Introduction
Background of the study
English is a global language, making proficiency in it highly advantageous for students, as it opens up numerous opportunities The language encompasses four essential skills: listening, reading, speaking, and writing, which are categorized into receptive skills (listening and reading) and productive skills (speaking and writing) Among these, speaking and writing are particularly crucial for effective daily communication, including activities like presentations and letter writing Mastery of these skills relies on a solid understanding of grammar, which enables students to construct sentences correctly.
Grammar is essential for learners to comprehend spoken language and understand written texts, as it enables them to express their ideas accurately and meaningfully in both writing and communication (Corder, 1988; Doff, 2000) Kohli (1984) likens a person knowledgeable in grammar to a skilled driver who understands their vehicle, emphasizing the necessity of grammar for constructing meaningful sentences Despite its importance, grammar poses challenges for both native and second-language speakers, particularly in communicative tasks, prompting educators across generations to adopt diverse teaching approaches (Widodo, 2006) Effective grammar learning extends beyond mere knowledge; it requires methods that facilitate fluency in the target language, a challenge often compounded by the historical dominance of the grammar translation method in language instruction (Widodo).
In recent years, the approach to teaching grammar in public primary schools has evolved, moving away from isolated grammar lessons to integrating grammar within sentence patterns alongside new vocabulary Unfortunately, students typically receive only 2 to 3 English classes per week, limiting their practice opportunities In contrast, students at Asian International Primary School benefit from dedicated grammar lessons and more time for learning and practice Despite this advantage, they still struggle with communication and lack confidence in expressing their ideas Therefore, it is crucial to implement effective teaching methods that foster students' confidence and enhance their speaking and writing fluency.
Statement of the problems
At Asian International Primary School, many students, particularly those who are slower learners, often resort to their first language for communication during class Despite years of studying English, some students struggle to express their ideas effectively, especially when describing pictures in their writing For instance, slower learners frequently find it challenging to answer questions or engage with teachers and peers, often taking excessive time to translate sentences into English Meanwhile, even more proficient students make numerous language errors throughout their studies As a result, many students experience boredom in class, with faster learners dominating classroom activities.
Over a decade ago, when the researcher was in middle and high school, English grammar lessons were monotonous and heavily reliant on textbooks Teachers would transcribe information onto the board and use the students' native language to clarify structures and their applications Students were primarily tasked with memorization and completing repetitive exercises, with no interactive games or engaging activities included in the curriculum.
Implementing traditional teaching methods can lead to student disengagement and hinder their ability to communicate effectively in English, as highlighted by Skehan (1996), who noted that many students struggle with fluency and accuracy when grammar is taught in isolation The PPP approach, which consists of presentation, practice, and production, may help students grasp grammar concepts initially; however, it often falls short in fostering genuine language use Willis (1996) pointed out that students tend to replicate examples without achieving true fluency To address these challenges, it is essential to explore more effective teaching strategies, such as task-based language teaching, which has garnered support from educators and researchers like Long (2014), Skehan (2011), and Ellis (2003) Despite its advantages, task-based language teaching faces limitations, particularly among lower-level learners.
This study explored the impact of task-based grammatical instruction on primary students' productive skills and attitudes towards learning The findings indicate that teachers can successfully implement task-based instruction to enhance grammar teaching.
Definition of key terms
Grammar encompasses the rules governing how words alter their forms and combine to create meaningful sentences (Richards, 2002) It serves as a framework that defines the grammatical structure of a language, allowing users to construct sentences correctly (Ur, 1999) Consequently, effective grammar instruction emphasizes understanding grammatical rules, sentence patterns, and their meanings and usages (Yusob, 2018).
Task-based language teaching, as outlined by Willis in 1996, emphasizes the production of speaking, writing, listening, and reading skills through teacher-assigned tasks at the start of lessons Unlike traditional methods such as the Direct Method, Audio-Lingual Method, and Presentation, Practice, Production (PPP), this approach prioritizes form at the end of the learning process Students utilize prior knowledge and language to complete tasks, ultimately leading to a product and target language outcome (Moor, 2006) Throughout task execution, it is crucial for students to concentrate on meaning rather than form, as excessive focus on language structures can hinder fluency (Willis, 1996) Tasks are categorized into "real world" and other types, enhancing language acquisition in practical contexts.
According to Nunan (1989), a "pedagogic" task involves interaction and information exchange among learners without direct association with real-world activities In contrast, a real-world task integrates context and interpersonal interactions, highlighting the distinction between theoretical learning and practical application.
Young learners, as noted by Harmer (2007), acquire knowledge more effectively through various indirect methods, such as interaction and observation, rather than direct instruction Their natural curiosity drives them to explore their surroundings, but they can become easily discouraged if not actively engaged in class activities, as their attention span is limited Harmer also highlights the challenge young learners face when dealing with complex grammar concepts To support their development, teachers should provide appropriate tools that encourage exploration and self-discovery (Berk & Winsler, 1995) Engaging activities like reading, internet research, and discussions help students develop new skills and apply language practically (Jacobs, 2001) Classrooms that foster creativity through a mix of learning and play create effective learning environments for young learners.
Productive skills, also known as active skills, encompass the spoken and written forms of communication in language use Researchers emphasize that enhancing these skills is contingent upon their integration with receptive skills, such as reading and listening In the language learning process, receptive skills should be prioritized before productive skills can effectively develop Consequently, a balanced approach involving targeted teaching activities and suitable exercises is essential for improving both productive and receptive skills.
Purpose of the study
This paper investigates the advantages of task-based instruction for teaching grammar to low-level elementary students, specifically fifth graders at an Asian International primary school The study reveals that students who engaged in task-based grammatical instruction demonstrated improved fluency and flexibility in speaking and writing compared to those who utilized the grammar translation method Additionally, the research highlights students' attitudes toward both instructional methods, providing valuable insights for teachers By understanding these findings, educators can select more effective teaching strategies to enhance student performance and facilitate real-life language use.
Research questions
1 To what extent does task-based grammatical instruction have any effects on primary students’ speaking performance?
2 To what extent does task-based grammatical instruction have any effects on primary students’ writing outcome?
Hypothesis
1 Students learning grammar with task-based instruction will have better speaking performance than the others learning with Grammar translation method
2 Students learning grammar with task-based instruction will have better writing outcome than the others who learn with Grammar translation method
3 Students feel excited and motivated when learning grammar with task-based instruction rather than with grammar translation method.
Significance of the study
This study examines the impact of task-based grammatical instruction on the speaking and writing performance of fifth-grade students The findings indicate that students experience significant improvements in their productive skills, particularly in speaking and writing, following grammar lessons that utilize task-based language teaching methods.
This study demonstrates that implementing task-based instruction in grammar teaching transforms students' perceptions of grammar from a "boring subject" to an engaging one In the classroom, students actively use the target language to collaborate with peers on tasks, enhancing their engagement and critical thinking skills Rather than merely memorizing sentence patterns, they gain a deeper understanding of grammatical concepts and can apply them in real-life situations Consequently, this approach not only improves their grammar knowledge but also enhances other English language skills during lessons.
For teachers, understanding the effectiveness of task- based instruction in teaching grammar helps them to choose an appropriate method that suits young learners.
Organization of the study
This research shows the effects of task-based grammatical instructions on primary students’ productive skills The organization of this thesis is as follow
Chapter 1 introduces the overview of current teaching, recent problems From the issues raised, the author offers research directions for this issue Chapter 2 is about Literature Review including three parts Part 1 is about theorical background which focuses on definitions relating to the key points of the study Part 2 is to review previous studies to find out what the previous researchers have not done to find out the research gap that is stated in Part 3 Chapter 3 presents Research Methodology In this chapter, research design, research context, participants, instruments, process of conducting research and the way to validate the data are demonstrated Chapter 4 shows the findings and analyzes results collected, which answers research questions given in Chapter 1 Chapter 5 gives main findings and some recommendations for the future research Furthermore, it also provides pedagogical implications for teachers’ teaching in the future.
Chapter summary
In Chapter 1, there are 8 sections Firstly, some details about current teaching are given in Section 1.1 Next, problems relating to teaching grammar in Asian
The article discusses international primary schools, outlining the study's objectives in section 1.4, followed by research questions and hypotheses in sections 1.5 and 1.6 Section 1.7 highlights the significance of the study, while section 1.8 provides a summary of the study's structure.
Literature review
Theorical background
The evolution of grammar teaching has significantly transformed over the years, shifting from rote memorization of structures and patterns to a more interactive approach that emphasizes real communication Unlike the past, where students had limited opportunities for engagement with peers and teachers, contemporary methods focus on enabling students to proficiently use grammar in meaningful contexts (Richards & Renandya, 2002) Despite the variety of teaching methods available, the debate over the most effective approach to teaching grammar continues.
In the 19th century, the Grammar Translation Method (GTM) failed to enhance students' communication skills due to its limited use of the target language and a focus on form, primarily involving translation exercises (Brown, 1994) To address these shortcomings, the Direct Method emerged at the end of the century, allowing students more opportunities to engage with the target language However, the inductive approach of this method may not suit all learners, particularly those who benefit from explicit explanations of grammatical rules (Richards & Rogers, 2001).
The audiolingual method of the 1960s, while building on the direct method, introduced features like drilling that were deemed less effective for fostering cognitive engagement and meaning negotiation among students (Richards & Rogers, 2001) The 1970s and 1980s ushered in a shift towards the communicative method, which prioritized meaningful communication and provided students with ample opportunities to use English in real-life contexts Although communicative language teaching (CLT) enhances interaction, it can lead to students neglecting grammar In the 1990s, task-based language teaching (TBLT) continued this focus on meaning over form Both CLT and TBLT emphasize meaningful communication, real-life language application, cognitive development, and engagement in the four language skills; however, TBLT distinguishes itself with a clear focus on communicative outcomes.
2.1.2 Grammar teaching: Explicit or Implicit?
Teaching grammar involves various approaches, with significant debate surrounding explicit versus implicit learning, as well as deductive versus inductive methods Explicit grammar instruction introduces rules before examples, enabling students to use language accurately, while implicit learning allows for natural acquisition through real contexts (Dekeyser, 1994) Krashen (1985) argued that communication is essential for knowledge acquisition, emphasizing that implicit knowledge fosters learning through comprehensive input, unlike explicit knowledge Brown (2000) supported the benefits of implicit instruction, noting that it encourages automatic and unconscious learning through language tasks, leading to increased student engagement and interaction during communicative activities Furthermore, Widodo (2006) highlighted that implicit grammar teaching promotes greater cognitive development as learners discover rules independently, fostering autonomy and enhancing problem-solving skills, which in turn motivates students to embrace challenges and explore further.
Kumaravadivelu (1994) highlights the importance of teachers in both implicit and explicit teaching, noting that students often prefer engaging with peers over instructors, which enhances their learning experience Traditionally, effective teachers were seen as those who thoroughly explained concepts and frequently assessed students' retention of knowledge However, contemporary educational approaches advocate for a reduced role for teachers, emphasizing the need for them to monitor progress while allowing students to practice and interact with one another This shift suggests that facilitating peer learning can be more beneficial for students' educational growth.
Erlam (2003) provided evidence supporting the effectiveness of deductive instruction in the classroom by comparing its impact with inductive instruction on students' comprehension and production of target structures Conducted in a large secondary school in New Zealand with 69 participants divided into induction, deduction, and control groups, the study involved four tests: oral, written, listening, and reading comprehension The findings revealed that while the deductive instruction group achieved the highest scores, it experienced a significant decline in effect size over time, whereas the induction group maintained their scores This indicates that deductive instruction may facilitate immediate application of knowledge, but lacks the long-term benefits associated with inductive instruction.
In a study by Andrews (2007), the effects of explicit and implicit teaching methods on simple and complex rules were examined across beginner, intermediate, and advanced levels The research involved 70 participants aged 13 and older, providing insights into the effectiveness of these teaching approaches.
A study involving 19-year-old students compared the effectiveness of explicit and implicit instruction methods Results indicated that students receiving explicit instruction scored higher, as some rules were too complex for self-discovery However, both explicit and implicit approaches proved beneficial, showing no significant difference in overall effectiveness Therefore, teachers should adopt a flexible teaching strategy, allocating time wisely to allow students to explore simpler rules independently Careful consideration of teaching objectives is essential for selecting the most appropriate methods and materials to meet students' needs.
According to Lynch (2005), grammar instruction should incorporate both explicit and implicit methods Implicit teaching fosters effective language acquisition by allowing students to grasp language usage through context rather than memorizing rules, promoting natural communication skills However, certain complex structures—such as determiners, auxiliaries, prepositions, interrogatives, intensifiers, and modal verbs—require explicit teaching to ensure students comprehend these concepts effectively.
Ling (2015) advocates for the integration of both implicit and explicit methods in grammar instruction Explicit teaching emphasizes language forms to help students construct grammatically correct sentences, while implicit teaching creates an engaging learning environment that promotes effective real-world communication through multimedia resources like images, sounds, texts, and print media This dual approach enables students to assimilate new knowledge more easily and effectively.
The task-based framework developed by Willis in 1996 emphasizes implicit instruction through learning via tasks, as noted by Rahimpour in 2008 This approach consists of three essential steps: the pre-task, the task cycle, and the post-task, which collectively facilitate effective teaching and learning.
In the initial phase, teachers introduce the topic and clarify the objectives, highlighting key terms without introducing new structures During the task cycle, students are encouraged to utilize their language skills to complete assignments, with teachers refraining from correcting grammatical errors Following this, students plan and present their task experiences to the class, allowing peers to listen, compare results, and provide feedback In the final step, teachers facilitate activities that enable students to explore language characteristics and usage independently, incorporating practices like repetition and memory games to enhance retention This three-stage approach fosters easy access to new knowledge, promotes familiarity with language use, and encourages proactive learning attitudes among students.
Table 2.1 Framework of task- based language teaching
Tasks and exercises serve distinct purposes in language learning and should not be conflated According to Willis (1996) and Ellis (2003), a task is an activity where learners utilize their language skills to achieve specific outcomes rather than merely practicing language This approach emphasizes the importance of meaning, engaging students in real-world language use and fostering the development of both receptive and productive skills, as well as cognitive abilities.
Tasks in the classroom are categorized into pedagogical tasks and target tasks Pedagogical tasks, as defined by Nunan (2004), require students to utilize their grammatical knowledge to understand and express ideas in the target language, although they may encounter challenges in peer communication In contrast, target tasks are practical activities related to everyday life, such as booking a room or filling out a CV, where students are expected to master the language for real-life application Thus, task-based instruction serves as a vital link between classroom learning and real-world interactions (Yildiz & Senel, 2017).
Pre-task Introduce the topic and task
Task-based language teaching includes activities such as problem-solving, peer cooperation, and knowledge sharing among group members, which enhance student participation and improve language skills (Lee, 2000) This approach allows learners to use language freely, focusing on meaningful communication rather than strict accuracy, as they work together to achieve real-world goals.
Previous studies
There are many studies about benefits of task- based learning Beglar and Hunt
Research indicates that student engagement in negotiation enhances comprehension levels Kumaravadivelu (1994) highlighted that group work fosters significantly more interaction among students compared to interactions with teachers, leading to improved understanding.
Hasan's 2014 study highlighted the positive impact of task-based learning on secondary school students' speaking performance, involving 44 participants However, the experimental group had a larger number of students than the control group, which may influence the study's outcomes Utilizing a quantitative approach, the research analyzed scores from both one-way monologues and two-way dialogues Results indicated that students in the experimental group achieved higher scores compared to those in the control group, with a significant difference observed between their performances in one-way monologues and two-way dialogues The findings suggest that the absence of interruptions, such as unexpected questions from peers during monologues, positively affects students' fluency.
In a study by Fotos and Ellis (1991), intermediate-level college students were examined to compare the effectiveness of communicative, grammar-based tasks in EFL classrooms The research involved a control group taught with traditional grammar methods and an experimental group using task-based learning Findings indicated that task-based instruction enhanced students' grammar knowledge and facilitated better interaction, leading to improved learning outcomes However, task-based lessons yielded lower long-term proficiency compared to traditional methods, particularly among both English and non-English majors This was attributed to ineffective group dynamics and difficulties in understanding task objectives Additionally, tasks proved challenging for lower-level learners, who struggled with fluency and communication Some participants expressed boredom with grammar lessons, citing the complexity of tasks as a barrier to engagement.
In a study on task-based learning, researchers identified key factors that enhance student interaction, including effective activity construction, positive class morale, and meaningful interaction It is crucial for teachers to carefully select tasks, relevant topics, and appropriate materials that resonate with students' real-life experiences to foster excitement and engagement The teacher's role is to empower students to complete tasks independently while providing adequate support to maximize learning outcomes Additionally, assigning follow-up homework allows students to practice language skills further Therefore, teachers must consider students' characteristics, development levels, and abilities when choosing suitable topics and tasks to ensure an effective learning environment.
In Torky's 2006 study, task-based activities were found to significantly enhance secondary school students' speaking skills, as evidenced by a comparison of control and experimental groups' scores in overall speaking proficiency and subskills Utilizing a quantitative research method, the findings indicated that task-based instruction effectively improved both general speaking abilities and specific speaking sub-skills This aligns with Nation's 1991 research, which also supports the positive impact of such instructional methods Additionally, self and peer assessments were highlighted as beneficial for self-study, enabling students to identify their strengths and weaknesses through feedback from peers and teachers, thereby facilitating self-correction and skill development (Lynch, 2001).
Aliakbari and Jamalvandi (2010) conducted a study on the effectiveness of role-play in enhancing speaking skills through Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) with 60 university students from Ilam, Iran To ensure reliable results, four raters evaluated the students' tests After two months of research, the findings indicated that role-play significantly improved students' oral skills, demonstrating that task-based learning enables learners to engage with real-world language and fulfill their communicative needs.
Research by McDonough and Chaikitmongkol (2007) investigated the implementation of task-based language teaching at a university in Thailand, revealing both benefits and challenges Utilizing qualitative methods, including task evaluations, learning notebooks, observations, course evaluations, and interviews, the study identified three key themes: increased learner independence, concerns about course content, and real-world relevance The findings indicated that while students became more independent and found task-based teaching aligned with their academic needs, they initially struggled due to unfamiliarity with the approach This highlighted the necessity for teachers to provide substantial support, including clear instructions and supplementary materials, to help students navigate their tasks effectively.
In a 2011 study conducted by Chiu in a Hong Kong secondary school, the focus was not only on grammar teaching methods but also on the alignment of policies, curriculum, and materials with teaching practices The researcher analyzed various sources, including Hong Kong curriculum documents and teaching theories, and gathered insights through teacher observations and interviews The findings revealed that the task-based grammar teaching program lacked specificity and relevance to real-world applications, with discrepancies between the curriculum and educational policies, including assessment systems Additionally, reliance on textbooks left teachers needing to supplement materials, as these resources did not sufficiently equip students with knowledge While teachers' perceptions aligned with their classroom practices, they faced challenges, including inadequate implementation of task-based teaching, over-reliance on textbooks, and limited opportunities for students to actively engage in language production.
Barnard and Nguyen Gia Viet (2010) investigated teachers' beliefs regarding task-based teaching through narrative methods, which resemble semi-structured interviews but encourage participants to share their teaching experiences freely (Creswell, 2005) While teachers acknowledged the significance of task-based teaching in their responses, the findings revealed a discrepancy; in practice, they primarily focused on form-focused instruction and grammar correction Despite the narrative approach allowing for open-ended responses, many participants hesitated to provide complete information, highlighting the need for guaranteed privacy to ensure accurate data collection.
In her 2017 study, Hao examined the challenges of task-based teaching at Hanoi University, involving 30 participants with a 5.5 IELTS level Utilizing reliable methods such as camera observations and semi-structured interviews, the findings revealed that teachers remained the focal point in the classroom, while students relied on their native language and dictionaries during tasks Contrary to task-based learning principles, teachers corrected students' errors in real-time, as lower-level students struggled to complete tasks independently, aligning with Fotos and Ellis's (1991) research Moreover, exam pressure significantly influenced teaching methods, prompting a focus on form over meaning to help students achieve higher IELTS scores Additionally, a prevailing teamwork culture hindered group activities, as students preferred collaborating only with peers they liked, often disregarding others.
Numerous studies have explored the effectiveness of task-based applications for teaching speaking and grammar, primarily focusing on secondary school and university students However, there is a noticeable gap in research regarding the application of task-based language teaching in grammar to enhance students' speaking and writing skills This study aims to fill that gap by investigating the effects of task-based grammatical instruction using mixed methods, a research approach not previously employed in this context.
Research gaps
This study highlights the significant role of task-based approaches in enhancing motivation and learning outcomes for students ranging from pre-intermediate to advanced levels However, there is a notable lack of research on the application of task-based methods for teaching grammar, particularly for elementary-level students Furthermore, the integration of grammatical instruction to improve writing and speaking skills among primary students remains limited To address this gap, the research aims to investigate the effectiveness of task-based grammatical instruction in developing productive skills for elementary students at the Asian International Primary School in Ho Chi Minh City This study uniquely employs both quantitative and qualitative methods to assess the impact of task-based instruction on grammar teaching.
Chapter 2 highlights the importance of selecting methods that engage elementary students in both play and study, fostering their curiosity in alignment with a task-based approach.
Chapter summary
Chapter two explores fundamental concepts in task-based teaching research by examining essential terminology, including contemporary grammar teaching methods, the definition of task-based learning, various types of Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT), and relevant elements associated with TBLT Additionally, the chapter reviews prior studies to identify existing gaps in the literature, providing a clearer context for the current research.
Methodology
Research design
The research aimed to evaluate the impact of grammatical instruction on the speaking and writing performance of fifth-grade students, as well as their attitudes toward learning To ensure the reliability of the findings, it is essential to select a research design that minimizes potential biases, as highlighted by Vogt, Gardner, and Haeffele (2012).
To assess the enhancement of students' writing and speaking abilities, a quantitative research approach was employed to derive statistical conclusions from a larger sample population Each student's test results were evaluated using a specific scoring scale, minimizing subjective judgments based on personal experiences or opinions Thus, quantitative research was deemed appropriate for this study The quasi-experimental design utilized involved assigning participants to control and experimental groups without random pre-selection, which is particularly advantageous in educational contexts as it reduces disruption and conserves time and resources.
To explore students' attitudes towards task-based grammatical instruction, qualitative research was essential Interviews conducted after each lesson revealed students' perspectives on their current learning methods The use of semi-structured interviews provided participants the opportunity to articulate their views in their own words, enabling the researcher to gain deeper insights into their thoughts.
Research setting and participants
The Asian International School is a school for all students from the ages of 6 to
Established in 1999 by the Ho Chi Minh Department of Education and Training, the Asian International School (AIS) evolved from the International Primary School (IPS) and later integrated Asian High School (AHS) in 2012 AIS offers a semi-boarding education program that adheres to the Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training standards, alongside an international English curriculum based on the American Education Reaches Out (AERO) and Common Core State Standards With 13 branches and over 2,000 dedicated staff members, the school caters to the diverse learning needs of its students The IPS at the Cong Hoa campus, where the researcher teaches, serves as the focal point of this study.
There have been many researches on using task- based in teaching for students in intermediate and advanced level (Fotos and Ellis, 1991; Mc Donough & Chaikitmongkol,
2007; Chiu, 2011, and Hao, 2017) This paper focuses on effects of task- based in teaching grammar on students’ speaking and writing outcome in elementary level
This research was conducted during the second semester at Asian International Primary School in Ho Chi Minh City, where students are taught in a bilingual English and Vietnamese environment, with a primary focus on English Despite extensive exposure to the language, 5th graders, who have studied at the school for four years, struggled to communicate effectively and express their ideas in writing during the first semester A total of 60 students from two 5th-grade classes participated in the study, taking both speaking and writing tests assessed by specific criteria After a pre-test, 40 students were selected and randomly divided into an experimental group of 20 and a control group The students then completed a post-test and participated in interviews.
Research procedure
To ensure reliable results, a study was conducted in five steps Initially, pre-test and post-test formats were developed from the Cambridge Flyers and piloted in two of Ms Diep's fifth-grade grammar classes at AIS, with adjustments made for reliability Subsequently, all students in these classes took a pre-test, allowing for the selection of 40 students with similar proficiency levels These students were then introduced to task-based instruction and divided into control and experimental groups for an 8-week grammar study period The experimental group engaged in task-based learning, focusing on interaction and collaboration, while the control group followed a traditional grammar translation method, emphasizing rule memorization without peer communication After the 8-week period, both groups completed a post-test identical to the pre-test, and students were interviewed regarding their learning experiences The data from the pre-test, post-test, and interviews were analyzed using SPSS software version 16.
Teaching procedure
In the first two weeks, students learned the simple past tense, including both regular and irregular verbs Weeks three to five focused on the past continuous tense, while weeks six and seven introduced the first and second conditional clauses The eighth week covered the third conditional Despite using the same learning materials, the control and experimental groups experienced different teaching methods The control group utilized the Grammar-Translation Method (GTM), which included structured lessons with warm-ups, lead-ins, new content, practice, and consolidation To enhance classroom engagement, the teacher, who also conducted the research, incorporated singing and dancing at the start of each session, followed by the introduction of new vocabulary and structures using pictures and flashcards Students were then encouraged to repeat the structures before practicing with similar exercises.
In the experimental group class, the structure consisted of three key steps: pre-task, task cycle, and post-task, differing from the control class Instead of introducing new knowledge at the start, students engaged in a small task that leveraged their prior knowledge, with an emphasis on collaborative learning and self-discovery rather than focusing on form Once students grasped the new lesson, the teacher motivated them to practice the target language through additional tasks.
After 8 weeks, students were required to take the post-test and two teachers marked the pre- test and post-test based on the criteria
Chart 1: Procedure of applying grammar translation method in teaching grammar
Teacher provided new structure and explains
Teacher asked students to repeat the structure
Teacher corrected the exercises Teacher provided new vocabulary Students sang a song to warm up
Chart 2: Procedure of applying task- based method in teaching grammar
Students worked in groups and planned what to do
Students presented the task in front of the class
Students explored new knowledge by themselves
Teacher corrected and introduced the knowledge
Students practiced with new structure
Instruments
3.5.1 The tests and rubrics for the tests
This research aims to evaluate the effectiveness of task-based grammatical instruction in enhancing speaking and writing performance among grade 5 students To assess this impact, a pre-test and post-test were conducted, utilizing engaging and contextually relevant tests derived from the FLYERS examination, which focus on real-world language use The teacher-researcher selected only the speaking and writing components, with approval from the AIS international program manager at Cong Hoa campus Prior to implementation, the tests were piloted with 40 students from other classes The assessment design for writing and speaking was aligned with FLYERS criteria, incorporating necessary adjustments for the study's objectives The writing test, scored out of 15, evaluated ideas, sentence structure, and grammar usage, with a consensus on the rubric established among teachers and program managers to effectively measure students' overall writing outcomes.
3.5.2 The pre-test and post-test writing
Although FLYERS for reading and writing test consists of seven parts, only part
Seven students participated in both the pre-test and post-test for writing skills The writing test required them to describe three pictures, assessing their ability to express ideas and create coherent, fluent, and meaningful stories based on specific situations The duration of the writing test was 20 minutes.
3.5.3 The pre-test and post-test speaking
The speaking test is designed to assess students' speaking performance over a maximum duration of 10 minutes, consisting of four distinct parts, each with specific requirements to demonstrate effective English usage In the first part, students analyze and discuss differences between two pictures, focusing on aspects such as color, size, number, position, and actions of people or objects The second part involves exchanging information with the examiner, who asks questions about a given person In part three, students narrate a story based on a primary picture and continue it using four additional images Finally, part four includes questions about students' personal information, including their schools, hobbies, holidays, and families.
This research aimed to compare the speaking and writing performance of students in control and experimental groups, emphasizing the importance of test assessment Two examiners graded the tests using adapted speaking and writing rubrics based on Flyers Cambridge criteria In the initial parts of the speaking test, scores were assigned according to an answer key, while later parts required examiners to collaboratively construct responses based on visual prompts to ensure reliability Predicted answers for the writing test were similarly developed from provided images Each test's rubric was thoroughly discussed prior to examination, with the writing score totaling 15 points across criteria of ideas, sentence structure, and grammar mechanics, and the speaking score also totaling 15 points across grammar, vocabulary, fluency, pronunciation, and interactive communication The final score represented the average of the two graders' scores Additionally, trial tests were scored separately to identify differences between pre and post-trial assessments, with any discrepancies of 1 or more prompting a review by a third examiner The final score was determined by averaging the third grader's score with the closest score from the other two graders.
Prior to the research, a pilot study was conducted with 50 fifth-grade students who completed both a pre-test and a post-test on separate days Ultimately, 40 students with similar proficiency levels participated in the study The analysis aimed to determine if there was a significant difference between the scores of the two tests, indicating that they had the same difficulty level Data analysis was performed using SPSS 16, and the results, including a comparison of the writing pre-test scores from the two pilot groups, are presented in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 A comparison of writing pre-test of two pilot groups
Std Error Mean Pre-testwriting Group 1 11 3.355 3830 1155
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper
In the analysis presented in Table 3.1, an Independent Sample T-test was conducted to compare the writing test scores of Group 1 and Group 2, each consisting of 11 tests Group 2 achieved a mean score of 3.491, which was 0.136 points higher than Group 1's mean score of 3.355 However, the Independent Sample T-test results indicated no significant difference between the writing scores of the two groups, with a t-value of 0.898 and a two-tailed significance level of 0.380.
Table 3.2 A comparison of speaking pre-test of two pilot groups
Std Error Mean Pre-testspeaking Group 1 11 3.436 4864 1466
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
In the analysis of 22 speaking tests from two pilot groups, the Independent Sample T-test revealed that while Group 1 had a higher mean score (M=3.436) compared to Group 2 (M=3.409), the difference in writing scores between the two groups was not statistically significant (t= 138; sig 2-tailed= 892).
In conclusion, through the analysis of pre-test speaking and writing, it could be concluded that, 22 students in pilot group had equal level
To assess the reliability of the pre-test and post-test, a pilot group of 22 students completed the post-test the following day The analysis of their scores from the writing pre-test and post-test is presented in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3 A comparison of writing pre-test and post-test
Std Error Mean Pair 1 Pre-testwriting 3.423 22 3545 0756
Pair 1 Pre-testwriting & Post- testwriting 22 761 000
Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper
Table 3.3 presents a comparison of the pre-test and post-test writing scores for a pilot group of 22 students The average pre-test score was 3.4 (M= 3.423; SD= 3545), while the post-test average increased slightly to 3.5 (M= 3.455; SD= 3218), resulting in a mean difference of -0.0318 However, the Pair Sample t-test results indicated no statistically significant difference between the pre-test and post-test scores, with a significance level of sig (2-tail) = 0.534, which is greater than the 0.05 threshold.
Table 3.4 A comparison of speaking pre-test and post-test
Std Error Mean Pair 1 Pre-testspeaking 3.423 22 4535 0967
Pair 1 Pre-testspeaking & Post- testspeaking 22 890 000
Paired Samples Test Paired Differences t df
Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper
Table 3.4 presents a comparison of the pre-test and post-test speaking scores for the pilot group of 22 students The average pre-test score was 3.4 (M= 3.423; SD= 4535), while the post-test score also averaged 3.4 (M= 3.445; SD= 4009), resulting in a mean difference of only 022 (Mean difference= -.0227) The Pair Sample t-test indicated no significant difference between the pre-test and post-test scores, with a significance level of sig (2-tail=0.612), which is greater than 0.05.
In summary, the comparison of the pilot group's pre-test and post-test scores revealed no significant differences, indicating that both tests were of equal difficulty Consequently, the tests will remain unchanged and continue to be utilized in the research.
Data Analysis
Data from students' writing tests and speaking tests, including interviews in both control and experimental groups, were collected for analysis Each class underwent pre-tests and post-tests for both skills, with results analyzed using SPSS software To evaluate the impact of task-based grammatical instruction on speaking performance, two examiners scored the speaking tests, and reliability was confirmed using Independent Sample T-tests If scores differed, the average was calculated Paired Sample T-tests and Independent Sample T-tests were employed to compare pre-test and post-test results, indicating significant improvements in speaking performance due to task-based instruction Similarly, the effects of this instructional method on writing outcomes were analyzed in the same manner Additionally, semi-structured interviews were conducted to assess students' attitudes towards the learning method.
Chapter summary
Chapter three outlines the methodology of the study, divided into seven sections It begins with the research design in section 3.1, aimed at addressing the research questions Following this, the chapter details the research context and participants, providing insights into the IPS environment where the study took place, along with the number of participants and their proficiency levels.
In section 3.3, the research procedure is outlined to ensure reliable results, highlighting the differences in teaching methods between the control and experimental groups Data collection instruments, including tests and interviews, are detailed, emphasizing the components of the tests and the measures taken to ensure their reliability Additionally, the individuals responsible for rating the tests and conducting interviews are identified Finally, section 3.6 presents the data analysis methods employed in the study.
Result and Discussion
A comparison between the pre-test speaking and writing of two groups
In chapter three, it was noted that two teachers assessed the tests conducted by both groups A total of 60 students participated in the pre-test writing, but only the results of 40 students with similar scores were analyzed The average scores in two skills for both the control and experimental groups were compared using SPSS software version 16 An Independent Sample T-test was employed to ensure there was no significant difference in speaking performance between the control and experimental groups prior to the treatment.
The writing outcomes of two groups were compared to assess their similarity prior to conducting the study Both groups participated in a speaking test from the FLYERS Cambridge test, which consists of four parts, while the writing test was derived from part 7 of the same test, requiring students to describe four pictures The results for both the speaking and writing tests were evaluated based on established rubrics (refer to Appendix A and B) To enhance the reliability of the results, two teachers graded the tests: the students' regular teacher and a grammar instructor from another class In cases where there was a discrepancy in scores between the two teachers, the average score was calculated by combining their scores and dividing by two, rounded to one decimal place If the difference between the two scores exceeded one point, a third rater was brought in to reassess the tests The final score was determined by averaging the third rater's score with the score closest to it from the initial two raters.
This section showed the scores of pre- test speaking and writing of control and experimental groups
4.1.1 A comparison of students’ speaking scores in the pre-test
Table 4.1: The comparison the scores of speaking in control and experimental groups before treatment
Pre-test speaking control 20 3.455 4084 0913 experimental 20 3.510 4494 1005
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Equal varianc es not assume d
A comparison of 20 speaking tests from both the control and experimental groups was conducted using an Independent Sample T-test, as detailed in Table 4.1 The control group had a mean score of 3.455, which was 0.055 lower than the experimental group's mean score of 3.510 However, the T-test results indicated no significant difference in speaking scores between the two groups (t = -0.405; sig 2-tailed = 0.688) This suggests that the speaking performance abilities of both groups were comparable and showed no differences prior to the treatment.
4.1.2 A comparison of students’ writing scores in the pre-test
Table 4.2: The comparison the scores of writing in control and experimental groups before treatment
Pre-testwriting control 20 3.605 5463 1221 exprerime nt 20 3.600 6035 1349
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Pre-testwriting Equal variances assumed
Table 4.2 presents a comparison of 20 writing tests from both the control and experimental groups, analyzed using an Independent Sample T-test The control group achieved a mean score of 3.605, slightly higher than the experimental group's mean score of 3.600, with a difference of 0.005 However, the Independent Sample T-test results indicated no significant difference in writing scores between the two groups, with a t-value of 0.027 and a two-tailed significance of 0.978.
Before the research was conducted, both groups exhibited similar performance in speaking and writing However, following the experiment, any differences in scores between the two groups indicated the impact of the independent variable on the dependent variable This suggests that task-based grammatical instruction is more effective than the grammar translation method.
Next, the researcher would show all the research results and discuss research questions based on research results.
Research question 1
To what extent does task-based grammatical instruction have any effects on primary student’ speaking performance?
To address the research question, the researcher compared the pre-test and post-test speaking results of both the control and experimental groups to determine the impact of task-based grammatical instruction versus Grammar Translation Method (GTM) on students' speaking abilities The analysis aimed to identify any significant differences in performance between the two groups following the intervention If the experimental group demonstrated a notable improvement in their post-test scores compared to the control group, it would suggest that task-based instruction effectively enhances speaking performance Conversely, a lack of significant difference would invalidate the study's hypothesis The statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS version 16 to evaluate the scores of both groups, focusing on the findings relevant to the first research question.
4.2.1 A comparison of students’ speaking results between pre-test and post-test 4.2.1.1 Control group: A comparison of speaking results between pre-test and post-test
This section compares pre-test and post-test speaking performances to assess the impact of the Grammar Translation Method (GTM) on students' speaking skills following treatment Table 4.3 illustrates the differences observed between the pre-test and post-test speaking results, analyzed using a paired sample t-test.
Table 4.3 A comparison of pre-test and post- test speaking score (control group)
Std Error Mean Pre-testspeaking 3.455 20 4084 0913
Pair 1 Pre-testspeaking & Post- testspeaking 20 682 001
Paired Samples Test a Paired Differences t df
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper
Table 4.3 presents a comparison of the pre-test and post-test speaking results for the control group, which consisted of 20 students The average pre-test score was 3.5 (M= 3.455; SD= 4088), while the post-test average was slightly higher at 3.6 (M= 3.550; SD= 4525), resulting in a mean difference of only 095 However, the Pair Sample t-test revealed a significance level of sig (2-tail=0.234), indicating no statistically significant difference between the pre-test and post-test scores Consequently, the Grammar Translation Method (GTM) did not lead to an improvement in students' speaking abilities following the treatment.
4.2.1.2 Experimental group: A comparison of speaking results between pre-test and post-test
This section compares pre-test and post-test speaking performances to evaluate the impact of task-based grammatical instruction on students' speaking abilities following the treatment The differences between the pre-test and post-test results are illustrated in Table 4.4, analyzed using a paired sample t-test.
Table 4.4: The table compares the scores of pre-test and post- test speaking of the experimental group
Std Error Mean Pair 1 Pre-testspeaking 3.510 20 4494 1005
Pair 1 Pre-testspeaking & Post- testspeaking 20 812 000
Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Equal varianc es not assume d
Table 4.4 illustrates the comparison of pre-test and post-test speaking scores for the experimental group, revealing a mean difference of 380 The pre-test score averaged 3.5 (M= 3.510; SD= 4494), while the post-test score increased to 3.9 (M= 3.890; SD= 4229) This indicates a notable improvement in the speaking abilities of the experimental group, with scores rising from 3.5 to 3.9.
The Sample T-test revealed a significant improvement in students' speaking scores after implementing task-based instruction in grammar teaching, with a t-value of -6.324 and a p-value of 0.000, indicating a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05).
4.2.2 A comparison of students’ posttest speaking results between two groups
To evaluate the impact of task-based grammatical instructions on students' speaking performance, post-test scores from two groups were analyzed using SPSS 16 The findings are presented in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5 A comparison of the post-test speaking results between control and experimental groups
Deviation Std Error Mean Post-testspeaking control 20 3.550 4525 1012 experimenta l 20 3.890 4229 0946
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Equal varianc es not assume d
Table 4.5 presents a comparison of post-test results between the control and experimental groups, revealing that the experimental group outperformed the control group by an average of 0.340 points The control group's post-test score was 3.6 (M = 3.550; SD = 4525), while the experimental group's score was 3.9 (M = 3.890; SD = 4229) A paired sample T-test yielded a p-value of 019, indicating a statistically significant difference between the post-test scores of the two groups.
Initially, before both groups took the treatment, the scores of these groups were almost not different, proving that the ability of the two groups was equal
The study revealed that the control group showed no improvement in speaking performance between the pre-test and post-test, whereas the experimental group demonstrated a significant increase in speaking skills following treatment This indicates that task-based instruction is more effective than Grammar Translation Method (GTM) for teaching grammar.
Research question 2
To what extent does task-based grammatical instruction have effects on primary student’ writing outcome?
Both control and experimental groups of students participated in pre-tests and post-tests for writing, graded by two teachers to ensure reliability In cases of score discrepancies, the results were averaged Both classes completed identical tests sourced from Cambridge Flyers, and the data analysis process for writing mirrored that of speaking.
Table 4.2 indicates that the writing proficiency of both the control and experimental groups was similar in the pre-test Therefore, any observed differences in scores between the post-test and pre-test would suggest that the new method is effective.
4.3.1 A comparison of students’ writing results between pre-test and post-test
4.3.1.1 Control group: A comparison of writing results between pre-test and post-test
This section evaluates the impact of the Grammar Translation Method (GTM) on students' writing outcomes by comparing pre-test and post-test results A paired sample t-test is employed to analyze the writing scores of the control group before and after the treatment.
Table 4.6 The table shows the comparison between the scores of pre-test and post- test writing of the control group
Std Error Mean Pair 1 Pre-testwriting 3.605 20 5463 1221
Pair 1 Pre-testwriting & Post- testwriting 20 192 417
Paired Samples Test a Paired Differences t df
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper
Table 4.6 presents the pre-test and post-test results for the control group, showing a post-test writing score of 3.835 compared to a pre-test score of 3.605, resulting in a mean difference of -.2300 However, the paired sample T-test revealed that this difference was not statistically significant, with t = -1.442 and a significance level of 165, which exceeds the 0.05 threshold Consequently, the application of the Grammar Translation Method (GTM) in teaching grammar did not lead to any meaningful improvement in the writing scores of the control group.
4.3.1.2 Experimental group: A comparison of writing results between pre-test and post-test Table 4.7 The comparison between the scores of pre-test and post-test writing of the experimental group
Paired Samples Test a Paired Differences
Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper
Table 4.7 presents a comparison of pre-test and post-test writing scores for the experimental group, revealing a post-test score that exceeded the pre-test by 0.230 The average pre-test score was 3.6 (M= 3.600; SD= 6035), while the post-test average rose to 3.9 (M= 3.915; SD= 6523) Although the difference between the two tests appears significant, the Pair Sample T-test results (t= -2.098, sig (2-tailed) = 050) indicate no statistically significant improvement in writing performance among students studying grammar through task-based methods.
The Pair Sample t-test revealed no significant difference in writing outcomes between the pretest and posttest for both control and experimental groups, despite the posttest scores being higher than the pretest scores in each group Consequently, the treatment did not lead to any measurable improvement in writing skills for students in either group.
4.3.2 A comparison of students’ posttest writing
Table 4.8 A comparison of post-test writing in both groups
Std Error Mean Post-testwriting control 20 3.835 5752 1286 experimental 20 3.915 6523 1459
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
The analysis of the post-test results for both the control and experimental groups revealed a minimal difference, with a mean difference of 0.080 The Pair Sample t-test indicated no significant difference between the groups (t = -0.411, sig (2-tailed) = 0.683 > 0.05), suggesting that the application of Grammar Translation Method (GTM) and task-based instruction in grammar teaching did not significantly impact students' writing outcomes.
In conclusion, using task-based grammatical instruction in teaching does not make any improvement in students’ writing outcome while this method helps students improve their speaking performance.
Research question 3
To address the research question, the researcher conducted semi-structured interviews to assess students' attitudes towards different methods, aiming to identify the most effective approach for achieving better results The interviews were carried out with participants after the completion of the entire course.
4.4.1 Interview after the whole course
This interview aims to explore students' attitudes towards Grammar-Translation Method (GTM) and task-based instruction, focusing on their interest in these teaching methods, the challenges they face, and their expectations for learning outcomes.
4.4.1.1 The interest of teaching method
All students in the experimental group (20 out of 20) expressed a positive preference for grammar lessons delivered through task-based instruction, actively engaging in the activities and interacting well with their peers.
I’m happy with grammar lessons I take part in all activities and I have more chance to interact with my friends (S1) I like it, I know many knowledge and I actively join in class activities (S8)
The experimental group showed no dissatisfaction with task-based grammatical instruction, as students engaged in activities with peers, preventing boredom This approach, which combines learning and play, enhances their learning experience These findings align with Harmer's (2007) research on the characteristics of young learners.
However, for the control group, only (10/20) students liked to learn, the rest feltl bored because there were not many activities for them to participate (see appendix E)
In our class, many of us strive to engage actively in lessons for a better understanding of the material However, I often feel bored due to a lack of activities and limited opportunities to interact with my friends Additionally, I find the grammar lessons uninteresting, as the teacher tends to repeat information frequently, making the experience less enjoyable.
Not all students enjoy being passive during class; many prefer interacting with their peers rather than solely listening to the teacher This highlights that, for numerous young learners, their interest in English is significantly influenced by their teachers and the learning activities provided (Nikolov, 1999).
The study revealed that while students from both groups appreciated grammar lessons, task-based instruction significantly enhanced their attitudes, leading to increased interest and engagement in class Notably, none of the experimental group participants reported feeling bored during task-based learning, contrasting with findings by Fotos and Ellis (1991) In contrast, the Grammar Translation Method (GTM) contributed to a more monotonous classroom environment This aligns with Harmer's 2007 research, which suggests that young learners thrive on interactive activities Furthermore, students in the control group indicated a lack of opportunities for peer interaction, contributing to their dissatisfaction with GTM.
After completing the treatment, students' perceptions of their teaching method were influenced by the benefits they experienced In the experimental group, 100% of students grasped the lesson content immediately, and 90% felt confident communicating in English, leading to increased enthusiasm for task-based instruction Furthermore, students reported that task-based learning made it easier to apply their grammar knowledge in everyday communication with familiar individuals.
Initially, tasks from teachers can be challenging, but they quickly lead to excitement as understanding deepens This newfound confidence allows me to discuss my surroundings with friends, using the correct past simple tense when sharing stories Although I sometimes feel unsure about what to say, my school experience has equipped me to communicate effectively For instance, during a recent visit to the zoo with my mother, I confidently conversed with foreigners, who responded positively I attribute my progress to engaging classroom activities and collaborative tasks, which enhance my grasp of new language structures.
Task-based instruction, though unfamiliar to the experimental group, enables students to gradually uncover new knowledge through various tasks, leading to a comprehensive understanding of the lessons As a result, they gained confidence in their ability to communicate with others after the lessons.
In the control group, 55% of students believed they understood the lessons, yet only 40% felt confident communicating with others outside the classroom.
Expressing myself in English is challenging, particularly when it comes to vocabulary In class, I often feel it’s best to remain silent While I can recall the rules and examples provided by my teacher during exercises, speaking on the spot is daunting My teacher provides us with structures and meanings, and our task is primarily to memorize them If I struggle to understand, explanations are given in Vietnamese When asked to share my thoughts, I find it difficult to articulate my ideas and often rely on limited vocabulary.
Providing structures, meanings, and usages to students in the control group aids in the correct and mechanical application of knowledge in exercises, but it does not enhance their speaking skills Additionally, relying on the first language (L1) for lesson explanations may hinder deep understanding, leading students to rely on vocabulary rather than constructing complete sentences to express their ideas.
In the experimental group, students benefited from interactive tasks that enhanced their confidence and speaking skills, allowing them to apply grammar knowledge effectively in real-life situations In contrast, the control group, while grasping the meaning and usage of new structures, struggled to incorporate them into conversations due to insufficient practice time in class.
4.4.1.2 The drawbacks that students have when learning with current method
Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) introduces a novel approach to grammar instruction that may present challenges for students Gaining insights into students' perceptions of this teaching method can significantly enhance their learning experiences moving forward.
Discussion of the findings
In order to come to a conclusion for this study, the researcher summarizes the findings from the three research questions
Task-based instruction offers low-level students enhanced opportunities for communication and comprehension compared to traditional grammar teaching methods This aligns with the findings of Fotos and Ellis (1991), although their study showed that while the experimental group initially outperformed the control group, their scores declined after two weeks In contrast, the current research demonstrated that after eight weeks of learning three grammar points, the experimental group maintained higher speaking performance without any revisions, suggesting that time does not significantly impact students' speaking abilities This study contributes new insights into the effectiveness of task-based grammatical instruction for low-level learners, which has been underexplored in previous research (Torky, 2006; Hao, 2017; Chiu, 2011) Students are motivated to use English in class, employing vocabulary, body language, or peer assistance, driven by the competitive nature of the activities, unlike the findings of Hao (2017), where students relied on their mother tongue or dictionaries The results are particularly relevant for the Asian International School, addressing parental concerns about students' communication skills and supporting a balanced approach that integrates play with academic learning while ensuring students’ performance.
The study found no significant difference in writing outcomes between the experimental and control groups after a 20-minute test Both groups showed higher post-test scores compared to their pre-test scores; however, the differences lacked statistical significance This indicates that the writing quality of both groups did not improve Therefore, it can be concluded that task-based instruction in teaching grammar does not enhance students' writing results when compared to the grammar translation method.
All students in the experimental group expressed a preference for task-based grammatical instruction, as it fosters communication and collaboration among peers, leading to improved outcomes Engaging in classroom tasks enhances their confidence in real-world interactions and expands their vocabulary for expressing ideas The research highlights the challenges students face with task-based instruction and emphasizes the need for teachers to motivate young learners, who often lack an understanding of the importance of learning English By creating interest, students become more willing to use English and shift from passive recipients of knowledge to proactive participants in their learning, actively exploring new concepts based on teacher-guided tasks.
Chapter summary
Chapter four presents the research findings derived from the quantitative and qualitative methods outlined in chapter three In section 4.1, a comparison of pre-test speaking and writing proficiency between both groups ensures uniformity before treatment Section 4.2 reveals that students taught through task-based instruction outperform their peers learning via Grammar-Translation Method (GTM) in speaking scores, addressing research question one Conversely, section 4.3 indicates no significant improvement in writing outcomes for the experimental group, responding to research question two Section 4.4 discusses student attitudes towards task-based instruction versus GTM, highlighting greater interest among those engaged in task-based learning Finally, section 4.5 provides a comprehensive discussion of the findings from the preceding sections.