Investigating Efl Students'' Perception Of Task-Based Language Teaching A Case Study Among Second-Year Non-English Majors At The University Of Science Ma .Pdf

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY HOCHIMINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS & LITERATURE INVESTIGATING EFL STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF TASK BASED LANGUAGE TEACHIN[.]

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY- HOCHIMINH CITY

UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES

FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS & LITERATURE

INVESTIGATING EFL STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS

OF TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING:

A CASE STUDY AMONG SECOND-YEAR NON-ENGLISH MAJORS AT THE UNIVERSITY

NGUYEN DANG NGUYEN, Ph.D

HO CHI MINH CITY, JANUARY 2022

Foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude and respect to my supervisor, Dr Nguyen Dang Nguyen, for his inspiration on the research topic and brilliant guidance His timely encouragement kept me focused and passionate about doing this research The constructive comments he gave motivated me to work in accordance with research ethics and made me understand the nature of my research All mistakes and limitations of this study were due to my own restricted time and ability

Special thanks to the director of the language center, the staff, the English lecturers, and the second-year non-English majors at the University of Science – Vietnam National University, they enthusiastically aided me during my data collection at the university

Moreover, I am grateful to the lecturers and the staff of the faculty of English Linguistics and Literature of the University of Social Sciences and Humanities, who respectively gave me valuable professional knowledge and instant support during this MA program Additionally, I would also like to extend my heartfelt thanks to my classmate in the course, who were there to share their research experiences and personal feelings

Last but not least, I would like to dedicate this thesis to my family My beloved husband has always been there to fully support and motivated me My aunts helped

me a lot with baby care More importantly, my passed-away mother has always been a good sample for me to have efforts in balancing among work, study, and family life Most significantly, the daily joys of my two little daughters, who were born during my pursuit of this MA program, kept me grounded

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY

I hereby certify my authorship of the thesis submitted today entitled:

INVESTIGATING EFL STUDENTS‟ PERCEPTIONS OF TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING: A CASE STUDY AMONG SECOND-YEAR NON-ENGLISH MAJORS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE

in terms of the statement of the requirements for the Theses in Master‟s program issued by the Higher Degree Committee

This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in any other institutions

Hochiminh City, January 2022

Đinh Thị Nguyên Anh

RETENTION OF USE

I hereby state that I, Đinh Thị Nguyên Anh, being the candidate for the degree of Master of Arts in TESOL, accept the requirements of the University relating to the retention and use of Master‟s theses deposited in the library

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my thesis deposited in the library should be accessible for the purpose of study and research, in accordance with the normal conditions established by the library for the care, loan or reproduction of theses

Hochiminh City, January 2022

Đinh Thị Nguyên Anh

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY ii

RETENTION OF USE iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ix

LIST OF TABLES x

LIST OF FIGURES xi

ABSTRACT xii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background to the study 1

1.2 Aim of the study 3

1.3 Research questions 3

1.4 Significance of the study 3

1.5 Scope of the study 4

1.6 Organization of the study 4

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 6

2.1 TBLT in English Language Teaching 6

2.2 Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) 7

2.2.1 Definitions 7

2.2.1.1 Task 7

2.2.1.2 TBLT 9

2.2.2 Principles of TBLT 10

2.2.2.1 Scaffolding 10

2.2.2.2 Task dependency 10

2.2.2.3 Recycling 11

2.2.2.4 Learning by doing 11

2.2.2.5 Integration 11

2.2.2.6 Reproduction to creation 12

2.2.2.7 Reflection 12

2.2.2.8 Authenticity 12

2.3 Students‟ perceptions of Task-Based Language Teaching 13

2.3.1 Meeting students‟ needs in TBLT 13

2.3.1.1 Authentic language 14

2.3.1.2 Personal experience 14

2.3.1.3 Collaboration 15

2.3.2 Achieving goals in TBLT 15

2.3.2.1 Accuracy 16

2.3.2.2 Fluency 17

2.3.2.3 Communication for real purposes 18

2.3.3 Providing tasks in TBLT 19

2.3.3.1 Input tasks 19

2.3.3.2 Output tasks 20

2.3.3.3 Real-life tasks 20

2.3.4 Planning teachers‟ and students‟ roles in TBLT 21

2.3.4.1 Teachers‟ roles 21

2.3.4.2 Students‟ roles 23

2.4 Learner factors affecting teachers‟ implementation of TBLT 25

2.4.1 Motivation 25

2.4.1.1 Integrative motivation 26

2.4.1.2 Instrumental motivation 26

2.4.2 Self-esteem 26

2.4.2.1 Self-efficacy 27

2.4.2.2 Task self-esteem 27

2.4.3 Language Anxiety 28

2.4.3.1 Communication apprehension 28

2.4.3.2 Test Anxiety 29

2.4.3.3 Fear of negative evaluation 29

2.4.4 Language proficiency 30

2.4.4.1 Listening ability 30

2.4.4.2 Speaking ability 31

2.4.4.3 Reading ability 31

2.4.4.4 Writing ability 32

2.4.5 Prior learning experience 32

2.4.5.1 Prior educational experience 32

2.4.5.2 Prior learning experience with TBLT 33

2.4.6 Learner autonomy 33

2.4.6.1 Learner control 33

2.4.6.2 Critical reflection 34

2.5 Previous studies 34

2.5.1 Previous studies related to students‟ perceptions of TBLT 34

2.5.2 Previous studies related to learner factors affecting teachers‟ implementation of TBLT 36

2.6 The conceptual framework 39

2.7 Chapter summary 39

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 41

3.1 Research design 41

3.2 Context of the study 41

3.3 Participants 43

3.3.1 Student participants 43

3.3.2 Teacher participants 44

3.4 Research instruments 44

3.4.1 Questionnaire to students 44

3.4.1.1 The design of a questionnaire to students 44

3.4.1.2 The reliability of the questionnaire to students 45

3.4.2 Semi-structured teacher interviews 47

3.5 Data collection procedure 48

3.5.1 Distributing the student questionnaires 48

3.5.2 Conducting teacher interview 49

3.6 Data analysis procedure 49

3.6.1 Analyzing data from the questionnaire 49

3.6.2 Data analysis procedure with qualitative data 50

3.7 Chapter summary 50

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 51

4.1 Findings 51

4.1.1 Answer to RQ1 51

4.1.1.1 Students‟ perceptions of meeting students‟ needs in TBLT 52

4.1.1.2 Students‟ perceptions of achieving goals in TBLT 53

4.1.1.3 Students‟ perceptions of providing tasks in TBLT 54

4.1.1.4 Students‟ perceptions of planning students‟ roles in TBLT 55

4.1.2 Answer to RQ2 56

4.1.2.1 Motivation 57

4.1.2.2 Self-esteem 59

4.1.2.3 Language anxiety 61

4.1.2.4 Language proficiency 64

4.1.2.5 Prior learning experience 69

4.1.2.6 Learner autonomy 72

4.2 Discussion 77

4.2.2 Discussion on the findings of RQ1 77

4.2.2 Discussion on the findings of RQ2 80

4.3 Chapter summary 83

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION 84

5.1 Conclusion 84

5.2 Pedagogical implications 85

5.2.1 For non-English majors 85

5.2.2 For English teachers 86

5.2.3 For syllabus designers 87

5.3 Limitation of the study 87

5.4 Recommendation for further studies 88

REFERENCES 89

APPENDICES 95

Appendix1 Piloted Questionnaires on Students‟ Perceptions of TBLT (Vietnamese version) 95

Appendix2 Official questionnaires on Students‟ Perceptions of TBLT

(English version) 99

Appendix 3 Official questionnaires on Students‟ Perceptions of TBLT (Vietnamese version) 102

Appendix 4 Interview questions to teachers (English version) 105

Appendix 5 Interview questions to teachers (Vietnamese Version) 106

Appendix 6 Cronbach‟s Alpha of Students‟ Perceptions of TBLT (piloted) 107

Appendix 7 Cronbach‟s Alpha of Students‟ Perceptions of TBLT 111

Appendix 8 Mean Scores of Students‟ Perceptions of TBLT 114

Appendix 9 Interview transcripts with three lecturers (English version) 115

Appendix 10 Interview transcripts with three lecturers (Vietnamese version) 132

Appendix 11 Request form for survey 152

Appendix 12 Permission letter for survey 153

FLCAS Foreign language classroom anxiety scale

MOET Ministry of Education and Training

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences

VNU-US Vietnam National University-University of Science

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Cronbach‟s alpha values of all piloted questionnaire items 46

Table 4.1 Cronbach‟s alpha values of all official questionnaire items 52

Table 4.2 Mean scores of students‟ perceptions of meeting students‟ needs in TBLT 52

Table 4.3 Mean scores of students‟ perceptions of achieving students‟ goals in TBLT 53

Table 4.4 Mean scores of students‟ perceptions of providing tasks in TBLT 54

Table 4.5 Students‟ perceptions of planning students‟ roles in TBLT 55

Table 4.6 A summary of the findings of RQ1 56

Table 4.7 Qualitative data for integrative motivation 57

Table 4.8 Qualitative data for instrumental motivation 58

Table 4.9 Qualitative data for self-efficacy 59

Table 4.10 Qualitative data for task self-esteem 60

Table 4.11 Qualitative data for communication apprehension 61

Table 4.12 Qualitative data for test anxiety 62

Table 4.13 Qualitative data for fear of negative evaluation 63

Table 4.14 Qualitative data for listening ability 64

Table 4.15 Qualitative data for speaking ability 66

Table 4.16 Qualitative data for reading ability 67

Table 4.17 Qualitative data for writing ability 68

Table 4.18 Qualitative data for prior educational experience 69

Table 4.19 Qualitative data for prior learning experience with TBLT 71

Table 4.20 Qualitative data for learner control 72

Table 4.21 Qualitative data for learner control 74

Table 4.22 A summary of the findings of RQ2 75

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 The conceptual framework 39

ABSTRACT

TBLT has become a favorable teaching methodology in EFL classrooms in Asia Nevertheless, the implementation of TBLT in Asia has not been effective Though lots of studies have been made on students‟ perspectives of TBLT, there have not been enough studies on the issues in the teaching contexts in Vietnam This mixed-method research aims at investigating students‟ perceptions of TBLT and learner factors affecting teachers‟ implementation of TBLT Literature on task, TBLT, learner factors, and previous studies was reviewed Quantitative data, collected from questionnaires to one hundred and eighty four second-year non-English majors at the VNU-US, showed that students highly perceived (1) TBLT meets students‟ needs of having authentic language, expressing personal experience, and having collaboration, (2) TBLT helps students achieve accuracy with a focus on form, fluency with a focus on meaning, and communication for real purposes with

a focus on interaction, (3) TBLT provides students with input, output, and real-life tasks, (4) TBLT helps students perform roles as monitors, risk-takers, group participants, and reflectors Qualitative data, accumulated from the interviews with three English lecturers, revealed that motivation, self-esteem, language anxiety, language proficiency, prior learning experience, and learner autonomy were the learner factors affecting teachers‟ implementation of TBLT It can be concluded that the students understood the importance of TBLT and the understandings of the learner factors could help increase the extent of the students‟ perceptions of TBLT and the effectiveness of TBLT implementation Pedagogical implications and recommendations for further research were also given

Keywords: TBLT, students‟ perceptions, learner factors, implementation of TBLT

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the study

Since the general aim of the current English Language Teaching (ELT) for English

as Foreign Language (EFL) students is to enhance the English communicative competence that helps them meaningfully communicate in real-life situations, not solely to provide the knowledge about the language It is imperative that EFL teachers must implement a teaching method that not only focuses on linguistics but also meaning and interaction One of such methods is Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT), an extension of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) This approach has attracted the attention of “second language acquisition researchers, curriculum developers, educational policymakers, and language teachers worldwide” (Hejrati, Bazargani & Arabani, 2017, p.230) As per Nunan (2003), TBLT as the latest methodological realization of CLT is the central pillar

of educational innovation in seven countries including China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Vietnam In Vietnam, TBLT has been suggested by the MOET since 2006 (Nguyen, 2019) That TBLT has been of interest in EFL classrooms in Asia is undeniable

The rationale for the popular implementation of TBLT in EFL classrooms in Asia results from its key characteristics First, TBLT meets students‟ needs of having authentic language (Willis, 1996; Skehan, 1996; Richards and Rodgers, 2001; Ellis, 2003, 2009; Littlewood, 2004; Nunan, 2004, 2013), using personal experience (Nunan, 1991, 2013; Feez, 1998, Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Ellis, 2009), and having collaboration (Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Doughty & Long, 2003) Second, the approach assists students to achieve accuracy (Skehan, 1996; Willis, 1996), fluency (Skehan, 1996; Estaire & Zaron, 1994; Nunan, 2004), and communication for real purposes (Swan, 2005; Kumaravadivelu, 2006; Ellis, 2009) TBLT, third, also supplements students with necessary input tasks (Willis, 1996; Nunan, 2004; Leaver & Willis, 2004; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011), output tasks (Willis, 1996; Ellis, 2009; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011), and

real-life tasks (Littlewood, 2004; Nunan 2013) Last but not least, TBLT helps students perform roles as monitors (Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Nunan, 2004), risk-takers (Richards & Rodgers, 2001), group participants (Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Nunan, 2004), and reflectors (Nunan, 2004) Indeed, these core tenets of TBLT make it a favourable teaching methodology for EFL students in Asia

As Western-rooted, the implementation of TBLT in Asia has not been effective owning to difficulties and causal factors have been explored According to Butler (2011), the actual implementation of TBLT in parts of Southeast Asia faces many difficulties despite efforts from governments When evaluating the implementation

of TBLT at the tertiary level in Vietnam, Nguyen, Le and Roger (2015) states the proceedings like “old wine in new bottles” (p 68) The defects in the implementation of TBLT have consequently driven researchers to explore what causal factors are Indeed, factors affecting the implementation of TBLT include classroom-related factors and educational system-related factors (Farfan, 2019) Among classroom-related factors consisting of setting, teacher, and learner; learner factors have emerged to attract more attention from TBLT research (Lai & Lin, 2012) Learner factors that are found to affect teachers‟ implementation of TBTL include motivation (Gardner, 1985; Hummel, 2014), self-efficacy (Pyun, 2013), anxiety (Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope, 1991), language proficiency (Hummel, 2004), prior learning experience (Nunan, 2004), and learner autonomy (Cooker, 2015) Indeed, the effectiveness of the implementation of TBLT in Asia can be impacted

by many factors, comprising learner factors

Perceptions of TBTL, as factors affecting TBLT implementation, have been scholarly concerned Nevertheless, most of the studies on perceptions of TBLT have been made on teachers‟ perspectives (Tan, 2016) Research on TBLT should

be extended to investigate students‟ perspectives (Kim, Jung & Tracy-Ventura, 2017)) Up to now, there have been studies on students‟ perceptions of TBLT namely McDonough (2004), Chuang (2010), Meng & Cheng (2010), Hadi (2012), Choudhury & Dutta (2015), and Tan (2016)

Though there have been many studies on students‟ perceptions of TBLT and learner factors affecting teachers‟ implementation of TBLT in Vietnam as well as

in other Asian countries There have not been enough studies on the issues among second-year non-English majors in Vietnam Hence, it is necessary to conduct more research on the topic, especially empirical one to investigate EFL students‟ perceptions of TBLT among second-year non-English majors and the alignment between learner factors and teachers‟ implementation in EFL classrooms in Vietnam

1.2 Aim of the study

This research aims to investigate EFL students‟ perceptions of TBLT among second-year non-English majors at the University of Science-Vietnam National University (VNU-US) in Hochiminh City in Vietnam The students are taught with

a task-based English course book named New Cutting Edge (NCE) at intermediate level The aim is two-fold:

(1) To examine what second-year non-English majors at the VNU-US perceive about TBLT

(2) To explore learner factors affecting teachers‟ implementation of TBLT at the VNU-US

1.3 Research questions (RQs)

Following research questions are posed to help achieve the aim of the study:

(1) What are perceptions of TBLT among second-year non-English majors at the VNU-US?

(2) What are the learner factors affecting teachers‟ implementation of TBLT

at the VNU-US?

1.4 Significance of the study

First, the findings on students‟ perceptions of TBLT can timely reflect their understanding of key characteristics and the importance of TBLT Second, the

understandings on the learner factors affecting teachers‟ implementation of TBLT help increase the extent of students‟ perceptions of TBLT and the effectiveness of TBLT implementation as reflected from students‟ perceptions Third, this study can be a formative assessment for the effectiveness of using the New Cutting Edge (NCE) course book, a task-based syllabus, at the VNU-US, from which innovations in English learning and teaching can be proposed Last but not least, this study is believed to be scholarly valuable in the research of TBLT, students‟ perceptions of TBLT, and learner factors affecting teachers‟ implementation of TBLT at the tertiary level in Vietnam and in other Asian countries

1.5 Scope of the study

This study was limited to investigate students‟ perceptions of TBLT and explore the learner factors affecting teachers‟ implementation of TBLT at the VNU-US The student subjects were solely second-year non-English majors who had been studying English with NCE, a task-based English course book The data was collected in October 2020 of the academic year 2020-2021 at the VNU-US

1.6 Organization of the study

This study is composed of five chapters:

Chapter 1 introduces the background to the study, aim, research questions, significance, scope and organization of the study

Chapter 2 presents the related literature review for the rationale of TBLT in EFL, definitions of tasks and TBLT, principles of TBLT, students‟ perceptions of TBTL, and learner factors affecting teachers‟ implementation of TBLT It also reviews related previous studies related to students‟ perceptions of TBLT and learner factors affecting teachers‟ implementation of TBLT This chapter continues with a conceptual framework guiding the researcher to carry out the study and analyze the findings It ends with a chapter summary

Chapter 3 illustrates how the study was conducted in terms of the research design, research site, participants, research instruments, data collection procedures, and data analysis procedures It is finalized with a chapter summary

Chapter 4 reports findings on students‟ perceptions of TBLT and learner factors affecting teachers‟ implementation of TBLT Discussion on the research matters is also made It ends with a chapter summary

Chapter 5 gives a summary of the study, proposes pedagogical implications, admits limitation of the study, and makes a recommendation for further studies

relating to students‟ perspectives in TBLT

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Chapter 2 presents the theoretical background for the investigation into EFL students‟ perceptions of TBLT and learner factors affecting teachers‟ implementation of TBLT It consists of the reviews on the rationale for TBLT in English Language Teaching; definitions of tasks and TBLT, principles of TBTL, students‟ perceptions of TBLT, and learner factors affecting teachers‟ implementation of TBLT It also reviews related previous studies It ends with a conceptual framework and a chapter summary

English Language Teaching (ELT) in the twentieth century has seen the emergence of communicative language teaching (CLT), referred to as the communicative approach (Hummel, 2014) The goal of CLT is to develop the communicative competence of the language users (Richards & Rogers, 2001) Accordingly, communicative competence comprises the knowledge and ability to

be able to communicate the target language successfully In addition, it was a fact that language instruction before the twentieth century failed to enable students to produce the target language in real-life situations Thus, CLT aims to help build students‟ communicative competence in real-world circumstances It is conceptualized as “an approach that emphasizes using techniques that engage learners in the pragmatic, authentic, functional use of language for meaningful purposes” (Hummel, 2014, p 115) In other words, CLT employs different teaching techniques to make students pay attention to the use, form, and meaning

of the target language to communicate the target language for real purposes It can

be included that CLT, with a focus on communicative competence, enforces language students to produce the target language accurately, fluently, and meaningfully

Despite the popularity of CLT in language education in the twentieth century, its implementation in EFL classrooms has been without a problem calling for the need

of a replacement Though fluency and accuracy are seen as two principles underlying the communicative approach, it seems that fluency is gained at the expense of grammatical accuracy It results in the appearance of Task-based language teaching, a teaching methodology as an updated version of CLT, targeting both fluency and accuracy in the performance of tasks as a center of learning and teaching the target language Another factor leading to TBLT was the recognized roles of input, interaction, and output in language learning and teaching In this sense, “TBLT is closely linked with the concept „negotiating for meaning‟ as well as with research drawing attention to the critical role of

„noticing‟ in L2 learning” (Hummel, 2014, p 116) Or else, it is believed that TBLT succeeds in helping students communicate meaningfully through tasks processed with a notice on input language, purposeful interaction, and pushed output In sum, the weakness of CLT on grammatical accuracy and the proper use

of TBLT in promoting meaningful communication are two main reasons advocating TBLT in EFL classrooms in this century

of „task‟ itself has been a matter of debate Tracing back to the origin of the term,

„task‟ was borrowed from the old north French „tasque‟ which describes “a duty, a tax, or a piece of work imposed as a duty” (Oxford, 2006, p.95) Resulting from the nature of the term, Long (1983) asserts that a „task‟ can be one hundred things people do at work and play Oxford (2006) views a „task‟ as a „job responsibility‟

in which a specific part of the job is required to do by a teacher or a student On the other hand, as per Breen (1987), his concepts of a „task‟ vary from “the simple and brief exercise type to more complex and lengthy activities such as group problem-solving or simulations and decision-making” (p.23) Meanwhile, William

& Burden (1997) states a „task‟ as “any activity that learners engage in to further

the process of learning” (p.168) Moreover, Wu (2018) considers communicative tasks as practices Indeed, without a communicative outcome, some may consider a „task‟ as either a general language „exercise‟ (Breen, 1987; Lee, 2000; Ellis, 2003), „activity‟ ( William & Burden, 1997), or „practice‟ (Wu, 2018) for learners to complete

non-On the other hand, Bruton‟s and Widdowson‟s studies (as cited in Ellis, 2009) reveal their suspects on the terms „task‟ as they think it can be much more than what is normally used in papers to define it For instance, in his article, Bruton valiantly asserts that the definition of „task‟ is an issue in itself so it is beyond the scope of his study Consequently, as per another review, Skehan (2002) claims that

“Bruton misrepresents language learning tasks and does them a disservice” (p.289) Skehan (2002) argues by giving two reasons First, Bruton‟s approach, subject to the flexibility of teacher control of the language, differs from task-based approach Second, Skehan (2002) insists that “the research into tasks tends not to

be on a „grand scale‟, but instead is more focused, attempting to discover fundamental aspects of tasks which have an impact” (p.294) In other words, a full understanding of a task has not been explored, and what matter is how to make the students have progress and “add to what we know about tasks, rather than dismiss them” (Skehan, 2002, p.295)

Notably, a large number of the researchers in favour of TBLT have the same view

on the other perspectives Specifically, as per Prabhu (1987), one of the first methodologists concerning TBLT, a „task‟ means an activity that requires learners

to come up with an outcome after a process of thoughts controlled or regulated by teachers Partly agreeing with this view, Willis (1996) defines a „task‟ as “a goal-oriented activity in which learners use language to achieve a real outcome” (p.53) Nunan (1989) has one of the most commonly cited definitions of a „task‟ Nunan (1989) considers a communication task as “ a piece of classroom work which involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language while their attention is principally focused on meaning rather than

form” (p.10) Though various TBLT scholars have proposed different definitions for „task‟, many of them have an agreement on the core meaning of this word which is a goal-oriented activity that people undertake and that involves the meaningful use of language (Prabhu, 1987; Skehan, 1996; Willis, 1996; Ellis, 2003; Nunan, 1989, 2004; Richards, 2006; Van den Branden, 2006)

2.2.1.2 TBLT

A great number of the current researchers in favor of Task-based Language Teaching, which is also called task-based approach or task-based instruction, describe common components of this approach as goal-directed tasks, authentic input, and real-life activities performed by using the meaning-focused target language These specifications can be synthesized from various „state-of-the-art‟ definitions of TBLT in the literature Van den Branden (2006) describes TBLT as

“an approach to language education in which students are given functional tasks that invite them to focus primarily on meaning exchange and to use language for real-world, non-linguistic purposes” (p.3) As per Wu (2018), “ Task-based Language Teaching, also known as task-based instruction, derived from communicative language teaching, focusing on the use of authentic language and asking students to do meaningful tasks using the target language as a student-oriented and task-centered teaching approach” (p.785)

While most of the definitions of TBLT put a stress on a focus on meaning, some researchers believe that a focus on form is also needed to be mentioned at first Notably, idealized by Willis (1996), Skehan (1996) and Lee (2000); Nguyen (2014) withdraws that “TBLT is the implementation of pedagogical tasks, which are inspired from the real world tasks, fitted well to students‟ need and interest, and socially contextualized” and accordingly “a task is goal-oriented, meaning-focused first and form-focused then, contextualized, and implemented as the basis for teaching and learning” (p.43) Nevertheless, there exist additional views on TBLT that teachers and researchers in ELT need to be conscious about Leaver and Willis (2004, p.3) indicates that “task-based instruction is not monolithic; it does

not constitute one single methodology It is a multifaceted approach, which can be

used creatively with different syllabus types and for different purposes.”

2.2.2 Principles of TBLT

2.2.2.1 Scaffolding

The first principle, scaffolding, indicates that lessons and materials should make sure that learning happens Thus, students should be implicitly or explicitly given with language needed to produce the language (Nunan, 2004) This claim matches with the principles mentioning „elaborate input‟ and „rich input‟ of Doughty and Long (2003), in which the authors insists on explicitly making meaning comprehensible by suggesting scaffolding techniques such as "self-and other-repetition, confirmation checks, comprehension checks, clarification requests, paraphrase, etc (p 59).” In addition to elaborated input, students also need a provision of rich input, which can be task-specific target-language use or language used for specific purposes like using corpora for language learning and teaching

Briefly, scaffolding is of importance in TBLT

2.2.2.2 Task dependency

The second principle relates to task dependency which indicates that tasks are purposefully sequenced According to Nunan (2004, p.35), “within a lesson, one task should grow out of, and build upon, the ones that have gone before” Ellis (2009) can clarify it by stating that tasks must be designed upon students‟ language proficiency In other words, tasks should be sequenced to fit the language ability of the students, which promotes learning This can be supported by Skehan (1996), which claims “select and sequence tasks to achieve balanced goal development (p 129)” Indeed, the selection and sequencing of tasks should match students‟ proficiency levels for the purpose of reinforcing language and developing learning goals

2.2.2.3 Recycling

The third principle is “recycling language maximizes opportunities for learning and activates the „organic‟ learning principle” (Nunan, 2004; p.36) Teachers and students bear in mind that recycling language is necessary for the task-based approach This can be understood since not all students can achieve language at first hand unless they are given chances to practice with various contexts

2.2.2.4 Learning by doing

The fourth principle implies that students learn by practicing As per Nunan (2004, p.36), “learners learn best by actively using the language they are learning.” This principle remains true in the learning of all majors and especially in the linguistic field Nunan‟s claim reaffirms Doughty and Long (2003), which states “learning

by doing is more relevant, comprehensible, and memorable than reading somebody doing something” (p.58) Admittedly, learning through doing actively is better than just watching and listening to teachers‟ lessons or reading others‟ work Later,

in 2013, Nunan once again emphasizes the role of learning by practicing in the enhancement of communicative competence when highlights that “learners develop the ability to communicate in a language through using the language rather than studying and memorizing bits of the linguistic system” (p 132) To

sum up, in TBLT, students are expected to learn by doing

2.2.2.5 Integration

“Learners should be taught in ways that make clear the relationships between linguistic form, communicative function, and semantic meaning” (Nunan, 2004, p.37) Thereby, learners can recognize the relation between form, function, and meaning, which are beneficial for them to use the language accurately in proper contexts to express their ideas in TBLT classrooms Therefore, lessons in TBLT should integrate form, function, and meaning for students to grasp their relationships

2.2.2.6 Reproduction to creation

The sixth principle is “learners should be encouraged to move from reproductive to creative language use” (Nunan, 2004, p.37) In the presentation stage of the teaching process, students are exposed to the language in terms of form, function, and meaning and are required to reproduce as per the model It is a basis for their creation or productive skills later on

2.2.2.7 Reflection

The seventh principle insists learners be given chances to reflect on themselves (Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Nunan, 2004; Littlewood, 2004) According to Nunan (2004, p.37), “learners should be given opportunities to reflect on what they have learned and how well they are doing” One of the important elements in the approach is to train the students with reflective skills from which they better understand what they are learning, why the language is formulated, and how they can employ the language both inside and outside the classroom settings to reflect their needs, interests, and experiences (Littlewood, 2004) That students‟ reflection

should be encouraged in TBLT classroom is of significance

2.2.2.8 Authenticity

Exposure to authentic language is significant in TBLT (Willis, 1996; Ellis, 2003; Littlewood, 2004; Nunan, 2004, 2013) Nunan claims that students are in need of task authenticity and text authenticity Thereby, task authenticity means tasks are designed upon learners‟ potential or actual use outside the classroom while text authenticity refers to the chosen spoken and written materials that are produced for purposes of communication instead of purposes of language teaching Apparently, task authenticity and text authenticity provide learners with the language they will encounter beyond the classroom setting Therefore, as Littlewood (2004) suggests, tasks that support authentic communication take on a more central one Thus, that authenticity is a key principle in TBLT is clear

2.3 Students’ perceptions of Task-Based Language Teaching

The English word “perception” is originated from the Latin word „percepio‟, which means receiving As per the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (2020), perception is understood as (1) the way you think about something and your idea of what it is like; (2) the way that you notice things with your senses of sight, hearing, etc.; (3) the natural ability to understand or notice things quickly Meanwhile, according to the Oxford Learner‟s Dictionaries (2020), perception is defined as (1) an idea, a belief, or an image you have as a result of how you see or understand something; (2) the way you notice things, especially with the senses; and (3) ability to understand the true nature of something In this research, perceptions are understood as students‟ ability to understand the true nature of something

Hence, students‟ perceptions of TBLT in this study are considered as students‟ perceptions of key characteristics of TBLT This section is to review students‟ perceptions of TBLT regarding meeting students‟ needs in TBLT, achieving goals

in TBLT, providing tasks in TBLT, and planning teachers‟ and students‟ roles in TBLT

2.3.1 Meeting students’ needs in TBLT

In TBLT, students need authentic language, collaboration, and personal experience

to be motivated and perform tasks Indeed, students need to have exposure to authentic language (Willis, 1996; Richards & Rodgers, 2001), opportunities to use the authentic language to express themselves (Willis, 1996; Richards & Rodgers, 2001), and get involved in collaborative learning (Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Doughty & Long, 2003); all of which are believed motivational in TBLT classrooms Meanwhile, Richards & Rodgers (2001) agrees that the three elements are essential for students to accomplish tasks in TBLT A huge number of scholars

in the field have given evidences for why these needs are of careful consideration

in TBLT

2.3.1.1 Authentic language

Authentic language, which is also referred to as „natural language‟ (Skehan, 1996; Ellis, 2003, 2009) or „real language‟ (Willis, 1996), is necessary for students to have in TBLT since students need to be exposed to authentic listening and reading materials and need to produce authentic language in TBLT (Willis, 1996; Skehan, 1996; Richards and Rodgers, 2001; Ellis, 2003, 2009; Littlewood, 2004; Nunan,

2004, 2013) First, exposure to authentic listening and reading materials indicates authentic language input (Willis, 1996) It means that language in teaching materials is for the purpose of communication instead of language teaching (Nunan, 2013) Authentic language input helps provide useful vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation learners need for the completion of tasks in TBLT Second, producing authentic language is necessary for students to build accuracy and fluency in TBLT The ability to produce authentic language involves authentic language output (Willis, 1996) Or else, authentic language output shows students‟ possibility to use the target language naturally in life It is a fact that most language learners wish to be equipped with the authentic language to produce English naturally (Skehan, 1996) Should students work with authentic language frequently, they can imitate natural language use and tend to be able to speak and write English accurately as well as fluently In brief, authentic language is necessary for TBLT as students need to be exposed to authentic listening and reading materials to get authentic language input for communicative purposes and need to speak and write authentic language to attain fluency and accuracy in the target language in TBLT

2.3.1.2 Personal experience

Students need to use personal experience to complete tasks in TBLT (Nunan,

1991, 2013; Feez, 1998, Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Ellis, 2009) and do reflective practice (Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Ellis, 2003; Nunan, 2004; Littlewood, 2004) First, personal experience is necessary for task completion While Nunan (1991, 2013) claims that personal experience is a condition for language learning by saying TBLT “considers the learner‟ own experience as an important part of

classroom learning” (p 279), Ellis (2009) in contrast does believe that tasks, in turn, generate personal experience when suggesting teachers “create contexts in which learners can experience what it means to communicate at different stages of their development using whatever resources at their disposal” (p 230) Both of them altogether advocate the need for personal experience in task completion Second, students need to use personal experience for reflective practice Refection

is required for students to fullfil roles as reflectors in TBLT classrooms (Richards

& Rodger, 2001; Nunan, 2004) In other words, students should be given chances

to freely communicate in the target language, utilizing their resources to reflect what they have experienced In short, personal experience is necessary for students

to accomplish tasks and perform reflective practice in TBLT

2.3.1.3 Collaboration

Students are in need of collaboration to accomplish tasks in TBLT (Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Doughty & Long, 2003; Jeon & Hahn, 2006; Liu, Mishan & Chambers, 2018) It is a fact that most tasks in TBLT are performed in pair and group work (Willis, 1996; Liu et al., 2018) Besides, Doughty & Long (2003) claims that group work attainment is up to collaborative learning Moreover, Jeon

& Hahn (2006) admits that TBLT promotes collaborative skills through small group work Therefore, it can be inferred that collaboration is essential for successful pair and group work in TBLT

2.3.2 Achieving goals in TBLT

What makes TBLT outweigh CLT is that TBLT helps students achieve goals basing on different approaches As per Richards & Rodgers (2001), “multiple models of language inform TBLT” (p.226) Accordingly, theoretical views of language in TBLT include structural, functional, and interactional models of language; which correlate a focus on form, a focus on meaning, and a focus on interaction widely discussed in TBLT Specifically, accuracy, fluency, and communication for real purposes can be gained by a focus on form, a focus on meaning, and a focus on interaction respectively

2.3.2.1 Accuracy

Accuracy in the target language is a goal of TBLT (Estaire & Zaron, 1994; Skehan, 1996; Willis, 1996) As per Skehan (1996), “accuracy relates to a learner‟s belief in norms, and to performance which is native-like through its rule-governed nature” (p 46) Or else, it is concerned with a learner‟s capacity to employ the complexity of linguistic features According to him, complexity relates to the

“elaboration of the underlying inter-language system” (p 46) Similarly, Estaire & Zaron (1994) insists students achieve „specific linguistic objectives‟ for a unit in TBLT They consider these as steps to gain the „global communicative objectives‟

as above-mentioned Interestingly, Estaire & Zaron (1994) and Skehan (1996) have the same belief that accuracy has an influence on fluency to some extent In short, that accuracy is a goal of TBLT is popularly acknowledged

Apparently, a focus on form, highlighting authentic language, can help achieve accuracy in TBLT Structural view of language drives students to notice the important role of linguistic features in language use (Long, 1991; Skehan, 1996; Wills, 1996; Richards & Rodger, 2001; Doughty and Long, 2003; Ellis, 2003; Littlewood, 2004; Swan, 2005; Willis & Willis, 2007) Long (as cited in Swan,

2005, p 377) suggests a focus on form be done to “draw students‟ attention to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is

on meaning or communication” It means there are notable linguistic elements needed to be learned in communicative lessons Mentioning a focus on form in TBLT, Willis & Willis (2007) later makes a worthy explanation, which is “a focus

on form in which one or more lexical or grammatical forms are isolated and specified for study, or in which the teacher comments on student language by drawing attention to problems” (p.6) Activities to promote communicative language use will be supplemented by those promoting accuracy Second, a focus

on form highlights authentic language, which in turn builds accuracy Or else, it attracts students‟ attention to authentic language to use the target language accurately Truly, a focus on form, emphasizing authentic language, can help attain accuracy in the target language in TBLT

2.3.2.2 Fluency

It now turns to another goal of TBLT, which is fluency in the target language use (Skehan, 1996; Estaire & Zaron, 1994; Nunan, 2004) Different scholars use different terminologies such as „fluency‟, „communicative goal‟, or „global communicative objectives‟ when indicating the ability to convey ideas in the target language proficiently For example, Skehan (1996) defines that fluency means “the capacity to mobilize one‟s linguistic resources in the service of real-time communication” (p.48) It implies the ability to activate linguistic knowledge to communicate meaning in actuality However, Nunan (2004) prefers using

„communicative goal‟ when mentioning fluency in TBLT He considers

„communicative goal‟ as the ability to use the target language to successfully express one‟s ideas in interaction Meanwhile, Estaires & Zaron (1994) uses the term „global communicative objectives‟ As per their demonstration, the term requires students to produce the learned language Indeed, though being referred under various terminologies in literature, fluency is widely considered a goal for students in TBLT

A focus on meaning stimulates fluency in TBLT (Ellis, 2003; Nunan, 2004) through personal expression First, within the communicative approach, TBLT drives a focus on meaning owning to a functional view of language (Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Willis & Willis, 2007) First of all, upon a functional view of language, Willis & Willis (2007) relates a focus on meaning to communication Accordingly, communication aims at transferring meaning, which matches Richards & Rodgers‟s statement in 2001 indicating “language is primarily a means

of making meaning” (p 226) Referring back to literature, a fact shows that numerous scholars are in agreement with it For example, Skehan (1996) describes TBLT as “approaches to instruction which make meaning primary” (p 40) This characteristic of TBLT is aligned with the cognitive principle of Brown (2014) where “meaningful learning will lead toward better long-term retention than rote learning” (p.57) Rather, regarding a principle of second language acquisition provided by Ellis (2005), instruction needs to drive learners to focus

predominantly on meaning Second, a focus on meaning lets students freely express their personal experiences without being too anxious about the accuracy of used language form Hence, that a focus on meaning, practiced by personal expression, helps achieve fluency in the target language is undeniable in TBLT

2.3.2.3 Communication for real purposes

Last but not least, another goal of TBLT must be communication for real purposes According to Kumaravadivelu (2006), “a learner-centered curriculum is expected

to provide a framework for identifying, classifying, and organizing language features that are needed by the learners for their specific communicative purposes” (p 121) Additionally, Swan (2005, p 377) claims that “language learning activities should directly reflect what learners potentially or actually need to do with the target language.” Moreover, Ellis (2009) insists that TBLT puts an

“emphasis on purposeful and functional language use” (p.222) Hence, that communication for real purposes is a goal in TBLT is apparent

A focus on interaction is imperative to enable collaboration and communication for real purposes First of all, the interactive view of language (Richards & Rodgers, 2001) puts an emphasis on interaction in language learning, students are expected to interact to learn the target language In agreement with Richards & Rodgers, Nunan (2013) depicts that the approach encourages learning by communicating through interaction Second, thanks to interaction, students have chances to collaborate with peers through pair and group work Third, one of the usages of pair and group work is to help students to communicate for real purposes For example, students can do information-gap filling to ask for real information from the partner while in group work they can exchange their ideas to meet an agreement for a project Shortly, that a focus on interaction helps students with collaboration to gain communication for real purposes is true in TBLT

2.3.3 Providing tasks in TBLT

Tasks in TBLT should meet seven basic aspects of the learners‟ needs in language learning, which covers three language knowledge such as vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation and four skills including listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills For students to acknowledge the knowledge, skills, and above-mentioned goals of TBLT comprising accuracy, fluency, and communication for real purposes; tasks in TBLT can be categorized into input tasks (Willis, 1996; Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Nunan, 2004), output tasks (Ellis, 2009; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011), and real-life tasks (Richards & Rodgers, 2001;

Nunan, 2004, 2013; Littlewood, 2004) respectively

2.3.3.1 Input tasks

Input tasks (Willis, 1996; Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Nunan, 2004), also called input-providing tasks (Ellis, 2009; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011), helps students with language knowledge and the goal of having accuracy in TBLT According to Larsen-Freeman & Anderson (2011), “input-providing tasks not only work on the receptive skills but also give teachers an opportunity to introduce new language” (p.174) Or else, not only authentic listening and texts can be presented

to students through input tasks but also vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation Not only Larsen-Freeman & Anderson (2011) puts an emphasis on the importance

of language input in TBLT, Leaver & Willis (2004) is on the same boat Leaver & Willis (2004) asserts that “grammar and lexical items can be acquired through learners processing the input that they receive for meaning” (p 10) It means that students have chances to improve accuracy thanks to a notice of grammar and vocabulary used through input tasks For instance, an input task can be the „listen and do‟ task in which students are required to listen carefully to a recording and do

a matching to highlight key vocabulary in the task In brief, input tasks, as pedagogical tasks, reinforce students with vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation

to build accuracy in TBLT

2.3.3.2 Output tasks

Output tasks (Willis, 1996; Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Nunan, 2004), also called output-prompting tasks (Ellis, 2009; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011), help students gain the goal of having fluency in TBLT “Output- prompting tasks stimulate the students to write or speak meaningfully” (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011, p 174) In other words, output tasks give students opportunities

to produce the learned language meaningfully through speaking or writing (Ellis, 2009) Indeed, TBTL encourages students to speak and write for real purposes In

a TBLT lesson, for example, an output task can be an „information gap-filling‟ task, in which a student has to share the information on his card so that his peer can complete something Moreover, Willis (1996) believes that should students know they are expected to make real use of the target language in or outside classroom, they will pay more attention to what they hear or read, process language input more effectively, and notice features of language better This consequently benefits their expression of meaning in the spoken or written production of the learned language, enhancing fluency in the target language use

In sum, output tasks encourage students to speak and write the learned language meaningfully and then help students achieve the goal of having fluency in TBLT

2.3.3.3 Real-life tasks

Real-life tasks (Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Nunan, 2004, 2013; Littlewood, 2004) are those providing students with real situations and common expressions, helping students attain the goal of communication for real purposes in TBLT Nunan (2013) defines real-life tasks as “the uses to which individuals put language to do things in the world outside” (p 131) In other words, following the provision of necessary language in input tasks, real-life tasks equip students with situations they may face in the real world Moreover, Littlewood (2004) clarifies that real-life tasks inside the classroom can support real situations by giving students frequent practice with common expressions such as „can you do me a favor?‟ and „nice to meet you‟, which are effective for students to communicate for real purposes such

as expressing their needs, interests, and experiences in TBLT For instance, a

real-world task in TBLT can be talking with a banker, completing an application form, and writing an informal letter Shortly, real-life tasks equip students with real-life situations (Nunan, 2004) and common expressions used to effectively communicate for real purposes

2.3.4 Planning teachers’ and students’ roles in TBLT

A quick review in the literature has revealed several frameworks of TBLT contributed by Willis (1996), Skehan (1996), Ellis (2003), and Nunan (2004) that help teach English with integrated skills All of them agree that TBLT should primarily focus on meaning without ignoring the importance of accuracy at some specific stages In addition, the models also indicate expected roles for teachers and students within the TBLT framework This section concerns the basic teacher‟s roles and students‟ roles in TBLT with a preference to Willis‟s (1996) as this model is quite practical, straightforward, and employed in most TBLT classrooms (Skehadeh, 2005)

2.3.4.1 Teachers’ roles

In the first stage, which is called pre-task (Willis, 1996; Skehan, 1996; Ellis, 2003)

or the inclusion of step 1-2-3 as per Nunan (2004), teachers are first expected to be monitors to introduce the topic and the task to the class (Willis, 1996; Nunan, 2004) Then, teachers as facilitators activate topic-related words and phrases by some pre-task activities (Willis, 1996; Ellis, 2003), which are also called

„consciousness- raising tasks‟ by Skehan (1996) or „schema-building tasks‟ by Nunan (2004) Or else, teachers introduce key vocabularies and expressions that students need to accomplish the task These activities can be classifying words and phrases, odd one out, matching phrases to pictures, memory challenge, brainstorming, mind-maps, thinking of questions to ask, and teacher recounting a similar experience (Willis, 1996) Next, teachers as monitors make sure the instruction is clear to students (Willis, 1996) After that, teachers as monitors play authentic listening recordings to give students necessary language input (Willis, 1996; Skehan, 1996; Ellis, 2003; Nunan, 2004) While Willis (1996) does not refer

to this work as giving a model, Nunan and Ellis do believe Rather, teachers as facilitators show the class good performances of the task from previous students (Willis, 1996) Finally, all scholars recommend teachers give students a few minutes to prepare the task individually Shortly, teachers as monitors and facilitators are mainly expected to help students define the topic and task, activate useful linguistic input, and get ready for the task in the first stage of the TBLT framework

Different authors have different ways of indicating the second stage, as the main stage, of the TBLT framework, for instance, „task cycle‟ as per Willis (1996), or

„during task‟ as per Skehan (1996) However, among those, seemingly, the description of the second stage in the framework of Willis (1996) is the most comprehensible and practical Furthermore, it elaborates the ideas of the other authors regarding teachers‟ roles and students‟ roles in the second stage of the TBLT framework According to Willis (1996), the second stage of the TBLT framework is called the task cycle and has three steps namely task, planning, and report First, in the task step, teachers act as monitors to motivate students by going around, giving help with pronunciation and suggestions, and encouraging students to use the target language in the discussion Second, in the planning, teachers act as language advisors to give feedback helping students correct, rephrase, rehearse oral reports, or draft written ones Third, in the report stage, teachers act as chairpersons to select the students presenting the reports, sum up the contents of the reports, offer brief feedback on content and form following students‟ reports, and play recordings of others doing the same or similar task In brief, not only Willis (1996), but many other authors in favour of TBLT believe that in the second stage, teachers may play a role as monitors or facilitators (Estaire & Zaron, 1994; Nunan, 2004; Swan, 2005; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011), language advisors (Estaire & Zaron, 1994; Ellis, 2009) as Ellis says “ the teacher is the major source of input” (p 236) , and chairpersons or managers (Estaire & Zaron, 1994; Swan, 2005)

The last stage of the TBLT framework is called „language focus‟ by Willis (1996),

„post-task‟ by Skehan (1996) and Ellis (2003), or probably considered as the combination of steps 4-5-6 as per Nunan (2004) Nevertheless, they altogether mention the need for accuracy (Willis, 1996; Skehan, 1996), a focus on form (Ellis, 2003; Nunan, 2004) and practice (Willis, 1996; Ellis, 2003, Nunan, 2004) of the language in this stage Thanks to the detailed demonstration for the stage in Willis‟s, this study would elicit the teachers‟ roles as per Willis‟s language focus model consisting of analysis and practice First, in the analysis stage, teachers as monitors review each analysis activity with the whole class and elicit useful words, phrases, and patterns for students‟ attention and practice as language advisors Second, in practice, teachers as monitors conduct practice activities in which accuracy is paid more attention than fluency and a focus on form is highlighted Shortly, though differently named, the last stage of the TBLT framework is scholarly recommended to involve in linguistic analysis and practice of learned language form conducted by teachers as monitors and language advisors (Willis, 1996; Skehan, 1996, Ellis, 2003, Nunan, 2004)

2.3.4.2 Students’ roles

Regarding students‟ roles in the first or pre-task stage, only Willis (1996) specifies that students as monitors note down useful words and phrases from pre-task activities and recordings By the way, they recall schematic knowledge or prior knowledge that they have related to the task (Skehan, 1996; Nunan, 2004) Fortunately, the authors of these frameworks all agree that students then listen to and/ or read authentic comparable tasks and finally plan how to do the task individually Interestingly, Skehan (1996) emphasizes planning can be either the language or the meanings they want to express It can be inferred that, in the first stage of the TBLT framework, students are expected to play a role as monitors to notice vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation used in the task; which can help them to build accuracy later on in TBLT

According to Willis (1996), the second stage, or else the main stage, of the TBLT framework is called the task cycle and has three steps namely task, planning, and report First, in the task step, students can be risk-takers to use whatever language they already know to perform the tasks, group participants to perform the task in pairs or small groups, and innovators to improve the language under teacher guidance These roles continue in planning steps when students prepare to report how they performed the task, reflect what they discovered to the class, and receive feedback from teachers on content and form as reflectors In the report, students as reflectors rehearse what they will say and draft a written version for the class to read, and then present their spoken reports to the class as risk-takers In sum, not only Willis, but a wide range of other authors in the study of TBLT claim that in the second stage of the TBLT framework, students may play a role as monitors (Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Nunan, 2004), risk-takers (Richards & Rodgers, 2001), group participants (Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Nunan, 2004), and reflectors (Nunan, 2004) that can help them achieve the goals of accuracy, fluency, and communication for real purposes in TBLT

The TBLT framework as per Willis (1996) also carefully describes what students are supposed to actively do in the language focus including analysis and practice First, in analysis, students analyze specific language features from the task and transcript Second, in practice, students practice new language forms with a focus

on accuracy rather than fluency This stage in TBLT helps students to gain the goal

of both fluency and accuracy in TBLT To support Willis (1996), Skehan (1996) claims that “there may be reasons to repeated tasks, with the idea that learners will

be more effective with the analysis and synthesize goals and that the task was meant to embody” (p 56) In brief, numerous authors in the study of TBLT (Willis, 1996; Skehan, 1996, Ellis, 2003; Nunan, 2004) advocate that students need

to make an analysis of linguistic features as monitors and do practice with similar tasks with a focus on form rather than meaning as risk-takers in the last stage of the TBLT framework, helping them with both accuracy and fluency in TBLT

2.4 Learner factors affecting teachers’ implementation of TBLT

Learner factors should be considered in teachers‟ implementation of TBLT

(Skehan, 1996; Willis, 1996; Dornyei, 2001; Nunan, 2004; Ellis et al., 2020)

Individuals differ in the way of approaching a language and teachers need to

consider learner factors so as to adjust their teaching methodologies (Hummel,

2014) Interestingly, perceptions are elements constituting learner factors such as

motivation (Gardner, 1985; Hummel, 2014), self-efficacy (Pyun, 2013), anxiety

(Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope, 1991), language proficiency (Hummel, 2004), prior

learning experience (Nunan, 2004), and learner autonomy (Cooker, 2015) Tsang

(2016) finds out that students‟ perceptions of TBLT are dynamically shaped by

learner factors such as language proficiency, individual characteristics, and

previous experiences Similarly, Kim et al (2017) figures out that “students‟

perceptions towards TBLT changed over time and that diverse factors affected

how learners feel about task-based instruction” (p.633) Indeed, learner factors

directly have an impact on students‟ perceptions of TBLT and students‟ task

performance in teacher‟s implementation of TBLT Hence, this section is to review

learner factors comprising motivation, self-esteem, language anxiety, language

proficiency, prior learning experience, and learner autonomy as these learner

factors can influence students‟ perceptions of TBLT and practice in TBLT

2.4.1 Motivation

Motivation is seen as a crucial learner factor affecting teachers‟ implementation of

TBLT (Nunan, 2004; Le, 2014; Pyun, 2013; Ellis et al., 2020) Motivation is

defined as the combination of positive perceptions or attitudes towards learning a

language, desire to achieve learning goals, and effort to learn that language

(Gardner, 1985) In TBLT, motivation is seen to be a significant predictor of task

engagement and performance (Ellis et al., 2020) Different authors advocate

different categories of motivation, all of which promote students‟ learning in the

teachers‟ implementation of TBLT

2.4.1.1 Integrative motivation

Integrative motivation is recognized as a learner factor in TBLT (Pyun, 2013; Ellis

et al., 2020) Integrative motivation, interchangeably called integrative orientation (Hummel, 2014; Brown, 2014) refers to the desire to learn a language to integrate successfully into the target language community (Gardner & Lambert, 1972; Hummel, 2014; Brown, 2014) It means that learners are eager to be identified as native users of the target language In TBLT, integrative motivation can encourage students to gain accuracy, fluency, and communication for real purposes Obviously, integrative motivation is a crucial learner factor affecting teachers‟ implementation of TBLT

2.4.1.2 Instrumental motivation

Instrumental motivation is the other learner factor affecting teachers‟ implementation of TBLT (Pyun, 2013; Ellis et al., 2020) Instrumental motivation, also called instrumental orientation (Hummel, 2014; Brown, 2014) relates to learners‟ desire to learn the target language for instrumental purposes such as obtaining a job, passing an exam, reading technical materials, travelling, or so forth (Gardner & Lambert, 1972; Hummel, 2014; Brown, 2014) As real-life tasks are favored in TBLT, it is clear that instrumental motivation helps students become more engaged Briefly, instrumental motivation is apparently a leaner factor affecting teachers‟ implementation of TBLT

2.4.2 Self-esteem

Self-esteem can be a learner factor affecting teachers‟ implementation of TBLT (Mahdavirad, 2017) Brown (2014) defines “self-esteem is a personal judgment of worthiness that is expressed in the attitudes that individuals hold towards themselves” (p 145) In other words, self-esteem is the evaluation that individuals make for themselves to be capable of doing or worth having something All two levels of esteem are found to correlate positively with oral production measures as per Heyde (as cited in Brown, 2014)

2.4.2.1 Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy, as a learner factor, has been more concerned in teacher‟s implementation of TBLT (Pyun, 2013; Tsang, 2016; Ellis et al., 2020) As per Bandura (as cited in Pyun, 2013), self-efficacy, also referred to as self-confidence

or general self-esteem (Brown, 2014), is defined as “people‟s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances” (p.111) It means that a student‟s self-efficacy plays an important role in shaping his courses of action to perform and achieve learning goals Students with self-efficacy are more willing to communicate (Brown, 2014) Therefore, self-efficacy is considered as a predictor for task performance and achievement in TBLT (Ellis et al., 2020) Also, TBLT studies have shown the relationship between self-efficacy and language proficiency Findings of the studies reveal that higher self-efficacy is positively correlated with the level of task achievement and proficiency (Pyun, 2013) Moreover, self-efficacy is also associated with learner strategies in language learning in TBLT (Ellis et al., 2020) Consequently, that self-efficacy is a significant learner factor in teachers‟ implementation of TBLT is undeniable

2.4.2.2 Task self-esteem

Task self-esteem is another learner factor that affects teachers‟ implementation of TBLT (Ellis et al., 2020) Task self-esteem refers to “one‟s self-evaluation of a particular aspect of the process: speaking, writing, a particular class in a second language, or even a special kind of classroom exercise” (Brown, 2014, p 146) It means that students with task self-esteem believe that they can do well in a task such as speaking, writing, or any specific task As the task is a core tenet of TBLT,

it is clear that task self-esteem is of importance for students to perform successfully in TBLT That task self-esteem is a learner factor affecting teachers‟ implementation of TBLT is comprehensible