Tài liệu From textbook to the classroom the implementation of speaking tasks in english 10 textbook

M IN IS T R Y O F E D U C A T IO N A N D T R A IN IN G HANOI UNIVERSITY NGUYEN THI LAN ANH FROM TEXTBOOK TO THE CLASSROOM: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SPEAKING TASKS IN ENGLISH 10 TEXTBOOK SU BM ITTED IN P A R T IA L F U L F IL L M E N T OF REQUIREMENTS FOR TH E DEGREE OF M A S T E R OF ARTS IN TESOL. SUPERVISOR: LE VAN CANH, M.A T4T Hanoi January, 2009 ACKNOW LEDGEM ENTS F irstly, I w ould lik e to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, M r. Le Van Canh M .A , fo r his guidance, helpful suggestions, invaluable critica l feedback and encouragement in the w ritin g o f this study. W ithout his invaluable assistance, my study w ould not have been completed. M y special thanks go to M rs. Nguyen Thai Ha, M .Ed from the department o f Post Graduate Studies o f Hanoi U niversity fo r her valuable guidance and advice. I also w ish to acknowledge the support and encouragement o f D r. V u Van Dai and other s ta ff members o f the Post Graduate Department, Hanoi U niversity. I w ould also acknowledge m y great gratitude to a ll m y lecturers at Hanoi U niversity during m y M .A . course, and to the organizers fo r this Master course. M y sincere thanks are due to m y colleagues and a ll students in classes 10A1 ， 10A4 and 10A5 o f Thanh Oai A high school (TO A H S ), who offered excellent assistance in the data collection; to m y college’ s management board fo r th e ir support and encouragement w hile the w ork was in progress. Last but not least, I would lik e to express m y deepest gratitude to my beloved people, m y fa m ily, m y father, my mother, and especially m y husband fo r their love, care and tolerance that encouraged me a lo t in com pleting this study. ABSTRACT The present study investigates the im plem entation o f speaking tasks in TIE N G A N H 10 textbook, w hich is intended to be m ore com m unicative and theme-based than the previous one. Questionnaires were collected fro m 6 teachers who were using the new textbooks and they were teaching in grade 10 and 160 students who were learning in grade 10. a ll teachers and students were teaching and learning in T .O .A high school, where this study was carried out. Then observations o f classes 10A1, 10A4 and 10A5 were also conducted in order to investigate how the teachers have implemented their speaking task in the classrooms. Post-observation interview s were conducted to understand the rationale behind teachers' d e live ry o f speaking tasks in the classroom. The findings revealed a gap between the textbook’ s prescribed methodologies and teachers’ classroom practice. Teachers fa ile d to im plem ent fa ith fu lly what was required by the textbook’ prescribed m ethodology in the classroom . Rather, they conducted teaching based on the classroom and p o litic a l realities. Factors affecting such practice were m ainly large class size, students，language proficiency, m otivation，learning behaviour, perceptions o f teachers9 role. TABLE O F CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................................................................I ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................II TABLE OF CONTENTS____________________________________________________ Ш LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.....................................................................................................V LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................................... VI 0 ^ H ^ ^ P T ' E ỉ ỉ 1 • X N • 且1 • 且• 且 1 1.1. B a c k g r o u n d t o t h e s t u d y ..........................................................................................................1 1.2. AIM S o f t h e s t u d y ..........................................................................................................................2 1.3. R e s e a r c h q u e s t io n s o f t h e s t u d y ..................................................................................•••••• 3 1.4. Sc o p e o f t h e s t u d y .........................................................................................................................3 1.5. O u t l in e o f t h e t h e s is ................................................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW_________________________________________ 5 2.1. T e a c h in g s p e a k in g .........................................................................................................................5 2.1.1. Definitions o f speaking............................................................................................. 5 2.1.2. Role o f speaking in Second Language Acquisition.................................................... 5 2.1.3. Communicative Language Teaching.........................................................................9 2.2 T a s k - b a s e d l a n g u a g e t e a c h in g ..............................................................................................11 2.2.1 Definitions o f Tasks................................................................................................. II 2.2.2 Speaking tasks to promote speaking skills in a second language............................. 12 2.2.3 Approach o f task-based teaching.............................................................................15 2.3. C h a l l e n g e s o f T e a c h in g Sp e a k in g ...................................................................................... 20 2.4. C o n t e x t u a l v a r ia b l e s a f f e c t in g t h e im p l e m e n t a t io n o f in n o v a t io n ................22 2.4.1. The role o f the textbook: How teachers use o f the textbook.................................... 22 2.4.2 Teachers as key actors in curriculum innovations...................................................24 2.4.3 Factors affecting students *participants in speaking activities................................ 25 2.4.4 Previous studies on the implementation o f EFL innovations....................................28 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY_____________________________________________ 30 3.1 • Pa r t ic ip a n t s o f t h e s t u d y ...................................................................................................... 30 3.1.1. The context o f study................................................................................................30 3.1.2. The Teachers......................................................................................................... 31 3.1.3. The Learners............................................................................ .............................. 32 3.2. D a t a c o l l e c t io n in s t r u m e n t s ............................................................................................... 32 3.2.1. Questionnairefo r Teachers..................................................................................... 33 3.2.2 Questionnairefo r Students...................................................................................... 33 3.2.3 Classroom Observation ................................................................................................ 34 3.2.4 Post-observation Interview/..................................................................................... 35 CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION...............—...............»...—................ 36 4.1 D a t a a n a l y s i s ............................................................................................................................... 36 4.1.1 Findings o f Questionnairefo r teachers................................................................... 36 4.1.2 Findings o f questionnaire fo r student..................................................................... 46 4.1.3 Results o f class observation and Post-observation interview................................ 49 4.2 D is c u s s io n m a j o r f in d in g s ..................................................................................................... 52 4.2.1 Teachers ’ and students 'positive attitudes towards o f speaking tasks................... 52 4.2.2 A discrepancy between teachers’ classroom method and the textbook’s prescribed methodology ......................................................................................................................... 53 4.3 I m p l ic a t io n f o r im p l e m e n t e r s .............................................................................................. 57 4.3.1 Narrowing the gap between intention o f the textbook writers and implementers.... D7 4.3.2 Narrowing the gap between teaching methods and students’ interest and expectations................................................................................................................... 58 유 ^ 유 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 6 0 5.1 S u m m a r y o f t h e s t u d y ...............................................................................................................60 5.2 L im it a t io n s a n d s u g g e s t io n s f o r f u r t h e r s t u d y ...........................................................61 REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................62 APPENDIX 1: ENGLISH VERSION OF QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHERS............ 68 APPENDIX 2: PHIẾU KHẢO SÁT SINH VIÊN__________________________________ 71 APPENDIX 3: ENGLISH VERSION OF QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDENTS---------- 73 APPENDIX 4: CLASSROOM OBSERVATION SHEET__________________________ 75 APPENDIX 5: POST- OBSERVATION INTERVIEWS...................................................... 76 IV LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS T.O .A.H.S: Thanh Oai A high school МОЕТ: M in istry o f Education and Training CLT: Com m unicative Language Teaching EFL: English as a foreign language ESL: English as a second language L I; F irst Language L2: Second Language CO: Comprehensible Output LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Teachers4 profile Table 2: Teachers' comments on the strengths o f the speaking section Table 3: Teachers’ comments on the lim itations o f speaking section Table 4: Teachers’ awareness o f the curriculum goals Table 5: Teachers’ opinions o f d iffic u ltie s in im plem enting speaking tasks Table 6: Teachers’ comments on students’ attitudes towards learning speaking Table 7: Teachers9 believes about speaking activities preferred by students Table 8: Teachers9 comments on students9 speaking competence Table 9: Teachers’ self-reported classroom strategies to m otivate students Table 10: Speaking activities applied by teachers to encourage students to speak Table 11 : Students9 attitudes towards speaking English Table 12: Students’ attitudes towards language skills Table 13: Students9 attitudes tow ard speaking lessons Table 14: Students preferred speaking activities in class. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION This chapter provides the background to the study, states the aims, the research questions，the scope, and the design o f the thesis. l.L Background to the study R eform ing Vietnamese education to meet the demand o f the society in the process o f the integration and development has become one o f the most concerns o f educators and society recently. This p olicy has resulted in many profound changes in the country’ s educational life . One o f the visible things we can see from our educational innovation is the reform ation o f English language teaching at the secondary school toward greater emphasis on student a b ility to use English fo r com m unicative and academic purposes. A fte r three years o f development, a new English curriculum fo r a ll national low er and upper secondary schools was o ffic ia lly approved by the M in istry o f Education and Training. The new curriculum defines English as “ a com pulsory subject” , w hich is “ instrumental to the access o f w orld science and technology as w ell as w orld cultures” . (М О ЕТ, 2006). M ethodologically, the new curriculum adopts a “ learner-centered approach and the com m unicative approach w ith task-based teaching being the central teaching method” (E nglish 10，Teacher’ s book, p. 12). The aims are equip students w ith com m unicative a b ility and competence to perform basic language functions receptively and pro du ctive ly，using correct language form s and structures. The new E nglish syllabus content is arranged according to 6 themes. A ll o f these themes are draw n from the contexts o f the students9 d a ily life including You and M e/ Personal Inform ation, Education, C om m unity, Recreation, The W orld Around Us, People and Places. The themes provide the context in w hich language skills, content and cu ltu ral values are taught and developed in an integrated manner. These themes are recycled fro m grade to grade. In operationalizing these approaches to English language teaching in Vietnamese low er and upper secondary schools, a set o f textbooks was w ritten by a group o f hand-picked Vietnamese EFL professionals to replace the existing ones. It is claim ed that the new book，mandated by М О Е Т (2006)，is task-based w ith an emphasis on students’ productive s k ills (speaking and listening skills). The introduction o f the textbook series in aimed at addressing the strongly criticized weakness o f the old structure-based textbook，w hich was believed to be the obstacle to the development o f students' speaking skills. One o f the intended goals o f the new textbook Tieng Anh 10 is to develop leamers9 speaking sk ills on given topics. Each U n it o f the book is divided into five sessions: Speaking, Listening, Reading, W ritin g ，and Language Focus w ith each session being mandated to be completed w ith in one 45-m inute lesson. In each speaking lesson, there are 3 or 4 tasks, task 1 and task 2 focus on learners' language input and develop language competencies as w ell as language specific functions such as expressing preferences, talking about the uses o f computer, give instructions, express opinions, ask fo r and give inform ation, express agreements and disagreements, and make comparison and co n tra st... ect. Task 3-4 get students synthesize specific competencies and develop a te xt for 1-2 m inute speaking practice w ith o r w itho u t the guidance o f th e ir teachers. The introduction o f the new textbook into teaching at secondary schools has marked a sh ift in language teaching and learning away from the traditional approach, grammar translation method，w hich only concentrates on the a b ility o f using grammar rules precisely, to com m unicative approach, w hich focuses on com m unication a bility. Nonetheless, the m ajority o f the teachers o f English at secondary schools fin d it d iffic u lt to teach speaking successfully because o f large class size, students’ language proficiency ，m otivation, learning behaviour, and perceptions o f teachers’ role. M oreover, a m ajority o f the teachers were trained under the strong influence o f the Gram m ar-Translation method w hich impedes them from teaching speaking successfully even the new textbook follow s the com m unicative approach. On the other hand, in the English language teaching literature research findings about the role o f the textbooks as agent o f change are m ixed. In the meantime, the issue o f the im plem entation o f speaking tasks in Tieng A nh 10 by classroom teacher has not been explored in Vietnam . This study is an attempt to narrow that gap. 1.2. Aims of the study The study aims to explore how the textbook is really taught o r the prescribed m ethodology is really implemented in the classroom w ith a special emphasis on 2 teachers' im plem entation o f the speaking tasks. S pecifically, the aims o f the study are as follow s: a. to understand teachers’ and students’ opinions of, and attitudes towards, the speaking tasks in TIEN G A N H 10 in terms o f su ita bility and interest. b. to explore how the speaking tasks are implemented in the classroom. 1.3. Research questions of the study The study is to fin d out the answers to the fo llo w in g questions: 1. H ow do teachers and students respond to the speaking tasks in TIE N G A N H 10 textbook? 2. H ow are speaking tasks in the textbook implemented by teachers in their classrooms? 3. Is there a gap between the textbook’ s prescribed methodology and teachers’ classroom methods? I f so, w hy does that gap exist? 1.4. Scope of the study The study was not intended to explore the delivery o f the new English textbook fo r the high school teachers in general. Rather, it sets out to investigate the way teachers teach the speaking tasks prescribed in the textbook fo r Grade 10 only. A lso, the study focused on the teaching o f speaking tasks in one high school only. It, therefore, does not aim to generalize the way speaking is taught in high schools w ith the new textbook. 1.5. Outline of the thesis The research study consists o f five chapters: ֊ Chapter I ， Introduction，provides such basic inform ation as the background o f the study, the aims, the research questions, the scope，and the design o f the thesis. - Chapter II，Literature Review, presents various concepts m ost relevant to the research topic such as teaching speaking, problems in teaching speaking. This includes a d e finitio n o f task-based language learning as w ell as the discussion o f contextual variables affecting the im plem entation o f innovation. This is follow ed by a review o f previous studies on im plem entation o f EFL innovations. 3 - Chapter HI, Research M ethodology, presents the methodology used fo r this study and the rationale o f using such methodology. A lso, inform ation about the research site, participants, research instruments and research procedures is provided in this Chapter. - Chapter IV discusses the outcomes o f the data analysis. - Chapter V is conclusion chapter. 4 CHAPTER 2: LITERA TU RE REVIEW This chapter presents various concepts most relevant to the research topic such as teaching speaking, problems in teaching speaking. This includes 4 main sections. Section 2.1 discusses teaching speaking, section 2.3 examines challenges o f teaching speaking, w hile section 2.3 shows contextual variables affecting the im plem entation o f innovation, and section 2.4，the last section discusses previous studies on the im plem entation o f EFL innovation. 2.1. Teaching speaking 2.1.1. Definitions o f speaking Speaking has always been a m ajor focus o f language teaching, however both the nature o f speaking skills as w ell as approaches to teaching them have undergone a m ajor shift fo r past many years. In the early seventies speaking usually meant “ repeating after the teacher, reciting a memorized dialogue, o r responding to a mechanical d rill” (Shrum and G lisan ， 2000:26; cited by Richards, 2002).This meant speaking reflected the sentencebased view o f proficiency prevailing in the m ethodologies o f A udio-lingual and Situational Language Teaching. B ut since 1980s the emergence o f the constructs o f com m unicative competence and proficiency lead to m ajor shifts in conceptions o f syllabuses and methodology, the effects o f w hich continue to be seen today (Richards ， 2002:19). Burn (1997) defines speaking as “ an interactive process o f constructing meaning that involves producing and receiving and processing inform ation” . In this process o f speaking, form and meaning are dependent on the context in w hich it occurs, including the participants themselves, their collective experiences, the physical environm ent, and the purposes fo r speaking. Because o f contextual and sequential features，speaking is often spontaneous, open-ended, and evolving. 2.1.2. Role o f speaking in Second Language Acquisition 2.1.2.1 C om prehensible o u tp u t hypothesis The comprehensible output (CO ) hypothesis states that we acquire language when we attem pt to transm it a message but fa il and have to try again. E ventually, we arrive at the 5 correct form o f our utterance，our conversational partner fin a lly understands, and we acquire the new form we have produced. The originator o f the comprehensible output hypothesis, M e rrill Swain (Swain, 1985), does not claim that CO is responsible fo r a ll o r even most o f our language competence. Rather, the claim is that Msometimes, under some conditions, output facilitates second language learning in ways that are different form ，or enhance，those o f input" (Swain and Lapkin, 1995， p. 371). In a study conducted w ith Canadian im m ersion students, Swain has shown that even though students had received abundant comprehensible input in French and were somewhat fluent in the language they had s till not acquired grammatical competence in the language. Immersion student's achievement test scores equivalent to those o f students in the standard English program proved that the input had indeed been comprehensible (the im m ersion students took the achievement tests in French). S till, immersions students' many syntactical errors in French confirm ed that the target language grammatical system had not been fiilly acquired. This inform ation gave researchers cause to question whether comprehensible input really is the only causal factor in second language acquisition. Swain suggested that ‘‘output” was the missing factor and called the concept “ comprehensible output” and has been credited w ith firs t articulating what has come to be called the "O utput Hypothesis.， ， It has been proposed (Swain 1995) that one possible way to account fo r the lack o f gram m atical accuracy was that learners were not being pushed to produce language output. Swain theorized that learners in im m ersion settings were not “ pushecT，to a deeper analysis o f the target language grammar because they could get their meaning across adequately w ithout doing so. The idea, w hich sounds so commonsensical and in tu itiv e ly appealing to me in my study o f Japanese, is that producing comprehensible output requires a learner to take a more active role than that required in listening. Essentially, learners must w ork harder when producing language This is at least p a rtia lly because when learners are producing comprehensible output they have (o r should have) a vested interest in being as accurate as possible. They are “ stakeholders” in what they produce, it is their creation. This is contrasted w ith comprehensible input w ith w hich learners rarely, i f ever, have a vested interest in what is said to them (they do however have a presumed desire to understand what is being said!). 6 It has been proposed that comprehensible output may o ffe r at least three things that input could not do. It could 1) Provide the learner w ith opportunities fo r contextualized, m eaningful use, 2) A llo w them to test out hypotheses and 3) Force them to move from semantic to syntactic processing o f the target language. I w ould like to consider ftirther the second and th ird o f these three roles. Regarding the testing o f hypotheses, the idea is that through their produced output learners can test and either confirm or deny hypotheses about the target language system. As fo r the th ird possible role o f output, w hile semantic processing may be su fficie nt to deal w ith comprehensible input when listening, the learner needs to attend to more things and，as a result，more cognitive resources are needed when speaking. Therefore, output essentially forces the speaker to pay more attention to grammar and engage in deeper syntactic processing. M ore recent research has largely provided support fo r the basic idea o f the output hypothesis. This research，conducted over the last ten years, has led researchers to develop and refine their conception o f the output hypothesis. Research developments suggest that collaborative tasks (such as Inform ation Gap activities) may be perhaps one o f the best ways to get students to produce comprehensible output. As has been noted (Swain, 1995) a reason these types o f tasks and other kinds o f pair and group w ork activities may be useful is because, whereas in d ivid u a lly learners may be novices, w orking together they have access to th e ir partner’ s knowledge and can essentially “ rise above， ，th e ir individual level o f competence and become, tem porarily and w ith the help o f th e ir partners, more proficient “ experts.， ，B y doing this, learners w orking in a pair can produce comprehensible output beyond th e ir competence level and learn something new (o r at the very least, consolidate existing knowledge). It is generally agreed that, in terms o f the output hypothesis, the above-mentioned three possible roles can s till be attributed to comprehensible output although they have been m odified slig h tly from earlier conceptions. C urrently, the roles comprehensible output may play are seen to be the fo llo w in g : 1) Comprehensible output can lead a learner to “ notice， ，the gap between what they want to say and what they actually can say. Echoing the orig in al form o f the theory (and extending it ju s t a little ) ， 2) comprehensible output often involves hypothesis form ing and testing. Finally, 3) comprehensible output can have a m eta-linguistic ftinction. T his means it can lead to “ m eta-talk,” o r talking about language. It seems lik e ly that task-based collaborative activities may be most successful 7 at acting on this th ird m eta-linguistic role o f the three proposed roles o f comprehensible output by e lic itin g “ m eta-talk.” I frequently use task-based collaborative activities in my classroom here in Japan w ith low er-level students and I do notice *4m eta-talkv taking place often. Even so, it may be that “ m eta-talk” is most desirable or relevant in the context o f high-level but less than accurate learners where students have good fluency in the target language but could benefit from being induced to discuss language in order to move forw ard and achieve greater accuracy. Interestingly, w hile verbally produced output is probably the most frequent m anifestation o f comprehensible output it has been noted that output need not necessarily be verbalized. Swain has suggested that learners may be “ noticing， ，gaps in their knowledge and "producing” language in th e ir heads and fiirtherm ore that studies have shown that students learn through this “ internal verbalization. 2.1.2.2 T h e o re tica l support o f com prehensible o u tp u t hypothesis Support fo r the comprehensible output hypothesis comes from the w ork o f socio­ cultural theorists who m aintain that social interaction is a critica l factor in human psychological development. Socio-cultural theory claim s that our higher psychological processes are based on interactions w ith others. This im plies that we are more fu lly u tiliz in g our cognitive resources when we are engaged in verbal interaction w ith each other. From this perspective the use o f language is more than com m unication, it is something that triggers deep mental processes. It means that not only com m unication but also significant cognitive a c tiv ity is taking place. Socio-cultural theorists emphasize the im portance o f social interaction in psychological development. Language development, when seen as a part o f psychological development is what makes socio-cultural theory relevant to the comprehensible output hypothesis. The comprehensible output hypothesis neatly dovetails w ith socio-cultural theory as it claim s that negotiation o f meaning and interactional exchanges that take place using comprehensible output lead to language development and in fact are examples o f language development. Just as socio-cultural theorists have shown that social interaction leads to psychological development, comprehensible output researchers, led by Swain, have produced evidence showing that comprehensible output leads to language development. For example, it has been shown that w hile addressing com m unication problems learners engage in mental. 8 2.1.3. Communicative Language Teaching Having been shaped in the B ritish language teaching tradition dating from the late 1960s，Com m unicative Language Teaching (C LT ) marks the beginning o f a major innovation w ith in language teaching because o f its superior principles w hich are w idely accepted nowadays. So far, several researchers have done w ork on C LT and each o f them developed his own ideas regarding C LT. W ilkin s (1972) believes that people should learn a second language fo r perform ing different functions in life . Larsen-Freeman (2000a) adds that a ll tasks should be done w ith a com m unicative intent. The use o f authentic learning materials, because o f these perspectives on C L T ，is promoted in the classroom (Nunan 1991; D ubin 1995). C LT is also associated w ith learner-centred and experienced-based tasks (Richards and Rodgers 1986; Lo, Tsang，and W ong 2000). C LT is grounded on a theory o f language as com m unication. The goal o f C LT is to create a realistic context fo r language acquisition in the classroom in order to develop what Hymes (1972) referred to as “ com m unicative œmpetence， ’. Hymes’ theory o f com m unicative competence was a d e fin itio n o f what a speaker needs to know in order to be com m unicatively competent in a speech com m unity. Another lin g u istic theory o f com m unication favoured in C LT is H aliday， s ftm ctional account o f language use. “ Linguistics ... is concerned ... w ith the description o f speech acts o r texts, since only through the study o f language in use are a ll the fonctions o f language，and therefore all components o f meaning，brought into focus” (H a llid a y 1970 cited by Canh 2004: p 82). H illid a y has elaborated a pow erful theory o f the functions o f language, w hich complements Hymes’ view o f com m unicative competence. He described seven basic functions that language perform s fo r children learning th e ir firs t language: (1 ) The instrum ental ftin ctio n : using language to get things; (2) The regulatory function: using language to control the behaviour o f others; (3) The interactional fonction: using language to create interaction w ith others; (4) The personal fonction: using language to express personal feelings and meaning; (5) The heuristic fonction: using language to learn and to discover; (6) The im aginative function: using language to create a w orld o f the im agination; (7) The representational function: using language to communicate inform ation. The focus o f C L T is therefore on ftinctional language usage and learners’ a b ility to express th e ir own ideas, feelings, attitudes, desires and needs. Open-ended questioning 9 and problem -solving activities and exchanges o f personal inform ation are u tilize d to enable learners to develop leamers9 com m unicative competence. In this Com m unicative Approach ，“ s k ill” has become more im portant the “ content” (Canh 2004). Sociolinguists lik e Hymes (1972) argue that a competent speaker not o n ly knows how to use lin g u is tic form correctly, but is also able to use language appropriately w ith respect to context, interlocutor, and resister. From a m ethodological perspective, the opportunity to use language productively, in “ real com m unicative settings” is stressed. Language learning is language use. The focus o f C L T is therefore not on language practice but on learning about how language w orks in discourse. C om m unicative lessons are characterized by activities where learners communicate and where tasks are completed by means o f interaction w ith other learners. Therefore, learners’ com pleting a task is fore-grounded, and com m unicating w ith each other is back-grounded. To this end there may be considerable i f not extensive use o f pair w ork ， group w ork and m ingling a ctivitie s，w ith the emphasis on com pleting the task successfully through com m unication w ith others rather than on the accurate use o f form . D uring these activities, the teacher’ s role is to fa cilita te and then to m onitor, usually w ithout in te m ip tio n , and then to provide feedback on the success o r otherwise o f the com m unication and, possibly, on the lin g u istic performance o f the learners in the form o f post-activity error correction. C LT w ith its emphasis on meaning and com m unication and its learner-centred approach has served as the dom inant approach to language teaching since the demise o f the A u d io lin g u a l M ethod. The approach incorporates many o f the characteristics o f preceding methods w hile at the same tim e managing to avoid the “ narrowness and dogm atism o f the method concept” (Stem 1992). In term o f the lesson organization, the traditional “ presentation ֊ practice -֊ production” m odel, where careftil input o f a particular structure is ty p ic a lly follow ed by controlled, guided (less controlled), and freer practice, is recommended to be replaced by a m ore top-dow n model on the lines o f test, teach, test or those o f production, practice and presentation, where learners start w ith a given com m unicative task w hich is m onitored b y the teacher who also focuses on error correction o r a particular form that is causing d iffic u ltie s in the later stage o f the lesson. 10 2.2 Task-based language teaching 2.2.1 Definitions o f Tasks D uring the same period we have seen the rise o f the task “ as a fundamental concept in L2 teaching m ethodology and m aterials (Nunan,1991: cited by Seedhourse). “ Task” , in general, has been defined in a variety o f ways. It is seen as “ a piece o f w ork undertaken fo r oneself o r others, freely o r fo r some reward.... in other words, by ‘ task’ is meant “ the hundred and one things people do in everyday life , at w ork, at play and in between” (Long, 1985:89). Task, according to this definitio n , is a non-technical, non-linguistic term . I f it is considered as a u n it o f analysis, its boundaries cannot be identified, where this task ends and where another begins (Nunan, 1989). There are a num ber o f definitions o f w4ask” in applied linguistics. Richards, Platt and Weber (1986) define task as: ... an activity or action, which is carried out as the result o f processing or understanding language (i.e. as a response). For example, drawing a map while listening to a tape, listening to an instruction and performing a command, may be referred to as tasks. Tasks may or may not involve the production o f language. A task usually requires the teacher to specify what w ill be regarded as successful completion o f the task. The use o f a variety o f different kinds o f tasks in language teaching is said to make language teaching more communicative.... (P .289) Breen (1987) sees task as ... any structured language learning endeavour which has a particular objective ，appropriate content，a specified working procedure, and a range o f outcomes for those who undertake the task. 4ask’ is therfore assumed to refer to a range o f workplans which have the overall purpose o f facilitating language learning from the simple and b rie f exercise type, to more complex and lengthy activities such as group problem-solving or simulations and decision making. (P . 23) “ task” is a w id e ly used concept both in second language syllabus design and in L2 acquisition. Nunan (1989: 10) consider the com m unicative task as “ a piece o f classroom w ork w hich involves learners in comprehending, m anipulating, producing o r interaction in the target language w hile th e ir attention is p rin cip a lly focused on meaning rather than on form . The task should also have a sense o f completeness, being able to stand alone as 11 a com m unicative act in its own right.” Tasks provide a purpose fo r the use and learning o f language other than sim ply learning language items fo r their own sake. Viewed from a broader perspective, tasks are sim ply a context fo r learners to experience language in a range o f ways, fo r teachers and learners to evaluate process and product, and for teachers to select from , exploit and develop. (Canh, 2004). Tasks also provide input to learners and opportunities fo r m eaningful language use, both o f w hich are generally considered valuable in prom oting language acquisition (Swain, 1995). O pportunities fo r production may force students to pay close attention to form and to the relationship between form and meaning. It is assumed that this com bination o f contextualized, m eaningful input and output w ill engage learners general cognitive processing capacities through w hich they w ill process and reshape the input. In other words, tasks w ill lik e ly create a rich lin g u istic environm ent capable o f activating the learners' in tu itive heuristics (Kum aravadivelu, 1994)，w hich are natural cognitive processes used both consciously and unconsciously fo r developing the somewhat separate rules systems that underlie language comprehension and production. In addition ， form -function relationships, w hich are a c ritic a l aspect o f S LA (M acW hinney, 1997)，should be more readily perceived by the learners because o f the highly contextualized and com m unicative nature o f the tasks provided by a task-based syllabus. 2.2.2 Speaking tasks to promote speaking skills in a second language N ow many linguistics and ESL teachers agree that students learn to speak in the second language by “ interacting” . Com m unicative language teaching is based on real-life situations that require com m unication. B y using th is method in ESL classes, students w ill have the opportunity o f com m unicating w ith each other in the target language. Richards and Rodgers (1986:165) discuss that the range o f exercise types and activities w ith a com m unicative approach is un lim ite d ，provided that such exercises and activities enable learners to attain the com m unicative objectives o f the curriculum , engage learners in com m unication and require the use o f such com m unicative processes as inform ation sharing, negotiation o f meaning, and interaction. ESL teachers should create a classroom environm ent where students have re a l-life com m unication, authentic activities, and m eaningful tasks that prom ote oral language. K lip p e l (1984) plan out a lo t o f com m unicative activities w hich can help learners achieve some degree o f 12