposals, not the “correct” answer. The
teacher was more a listener than a corrector of errors. Fluency took priority over correctness
and information was more important than language forms. Students were divided into two
groups first. Thus, they could give opinions in a relaxing environment. Then the students were
given a chance to prepare. They needed time to put their thoughts together and come up to
support their views in debates. For example, the topic of one text was smoking. After
presentation and practice, the students were divided into two groups. One group discussed
how cigarettes harmed people’s health. The other group discussed the reasons why many
people smoked and what benefits smokers thought they could get from smoking. And then the
two groups stood as two sides to hold a debate on whether smoking should be prohibited or
not in China. Students were asked to prepare arguments either in favor of or against the
proposition. After given time, students took part in the debate. An alternative way was that the
students formed groups of four and were assigned a controversial topic for debate. Each group
divided into two pairs. Each pair was then asked to collect arguments to support one side of
the issue (e.g. to argue either for or against the issue of whether smoking should be prohibited
in China). The groups of four were re-formed and a debate then took place, as each pair tried
to convince the other pair of their own side of the issue. After a time, they were asked to step
out of the formal “debating” structure and engage in free discussion. These communicative
activities were quite meaningful and challenging for students. Students could get involved in
the content-centered nature of such activity and thus paved the way for more automatic
processing of language. It also needed quick responses so it could improve fluency in
speaking skill.
An interview task was organized to help the learners who were shy to express themselves
spontaneously in open class. Students formed group of four, in which they chose or were
assigned a controversial topic for discussion (e.g. whether human cloning should be allowed
or a local issue in the news). Each group of four divided immediately into two pairs. In each
pair, student A interviewed student B about the topic but did not express his or her own
opinions. B then interviewed A in the same way. The two pairs re-formed into a group of four,
in which they first simply shared their ideas and opinions. They then entered into free

22
discussion and attempted to reach an agreement on the issue. Their conclusion then was
reported to the class. An interview task was also organized when the topic was about a famous
person. It was an activity for pair work and group work. At the lower levels, interviews were
structured, both in terms of the information that was sought and the grammatical difficulty
and variety. At the higher levels, interviews could deal with more complex facts, opinions,
ideas and feelings.
Role play tasks were also transacted by the students. It was an activity for students to act
as different roles. It was particularly suitable for practicing the sociocultural variations in
speech acts, such as complimenting, complaining, and the like. According to the students’
level, they were usually asked to act out a dialogue they learned in the book. A model
dialogue presented to the learners and served as language input. Then, the class was
encouraged to evaluate the situation so as to understand the factors that affected the linguistic
choices made in the dialogue, and the characteristics of the roles. Afterwards, the students
listened to and practiced prototypical phrases used in the speech act and performed the role
play. For example, after learning “The Necklace”, the students analyzed the characteristics of
each person with the teacher’s help and formed groups to act it out.
A technique for organizing the reporting stage was “Numbered Heads”. In each group of
four, for instance, the students were asked to assign each other, at random, a different number
from 1 to 4. At the feedback or reporting stage, the teacher simply indicated a group and a
number. In this way all students had an equal chance of being nominated and had to be ready
to speak on behalf of the group. Otherwise, it often happened that after group work the same
confident, vocal students always took on the role of reporter. This not only deprived some
students of the opportunity to develop important speaking skill but might also affect the extent
to which each student felt the need to engage in the group’s work.
A series of tasks were transacted during this stage to accomplish the goal that the teacher
gave them at the beginning of the class. It was a task cycle.
During this stage, the teacher’s formative evaluation of how well students performed the
activity was very important for the students to improve their English afterwards. For example,
when students finished an opinion exchange task or a role play, the teacher put forward some
ideas on their success or failure of their performance and then raised some suggestions. This
stage focused on the meaning and modified output, which did well to the fluency in speaking
skill in the aspect of the learners.
3) Language Focus Tasks
In the process of transacting tasks, the students’ attention mainly focused on meaning
should not be interfered. At language focus tasks stage their attention was made mainly focus

23
on forms. And the language forms were paid attention to by the students through a serious of
tasks. The students could discover their weakness in language when transacting tasks and the
weakness were made up for at this stage. That did well to the accuracy and complexity in
speaking skill.
The teacher analyzed and corrected the language problems that occurred in the reports
and made the students practice through activities. There were two main ways as followings:
One was the analysis. The language items including words pronunciation, phrases,
sentence patterns and grammar were listed and explained to the students to arouse their
attention to them.
The other was the drill. After the analysis, the exercises were done by the students to
consolidate their language forms. The exercises included blank filling, translation, and
sentence pattern transformation, etc.
4) Follow-up Tasks
The students were asked to retell the text or the story in the first person or the third
person or asked to adapt a story into a play with their partners and then acted it out in next
class. Also the grammar homework was given to them to complete. It aimed at enforcing the
students to practice speaking skill after class and to consolidate their knowledge which
contributed to the accuracy, fluency, and complexity of the speaking skill.
Drama was a task for the students to do after class. It was a more formalized form of role
play, with a preplanned story line and script. It was performed in the drama festival our school
organizes every year, and students, whose speaking skill was good, were asked to prepare
carefully with the teacher’s help. Then it was performed very well with the students in
costumes on stage. It was a time-consuming task. The aim of it was to set an example to the
other learners to further improve their speaking skill.

3.3 Roles of the teacher and learners

In the experimental class, TBLT was implemented. It must be clear that both teachers
and learners were the implementers of tasks. Either of them could not be ignored. The roles
that the teacher conducted were as followings:
In preparing lessons, a central role of the teacher was in selecting, adapting, and/or
creating tasks and then forming these in keeping with learner needs, interests, and language
skill level, objectives of the lesson, the language input and output, the amount and length of
time, the availability of materials, equipment and so on. The most important and difficult role
that the teacher had to play was to be an organizer. The teacher created conditions under
which learning could take place and organized the students to carry out classroom activities
24
orderly and warmly. While students were doing the tasks the teacher walked around the
classroom and monitored what students were doing and saying. If some students had some
trouble with the tasks, the teacher helped them. Sometimes the teacher’s demonstration was
necessary. As students were engaged in either rehearsed or spontaneous language performance,
it was the teacher’s job to keep the process flowing smoothly and efficiently, and guide
learners through task accomplishment. Instead of just presenting the language knowledge to
the learners, the teacher elicited the relevant information from the learners and explained
exactly what the learners should do. Some sort of pre-task preparation or cuing was important
for learners. Such activities might include topic introduction, clarifying task instructions,
helping students learn or recall useful words and phrases to facilitate task accomplishment,
and providing partial demonstration of task procedure. The teacher employed a variety of
form-focusing techniques, including attention-focusing pre-task activities, text exploration,
guided exposure to parallel tasks, and use of highlighted material. The teacher also acted as a
facilitator to create situations for students in order that they could arouse students’ internal
learning motivation through using practical language, not via only teaching students directly.
When the learners met difficulties in doing tasks, the teacher assisted them in time to
surmount them. The teacher put the whole heart in every activity in the classroom and
participated in the activities. There were usually two main reasons for the teacher to
participate in an activity. One was to take up a role in the activity because the activity required
a certain number of participants. The other reason was to promote learning by keeping the
activity going smoothly. For either of the reasons or a mixture of both, when participating in
an activity, the teacher took care not to dominate the activity. Learning was a hard process for
most learners, so motivating learners and adopting a positive attitude towards them, praising
and encouraging them, and giving feedback on task completion were the teacher’s
responsibilities.
The roles that the learners conducted in a TBLT setting were mainly participants and
risk-takers. The learners were encouraged to engage in tasks in which they discovered,
constructed, organized, communicated and used language. They also took responsibility for
the others’ learning. They cooperated and interacted with each other in pair-work or group
work and also with the teacher, in which they were not afraid of making mistakes and tried to
help each other to improve their language skills together, especially speaking skill. In TBLT,
tasks were employed as a means of facilitating learning. Class activities had to be designed so
that students had the opportunity to notice how language was used in communication.
Learners themselves needed to “attend” not only to the message in task work, but also to the
form in which such messages typically came packed. Many tasks required learners to create

25
and interpret messages for which they lacked full linguistic resources and prior experience. In
fact, this was the point of such tasks. The skills of guessing from linguistic and contextual
clues, asking for clarification, and consulting with other learners needed to be developed. In
the meanwhile, the moral education made them shape their views on the world and society
gradually. Without the teacher’s guide the learners could not expert their roles well.

26
 Part Four The Experimental Research

4.1 Aims and subjects

The aim of this experimental research was to explore the feasibility of TBLT for learners
majoring in English education in secondary normal school to improve their speaking skill.
In the experimental research we set out to obtain qualitative and quantitative data on
learners’ responses to TBLT, in order to measure our hypothesis: a) TBLT is feasible for the
English learners in secondary normal schools to improve their speaking skill; b) the learners
hold positive attitude toward TBLT.
The subjects were the English learners in two classes in Grade 2004. There were 43
students in each class. Class 5 was selected as the experimental class and Class 2 as the
control class. The English proficiency of these two classes was about the same according to
their performances of the entrance examination. I taught these two classes only as the English
teacher, not the teacher in charge of either class. Therefore, we could ensure that the
relationship between the students and the teacher was the same. I was responsible for both
classes, and did not favor one or discriminate against the other.
Meanwhile, the teaching content and teaching hours were the same. Only the teaching
methods were different. Furthermore, the students lived in our school and could not go out
except holidays and they did not know they were the subjects of the experiment. So, the
teacher, the students and the environment of the experiment were all relatively stable without
families’ and society’s interference.
The experimental research took two terms (from September, 2004 to June, 2005) to carry
out the experiment. It incorporated two research tools to ensure a higher degree of validity.
The speaking skill test was carried out before and after the experiment in these two classes to
see if the application of TBLT was more effective than the traditional method in improving
the learners’ speaking skills. A questionnaire of the learners’ attitude towards TBLT was used
in the experimental class after the experiment, and an interview was made after that, in order
to check if they held positive attitude towards TBLT.

4.2 Data analysis

4.2.1 Analysis of pretest and posttest
Before the experiment, the experimental class and the control class received a speaking
27
skill test which was held by me and included four items. During the test each student was
given similar instructions and amount of preparation time. The first item was a short passage
for students to read. It mainly assessed their pronunciation, intonation, rhythm and fluency.
The second one was that the students answered five questions according to the passage they
had just read without reading it any longer. It mainly assessed their understanding of the
passage and the accuracy and fluency of their expressions. The third one was that a pair of
students was given a certain situation to make up a dialogue, prepared for 3 minutes and then
acted the situational dialogue out. It mainly assessed conversational strategies, intelligibility
and fluency. The fourth one was that the student was given a topic, prepared for 3 minutes and
then talked on the topic for 1 minute. It mainly assessed their oral competence. The results
were listed in table 4.1. Through two independent-samples t tests, we can see that there was
no significant difference (p＞0.05) between the experimental class and the control class in
terms of the speaking skills (read a short, answer questions, situational dialogue, and talk on a
topic).

Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics for Pretest of the Speaking skill of the Two Classes

Speaking skills Classes n X ±s t p

Read a short Experimental class 43 73.82 ± 8.91
0.2225 0.8244
passage Control class 43 74.23 ± 8.16
Answer Experimental class 43 78.95 ± 7.39
0.3096 0.7576
questions Control class 43 79.43 ± 6.98
Situational Experimental class 43 71.76 ± 6.09
0.4572 0.6487
dialogue Control class 43 72.48 ± 8.34
Experimental class 43 70.75 ± 7.82
Talk on a topic 0.6726 0.5031
Control class 43 71.99 ± 9.22
(n indicates the sample size, namely the number of the students in classes;
X ± s indicates arithmetic mean and standard deviation; t indicates t-value; p indicates
p-value.)

Standards of giving marks for reading a short passage:

85—100: Read fluently with correct pronunciation, intonation and rhythm. There may be
one or two mistakes.
60—84: Read moderately fluently with some pronunciation mistakes and lack of some
tone.
0—59: Read not fluently with many mistakes in pronunciation and lack of tone.
Standards of giving marks for answering questions according to the passage they have
28
read (5 questions in all):
85—100: Answer the questions correctly and quickly. It is allowed to ask for pardon of
questions once.
60—84: Can answer 3 or 4 questions and ask for pardon of questions.
0—59: Cannot answer more than 2 questions and ask for pardon of questions many
times.
Standards of giving marks for the situational dialogue:
85—100: Speak fluently and with good grammar and sentence structure.
60—84: Speak moderately fluently and with moderately good grammar and sentence
structure.
0—59: Speak not fluently and with poor grammar and sentence structure.
Standards of giving marks for talking on a topic: The same standards as those of the
situational dialogue.
After one year of the experiment, the experimental class and the control class received
speaking skill test held by me again. The results were listed in table 4.2. From the table we
can see that both of these two classes have made much progress. Through two
independent-samples t tests, we can see that there was no significant difference between these
two classes (p＞0.05) in terms of reading a short passage and answering questions. Through
two independent-samples t tests, we can see that there was significant difference between
these two classes (p＜0.05) in terms of situational dialogue and talk on a topic. That is to say,
the mean of the experimental class was higher than the control class in these two items. It
suggests that the TBLT is more effective in improving the students’ speaking skill than the
traditional method.

Table 4.2 Descriptive Statistics for Posttest of the Speaking skill of the Two Classes

Speaking skills Classes n X ±s t p

Read a short Experimental class 43 87.43 ± 9.35
0.0453 0.9640
passage Control class 43 87.52 ± 9.06
Experimental class 43 92.28 ± 8.29
Answer questions 0.1895 0.8501
Control class 43 91.96 ± 7.34
Situational Experimental class 43 83.77 ± 7.29
2.9796 0.0038
dialogue Control class 43 78.73 ± 8.36
Experimental class 43 82.31 ± 7.27
Talk on a topic 3.4426 0.0009
Control class 43 76.39 ± 8.62

4.4.2 Analysis of the questionnaire

29
 After the experiment the students in the experimental class were given a questionnaire,
which was to help determine the feasibility of using TBLT method in the EFL classroom.
Specifically, it was deemed useful to gather information on students’ perceptions of various
aspects of the task-based language learning (see Appendix II for full questionnaire). After
processing the collected data with Microsoft Excel, I listed table 4.3 and table 4.4 below,
which showed the mean scores on each quantifiable question for the students of experimental
class. Students answered the questions on the following seven categories: the usefulness of
the experience (Questions 1, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19), the enjoyability of the experience (Questions
2, 13, 17), self and partner congeniality (Questions 3, 4, 5, 6), the enjoyaility of different tasks
and organization forms (Question 7, 8, 9, 10, 11), amount of stress of the experience elicited
(Question 16), amount of L1 usage the experience elicited (Question 20), learners’ helpfulness
to their partners (Question 21, 22). Then, they were interviewed one by one for us to know
more about the reasons why they chose the number.
The questions focused on the overall usefulness of the experience as well as the more
specific aspects of perceived learning and concentration on the tasks. A pedagogical technique
can hardly be said to be useful if it has no face validity regarding student learning. Similarly,
if learners are often off task or distracted by peripheral features of the interface the usefulness
of the experience may be questioned. Questions 1 (mean=4.349) and 19 (mean=3.628) reveal
that most learners felt that speaking skill was improved in the TBLT environment. They had a
favourable perception of the TBLT. 55.8% of the learners agreed that they improved their
speaking skill apparently through doing tasks, and 11.6% strongly agreed it. In brief, they felt
learning by doing was moderately helpful for leaning English. This is consistent with the
theory of language mentioned in chapter two. Question 12 (mean=3.581) suggests that in the
TBLT class the students could develop their thinking skill. 58.1% of the learners admitted that
they could cultivate their potential thinking, while only 9.3% disagreed on it. Their comments
in the later interview can be summarized as “the tasks can arouse my emotion, relate to my
personal experience, give me chances to take what I have done and what is happening around
me into consideration and then express my views about it.” It is one of the main features of
TBLT. Question 14 (mean=4.140) seems to suggest that the students gained confidence after
accomplishing tasks. 86.0% of the learner thought they had obtained confidence while only
2.3% of them denied it. Confidence is very important for the learners to learn English
persistently. From question 15 (mean=4.163), we have known that they were concentrating on
the tasks while engaged in the TB-orientated activities. All in all, most of the learners thought
that the experience was useful for them.

30
 Table 4.3 Post-treatment Questionnaire Means of the Experimental Class
n n n n n Mean
Question
(Strongly disagree) (Disagree) (Neutral) (Agree) (Strongly agree) (n=43)
1 0 1 3 19 20 4.349
2 0 1 2 18 22 4.419
3 0 0 6 20 17 4.256
4 0 0 6 18 19 4.302
5 0 0 6 18 19 4.302
6 0 0 6 20 17 4.256
7 0 1 10 18 14 4.046
8 1 1 9 17 15 4.023
9 1 4 17 16 5 3.465
10 1 11 22 9 0 2.907
11 0 1 13 24 6 3.884
12 1 3 14 20 5 3.581
13 0 1 2 18 22 4.419
14 0 1 5 24 13 4.140
15 0 2 4 22 15 4.163
16 8 17 15 2 1 2.326
17 0 1 4 18 20 4.326
18 1 1 16 20 5 3.628
19 0 2 17 19 5 3.628
(n indicates the number of the students.)

Table 4.4 Post-treatment Questionnaire Means of the Experimental Class

Mean
Question n n n n n
(n=43)
0 7 28 8 0
20 3.023
(Always) (Often) (Sometimes) (Once or twice) (Not at all)
0 27 16
21 2.372
(Often) (Sometimes) (Never)
3 22 16 2 0
22 2.395
(Yes, always) (Often) (A few times) (Once or twice) (No, never)
(n indicates the number of the students.)

31
 Most of the learners seemed to enjoy task-based language learning experience seeing
question 2 (mean=4.419) and question 13 (mean=4.419). They felt the experience was
moderately fun and reported that they would like to learn English in this manner. What is
interesting to note is the similar dip in the ratings on question 17 (mean=4.326). It seems that
though the learners thought the experience was fun, they were less enthusiastic about wanting
to learn English in this manner. This can be explained by the receptive nature of the learners,
some of whom thought that either teaching method could be accepted.
Questions 3 (mean=4.256), question 4 (mean=4.302), question 5 (mean=4.302) and
question 6 (mean=4.256) seem to suggest that the learners and their partner were friendly and
polite, and that they had similar perceptions of their partner being more friendly and polite
than they themselves were. This was a useful communicative strategy for the learners to
cooperate with each other and gain more information from each other.
It seems to be suggested that most students enjoyed the tasks seeing question 7
(mean=4.046), question 8 (mean=4.023) and question 9 (mean=3.465). 74.4% of the learners
liked information-gap activities, 74.4% liked giving opinions of theirs, and 72.1% liked the
role play. In the later interview, they said that the tasks were moderately fun and sometimes
they even did not feel that they were learning. They only wanted to reach the goals that the
tasks required. Some students said that they didn’t like the role play as they must think up
how to act and it wasted time and energy. However, teaching pupils needed the action, so they
also thought that it was useful for them. These activities provide opportunities for them to
focus not only on language but also on the learning process itself. It is consistent with the one
of the main features of TBLT discussed in chapter two. Question 10 (mean=2.907) and
question 11 (mean=3.884) suggest that the students preferred to do tasks in groups rather than
do it individually.
Question 16 (mean=2.326) reveals that the learners did not feel that accomplishing tasks
were particularly stressful, though some of them did cite a “harried” feeling created by the
TBLT environment in the later interview. They said that they had to consult the dictionary and
the notes they took or ask the others’ help when they did not know how to express their own
ideas. However, all of that was to accomplish the tasks and in this way they could grasp what
they should master and enlarge their vocabulary. It is consistent with the principles of
task-based language teaching proposed by Skehan (Skehan, 1999).[57]
Most learners seemed to use native language sometimes seeing question 20
(mean=3.023). What is worth noting is that no one always used L1. They tried their best to
control themselves to complete the tasks, but they sometimes could not find the proper words

32
to express their ideas. Therefore, they sometimes secretly used L1 to convey meaning without
the teacher knowing and it would helpful to complete the tasks quickly, though the teacher
required them not to use L1. However, they would speak English when the teacher strictly
asked them or they would ask teacher’s help to know how to express the idea in English. Most
of the practicing time was spent on speaking, which did well in improving their fluency.
It seems that they agreed that they did not often employ unsolicited “other correction”
seeing question 21 (mean=2.372). None of them admitted that he/she often corrected partners’
mistakes. 62.8% of them admitted they sometimes corrected and as many as 37.2% of them
reported that they never corrected their partners’ mistakes. Those who reported that they did
correct their partner’s mistakes cited their intention to help their partner and their realization
that the activity was for the benefit of both participants. This implies a certain feeling of
responsibility on the part of the interactants. As mentioned above, most learners did not
overtly correct mistakes by their interlocutor. Those that did employ this strategy reported a
combination of time constraints and the relative unimportance of partner mistakes that
together seem to suggest a cognizant focus on meaning by most participants. Many of
subjects said because they could understand his/her ideas and also time was not enough for us
to finish discussion, they then skipped correction. However, 51.2% of them seemed to agree
that they “often” asked their partner for help when they did not understand something, and
even there were 7.0% of the learners admitted they always asked partners’ help seeing
question 22 (mean=2.395), which is consistent with the high amount of negotiated interaction
that mentioned in chapter two.

4.3 Summary of findings

Given the limited number of subjects used in the experimental research, the data can
only be at best suggestive, and serve as grounding for further wider-scale investigation of
secondary normal schools.
The speaking skill performances suggest that both TBLT and traditional language
teaching can improve the learners’ speaking skill, and TBLT is more effective than traditional
language teaching.
The reports of the questionnaire show that TBLT could improve the learners’ speaking
skill and the learners preferred task-based language learning. They found the experience valid,
useful, enjoyable, and virtually stress-free, all aspects which arguably create a positive
affective environment to compliment the communicative language learning experience. In the
meanwhile, they felt more confident when accomplishing tasks successfully. Most important,
they felt that they could improve their speaking skill after a period of training in the TBLT
33
environment. That is to say TBLT was feasible for them to improve their speaking skill.
The data suggest that TBLT is feasible for the English learners in our school to improve
their speaking skill.

34
 Part Five Conclusions and Suggestions

The purpose of this experimental research was to explore the feasibility of TBLT for
English learners in secondary normal schools to improve their speaking skill.
The experimental research selected two classes, one as the experimental class and the
other as the control class. Their performances in the speaking skill examinations provided
strong evidence that the task-based language teaching was more effective than the traditional
teaching in the aspect of speaking skill.
Then, they were given a questionnaire whose items were to know about their attitudes to
TBLT and the influence that TBLT had on them. The data showed that the learners held
positive attitudes to the task-based language teaching and preferred to do tasks. Therefore,
task-based language teaching is feasible for the English learners in secondary normal schools
to improve their speaking skill.
There is much difference between EFL and ESL, Chinese linguistic researchers point out
it is unwise to adopt the teaching methods which are popular in ESL situation without careful
considerations. Under EFL circumstance, the traditional form-focused instruction has been
applied for decades. There is no communication for survival need; what’s more, the purpose
of learning English for most students is for passing exam. Many learners prefer the traditional
form-focus instruction. In the experiment, there were some limitations. Firstly, the
experimental time is short. Secondly, the speaking skill test adopted the interview. The results
of the students, therefore, didn’t have high validity. Thirdly, when the students answered the
questionnaire, they might be subjective. All these influenced the validity and the reliability of
the experiment. Moreover, The English learners in our school had strong desire to improve
their speaking skill and they actively transacted the tasks. Therefore, further research should
be carried out carefully.
On one hand there are not the completely same students and conditions, we should
employ the teaching methods and principles according to the concrete situations. That is,
education has laws to follow, but has no laws definitely. On the other hand, the students are
emotional individuals with great potentialities and have subjective initiative. Therefore, we,
the teachers should bring the learners’ subjective initiative into play as well as the teachers’
dynamic role. Our language teaching has three combinations, the combination of knowledge
and skills, the combination of language goals and non-language goals, the combination of
process and result.[58]
35
 During the implementation of TBLT, we met some problems to be solved. Firstly, when
the students discussed in groups, some of them spoke Chinese to complete tasks, though they
could express their ideas in English after consideration. So the teacher should enforce
monitoring and guidance on the students. When necessary, give them help. Secondly, the
students couldn’t well complete the tasks that had complicated procedures. So the teacher
should take the feasibility of the tasks in class into consideration when designing tasks and
avoid the complicated and difficult tasks as possible as you can. Thirdly, the students lost their
interest in participating in the task after they had done it many times. So the teacher should
design various tasks to stimulate the students to take part in the tasks enthusiastically. Fourthly,
tasks design was really a great and difficult project for us to do. After each class we all
summarized the effect and explored the suitable forms for them to do. So the teachers should
draw on collective wisdom and absorb all useful ideas to prepare lessons. Also, the teacher
can utilize the other teaching approaches to achieve the same outcomes more quickly and
effectively. Fifthly, we should attach much importance to the language knowledge teaching,
which is the foundation of complete the tasks.
Though, task-based language teaching gives us a new perspective and according to our
students’ situation it should be introduced into our teaching to make our teaching better, it
does not mean that we only use tasks to organize the class. It is only one of the teaching
strategies. Therefore, we should adopt all the effective teaching strategies, not only the TBLT,
to improve our students’ speaking skill and develop them into qualified primary school
teachers.

36
 References

[1] Schmidt, R. The role of consciousness in second language learning[J]. Applied Linguistics,
1990, 11(2): 129-158.
[2] Scott, M. An empirical study of explicit and implicit teaching strategies in French[J]. The
Modern Language Journal, 1989, 73: 14-21.
[3] [7] Prabhu, N. Second Language Pedagogy[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987
[4] [45] [47] [50] [53] Willis, J. A Framework for Task-based Learning[M]. Essex: Longman,
1996.
[5] [46] [49] [57] Skehan, P. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning[M]. 上海: 上海
外语教育出版社, 1999.
[6] [13] [18] Nunan, D. Task-based Language Teaching[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2004. 1-37.
[8] Long, M & Crookes, G. Three approaches to syllabus design [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 1992,
26 (1): 27-49.
[9]Nunan, D. Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1989. 13.
[10] [11] [48] Long, M & Robinson, P. Focus on form: Theory, research and practice[C]. In
Doughty C & Williams J, eds. Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language
Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998, 15-41.
[12] 揭和娟，任务型教学的课外延伸[J]. 中小学英语教学与研究，2003，6：17-18，37.
[14] Long, M. A role for instruction in second language acquisition[C]. In Hyltenstam K &
Pienemann M, eds. Modelling and Assessing Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters, 1985. 89.
[15] Richards, J, Platt ,T & Weber, H. Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics[M].
London: Longman, 1985. 289.
[16] [51] Skehan, P. A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction[J]. Applied
Linguistics, 1996, 17(1): 38-62.
[17] [26] Ellis, R. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching [M]. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2003. 16, 343.
[19] Breen, M. Authenticity in the language classroom[J]. Applied Linguistics, 1985, 6(1):
60-70.

37
[20] 程晓堂，任务的定义和类型[J]. 中小学外语教学，2004，6：1-6。
[21] Skehan, P. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning[M]. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1998. 98.
[22] Brown, H, Teaching By Principles[M]. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall,
1994. 173.
[23] [24] Richards, J C & Rodgers, T S. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching[M].
2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
[25] [32] Krashen, S. The Input Hypothesis[M]. London: Longman, 1985.
[27] Long, M. Input and second language acquisition theory[C]. In Gass S & Madden C, eds.
Input and Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1985, 377-393.
[28] Pica, T. Research in negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning
conditions, processes, and outcomes[J]? Language Learning, 1994,44: 493-527.
[29] [31] Long, M. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition [C].
In Ritchie W C & Bhatia T K, eds. Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. New
York: Academic Press. 1996, 413-468.
[30] Schmidt, R. Awareness and second language acquisition[J]. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 1993, 13: 206-226.
[33] Ellis, R. Task-based research and language pedagogy[J]. In Hodder Arnold Journals,
Language Teaching Reaching, 2000, 4(3): 193-220.
[34] [36] Swain, M. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible output in its
development[C]. In Gass S & Madden C, eds. Input in Second Language Acquisition.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 1985, 235–253.
[35] Swain, M. Focus on form through conscious reflection[C]. In Doughty C & Williams J,
eds. Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. 1998, 64-81.
[37] Iwashita, N. Tasks and learners’ output in NNS-NNS interaction (Japanese)[C]. In Kanno
K, eds. Studies on the Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language. Amsterdam: John
Benjamin. 1999, 31-52.
[38] Shehadeh A. Non-native speakers’ production of modified comprehensible output and
second language learning[J]. Language Learning, 1999, 49(4): 627-76.
[39] Swain, M, & Lapkin, S. Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent
French immersion students working together[J]. Modern Language Journal, 1998, 82(3):
320-337.
[40] Swain, M. Collaborative dialogue: Its contribution to second language learning[J].
Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 1997, 34: 115-132.

38
[41] Lantolf, J P. Second language theory building: Letting all the flowers bloom[J]!
Language Learning, 1996, 46: 713-749.
[42] [43]Vygotsky, L S. Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological
Processes[M]. Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Press, 1978.
[44] Wertsch, J V. Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind[M]. Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard
University Press, 1985. 88.
[52] Candlin, C. Towards task-based learning[C]. In Candlin C & Murphy D, eds. Lancaster
Practical Papers in English Language Education; Vo. 7. Language learning tasks.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 1987, 5-22.
[54] 张正东，谈运用任务型教学的三个问题[J]. 中小学外语教学，2004，6：7-10.
[55] Littlewood W. Structuring Task-based Interaction through Collaborative Learning
Techniques[J], 中小学外语教学，2004，12：1-4.
[56] 龚亚夫, 罗少茜. 任务型语言教学[M]. 北京：人民教育出版社，2003.
[58] 程晓堂, 龚亚夫. 《英语课程标准》的理论基础[J]. 课程·教材·教法，2005，25(3)：
66-72.

39
 Appendix I

The following is an example of a jigsaw task which uses jigsaw groups and expert
groups:
The topic is healthy eating.
Stage One (“Jigsaw groups”)
Please form groups of three or four. Each student will then be given three short texts
which deal with the relationship between health and eating habits. Individually, please read all
three texts. Each member in the group should then make notes in point form about what the
texts say about one of the following topics (make sure that each topic is chosen by one person
in he group):
What kinds of eating habits are best for our health?
In what ways are modern eating habits sometimes unhealthy?
What can we do to make our eating habits healthier?
After taking notes, you will be asked to hand back the original texts.
Stage Two (“Expert groups”)
Form new groups of three or four in which all members have focused on the same topic.
In these groups, share ideas about what you now know about the topic assigned to you. Note
down any new ideas from other members of your group.
Stage Three (“Jigsaw groups” re-form)
Return to the original groups of three or four and:
Together, discuss what specific facts and ideas you would wish to include in a text (of
about 300 words) on “Healthy Eating”.
Produce an outline plan for a written report on “Healthy Eating”. (You can design the
plan around the three topics listed in stage one, if you wish.)
The plans of the different groups will be shared with other members of the class for
comment.
Stage Four (Individual task)
Individually, write a report on the subject of “Healthy Eating” and then report it orally.

40
 Appendix II

Post-treatment Questionnaire
Indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of these statements by circling the
appropriate number (1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly
Agree).
1. The experience is useful in helping me to improve my speaking skill.
1 2 3 4 5
2. The experience is fun.
1 2 3 4 5
3. I am polite.
1 2 3 4 5
4. My partner is friendly.
1 2 3 4 5
5. My partner is polite.
1 2 3 4 5
6. I am friendly.
1 2 3 4 5
7. In class, I expect that the teacher let us do information-gap activities.
1 2 3 4 5
8. In class, I expect that the teacher let us give our opinions about the topic.
1 2 3 4 5
9. In class, I expect that the teacher let us put on the play we have adapted from the text.
1 2 3 4 5
10. I expect the teacher let us complete the tasks by myself, and report to the class by
myself.
1 2 3 4 5
11. I expect the teacher let us complete the tasks in groups, and report to the class in turn
in groups.
1 2 3 4 5
12. The experience can develop my thinking skill.
1 2 3 4 5
41
 13. Learning this way is fun.
1 2 3 4 5
14. I have the successful experience and the confidence after accomplishing the tasks.
1 2 3 4 5
15. I am concentrating on the task.
1 2 3 4 5
16. Accomplishing tasks was very stressful
1 2 3 4 5
17. I would like to learn language in this manner.
1 2 3 4 5
18. I don’t think that I am learning.
1 2 3 4 5
19. I think that the experience can improve my speaking skill apparently.
1 2 3 4 5
20. I used my native language…(circle one)
1 2 3 4 5
Always Often Sometimes Once or twice Not at all
If you did use your native language, what are your reasons? If not, why didn’t you?
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
21. Did you correct your partner’s mistakes in discussion in the TBLT class? (Circle one)
1 2 3
Often Sometimes Never
Why did/ didn’t you correct your partner?
___________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
22. Did you ask your partner for help during the task when you didn’t understand
something?
1 2 3 4 5
Yes, always Often A few times Once or twice No, never
Why did/didn’t you ask your partner for help?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

Thank you very much for filling-out this questionnaire and good luck with your studies.
42
 Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to my supervisor, Professor Di Yanhua, for her endless and patient
support and encouragement throughout the writing process. As a matter of fact, the inspiration
of writing this thesis comes from her advice. I would like to thank her for her valuable advice
and detailed criticism. In addition, during my study in Northeast Normal University, I have
been deeply impressed by the teachers and their lectures.
I am also thankful to my colleagues. With their support, the experiment and the study
were carried out smoothly.
I am also thankful to my husband. He helped me process the data.