¹Dang Thị Thanh Huong, Ph.D, ²Than Thu Thao, MA

¹,²Thai Nguyen University – School of Foreign Languages

DOI : https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v4-i9-44

Google Scholar Download Pdf
Abstract

The current study determines the effectiveness of using task-based language instructions in teaching writing at a high school in Thai Nguyen province. The participants consist of 92 grade 10 students from Bing Yen high school, Dinh Hoa district. The study employs a mix method research design (MMR) as the plan for the research. The results of the study reveals that the results of writing performance were reported at a low level (M=3.72). The results also confirmed that the intervention worked well for the experimental group. The mean score of the pre-test (the baseline for both groups) was M=3.72. The intervention focused on TBLT instructions. After first five weeks, the means of post-test1 were M=4.96 and M=3.83 for experimental group and control group respectively. There was a significant difference between the mean of pre-test and post-test1 for the experimental group (M=3.72 compared to M=4.96), while the control group showed a little improvement (M=3.72 compared to M=3.83) the difference was not significant. After another five weeks, the difference in the mean scores of the experimental group were far more than the mean scores of the control group, M=5.56 and M=4.45 respectively. By the end of the fifteenth week of the intervention, the mean of post-test 3 of the experimental group reached M=6.41, the mean for control group was M=5.54. The difference of the mean scores in the pre-test and post-test revealed a significant improvement in both groups. However, the experimental group showed a greater improvement, M=6.41 and M=5.54 respectively. It can infer that the uses of TBLT writing instruction improved writing achievement greatly.

KEYWORDS

Task-based language instruction, effects, traditional writing instruction, cognitive, social constructions

REFERENCES

1) Breen, M. (1989). The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

2) Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: an interactive approach to language pedagogy. New York, NY: Pearson.

3) Bruner, J. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21–32.

4) Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to language pedagogy. In J. Richards, & R. Schmidt, (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2-27). New York: Longman

5) Chandrasegaran, A., & Yeo, S. C. (2006). Teaching character depiction in narrative writing. In T. S. C. Farrell (Ed.), Language teacher research in Asia (pp. 7–20). Alexandria: TESOL.

6) Chandrasegaran, A., Kong, C. K. M., & Chua, D. F. (2007). Intervention in the teaching of expository writing. Unpublished research report. Singapore: Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, National Institute of Education.

7) Chandrasegaran, A. (2013). The effect of a socio-cognitive approach to teaching writing on stance support moves and topicality in students’ expository essays. Linguistics and Education, 8(24), 101–111.

8) Cliff, A. and Hanslo, M. (2009).The design and use of alternate assessments of academic literacy as selection mechanisms in higher education. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 27(3), 265- 276

9) Creswell, J.W., & Clark, P. L. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

10) Doan, N. B. (2014) Teaching the Target Culture in English Teacher Education Programs: Issues of EIL in Vietnam. In Roby Marlina, Ram Ashish Giri (Ed.), The pedagogy of English as an international language: Perspectives from scholars, teachers, and students (pp. 79-93). Springer.

11) Dewey, J. (2009). My pedagogic creed. In D. Filnders & S. Thornton (Eds.), The curriculum studies reader (pp. 34–41), New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.

12) Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

13) Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English

14) Freire, P. (2009). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. In D. Filnders & S. Thornton (Eds.), The curriculum studies reader (pp. 147–154), New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.

15) Fulcher, G. (2000). The communicative legacy in language testing. System, 4(28), 483-497.

16) Grabe, W., & Kaplan, B. K. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective. New York: Longman.

17) Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 207–241.

18) Halliday, M. K. (1975). Learning How to Mean: Explorations in the Development of Language. London: Edward Arnold.

19) Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and researching writing. Harlow: Pearson.

20) Jarvis, P. (2006). Towards a comprehensive theory of human learning. New York, NY: Routledge.

21) Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly, 18(40), 59–81. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40264511

22) Lantolf, J. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. New York, NY Oxford University Press.

23) Lea, M.R. and Street, B.V. (1998). Student Writing in Higher Education: an academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157-172.

24) Leaver, B. L. and Willis, J. (2004). Task-Based Instructions in Foreign Language Education: Practices and Programs. Washington: Georgetown University Press.

25) Lee, J. (2000). Tasks and communicating in language classroom. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill

26) Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: from intention to articulation. Cambridge University Press.

27) Long, M.H., and Crooks, G. (1991). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26(1), 27-56.

28) Ly, T. T., & Nguyen, T. H. (2018). Internationalization of higher education in Vietnam through English medium instruction (EMI): Practices, tensions and implications for local language policies. In Indika Liyanage, Mutiplingual Education Yearbook (pp. 91-106). Springer.

29) Moutlana, I.N. 2007. Challenges facing higher education: The problem of Academic Literacy, VC/Speeches/ North West University Workshop-17 September 2007, pp.1-15

30) Munro, J. 2003. Fostering Literacy across the Curriculum. International Journal of Learning, 10(7), 327-336.

31) Nguyen, H. T. M. (2011) Primary English language education policy in Vietnam: Insights from implementation. Language Planning, 12(2) , 225-249.

32) Niven, P.M. (2005). Exploring first year students‟ and their lecturers‟ constructions of what it means to read in the humanities discipline: a conflict of frames? South African Journal of Higher Education, 19(4), 777-789.

33) Nunan, D. (1989). Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.

34) Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press

35) Nunn, R. (2006). Designing holistic units for task-based teaching. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3), 69-93.

36) Paltridge, B., Harbon, L., Hirsh, D., Shen, H. Z., Stevenson, M., Phakiti, A., et al. (Eds.). (2009). Teaching academic writing: An introduction for teachers of second language writers. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

37) Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. New York: Viking.

38) Pica, T. (1997). Second language teaching and research relationships: A North American view. Language Teaching Research, 5(1), 48-72.

39) Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

40) Riazi, A. M., & Candlin, N. C. (2014). Mixed-Methods Research in Language Teaching and Learning: Opportunities, Issues and Challenges. Language Teaching, 7(47), 135-173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0261444813000505

41) Richards, J., J. Platt & H. Weber. 1986. Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. London: Longman.

42) Richards, J. & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

43) Sawyer, W., & Watson, K. (1989). Further questions on genre. English in Australia, 90(1), 27–42.

44) Schubert, W., Marshall, J., Sears, J., Allen, L., & Roberts, P. (2007). Turning points in curriculum: A contemporary American memoir. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.

45) Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

46) Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

47) Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.) (2003). The Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

48) Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge. Harvard University Press

49) Willis, J. (1996). A Framework for TaskBased Learning. London: Longman.

50) Willis, D. & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

51) Wright, T. (1987). Instructional task and discoursal outcome in the L2 classroom. In C. Candlin, & D. Murphy, (Eds.), Language Learning Tasks (pp. 47- 68). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall

52) Zohrabi, M. (2013). Mixed Method Research: Instruments, Validity, Reliability and Reporting Findings. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(3), 254-262. http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.2.254-262.

VOlUME 04 ISSUE 09 SEPTEMBER 2021