The effects of structure based production tasks on english non majored students’ attitudes and grammatical performance m a submitted to the faculty of english linguistics lit

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY-HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES FACULTIES OF ENGLIH LINGUISTICS & LITERATURE    THE EFFECTS OF STRUCTURE BASED PRODUCTION T

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY-HO CHI MINH CITY

UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES

FACULTIES OF ENGLIH LINGUISTICS & LITERATURE

  

THE EFFECTS OF STRUCTURE BASED

PRODUCTION TASKS ON ENGLISH NON-MAJORED STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES AND GRAMMATICAL

NGUYEN THU HUONG, Ph.D

HO CHI MINH CITY, NOVEMBER 2017

i

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY-HO CHI MINH CITY

UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES

FACULTIES OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS & LITERATURE

  

THE EFFECTS OF STRUCTURE BASED

PRODUCTION TASKS ON ENGLISH NON-MAJORED STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES AND GRAMMATICAL

NGUYEN THU HUONG, Ph.D

HO CHI MINH CITY, NOVEMBER 2017

Next, I am grateful to my friends and colleagues Ms Đỗ Ngọc Anh, Ms Trần Ngọc Quỳnh Như, and Ms Châu Thục Quyên for their enthusiastic contributions to proofreading my thesis, revising the English and Vietnamese versions of the questionnaire

I also would like to acknowledge the Head of the Center, Dr Ngô Thị Thanh Vân, who allowed me to conduct the study in Tôn Đức Thắng University Without her assistance, my thesis would not have been completed

I would like to thank all of my students who joined in the study for their valuable time, their great effort to complete a variety of tests and questionnaires The thesis would not have been completed without their cooperation

Finally, I would send my deepest gratitude to my parents who have provided

me with a source of inspiration, motivation and encouragement for me to complete this research successfully

iii

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY

I certify my authorship of the Master’s Thesis submitted today entitled:

THE EFFECTS OF STRUCTURE BASED PRODUCTION TASKS ON ENGLISH NON-MAJORED STUDENTS’

ATTITUDES AND GRAMMATICAL PERFORMANCE

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

Ho Chi Minh City, November 2017

NGUYEN QUYNH THY

iv

RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS

I hereby state that I, NGUYEN QUYNH THY, 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 purposes of study and research, in accordance

with the normal conditions established by the Library for the care, loan, or

reproduction of thesis

Ho Chi Minh City, November 2017

NGUYEN QUYNH THY

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY iii

RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS v

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS x

LIST OF TABLES xi

LIST OF FIGURES xiii

LIST OF CHARTS xiv

ABSTRACT xv

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background to the study 2

1.2 Aims of the study 3

1.3 Research questions 3

1.4 Research hypotheses 3

1.5 Significance of the study 3

1.6 Organization of the study 4

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 5

2.1 A brief history of grammar teaching 6

2.2 Issues of grammar teaching 8

2.2.1 Methodological options in grammar teaching 8

2.2.1.1 Feature-focused options 8

2.2.1.2 Focused communication options 9

2.2.2 Procedures 9

2.2.3 Noticing 12

2.2.4 Contexts 15

2.2.5 Tasks and activities 15

2.2.6 Tasks in language teaching 16

vi

2.2.7 Grammatical performance 18

2.2.8 Structure Based Production Tasks 20

2.3 Previous studies 21

2.3.1 Studies on the impact of focused tasks on learners’ grammatical performance 22

2.3.2 Studies on the relationship between focused tasks and students’ attitudes 25

2.4 Conceptual framework 28

2.5 Chapter summary 29

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 30

3.1 Research design 30

3.2 Research setting and participants 31

3.2.1 Research setting 31

3.2.2 Sampling 31

3.2.3 Participants 31

3.3 Instruments 32

3.3.1 Tests 32

3.3.1.1 Proficiency Test 32

3.3.1.2 Pre-test 33

3.3.1.2 The Discrete-point item test 33

3.3.1.2.2 The Integrative item test 34

3.3.1.3 Post-test 35

3.3.2 Questionnaire 35

3.3.3 Reliability of the questionnaire 37

3.4 Treatment 38

3.4.1 Materials 38

3.4.2 English Tense and Aspect 39

3.4.3 Procedures 39

3.4.3.1 Pre-stage 40

3.4.3.2 Implementation stage 40

vii

3.4.3.3 Post-stage 45

3.5 Data collection 46

3.6 Methods of analysis 46

3.6.1 T-Test 46

3.6.2 Bivariate Correlation 46

3.6.3 Frequency Count and Percentage 47

3.6.4 Scoring criteria for the pre-test and post-test 47

3.7 Chapter summary 47

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS 48

4.1 Results 49

4.1.1 Statistical analysis of pre-test results 49

4.1.1.1 Statistical analysis of the Discrete-point item pre-test results 49 4.1.1.2 Statistical analysis of the Integrative item pre-test results 49

4.1.2 Statistical analysis of the post-test results 50

4.1.2.1 Statistical analysis of the Discrete-point item post-test results

50

4.1.2.2 Statistical analysis of the Integrative item post-test results 51

4.1.3 Paired Samples T-Test of the Integrative item pre-test and post-test of the experimental group 51

4.1.4 Analysis of data in the questionnaire 52

4.1.4.1 Statistical analysis of students’ general attitudes towards the application of the Structure Based Production Tasks 52

4.1.4.1.1 Statistical analysis of students’ general preference for the new method 52

4.1.4.1.2 Statistical analysis of students’ general attitudes towards grammar learning and communicating through the Structure Based Production Tasks 53

4.1.4.2 Statistical analysis of students’ positive attitudes towards the application of the Structure Based Production Tasks 54

4.1.4.2.1 Statistical analysis of student’s confidence of using Functions 55

viii

4.1.4.2.2 Statistical analysis of student’s confidence of using

Tenses 57

4.1.4.2.3 Statistical analysis of student’s confidence of Discussing topics 59

4.1.4.3 Statistical analysis of student’s affection for the impact of the Structure Based Production Tasks 60

1.1.4.4 Statistical analysis of students’ negative attitudes on the impact of the Structure Based Production Tasks 63

4.1.4.4.1 Statistical analysis of student’s anxiety about the use of Functions 63

4.1.4.4.2 Statistical analysis of student’s anxiety about the use of Tenses 65

4.1.4.4.3 Statistical analysis of other factors of anxiety 66

4.1.4.5 One Sample T-Test for general attitude mean 68

4.1.4.6 Correlation between confidence and anxiety about using the English Tenses after implementing the Structure-Based Production Tasks 69

4.2 Discussion of the findings 71

4.2.1 Theme 1 72

4.2.2 Theme 2 76

4.3 Chapter summary 77

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 78

5.1 Summary of the main findings 78

5.2 Suggestions 79

5.3 Limitations 79

5.4 Recommendations for further research 80

5.5 Chapter summary 81

REFERENCES 82

ix

APPENDIX 1: PROFICIENCY TEST 89

APPENDIX 2: PRE-TEST 95

APPENDIX 3: POST-TEST 106

APPENDIX 4A: QUESTIONNAIRE (ENGLISH VERSION) 117

APPENDIX 4B: QUESTIONNAIRE (TRANSLATED VERSION) 121

APPENDIX 5A: LESSON PLAN (EXPERIMENTAL GROUP) 126

APPENDIX 5B: LESSON PLAN (CONTROL GROUP) 129

x

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CLT: Communicative Language Teaching

CR: Consciousness Raising

EFL: English as a foreign language

e.g : For example

ESL: English as a Second Language

GTM: Grammar Translation Method

ibid.: in the same book

r: Pearson Correlation Coefficient

SBPTs: Structure Based Production Tasks

SD: Standard Deviation

SLA: Second Language Acquisition

TBLT: Task Based Language Teaching

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Description of the participants 32

Table 3.3.1.2.1 Description of the Discrete-point Item Test 34

Table 3.3.1.2.2 Description of the Integrative Item Test 34

Table 3.3.2 The aims and constructs of the questionnaire 37

Table 3.3.3a Description of Reliability Statistics of the Pilot questionnaire 38

Table 3.3.3b Description of Reliability Statistics of the Official questionnaire .38

Table 3.4.3.2a Description of task features 42

Table 3.4.3.2b Summary of detailed treatment for the Experimental group 43

Table 3.4.3.2c Summary of detailed treatment for the Control group 44

Table 3.4.3.2d Summary of the treatment for the Experimental and Control groups 45

Table 4.1.1 Summary of the T-Test results for the Pre-test 49

Table 4.1.1.1 Summary of the T-Test results for the Discrete-point Item Pre-test 49 Table 4.1.1.2 Summary of the T-Test results for the Integrative Item Pre-test 50

Table 4.1.2 Summary of the T-Test results for the Post-test 50

Table 4.1.2.1 Summary of the T-Test results for the Discrete-point Item Post-test 51

Table 4.1.2.2 Summary of the T-Test results for the Integrative Item Post-test 51

Table 4.1.3 Summary of the Paired Samples T-Test results for the Integrative Item

Pre-test and Post-test 52

xii

Table 4.1.4.1.1 Students’ general preference for the new method 53

Table 4.1.4.1.2 Students’ general attitudes towards grammar learning and communicating through the Structure-based Production Tasks 53

Table 4.1.4.2.1 Students’ confidence of using Functions 55

Table 4.1.4.2.2 Students’ confidence of using Tenses 57

Table 4.1.4.2.3 Students’ confidence of Discussing topics 59

Table 4.1.4.3 Student’s affection for the new method 61

Table 4.1.4.4.1 Student’s anxiety about using Functions 63

Table 4.1.4.4.2 Student’s anxiety about using Tenses 65

Table 4.1.4.4.3 Student’s anxiety about other factors 67

Table 4.1.4.5a Summaries of One Sample T-Test results for General Attitude Mean 68

Table 4.1.4.5b Summaries of One Sample T-Test results for General Attitude Mean 69

Table 4.1.4.6 Correlation results between student’s confidence and anxiety about using the English Tenses 70

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 The process of learning implicit knowledge 14

Figure 2.4 Conceptual framework 29

Figure 4.1.4.6 Scatterplot showing correlation between student’s confidence and anxiety about using the English Tenses 70

xiv

LIST OF CHARTS

Chart 4.1.4.2 Students’ positive attitudes towards the application of the Structure

Based Production Tasks 60

Chat 4.1.4.3 Student’s affection for the impact of the Structure

Based Production Tasks 62

Chart 4.1.4.4 Student’s negative attitudes towards the application of the

Structure-based Production Tasks 68

xv

ABSTRACT

The main purpose of the current study was to investigate the effectiveness of the Structure-Based Production Tasks on English non-majored students’ attitudes and grammatical performance

This study was a Pre-Posttest Quasi-experimental design Fifty nine students of Ton Duc Thang University were conveniently selected and assigned into two groups: (1) the experimental group and (2) the control group The experimental group was introduced with the alternative model (Task-based approach) while the control group learned with the traditional approach (PPP) The collected data was analyzed to find out the differences between two groups in terms of the Discrete-point item test and the Integrative item test A questionnaire-based survey was also employed to explore students’ attitudes towards the treatment

The statistic results revealed that the experimental group did not exceed the control group although its results were slightly higher than that of the other However, the significant difference of the experimental learners in the Integrative item post-test indicated that the Structure-Based Production Tasks were effective in grammar teaching In addition, the experimental group had favorable attitudes towards the treatment

Briefly, the results of the study have offered foundations for the intriguing implications withdrawn from the study to improve grammar teaching

1

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Grammar is necessary for language It is the combination of form and meaning

as learners not only need to focus on forms of the language but also the meanings the

forms convey (Thornburry, 2008) This suggests that grammar should not be ignored

if we do not want to experience communication breakdown or misunderstanding In a

daily conversation between my student and I (the researcher), my student answered “I

am staying here for two weeks” instead of “I have been staying here for two weeks” in

response to the question “How long have you been staying here?” This instance

emphasizes the importance of grammar in language teaching Nevertheless, grammar

teaching has been a controversy in language pedagogy There were periods when

grammar teaching was totally rejected in the classrooms under the influence of

Audiolingual and Direct methods as a reaction to the overemphasis of grammar in the

time of Grammar Translation Method

Different attitudes to grammar teaching have resulted in various teaching

methods Arguments favoring grammar teaching state that grammar is of high value

because mastery of forms leads to proficiency in using the target language

Meanwhile, arguments compelling grammar teaching strongly claim that it makes

sense to teach learners how to use the target language Consequently, it brings the

question into the foreground of whether learners should only learn grammar or learn

to communicate

Recently, there has been a revival of grammar teaching with various

approaches Despite diverse objectives and underlying assumptions, the primary

purpose of grammar teaching is to enable learners to use grammar accurately and

fluently Under the eye of the researcher in the setting of Ton Duc Thang University,

students have still encountered these problems although they have learned grammar

from high schools to universities Consequently, it has urged the researcher to carry

out the study

2

There are six parts in this chapter including: (1) background to the study, (2) research aims, (3) research questions, (4) research hypotheses, (5) significance of the study and (6) organization of the study

1.1 Background to the study

There are two popular ways of teaching English grammar: (1) deduction and (2) induction Deductive approach is known as a top down process that students are first provided with rules and meaning of grammatical structures and apply those structures in controlled and free practice Meanwhile, inductive approach is considered as a bottom up process that students discover rules through working on examples and exercises

Although inductive approach has been used, teacher-fronted approach and decontextualization have been taken into account Students first practice some examples Then, teachers supplies learners with rules and meaning of target structures Next, students applies those structures at the level of the sentence This practical reality is due to the pressure of exams on English teachers who have to prepare students for their written final exams with an emphasis on vocabulary, reading comprehension and isolated grammar Consequently, students cannot use grammar accurately and fluently although they spent a lot of time studying English

The English Tenses and aspects are widely used in oral and written forms Although Tenses have been teaching for years, students have still failed to use them For example “I doing homework”, “you have sing” are such notable examples These mistakes may be the consequences of rule-supplied approach and lack of contextualized input Therefore, grammar teaching is biased in favor of form and decontextualization Basing on the particular teaching context as well as this gap, the current study establishes its objectives and research questions as follow

3

1.2 Aims of the study

The aims of the thesis are (1) to find out differential impacts of two teaching models: fluency-to-accuracy versus accuracy-to-fluency by using Structure-based Production Tasks and (2) to suggest some implications for effective grammar teaching

in Ton Duc Thang University

1.3 Research questions

The research project seeks the answers to the following questions:

1 What are the differences in the mastery of the English Tenses between the group that received the Structure-Based Production Tasks and the group that received that PPP instruction?

 Are there significant differences in the (a) Discrete-point item test and (b) the Integrative item test of the English Tenses between two groups?

2 What kinds of effects does the treatment have on the experimental group’s attitudes?

For the second research question, students may show positive attitudes towards the application of the Structure-Based Production Tasks It can be hypothesized that students with average or above average will be favorable for the application of the treatment in comparison with those under average level

1.5 Significance of the study

From the problems and the aims stated, the thesis may contribute significantly

to the teaching of grammar through the application of the Structure-Based Production Tasks in Ton Duc Thang University To the students, the thesis may be of benefit as

4

they are able to master grammatical structures and improve oral abilities To the teachers, this thesis may help them have a deep insight into ways of grammar teaching and choose the most appropriate, useful approach Finally, some implications and recommendations withdrawn from the study may raise teachers’ consciousness in grammar teaching and help them be more flexible, creative and adaptive to different teaching contexts

1.6 Organization of the study

There are five chapters in this research Chapter 1 introduces the background to the thesis, statement of the issue, aims of the study, research questions, research hypotheses and organization of the study Chapter 2 provides theoretical concepts and theories, empirical research and a conceptual framework for the procedural process of the study Chapter 3 presents the ways of conducting the research such as the methodology and the research design Every aspect in the research is mentioned including research setting, participants, research design, research instruments, procedures and methods of analysis Chapter 4 reports the results collected from the experiment and provides the Discussion of the findings Finally, chapter 5 gives conclusions, implications, limitations of the study and recommendations for further research

5

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Chapter one has provided readers with crucial importance of grammar in

language pedagogy Due to common problems with rule-supplied approach and

decontextualization, the present research aims to investigate the effects of the

Structure Based Production Tasks on students’ attitudes and grammatical

performance This chapter presents the theoretical foundation which serves as an

establishment for the conceptual framework of the study

The chapter starts with an introduction about a brief history of grammar

teaching Next, issues of grammar teaching are mentioned in terms of methodological

options, procedures, noticing, grammatical performance and ways of assessing

learners’ grammatical performance Then, tasks and activities in language teaching are

presented, specifically (1) unfocused tasks and (2) focused tasks Afterwards, the

Structure-Based Production Tasks (SBPTs) and their distinctive features are

described This chapter ends with previous studies regarding the SBPTs, which is the

central issue of the research

There has been a revival of grammar teaching in the late 1990s under the

context of different approaches to language teaching In this research, the

Structure-Based Production Task, which is an attempt to teach grammar, is such a potential

Hence, what has happened in grammar teaching? In order to provide the answer to this

question, it is necessary to have a deep insight into a brief history of grammar

teaching

6

2.1 A brief history of grammar teaching

Grammar Translation Method (GTM) of which the ultimate goal was to read literary texts or to benefit from mental discipline and intellectual development dominated language teaching from the mid-eighteenth to the mid-nineteenth centuries This method emphasized exclusively formal explanations of grammatical rules and structures, followed by the translation of texts into and out of the mother tongue Thus, grammar was taught deductively Accuracy was stressed with the expectation of students’ high attainment in translation owing to “the high priority attached to meticulous standards of accuracy which, as well as having an intrinsic moral value, was a prerequisite for passing the increasing number of formal written examinations that grew up during the century” (Howatt, 1984, p 132)

Although GTM was widely practiced, there was neither advocate nor grounded theory for it In fact, speaking knowledge of a language was not in need The texts, which were used to teach foreign languages, were actually the products of people trained in literature rather than in language applied linguistics or language teaching (Richards & Rodgers, 2001) As a result, Direct method and Audiolingual method were emphasized as a critical reaction to GTM and laid foundations for language teaching Audiolingual method did present grammar rules like GTM although it followed a syllabus of grammar structures and rejected explicit grammar teaching Instead, rules were taught through habit-formation in which drills and repetition of sentence patterns for accurate production of the target language were stressed

Under the influence of SLA theory development, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) emerged in 1970s This approach stressed on meaning and assumed that “learners would acquire forms and vocabulary naturally during the process of comprehending and responding to the input” (Hinkel & Fotos, 2008, p 4) In this regard, grammar syllabus and explicit rule-giving approach were rejected while learners’ exposure to comprehensible input was highlighted As Krashen (1981) points out that it is not vital to include formal explanation as grammar teaching with attention

to forms has little or no influence on the language acquisition Krashen distinguishes the terms “acquisition” and “learning” and argues on the minimal influence of conscious learning on learners’ performance With this mind, learners should acquire

is, from top-down approach to bottom-up approach These changes have led to different ideas about grammar teaching While explicit presentation of rules by “a rule

of thumb” can directly lead to the “sense of control over speaking and writing”, it is built on the “false and simplified assumptions” (Leech, 1994, p 23) In respect of Leech’s idea, Presentation-Practice-Production (PPP) model is severely discredited on the assumption that although it seems comfortable for teachers and has a tangible lesson goal, it is inadequately powerful and poor in levels of attainment (Skehan, 1996) In addition, although CLT is highly assessed in language teaching, it is believed to depose grammar as grammar is considered equally accuracy It puts more weight on the intelligibility than accuracy in comparison with Audiolingual method and Direct method (Thornburry, 2008)

In two recent decades, language teaching has witnessed a grammar revival This revival is highlighted with (1) focus on form and (2) consciousness raising As Thornburry (2008) affirms that “A focus on form may simply mean correcting a mistake In this sense, a focus on form is compatible with a Task-based approach” (p 24) Similarly, Harmer (2007) verifies that the emphasis of a lesson is tasks rather than language Many researchers and curriculum developers (Long, 1991; Long & Crookes, 1992; Nunan, 1989, 1993; Prabhu, 1987; Robinson, 1996, Skehan, 1996,

1998 as cited in Hinkel & Fotos, 2008, p 138) also propose that second/ foreign languages can be effectively taught through a Task-based approach Thornburry (2008) also claims that acquisition involves conscious processes in which attention is indispensible This is in line with Schmidt (1990) that acquisition is concerned with consciousness processes In fact, attention and noticing are features of consciousness-

8

raising which may not directly lead to the acquisition of grammatical features but may

trigger learner’s mental process and gradually result in accurate and appropriate production To have a wider perspective about grammar teaching, the following parts describe the whole picture

2.2 Issues of grammar teaching

2.2.1

There have been a large number of methodological options with respect to kinds of techniques and procedures used to teach grammar Three types of options are identified: (1) teaching strategies, (2) timing strategies and (3) social strategies, which

“combine in different ways and are evident in all kinds of different techniques and activities” (Stern, 1992, as cited in Ellis, 1997a, p 78) Of all options, teaching strategies which are discussed in terms of three dimensions underlie method controversies Teaching strategies are identified as a design feature of grammar teaching which may affect L2 acquisition Grammar teaching options, according to Ellis (1997a), involve feedback options and learner performance options The former, which comprises overt and covert feedback, refers to devices used to provide information about learner’s use of specific grammatical structures The latter, which relates to various devices available for eliciting different learner behaviors, includes the use of a specific grammatical feature and is specified under the terms “feature focused” and “focused communication” Both options are such typical examples of analytic teaching strategies where efforts are made to teach grammar (ibid.)

2.2.1.1

Featured-focused options refer to “the practice of isolating linguistic features, teaching and testing learners one at a time in association with the structural syllabus while focused communication options direct learners’ attention to grammatical features through meaning-based activities” (Ellis, 1997a, p 81) Their distinction can

be distinguished in terms of (1) intentional learning which involves a deliberate attempt to learn and (2) incidental learning in which there is an absence of intentionality to learn but may involve impromptu conscious attention to L2 features

9

(Ellis et al., 2009) A feature-focused option mainly focuses on intentional grammar learning while a focused communication option primarily pays attention to incidental grammar learning With this mind, two types of task directs at incidental learning: (1) meaning-focused tasks and (2) meaning-focused tasks in combination with some device to focus learners’ attention to particular linguistic features (Ellis, 1997a) Although the latter does not require learners to make conscious effort to learn L2 features and may draw learners’ attention to specific linguistic features, it is assumed

to direct at incidental learning rather than intentional learning

2.2.1.2

The other way of teaching grammar is using focused communication options The Structured Based Communication Tasks (Loschky & Bley Vronman, 1990, discussed in Ellis, 1997a), which involve both production and comprehension, are such instances These tasks not only require learners to focus on message content but also attend to particular grammatical knowledge Three types of tasks are identified: (1) tasks that make the use of a grammatical structure “natural”, (2) tasks that make the performance of a task “easier” and (3) tasks that make the use of a grammatical structure “essential” While it is simple to design reception and production tasks where using target structures makes the tasks natural and easier, it is difficult to design production tasks where the use of specific grammatical structures is “essential” (Ellis, 1997a) For example, when students are asked to work on story-telling tasks, they may avoid using target structures and reformulate incorrect utterances just as the teacher

requests clarification In this study, focused communication options with the

application of SBPTs are what the study aims at So, what are the procedures of grammar teaching? What follows is an account of procedures

2.2.2

Two procedures of grammar teaching, which are often discussed in SLA, are deduction (rule-driven) and induction (rule-discovery) “A deductive approach starts with the presentation of a rule and is followed by examples in which the rule is applied” (Thornburry, 2008, p 29) The advantage of this approach is that it is time-

10

saving because the teacher moves directly to the teaching points However, it is teacher-fronted and at the expense of students’ interaction and involvement in the lesson

In contrast, “an inductive approach starts with some examples from which a rule is inferred” (Thornburry, 2008, p 29) It is concerned with the induction of rules

or learners’ discovery of grammatical rules through tasks in which no grammar explanation is provided and has underpinned through the design of tasks (Ellis, 1997a; Ellis, 2008, discussed in Hinkle & Fotos, 2008) Therefore, learners are more actively involved in the learning process and may have a greater memorability of rules The major drawback is that it is challenging learners to work out rules through problem-solving tasks

To sum up, deductive and inductive procedures are beneficial to students Deductive approach provides students with direct explanation while inductive approach helps students reach their goals through solving language problems With reference to this issue, indirect Consciousness Raising Tasks proposed by Fotos and Ellis (1991) and Fotos (1994) are strongly emphasized for the purpose of “helping learners construct their own explicit grammar of the target language and encourage communication in the L2 between learners” (Ellis, 1997a, p 87) The study of Dang and Nguyen (2013) on indirect CR task has shown its effectiveness on grammar teaching Through working on supplied data, learners could generate rules One of its limitations is that CR tasks focus primarily on constructing a conscious representation

of rules with limited production as “it is not intended to elicit learner production (except minimally) and is not design to lead directly to the use of the target feature in spontaneous language use” (Ellis, 1997a, p 160) Thus, Ellis (2003) proposes the term

“production” for the purpose of enhancing learner’s communication of the target language through using the SBPTs

As far as we are concerned, grammar teaching is commonly associated with feature focused options which explicit and implicit instructions are included In the case of explicit grammar teaching, a distinction is made between direct and indirect options “Direct explicit grammar teaching provides learners with a rules (or perhaps part of a rule) which they then apply, complete or amend in a task that requires them

11

to analyze data that illustrate its use” (Ellis, 1997a, p 85) For instance, learners are given a rule of Present simple tense with a set of sentences and are required to use that rule to identify which sentence is grammatical and which sentence is ungrammatical

In this case, learners quite depend on teacher’s explanations and rule provision since direct explicit grammar teaching supplies them with metalinguistic information On the other hand, “Indirect explicit grammar teaching supplies learners with data which illustrate the use of a particular grammatical structure which they analyze in order to arrive at some generalization that accounts for regularities in the data” (Ellis, 1997a,

p 86) For example, learners are provided a written text with several sentences pertaining to Past Simple and Past Perfect tenses and are asked to identify the verbs in both Tenses Then, they have to search rules and explain different functions of the two Tenses Essentially, from the given input, learners have to build rules

In the case of implicit grammar teaching, output oriented options (also called production-based practice activities) are emphasized with error inducing and error avoiding options (Ellis, 1997a) The former is illustrated in terms of “the garden path approach” which leads learners to make specific errors in L2 acquisition and offers overt feedback without awareness of practicing a specific structure while the latter tries to avoid making errors with the employment of text manipulation activities and text creation activities Text manipulation activities require learners to produce and operate them in some limited way such as filling in a blank, transforming one sentence into other patterns while text creation activities ask learners to produce their own sentences in relation to target structures (ibid.) These activities are similar to communicative grammar tasks but learners are aware that they are practicing a specific structure Therefore, they treat these tasks as opportunities to practice rather than to communicate In sum, learners in the former case treat the activities as chances

of communicating while those in the latter treat the activities as opportunities to practice a particular grammatical structure

Noticing is of importance in SLA since it may help learners remember target features in order to use in communication However, learners are not free to notice whatever they want The question arises here is that if noticing is necessary for learning a language form, how does it take place? In other words, what controls what

of grammar instruction whose purpose is to affect the ways in which learners attend to input data” (VanPatten, 1996, p 2) It is different from general listening or reading which contextual information and background knowledge are necessary for grammar teaching Instead, it requires learners to pay attention to meaning, notice the target form and meaning it conveys in the input and finally notice the gap between what learners have known and their output (Hinkel & Fotos, 2008)

“Noticing” refers to three different phenomena: (1) learning without intention, (2) learning without metalinguistic knowledge, and (3) learning without awareness (Schmidt, 1990; 1994; 2001) First, since not all intentions are conscious, not all learning is intentional Second, explicit and implicit knowledge, according to Schmidt (1990), are a part of continuum rather than separate phenomena Third, learning results from a subjective experience of noticing as learners pay attention to features in the input Because of this, learning must be conscious since “SLA is largely driven by what learners pay attention to and notice in target input and what they understand of the significance of notice input to be” (Schmidt, 2001, p 50)

The awareness of linguistic features in the input triggers the process of incorporating new features into learner’s linguistic competence Regarding awareness, Schmidt distinguishes two levels of “awareness” for the purpose of making a crucial distinction between “intake/ item learning and restructuring/ system learning, namely, (1) awareness at the level of noticing and (2) awareness at the level of understanding;

At the level of understanding, learners are able to analyze, compare, test hypotheses,

13

and verbalize the underlying rules of the language” (Schmidt, 1990, discussed in Leow, 2007, as cited in Dekeyser, 2007, p 24) Overall, leaners need to demonstrate a conscious apprehension and awareness of a particular form in the input before it can

be processed as noticing is a sufficient and necessary condition for the conversion of input to intake

Noticing reveals which features in the input are registered consciously and then become intake Schmidt (2001) notes that what we notice here are “elements of surface structure of utterances in the input, instances of language, rather than any abstract rules or principles of which such instances may be exemplars” (p 5) Intake results from conscious cognitive comparison which helps learners observe features in the input and their output Moreover, learners recognize that their current interlanguage system is insufficient to express the meanings they want to share Hence, learning is a conscious process As Schmidt (2001) elicits that since features of L2 input are likely to be infrequent, non-salient and communicatively redundant, intentionally focused attention may be fundamental for successful language learning

In fact, “the role of attention is deemed crucial for further long-term memory storage

of L2 information to take place” (Schmidt, 1990, discussed in Leow, 2007, as cited in DeKeyser, 2007, p 22)

The distinction between implicit and explicit knowledge have been addressed

in a number of studies, both in cognitive science and in SLA According to Ellis (2003), implicit knowledge refers to “the knowledge of language that a speaker manifests in performance but has no awareness of” (p 105) It is intuitive in the way that learners are unlikely to be aware of having learned it and are not aware of its existence Implicit knowledge also comprises learner’s interlanguage system which is hidden in the mind of learners It only becomes manifest via learner’s actual performance With this mind, implicit knowledge is available through automatic processing, which requires less processing capacity, occurs rapidly via spontaneous language use and becomes automatic through practice that “requires learners to make use of interlanguage knowledge under real operating conditions” (Ellis, 1997a, p 125; Ellis, 2003) As a result, continued exposure and opportunities to use acquired structures in classrooms communication may result in accuracy gains

14

Meanwhile, explicit knowledge refers to “knowledge about language that

speakers are aware of and if asked can verbalize” (Ellis, 2003, p 105) Whether

explicit knowledge is from the earlier acquired implicit knowledge or is derived from

the input, it involves the construction of rules or generalizations with high level of

awareness In this sense, explicit knowledge is available through controlled processing

which requires time for activation, processing capacity and occurs serially as “explicit

knowledge can be automatized through more traditional controlled grammar practice

activities” (Ellis, 1997a, p 125; Ellis, 2003) Because of this, practice plays an

important role in automatizing existing explicit knowledge

In sum, implicit and explicit knowledge are of importance in SLA Explicit

knowledge plays a critical role in indirectly contributing to interlanguage development

(Ellis, 1997a) It helps learners notice target features in the input and facilitates the

process of noticing the gap between what learners notice in the input and their output

In reverse, implicit knowledge concerns intake and interlanguage The process of

learning implicit knowledge where input becomes implicit knowledge can be operated

through two stages: (1) input becomes intake through noticing and (2) intake becomes

part of learner’s interlanguage system Intake happens when learners take features of

input into their short-term and medium-term memories while interlanguage system

occurs once the linguistic features become part of long-term memory (Fig 2.1., Ellis,

1997a, p 119)

Operations

noticing comparing integrating

INPUT Short / Long-term OUTPUT

PROCESSING medium-term memory:

An alternative model (Task-based approach) which is fluency-to-accuracy is adapted (Ellis, 2003) Learning process starts with the meaning that learners want to

convey by using their available linguistic resources Then, explicit grammar teaching

may be used to help them do better As Thornburry (2008) points out that “Through successive stages of trial, error, and feedback, the learner’s output is fine-tuned for accuracy” (p 129)

As explained earlier, there has been a revival of grammar with the emphasis on tasks What are tasks? What are special features of tasks? The following sections build

up the whole picture

2.2.5

Tasks remain the central point in SLA research and language teaching A number of issues with respect to tasks have been raised In this research, they are communication tasks which “involve learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language while their attention is principally focused on meaning rather than form” (Nunan, 1989, p 10, as cited in Ellis, 1997a, p 209) The rationale for choosing communication tasks is that it helps learners develop communicative skills and incidentally contribute to their linguistic development In

16

fact, learners may activate their linguistic knowledge in natural and spontaneous language use as well as discover linguistic features through communication Four special features of tasks are identified: (1) having a communicative purpose, (2) having some kind of gap, (3) learners’ using their own linguistic and non-linguistic resources, and (4) having a defined communicative outcome (Ellis, 1997a; Ellis, 2003) A useful example of this is the activity “The same or different” (Ellis, 2003) In this task, learners are required to describe the two pictures and decide whether the two pictures are the same or different To complete the task, learners have to use their own linguistic resources to reach the outcome Generally, although numerous task definitions have been suggested, they share a common feature, which is developing communicative skills

At issue, how to distinguish tasks from exercises? To clarify the boundary, Ellis (2003) elucidates that while tasks principally place emphasis on meaning-focused activities, exercises mainly stress form-focused activities Participants play the role of “language users” in performing task Thus, any learning that happens is incidental In contrast, participants in exercises act as “learners” and hence learning is intentional From these viewpoints, what are the particular tasks? To have a wider perspective on this issue, the next section articulates it

2.2.6

Ellis (2003) identifies two types of tasks: (1) unfocused tasks and (2) focused tasks Unfocused tasks may predispose learners to choose from a variety of forms without trying to elicit a specific linguistic feature in mind (Ellis, 2003) No effort was made to require learners to attend or use any specific grammatical features but to complete tasks By contrast, “focused tasks aim to induce learners to process, receptively or productively, some particular linguistic features, for example, a grammatical structure” (Ellis, 2003, p 16) The use of focused task results in the prominence of a specific grammatical feature though it does not require learners attend to form rather than meaning To this end, focused tasks consist of two aims: (1) stimulating communicative language use and (2) using predetermined target feature Since it is hard to construct production tasks which make the use of the target

There are two ways of constructing tasks of which the focus can be achieved

In the first way, tasks can only be performed if learners employ the target linguistic feature The activity “Find the picture” (Ellis, 2003) is a typical example of this design It requires learners to describe the pictures in order to help their partner recognize which pictures are from the same set In order to achieve the outcome, learners have to use the preposition of place “on” In fact, using this way may lead learners to get around using the target features as learners try to reach the target of the task Another way to do is making language itself the content of the task In the Activity 2 (Ellis, 2003, p 18), learners are required to list prepositions of time “in, on, at” from the provided data so as to complete the table They have to point out the rules and the use of each preposition Indeed, this activity is such CR tasks rather than exercises because learners are asked to work on the supplied data The question arises

is how to distinguish focused tasks from CR tasks? Further details are as follows

It has been recognized that focused tasks are different from situational grammar exercises While learners in the former are not informed of particular linguistic features, pay attention to message content like the case of unfocused tasks and learn features incidentally, those in the latter are informed of specific features and attend to grammatical features intentionally (Ellis, 2003) To clarify them exactly, a practical perspective on the implementation is addressed An issue of some interest is how many ways of designing focused tasks where the focus can be achieved? The following parts provide a general view on it

18

whereas that of CR tasks requires learners to get involved in the talk so as to achieve

an outcome to the tasks

In this study, SBPTs are used to measure learners’ grammatical performance

So, how to assess learners’ grammatical performance? The following part clarifies it

as follows

2.2.7

Ellis (2005) claims that learner language refers to the oral or written language produced by learners which serves as the primary data for the study of L2 acquisition and which can be revealed through grammatical performance However, the term

“grammatical performance” is not defined clearly in Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005) Consequently, the researcher decided to reference to Bachman and Palmer (1996) and Purpura’s (2004) to elicit its definition in conjunction with ways of assessing learners’ grammatical performance in this study

Language ability, which refers to the combination between language competence (also called language knowledge) and strategic competence with a set of metacognitive strategies, provides learners with ability to create and interpret discourse, either in responding to tasks or in non-test language use (Bachman & Palmer, 1996, p 67) Language knowledge is specified in terms of organizational knowledge (i.e., how learners control structures to produce grammatical correct sentences) and pragmatic knowledge (i.e., how learners communicate meaning and produce appropriate utterances in different contexts) The organizational knowledge refers to grammatical knowledge and textual knowledge While the former refers to producing or comprehending formally accurate utterances or sentences, the latter concerns producing or comprehending texts, which are units of language - spoken or written (ibid.)

In the grammar learning process, explicit grammatical knowledge, which functions slowly, refers to conscious knowledge of grammatical forms and meanings There are two kinds of explicit grammar instruction: (1) explicit deductive and (2) explicit inductive While the former provides learners rules and asks them to apply, the latter supplies learners with examples of language form in which learners have to

19

search rules and make generalizations Gap-filling is such a typical task which is used

to measure learners’ explicit grammatical knowledge Meanwhile, implicit grammatical knowledge relates to “the knowledge of a language that is typically manifest in some form of naturally occurring language behavior such as conversation” (Ellis, 2001, p 252, as cited in Purpura, 2004, p 42) It is unconscious and is accessed quickly To this end, “learners will notice target grammatical forms and identify form-meaning relationship so that the forms are recognized in the input and thus incorporated into the interlanguage” (Purpura, p 43)

In this study, grammatical knowledge, which encompasses (1) grammatical form and (2) grammatical meaning, was used to measure students’ grammatical performance (Purpura, 2004) Grammatical performance is “the observable manifestation of grammatical ability in language use” (p 86) and is assessed on the basis of grammatical ability, which is defined as “the capacity to realize grammatical knowledge accurately and meaningfully in testing or other language use situations” (Purpura, 2004, p 87) Indeed, when we perform language, we use language knowledge This raises the general about how to assess learners’ grammatical performance? The following part sheds light on the current concern

Grammatical assessment with regard to the effects of grammar instruction treatments is emphasized with the aims to investigate whether learners are able to recognize and produce the target structures It is not only used to determine learners’ interlanguage but ascertain the impact of the new treatment as well However, a number of challenges for language assessment on grammatical performance are arisen Purpura (2004) suggests that to make inferences about learners’ understanding and producing grammatical structures in production, it makes sense to “create tasks designed to elicit the fluent and spontaneous use of grammatical forms in situations where automatic language use was required” (p 45)

As was mentioned in the previous part, the current study focuses on SBPTs in

an attempt to teach grammar, so the researcher decided to employ (1) the point item tests and the Integrative item tests (Heaton, 1988; Brown, 2003) The first test type is constructed on the assumption that language can be broken down into its component parts which can be tested successfully In this study, the Discrete-point

Discrete-20

item test was described in form of multiple-choice test as a multiple-choice test is receptive or selective, the test-taker chooses a response from a set of responses rather than create a response This technique tests recognition knowledge (Brown, 2003, p 55) and “measures students’ ability to recognize appropriate grammatical forms and to manipulate structures” (Heaton, 1988, p 9) Thus, it reflects learners’ explicit knowledge The second test type which places emphasis on communication and context is depicted in terms of the Reproduction test and which asks learners to provide words that fit into the blanks Now that the ability to fit plausible words into blanks requires a number of abilities that lie at the heart of competence in a language (Brown, 2003, p 9), the Reproduction test reflects learners’ implicit knowledge

2.2.8

Structure-Based Production Tasks are broadly defined as “the incorporation of target structures in a task that leads to a ‘behavior’ ” (Ellis, 2003, p 153) These tasks have the origin in the Structure-Based Communication Tasks discussed in Loschky and Bley-Vronman (1993) Learners are engaged into tasks with the emphasis upon messages and have freedom to choose their own linguistic resources Incidental attention to form within the context of communication has not only been stressed but learners’ grammar accuracy can be achieved by the knowledge-learned-through-practice automaticity as well Hence, what are special characteristics of these tasks? Specific details are discussed in the following part

Three features of the SBPTs are recognized: (1) task naturalness, (2) task utility, and (3) task essentialness (Loschky & Bley-Vronman, 1993, as cited in Ellis,

2003, p 152) With task naturalness, the target structure may not be vital for task completion but is expected to arise naturally and frequently For example, when exchanging information about departure time (Ellis, 2003), Present Simple tense may

be used to say “I leave Hawaii at 4 o’clock” This example can be also performed through Future Simple tense to say “I will leave Hawaii at 4 o’clock” or “Be going to”

to say “I am going to leave Hawaii at 4 o’clock” Briefly, different structures can be applied to perform a task In the case of “task utility”, although the target feature is not necessary for task completion, it is very “useful” in the way that using the target

21

feature makes it easier to perform tasks An example of this is the task “Spot the difference” (Ellis, 2003), which requires learners to describe the similarities and differences between two pictures Despite having other ways to complete the task, learners have to use prepositions of place to make it easier to perform Last but not least, “task essentialness” requires learners to use the target structure to complete tasks successfully If learners do not use that feature, they will not achieve a satisfactory outcome

As noted earlier, it is hard to design production tasks leading to the use of a grammatical structure “essential” Learners may avoid using those structures and reformulate incorrect utterances just as the teacher requests clarification Mystkowska-Wiertelak and Pawlak (2012) agree that designing such production tasks using a focused feature is difficult These issues have urged the researcher to conduct the

current study which investigates the effects of the SBPTs on grammar teaching From

the studies of Tuz (1993), Sterlacci (1996) and Mackey (1999) discussed in Ellis (2003), it implies that designing tasks eliciting specific target structures is possible However, it depends on structures and learner variation The modal verbs in Sterlacci’s study and the question forms in Mackey’s study can be used to point out target grammatical structures due to their nature and learners’ levels The adjectival order in Tuz, nevertheless, is said to be beyond learners’ abilities Therefore, previous studies shed light on the current issue

2.3 Previous studies

There are numerous studies in relation to focused tasks, particularly the Structure Based Production Tasks The present study endeavors to explore the influence of the SBPTs on EFL learners’ mastery of the English Tenses It also investigates the effects of pedagogical approaches, namely, alternative model which is

in accordance with the Task-based approach and the PPP model on learners’ accuracy and fluency of grammatical structures These studies can be classified into two themes encompassing (1) studies that have explored the impact of focused tasks on learners’ grammatical performance and (2) studies that have shown the relationship between focused tasks and students’ attitudes

Gana et al (2013) filled the gap of the previous study by focusing on the

effects of Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) and English Grammar Mastery toward reading comprehension The study was carried out in the second semester of English Education Study Program FKIP Unmas Denpas Patanar, Indonesia The researchers used intact group random technique to select 52 subjects among 175 English majored students The experimental group was instructed with TBLT while the comparison group was taught with the traditional approach The instruments used

to collect data were in form of grammar mastery test with 40 items and reading comprehension test with 30 items Teaching instruments were lesson plans and handouts The statistics of Two-Way Anova and the Tukey test revealed that the experimental group exceeded the control group in terms of reading comprehension It was acknowledged that TBLT created opportunities for learners to share their

23

problems with their friends since they felt comfortable Moreover, learners could brainstorm ideas, activate their previous knowledge, and have motivation to work without worrying about grammatical structures However, this approach was new to learners

Miri (2015) furthered this idea by testing the impact of different types of tasks (Structured and Unstructured) on the Production of Relative Clauses and Lexical

Diversity Thirty English majored students, who were in upper intermediate,

participated in this research Film was used as the main moderator in this study At the beginning, a Nelson proficiency test was used to check homogeneity of the participants Then, a fifty-minute cartoon film was shown to both groups The experimental group (Unstructured) watched the film from the middle of the experiment whereas the control group (Structured) saw the film from the beginning After that, learners were required to produce what they heard The results showed that the control group outperformed the experimental group in producing Relative Clause However, there was no significant difference between two groups in terms of vocabulary although the finding of the experimental group was slightly higher than that of the comparison one The findings suggested using Task-Based approach could help learners be confident of producing the target language compared to traditional approach It created more opportunities for learners to engage in different activities and use the target language naturally The shortcoming is that this study only used film as an instructional content Hence, it raised the question of whether the same treatment including a grammar test and a questionnaire would produce the same results These gaps would be fulfilled in the next studies

The study of Badri et al (2015) explored the effects of input enrichment (Focused Task) on students’ grammar acquisition The participants were 30 female teenagers of intermediate level in Safir Institute, Iran and were divided into two groups Each group included 15 students who were randomly selected from 7 intact classes consisting of 105 students Two assessment tools were parallel grammar tests extracted from Nelson book (as pre-test and post-test) Each test included 50 items The Oxford Placement test was handled to check homogeneity of students Then, a pre-test was executed to assess students’ initial knowledge After that, the researcher

24

carried out the treatment in two months, two days a week and seventy minutes per day Both groups were received reading comprehension texts to summarize or write down topic sentences and supporting sentences Next, a post-test was offered to both groups The data collected from the pre-test and the post-test was used to calculate and analyze The findings indicated that the experimental group outperformed the control group The weakness was that the number of participants was rather small, so it was hard to generalize the results Further studies would address the gap

A study of students’ grammatical achievement through focused and unfocused

tasks is presented by Ahour et al (2015) Sixty freshman students majoring in English

Translation were selected based on the Nelson grammar test and were divided into three groups The experimental group (G1 and G2) included 40 students (2 groups) and the other 20 students were in the control group (G3) Group 1 was given focused tasks Group 2 was given unfocused tasks Group 3 received the traditional instruction After 10 sessions of the treatment, all three groups were required to perform a post-test, namely production test made by the researcher (also the teacher in charge) to see whether there was a significant improvement The results showed that Group 1 (focused tasks) outweighed Group 2 (unfocused tasks) and Group 3 (control group) in terms of grammatical achievement It would be more convincing if there was a questionnaire to survey students’ attitudes towards the treatment This would call for further studies

Bagheri et al (2016) inspected the effects of focused tasks through input flooding on reading comprehension skill Ninety higher intermediate students in high school in Iran were selected among 120 students on the basis of the Oxford Placement Test and were appointed to the experimental group (G1) and the control group (G2) Before the treatment, a reading comprehension pre-test was administered to both groups During the treatment, G1 was treated with focused tasks on the basis of TBLT while G2 was treated with unfocused tasks There were three phases in the treatment: pre-task, task and post-task First, before starting reading, learners were introduced the topic of the reading text, were activated their previous knowledge regarding vocabulary, structures and so on Second, learners read the instruction, did silent reading, answered the questions and discussed the answers together with the teacher’s