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

LIST OF TABLESTable 1: Teachers4 profile Table 2: Teachers' comments on the strengths o f the speaking section Table 3: Teachers’ comments on the lim itations o f speaking section Table

M IN IS T R Y O F E D U C A T IO N A N D T R A IN IN G

HANOI UNIVERSITY

NGUYEN THI LAN ANH

FROM TEXTBOOK TO THE CLASSROOM: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SPEAKING TASKS

IN ENGLISH 10 TEXTBOOK

SU B M ITTE D IN P A R T IA L F U L F IL L M E N T OF REQUIREM ENTS

FOR TH E DEGREE OF M A S T E R OF AR TS IN TESOL.

SUPERVISOR: LE VAN CANH, M.A

T4T

Hanoi

January, 2009

ACKNOW LEDGEM ENTS

F irstly, I w ould lik e to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, M r Le Van Canh

M A , fo r his guidance, h e lpful suggestions, invaluable critica l feedback and encouragement in the w ritin g o f this study W ithout his invaluable assistance, my study

w ould not have been completed

M y special thanks go to M rs Nguyen Thai Ha, M Ed from the department o f Post Graduate Studies o f Hanoi U niversity fo r her valuable guidance and advice

I also w ish to acknowledge the support and encouragement o f D r V u Van D ai and other

s ta ff members o f the Post Graduate Department, Hanoi U niversity

I w ould also acknowledge m y great gratitude to a ll m y lecturers at Hanoi U niversity during m y M A course, and to the organizers fo r this Master course

M y sincere thanks are due to m y colleagues and a ll students in classes 10A1，10A4 and 10A5 o f Thanh Oai A high school (TO A H S ), who offered excellent assistance in the data collection; to m y college’ s management board fo r th e ir support and encouragement

w hile the w ork was in progress

Last but not least, I would lik e to express m y deepest gratitude to my beloved people,

m y fa m ily, m y father, my mother, and especially m y husband fo r their love, care and tolerance that encouraged me a lo t in com pleting this study

A BSTRA CT

The present study investigates the im plem entation o f speaking tasks in TIE N G A N H 10 textbook, w hich is intended to be m ore com m unicative and theme-based than the previous one Questionnaires were collected fro m 6 teachers who were using the new textbooks and they were teaching in grade 10 and 160 students who were learning in grade 10 a ll teachers and students were teaching and learning in T O A high school, where this study was carried out Then observations o f classes 10A1, 10A4 and 10A5 were also conducted in order to investigate h ow the teachers have implemented their speaking task in the classroom s Post-observation interview s were conducted to understand the rationale behind teachers' d e live ry o f speaking tasks in the classroom The findings revealed a gap between the textbook’ s prescribed methodologies and teachers’ classroom practice Teachers fa ile d to im plem ent fa ith fu lly what was required

by the textbook’ prescribed m ethodology in the classroom Rather, they conducted teaching based on the classroom and p o litic a l realities Factors affecting such practice were m ainly large class size, students，language p ro ficie n cy, m otivation，learning behaviour, perceptions o f teachers9 role

TABLE O F CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I ABSTRACT II TABLE OF CONTENTS Ш LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS V LIST OF TABLES VI

1.1 B a c k g r o u n d t o t h e s t u d y 1

1.2 AIM S o f t h e s t u d y 2

1.3 R e s e a r c h q u e s t io n s o f t h e s t u d y •••••• 3

1.4 S c o p e o f t h e s t u d y 3

1.5 O u t l in e o f t h e t h e s is 3

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW _ 5 2.1 T e a c h in g s p e a k in g 5

2.1.1 Definitions o f speaking 5

2.1.2 Role o f speaking in Second Language Acquisition 5

2.1.3 Communicative Language Teaching 9

2.2 T a s k - b a s e d l a n g u a g e t e a c h in g 11

2.2.1 Definitions o f Tasks II 2.2.2 Speaking tasks to promote speaking skills in a second language 12

2.2.3 Approach o f task-based teaching 15

2.3 C h a l l e n g e s o f T e a c h in g S p e a k in g 20

2.4 C o n t e x t u a l v a r ia b l e s a f f e c t in g t h e im p l e m e n t a t io n o f in n o v a t i o n 22

2.4.1 The role o f the textbook: How teachers use o f the textbook 22

2.4.2 Teachers as key actors in curriculum innovations 24

2.4.3 Factors affecting students * participants in speaking activities 25

2.4.4 Previous studies on the implementation o f EFL innovations 28

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY _ 30 3.1 • P a r t ic ip a n t s o f t h e s t u d y 30

3.1.1 The context o f study 30

3.1.2 The Teachers 31

3.1.3 The Learners 32

3.2 D a t a c o l l e c t io n in s t r u m e n t s 32

3.2.1 Questionnaire fo r Teachers 33

3.2.2 Questionnaire fo r Students 33

3.2.3 Classroom Observation 34

3.2.4 Post-observation Interview/ 35

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION — » — 36

4.1 D a t a a n a l y s i s 36

4.1.1 Findings o f Questionnaire fo r teachers 36

4.1.2 Findings o f questionnaire fo r student 46

4.1.3 Results o f class observation and Post-observation interview 49

4.2 D is c u s s io n m a j o r f i n d i n g s 52

4.2.1 Teachers ’ and students 'positive attitudes towards o f speaking tasks 52

4.2.2 A discrepancy between teachers’ classroom method and the textbook’s prescribed methodology 53

4.3 I m p l ic a t io n f o r im p l e m e n t e r s 57

4.3.1 Narrowing the gap between intention o f the textbook writers and implementers D7 4.3.2 Narrowing the gap between teaching methods and students’ interest and expectations 58

유 ^ 유 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 6 0 5.1 S u m m a r y o f t h e s t u d y 60

5.2 L im it a t io n s a n d s u g g e s t io n s f o r f u r t h e r s t u d y 61

REFERENCES 62

APPENDIX 1: ENGLISH VERSION OF QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHERS 68

APPENDIX 2: PHIẾU KHẢO SÁT SINH VIÊN 71 APPENDIX 3: ENGLISH VERSION OF QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDENTS - 73

APPENDIX 4: CLASSROOM OBSERVATION SHEET 75 APPENDIX 5: POST- OBSERVATION INTERVIEWS 76

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

T.O A.H S: Thanh Oai A high school

М ОЕТ: M in is try o f Education and Training

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Teachers4 profile

Table 2: Teachers' comments on the strengths o f the speaking section

Table 3: Teachers’ comments on the lim itations o f speaking section

Table 4: Teachers’ awareness o f the curriculum goals

Table 5: Teachers’ opinions o f d iffic u ltie s in im plem enting speaking tasks

Table 6: Teachers’ comments on students’ attitudes towards learning speaking

Table 7: Teachers9 believes about speaking activities preferred by students

Table 8: Teachers9 comments on students9 speaking competence

Table 9: Teachers’ self-reported classroom strategies to m otivate students

Table 10: Speaking activities applied by teachers to encourage students to speak

Table 11 : Students9 attitudes towards speaking English

Table 12: Students’ attitudes towards language skills

Table 13: Students9 attitudes tow ard speaking lessons

Table 14: Students preferred speaking a ctivities in class

CH A PTER 1: INTRO D U CTIO N

This chapter provides the background to the study, states the aims, the research questions，the scope, and the design o f the thesis

l.L Background to the study

R eform ing Vietnamese education to meet the demand o f the society in the process o f the integration and development has become one o f the most concerns o f educators and society recently This p o licy has resulted in many profound changes in the country’ s educational life One o f the visib le things we can see from our educational innovation is the reform ation o f E nglish language teaching at the secondary school tow ard greater emphasis on student a b ility to use E nglish fo r com m unicative and academic purposes

A fte r three years o f development, a new E nglish curriculum fo r a ll national low er and upper secondary schools was o ffic ia lly approved by the M in is try o f Education and Training

The new curriculum defines English as “ a com pulsory subject” , w hich is “ instrumental

to the access o f w orld science and technology as w e ll as w orld cultures” (М О ЕТ, 2006) M ethodologically, the new curriculum adopts a “ learner-centered approach and the com m unicative approach w ith task-based teaching being the central teaching method” (E nglish 10，Teacher’ s book, p 12) The aims are equip students w ith com m unicative a b ility and competence to perform basic language functions receptively and p ro d u ctive ly，using correct language form s and structures

The new E nglish syllabus content is arranged according to 6 themes A ll o f these themes are draw n from the contexts o f the students9 d a ily life including Y ou and M e/ Personal Inform ation, Education, C om m unity, Recreation, The W orld Around Us, People and Places The themes provide the context in w hich language sk ills , content and

cu ltu ra l values are taught and developed in an integrated manner These themes are recycled fro m grade to grade

In operationalizing these approaches to E nglish language teaching in Vietnamese low er and upper secondary schools, a set o f textbooks was w ritten by a group o f hand-picked Vietnam ese EFL professionals to replace the existing ones It is claim ed that the new book，mandated by М О Е Т (2006)，is task-based w ith an emphasis on students’ productive s k ills (speaking and listening skills ) The introduction o f the textbook series

in aimed at addressing the strongly criticize d weakness o f the old structure-based textbook，w hich was believed to be the obstacle to the development o f students' speaking skills.

One o f the intended goals o f the new textbook Tieng A nh 10 is to develop leamers9 speaking s k ills on given topics Each U n it o f the book is divided into five sessions: Speaking, Listening, Reading, W ritin g ，and Language Focus w ith each session being mandated to be completed w ith in one 45-m inute lesson In each speaking lesson, there are 3 or 4 tasks, task 1 and task 2 focus on learners' language input and develop language competencies as w ell as language specific functions such as expressing preferences, ta lkin g about the uses o f computer, give instructions, express opinions, ask

fo r and give inform ation, express agreements and disagreements, and make comparison and co n tra st ect Task 3-4 get students synthesize specific competencies and develop

a te xt fo r 1 -2 m inute speaking practice w ith o r w ith o u t the guidance o f th e ir teachers

The introduction o f the new textbook into teaching at secondary schools has marked a

s h ift in language teaching and learning away from the traditional approach, grammar translation method，w hich only concentrates on the a b ility o f using grammar rules precisely, to com m unicative approach, w hich focuses on com m unication a b ility Nonetheless, the m a jo rity o f the teachers o f E nglish at secondary schools fin d it d iffic u lt

to teach speaking successfully because o f large class size, students’ language proficiency， m otivation, learning behaviour, and perceptions o f teachers’ role

M oreover, a m a jo rity o f the teachers were trained under the strong influence o f the Gram m ar-Translation method w hich impedes them from teaching speaking successfully even the new textbook follow s the com m unicative approach On the other hand, in the English language teaching literature research findings about the role o f the textbooks as agent o f change are m ixed In the meantime, the issue o f the im plem entation o f speaking tasks in Tieng A nh 10 by classroom teacher has not been explored in Vietnam This study is an attempt to narrow that gap

1.2 Aims of the study

The study aims to explore how the textbook is really taught o r the prescribed

m ethodology is really im plem ented in the classroom w ith a special emphasis on

teachers' im plem entation o f the speaking tasks S pecifically, the aims o f the study are as follow s:

a to understand teachers’ and students’ opinions of, and attitudes towards, the speaking tasks in TIE N G A N H 10 in terms o f su ita b ility and interest

b to explore how the speaking tasks are implemented in the classroom

1.3 Research questions of the study

The study is to fin d out the answers to the fo llo w in g questions:

1 H ow do teachers and students respond to the speaking tasks in TIE N G A N H 10 textbook?

2 H ow are speaking tasks in the textbook im plem ented by teachers in their classrooms?

3 Is there a gap between the textbook’ s prescribed methodology and teachers’ classroom methods? I f so, w hy does that gap exist?

1.4 Scope of the study

The study was not intended to explore the delivery o f the new English textbook fo r the high school teachers in general Rather, it sets out to investigate the way teachers teach the speaking tasks prescribed in the textbook fo r Grade 10 only A lso , the study focused

on the teaching o f speaking tasks in one high school only It, therefore, does not aim to generalize the way speaking is taught in high schools w ith the new textbook

1.5 Outline of the thesis

The research study consists o f five chapters:

֊ Chapter I，Introduction，provides such basic inform ation as the background o f the study, the aims, the research questions, the scope，and the design o f the thesis

- Chapter I I ，Literature Review, presents various concepts m ost relevant to the research topic such as teaching speaking, problem s in teaching speaking This includes a

d e fin itio n o f task-based language learning as w ell as the discussion o f contextual variables affecting the im plem entation o f innovation This is follow ed by a review o f previous studies on im plem entation o f EFL innovations

- Chapter HI, Research M ethodology, presents the methodology used fo r this study and the rationale o f using such methodology A lso , inform ation about the research site, participants, research instruments and research procedures is provided in this Chapter.

- Chapter IV discusses the outcomes o f the data analysis

- Chapter V is conclusion chapter

CHAPTER 2: LITER A TU R E REV IEW

This chapter presents various concepts most relevant to the research topic such as teaching speaking, problems in teaching speaking This includes 4 main sections Section 2.1 discusses teaching speaking, section 2.3 examines challenges o f teaching speaking, w hile section 2.3 shows contextual variables affecting the im plem entation o f innovation, and section 2.4，the last section discusses previous studies on the

im plem entation o f EFL innovation

2.1 Teaching speaking

2.1.1 Definitions o f speaking

Speaking has always been a m ajor focus o f language teaching, however both the nature

o f speaking s k ills as w ell as approaches to teaching them have undergone a m ajor shift

fo r past many years In the early seventies speaking usually meant “ repeating after the teacher, reciting a memorized dialogue, o r responding to a mechanical d r ill” (Shrum and

G lisan，2000:26; cited by Richards, 2002).This meant speaking reflected the sentence- based view o f proficiency prevailing in the m ethodologies o f A udio-lingual and

S ituational Language Teaching B ut since 1980s the emergence o f the constructs o f com m unicative competence and proficiency lead to m ajor shifts in conceptions o f syllabuses and m ethodology, the effects o f w hich continue to be seen today (Richards，

2002:19) Burn (1997) defines speaking as “ an interactive process o f constructing meaning that involves producing and receiving and processing inform ation” In this process o f speaking, form and meaning are dependent on the context in w hich it occurs, inclu d in g the participants themselves, their collective experiences, the physical environm ent, and the purposes fo r speaking Because o f contextual and sequential features，speaking is often spontaneous, open-ended, and evolving

2.1.2 Role o f speaking in Second Language Acquisition

2.1.2.1 C om prehensible o u tp u t hypothesis

The comprehensible output (C O ) hypothesis states that we acquire language when we attem pt to transm it a message but fa il and have to try again E ventually, we arrive at the

correct form o f our utterance，our conversational partner fin a lly understands, and we acquire the new form we have produced.

The originator o f the comprehensible output hypothesis, M e rrill Swain (Swain, 1985), does not claim that CO is responsible fo r a ll o r even most o f our language competence Rather, the claim is that Msometimes, under some conditions, output facilitates second language learning in ways that are different form ，or enhance，those o f input" (Swain and Lapkin, 1995，p 371)

In a study conducted w ith Canadian im m ersion students, Swain has shown that even though students had received abundant comprehensible input in French and were somewhat fluent in the language they had s till not acquired gramm atical competence in the language Immersion student's achievement test scores equivalent to those o f students in the standard E nglish program proved that the input had indeed been comprehensible (the im m ersion students took the achievement tests in French) S till, immersions students' many syntactical errors in French confirm ed that the target language grammatical system had not been fiilly acquired This inform ation gave researchers cause to question whether comprehensible input really is the only causal factor in second language acquisition Swain suggested that ‘‘output” was the missing factor and called the concept “ comprehensible output” and has been credited w ith firs t articulating what has come to be called the "O utput Hypothesis.，，It has been proposed (Swain 1995) that one possible way to account fo r the lack o f gram m atical accuracy was that learners were not being pushed to produce language output Swain theorized that learners in im m ersion settings were not “ pushecT，to a deeper analysis o f the target language grammar because they could get their meaning across adequately w ithout doing so The idea, w hich sounds so commonsensical and in tu itiv e ly appealing to me in

my study o f Japanese, is that producing comprehensible output requires a learner to take

a more active role than that required in listening Essentially, learners must w ork harder when producing language This is at least p a rtia lly because when learners are producing comprehensible output they have (o r should have) a vested interest in being as accurate

as possible They are “ stakeholders” in what they produce, it is their creation This is contrasted w ith comprehensible input w ith w hich learners rarely, i f ever, have a vested interest in what is said to them (they do however have a presumed desire to understand what is being said!)

It has been proposed that comprehensible output may o ffe r at least three things that input could not do It could 1) Provide the learner w ith opportunities fo r contextualized,

m eaningful use, 2) A llo w them to test out hypotheses and 3) Force them to move from semantic to syntactic processing o f the target language I w ould like to consider ftirther the second and th ird o f these three roles Regarding the testing o f hypotheses, the idea is that through their produced output learners can test and either co nfirm or deny hypotheses about the target language system As fo r the th ird possible role o f output,

w hile semantic processing may be su fficie nt to deal w ith comprehensible input when listening, the learner needs to attend to more things and，as a result，more cognitive resources are needed when speaking Therefore, output essentially forces the speaker to pay more attention to grammar and engage in deeper syntactic processing

M ore recent research has largely provided support fo r the basic idea o f the output hypothesis This research，conducted over the last ten years, has led researchers to develop and refine their conception o f the output hypothesis Research developments suggest that collaborative tasks (such as Inform ation Gap activitie s) may be perhaps one

o f the best ways to get students to produce comprehensible output As has been noted (Swain, 1995) a reason these types o f tasks and other kinds o f pair and group w ork activities may be useful is because, whereas in d iv id u a lly learners m ay be novices,

w orking together they have access to th e ir partner’ s knowledge and can essentially “ rise above，，th e ir individual level o f competence and become, tem porarily and w ith the help

o f th e ir partners, more proficient “ experts.，，B y doing this, learners w orking in a pair can produce comprehensible output beyond th e ir competence level and learn something new (o r at the very least, consolidate existing knowledge)

It is generally agreed that, in terms o f the output hypothesis, the above-mentioned three possible roles can s till be attributed to comprehensible output although they have been

m odified slig h tly from earlier conceptions C urrently, the roles comprehensible output may play are seen to be the fo llo w in g : 1) Comprehensible output can lead a learner to

“ notice，，the gap between what they want to say and what they actually can say Echoing the o rig in a l form o f the theory (and extending it ju s t a little )，2) comprehensible output often involves hypothesis form ing and testing F inally, 3) comprehensible output can have a m eta-linguistic ftinction T his means it can lead to “ m eta-talk,” o r ta lkin g about language It seems lik e ly that task-based collaborative activities may be most successful

at acting on this th ird m eta-linguistic role o f the three proposed roles o f comprehensible output by e lic itin g “ m eta-talk.” I frequently use task-based collaborative a ctivities in my classroom here in Japan w ith low er-level students and I do notice *4m eta-talkv taking place often Even so, it may be that “ m eta-talk” is most desirable or relevant in the context o f high-level but less than accurate learners where students have good fluency

in the target language but could benefit from being induced to discuss language in order

to move forw ard and achieve greater accuracy Interestingly, w hile verbally produced output is probably the most frequent m anifestation o f comprehensible output it has been noted that output need not necessarily be verbalized Swain has suggested that learners may be “ noticing，，gaps in their knowledge and "producing” language in th e ir heads and fiirtherm ore that studies have shown that students learn through this “ internal verbalization

2.1 2 2 T h e o re tica l support o f com prehensible o u tp u t hypothesis

Support fo r the comprehensible output hypothesis comes from the w ork o f socio­cultural theorists who m aintain that social interaction is a c ritic a l factor in human psychological development S ocio-cultural theory claim s that our higher psychological processes are based on interactions w ith others This im plies that we are more fu lly

u tiliz in g our cognitive resources when we are engaged in verbal interaction w ith each other From this perspective the use o f language is more than com m unication, it is something that triggers deep mental processes It means that not only com m unication but also significant cognitive a c tiv ity is taking place

S ocio-cultural theorists emphasize the im portance o f social interaction in psychological development Language development, when seen as a part o f psychological development is what makes socio-cultural theory relevant to the comprehensible output hypothesis The comprehensible output hypothesis neatly dovetails w ith socio-cultural theory as it claim s that negotiation o f meaning and interactional exchanges that take place using comprehensible output lead to language development and in fact are examples o f language development Just as socio-cultural theorists have shown that social interaction leads to psychological development, comprehensible output researchers, led by Swain, have produced evidence showing that comprehensible output leads to language development For example, it has been shown that w hile addressing com m unication problems learners engage in mental

2.1.3 Communicative Language Teaching

Having been shaped in the B ritish language teaching tradition dating from the late 1960s，Com m unicative Language Teaching (C LT ) marks the beginning o f a major innovation w ith in language teaching because o f its superior principles w hich are w idely accepted nowadays So far, several researchers have done w ork on C LT and each o f them developed his own ideas regarding C LT

W ilkin s (1972) believes that people should learn a second language fo r perform ing

d iffe re nt functions in life Larsen-Freeman (2000a) adds that a ll tasks should be done

w ith a com m unicative intent The use o f authentic learning m aterials, because o f these perspectives on C L T ，is promoted in the classroom (Nunan 1991; D ubin 1995) C LT is also associated w ith learner-centred and experienced-based tasks (Richards and Rodgers 1986; Lo, Tsang，and W ong 2000)

C LT is grounded on a theory o f language as com m unication The goal o f C LT is to create a realistic context fo r language acquisition in the classroom in order to develop what Hymes (1972) referred to as “ com m unicative œmpetence，’ Hymes’ theory o f com m unicative competence was a d e fin itio n o f what a speaker needs to know in order

to be com m unicatively competent in a speech com m unity A nother lin g u istic theory o f com m unication favoured in C LT is H aliday，s ftm ctional account o f language use

“ Linguistics is concerned w ith the description o f speech acts o r texts, since only through the study o f language in use are a ll the fonctions o f language，and therefore all components o f meaning，brought into focus” (H a llid a y 1970 cited by Canh 2004: p 82)

H illid a y has elaborated a pow erful theory o f the functions o f language, w hich complements Hymes’ view o f com m unicative competence He described seven basic functions that language perform s fo r children learning th e ir firs t language: (1 ) The instrum ental ftin ctio n : using language to get things; (2) The regulatory function: using language to control the behaviour o f others; (3) The interactional fonction: using language to create interaction w ith others; (4) The personal fonction: using language to express personal feelings and meaning; (5) The heuristic fonction: using language to learn and to discover; (6) The im aginative function: using language to create a w orld o f the im agination; (7) The representational function: using language to communicate inform ation

The focus o f C L T is therefore on ftin ctio n a l language usage and learners’ a b ility to express th e ir ow n ideas, feelings, attitudes, desires and needs Open-ended questioning

and problem -solving activities and exchanges o f personal inform ation are u tilize d to enable learners to develop leamers9 com m unicative competence In this Com m unicative Approach，“ s k ill” has become more im portant the “ content” (Canh 2004) Sociolinguists lik e Hymes (1972) argue that a competent speaker not o n ly knows how

to use lin g u is tic form correctly, but is also able to use language appropriately w ith respect to context, interlocutor, and resister From a m ethodological perspective, the opportunity to use language productively, in “ real com m unicative settings” is stressed Language learning is language use The focus o f C L T is therefore not on language practice but on learning about how language w orks in discourse

C om m unicative lessons are characterized by activities where learners communicate and where tasks are completed by means o f interaction w ith other learners Therefore, learners’ com pleting a task is fore-grounded, and com m unicating w ith each other is back-grounded To this end there may be considerable i f not extensive use o f pair w ork，

group w o rk and m ing lin g a ctivitie s，w ith the emphasis on com pleting the task successfully through com m unication w ith others rather than on the accurate use o f form

D uring these activities, the teacher’ s role is to fa cilita te and then to m onitor, usually

w ithout in te m ip tio n , and then to provide feedback on the success o r otherwise o f the com m unication and, possibly, on the lin g u istic perform ance o f the learners in the form

o f po st-a ctivity error correction

C L T w ith its emphasis on meaning and com m unication and its learner-centred approach has served as the dom inant approach to language teaching since the demise o f the

A u d io lin g u a l M ethod The approach incorporates many o f the characteristics o f preceding methods w hile at the same tim e managing to avoid the “ narrowness and dogm atism o f the method concept” (Stem 1992) In term o f the lesson organization, the tra d ition a l “ presentation ֊ practice -֊ production” m odel, where ca re ftil input o f a particular structure is ty p ic a lly follow ed by controlled, guided (less controlled), and freer practice, is recommended to be replaced by a m ore top-dow n model on the lines o f test, teach, test or those o f production, practice and presentation, where learners start

w ith a given com m unicative task w hich is m onitored b y the teacher who also focuses on error correction o r a particular form that is causing d iffic u ltie s in the later stage o f the lesson

2.2 Task-based language teaching

2.2.1 Definitions o f Tasks

D uring the same period we have seen the rise o f the task “ as a fundamental concept in

L 2 teaching m ethodology and m aterials (Nunan,1991: cited by Seedhourse) “ Task” , in general, has been defined in a variety o f ways I t is seen as “ a piece o f w ork undertaken

fo r oneself o r others, freely o r fo r some reward in other w ords, by ‘ task’ is meant “ the hundred and one things people do in everyday life , at w ork, at play and in between” (Long, 1985:89) Task, according to this d e finitio n , is a non-technical, non-linguistic term I f it is considered as a u n it o f analysis, its boundaries cannot be identified, where this task ends and where another begins (Nunan, 1989)

There are a num ber o f definitions o f w4ask” in applied linguistics Richards, P latt and

W eber (1986) define task as:

an activity o r action, which is carried out as the result o f processing o r understanding language (i.e as a response) For example, drawing a map while listening to a tape, listening to

an instruction and performing a command, may be referred to as tasks Tasks may or may not involve the production o f language A task usually requires the teacher to specify what w ill be regarded as successful completion o f the task The use o f a variety o f different kinds o f tasks in language teaching is said to make language teaching more communicative

(P 289)Breen (1987) sees task as

any structured language learning endeavour which has a particular objective，appropriate content，a specified working procedure, and a range o f outcomes fo r those who undertake the task 4ask’ is therfore assumed to refer to a range o f workplans which have the overall purpose

o f facilitating language learning from the simple and b rie f exercise type, to more complex and lengthy activities such as group problem-solving o r simulations and decision making.

(P 23)

“ task” is a w id e ly used concept both in second language syllabus design and in L2 acquisition Nunan (1989: 10) consider the com m unicative task as “ a piece o f classroom

w ork w hich involves learners in comprehending, m anipulating, producing o r interaction

in the target language w hile th e ir attention is p rin c ip a lly focused on meaning rather than

on form The task should also have a sense o f completeness, being able to stand alone as

a com m unicative act in its own righ t.” Tasks provide a purpose fo r the use and learning

o f language other than sim ply learning language items fo r their own sake Viewed from

a broader perspective, tasks are sim ply a context fo r learners to experience language in a range o f ways, fo r teachers and learners to evaluate process and product, and fo r teachers to select from , exploit and develop (Canh, 2004)

Tasks also provide input to learners and opportunities fo r m eaningful language use, both

o f w hich are generally considered valuable in prom oting language acquisition (Swain, 1995) O pportunities fo r production may force students to pay close attention to form and to the relationship between form and meaning It is assumed that this com bination

o f contextualized, m eaningful input and output w ill engage learners general cognitive processing capacities through w hich they w ill process and reshape the input In other words, tasks w ill lik e ly create a rich lin g u istic environm ent capable o f activating the learners' in tu itiv e heuristics (Kum aravadivelu, 1994)，w hich are natural cognitive processes used both consciously and unconsciously fo r developing the somewhat separate rules systems that underlie language comprehension and production In addition，form -function relationships, w hich are a c ritic a l aspect o f S LA (M acW hinney, 1997)，should be more readily perceived by the learners because o f the highly contextualized and com m unicative nature o f the tasks provided by a task-based syllabus

2.2.2 Speaking tasks to promote speaking skills in a second language

N o w many linguistics and ESL teachers agree that students learn to speak in the second language by “ interacting” Com m unicative language teaching is based on real-life situations that require com m unication B y using th is method in ESL classes, students

w ill have the opportunity o f com m unicating w ith each other in the target language Richards and Rodgers (1986:165) discuss that the range o f exercise types and activities

w ith a com m unicative approach is u n lim ite d ，provided that such exercises and activities enable learners to attain the com m unicative objectives o f the curriculum , engage learners in com m unication and require the use o f such com m unicative processes as inform ation sharing, negotiation o f meaning, and interaction ESL teachers should create a classroom environm ent where students have re a l-life com m unication, authentic activitie s, and m eaningful tasks that prom ote oral language K lip p e l (1984) plan out a

lo t o f com m unicative activities w hich can help learners achieve some degree o f

com m unicative efficiency competence Some o f the most popular com m unicative activities are:

R ole p la y: In m y teaching experience, role-play is the m ost favor a c tiv ity which encourages students to speak Students pretend they are in various social contexts and have a variety o f social roles In role-play activities, the teacher gives inform ation to the learners such as who they are and what they th in k o r feel L ittle w o o d (1992: 49) says that role-play is well-established as techniques fo r organizing controlled，pre- com m unicative language practice, w hich prepares students later to take part in fu lly spontaneous interaction Bygate (1987) has also shown that role-play may be allocated

in several way:

+ Role-play controlled through cued dialogues

+ Pole-play controlled through cued situations and goal

+ R ole-play controlled through cues and inform ation

+ R ole-play in the form o f debate or discussion

This type o f a c tiv ity could be used fo r students at d iffe re nt levels o f proficiency in term

o f com plexity o f activities Ladousse (1987:7) has shown: “ Role-play is one o f com m unicative techniques w hich develops fluency in language students, w hich promotes interaction in the classroom, and w hich increases m otivation”

S im u la tio n s: In sim ulations, students can brin g item s to the class to create a realistic environm ent R ole-play and sim ulations have many advantages First, since they are entertaining, they m otivate the students Second，as Harm er (1984) suggests, they increase the self-confident role and do not have to speak fo r themselves, w hich means they do not have to take the same responsibility

Picture describing: when looking at the picture given by th e ir teacher, student can make some description such as: what it is in the picture; what happened in the picture

In fo rm a tio n gaps: K a yi (2006) suggests that in this a c tiv ity，students are supposed to

be w orkin g in pairs One student w ill have the inform ation that other partner does not have and the partners w ill share th e ir inform ation Inform ation gap activities serve many purposes such as solving a problem o r collecting inform ation A lso each partner plays

an im portant role because the task cannot be com pleted i f the partners do not provide

the inform ation the others need These activities are effective because everybody has the opportunity to ta lk extensively in the target language.

B ra in s to rm in g : On a given topic, students can produce ideas in a lim ite d tim e Depending on the context, either ind ividu a l or group brainstorm ing is effective and learners generate ideas quickly and freely The good characteristics o f brainstorm ing is that the students are not criticized fo r th e ir ideas so students w ill be open to sharing new ideas

In te rv ie w s : Students can conduct interview s on selected topics w ith various people

A ccording to view o f K ayi (2006), It is good idea that the teacher provides a rubric to students so that they know what type o f questions they can ask o r w hat path to fo llo w , but students should prepare their own inte rvie w questions Conducting inte rvie w w ith people gives students a chance to practice th e ir speaking a b ility not only in class but also outside and helps them becom ing socialized A fte r interview s, each student can present his or her study to the class M oreover, students can inte rvie w each other and

“ introduce” his or her partner to the class

D iscussion a c tiv itie s : Discussion a ctivitie s help students practice w hat they have learnt, fin d ways to achieve objectives such as solving a problem , ranking objects, procedures, and so on Through discussion, students can also develop conversational s kills such as how to take turns, to change the to p ic o f conversation, to inte rru p t someone p o lite ly and

so on Discussion in sm all groups also have some o f the advantages as to does in role- play activities such as putting shy students to ease to feel lik e speaking, g ivin g more opportunities fo r students to speak, m aking students more aware o f their responsibility

to the group success

P roblem so lvin g : Problem solving activities encourage students to ta lk together to fin d

a solution to (a set o f ) problems o r tasks A ccording to L ittle w o o d (1990)，this type o f

a c tiv ity dispenses com pletely w ith the need to share inform ation Students now have access to a ll the relevant facts The stim ulus fo r com m unication comes from the need to discuss and evaluate these facts, in pairs o r groups, in order to solve a problem or reach

a decision For example: "Y o u w ant to buy a dictionary at V N D 150,000 Y ou do not have enough money Y ou ask your parents, but they can not give this sum o f money to

you Y ou ask your uncle，but he can not give you either W ork in pairs/ groups Answer the question: H ow w ould you solve this problem?， ，

Problem solving activities need not be based only on everyday situations that arise inside o r outside the classroom The teacher may present more unusual situations, in order to stim ulate the students’ ingenuity In these a ctivitie s students must not only analyze inform ation, but also argue, ju s tify and persuade, in order to reach a common decision They therefore provide a context fo r a s till w ider range o f com m unicative functions They also make it s till more necessary fo r students to develop s k ills in managing the interaction at the interpersonal level In addition, the absence o f a single correct answer offers students scope to express th e ir own in d ivid u a lity through the foreign language T his fact often produces a high degree o f personal involvem ent among the participants

In general, teachers should emphasize the importance o f organizing activities Factors such as students9 interest, m aturity and experience o f learning and life should be paid enough attention to

In sum m ary, the a ctivitie s presented in th is section do not cover a ll the activities that teachers apply in the classroom However, I th in k that they can contribute a great deal to students in developing basic interactive s k ills necessary fo r life These activities make students more active in the learning process and at the same tim e make th e ir learning more m eaningful and ք ն ո fo r them

2.2.3 Approach o f task-based teaching

A task-based lesson involves consideration o f the stages or components o f a lesson that has a task as its p rin cip al component Various models have been proposed (e.g Estaire

& Zanon, 1994; Lee, 2000; Parbhu, 1987; Skehan, 1996; W illis , 1996) However, they all have in common three principal stages The firs t stage is “ pre-task” and concerns the various a ctivitie s that teacher and students can undertake before they start the task, such

as w hether students are given tim e to plan the perform ance o f the task The second stage

is “ w hile-task” (also “ task cycle” (W illis，1996)，“ during task” (Skehan，1996) centers

on the task its e lf and affords various instructional options, including whether students are required to operate under time-pressure o r not The fin a l stage is “ post-task” or

• language focus” (Rooney, 2000) and involves procedures fo r fo llo w in g -u p on the task performance

2.2.3.1 T he p re-task phase

The purpose o f the pre-task stage is to prepare students o f perform the task in ways that

w ill promote acquisition Lee (2000) describes the im portance o f ІУ а т іп ^ the task to

be perform ed and suggests that one way o f doing this is to provide an advance organizer

o f what the students w ill be required to do and the nature o f the outcome they w ill arrive

at D om yei (2001) emphasizes the importance o f presenting a task in a way that

m otivates learners L ike Lee, he sees value in explaining the purpose and u tility o f the task This m ay be especially im portant fo r learners fro m tra d ition a l ’studiai' classrooms; they may need to be convinced o f the value o f a more 'experiential' approach Dom yei also suggests that task preparation should involve strategies fo r w hetting students’ appetites to perform the task (e.g by asking them to guess w hat the task w ill involve) and fo r helping them to perform the task

Skehan (1996: 25) refers to tw o broad alternatives available to the teacher during the pre-task phase is an emphasis on the general cognitive demands o f the task, and/or an emphasis on lin g u is tic factors These alternatives can be tackled procedurally in one o f three ways: (1) supporting learners in perform ing a task sim ila r to the task they w ill perform in the task-cycle o f the lesson, (2) asking students to observe a model o f how to perform the task, (3) engaging learners in non-task a ctivitie s designed to prepare them

to perform the task

Performing a similar task: In order to prepare learners fo r perform ing the m ain task

in d iv id u a lly ，the teacher involves the learners in com pleting a task o f the same kind as and w ith sim ila r content to the m ain task Prabhu explains that the pre-task was conducted through interaction o f the question-and-answer type The teacher was expected to lead the class step-by-step to the expected outcom e, to break down a step into sm aller steps i f the learners encountered d iffic u lty , and to o ffe r one or more parallels to a step in the reasoning process to ensure that m ixed a b ility learners could understand w hat was required M oreover, the pre-task serves as a m ediational to o l fo r the kin d o f 4instructional conversation’ that sociocultural theorists advocate The teacher, as an expert, uses the pre-task to scaffold learner’ s perform ance o f the task w ith the expectancy that th is 'other-regulation9 facilitates the 6self-гegulation, learners w ill need to perform the m ain task on th e ir own

P ro v id in g a m odel: This involves presenting learners w ith a text (oral o r w ritten) to demonstrate an ide a r performance o f the task Both Skehan ( 1996) and W illis ( 1996) suggest that sim ply "observing' others perform a task can help reduce the cognitive load

on the learner However, the model can also be accompanied by activities designed to raise learners’ consciousness about specific features o f the task performance For example, the teacher can demonstrate how to use adjectives to describe objects and how

to use verbs to describe people’ s actions

Non-task preparation activities: N on-task preparation a ctivitie s can centre on reducing the cognitive o r the lin g u istic demands placed on the learner A ctiva tin g leamers? content schemata or providing them w ith background inform ation serves as a means o f d efining the topic area o f a task (E llis , 2002) W illis (1996) provides a lis t o f

a ctivitie s fo r achieving this, such as brainstorm ing and mind-maps In addition, recommended activities fo r addressing the lin g u is tic demands o f a task often focus on vocabulary rather than grammar, perhaps because vocabulary is seen as more helpful fo r the successftxl perform ance o f a task than grammar N ew ton (2001) suggests three ways，

predicting, cooperative dictionary search，and words and d e finitio n s, in w hich teachers can target u n fa m iliar vocabulary in the pre-task phase

2 2 3 2 The d u rin g -ta s k phase

T w o basic kinds o f options available to the teacher in the during-task phase are 4ask- perform ance options9 and 'process options， The form al options relating to how the task

is to be undertaken that can be taken p rio r to the actual perform ance o f the task and thus planned fo r by the teacher The latter options involve the teacher and students in on-line decision m aking about how to perform the task as it is being completed

Task perform ance options: There are three task perform ance options The firs t o f these options concern whether to require the students to perform the task under tim e pressure The teacher can elect to a llo w students to complete the task in th e ir ow n tim e or can set

a tim e lim it This option is im portant because it can influence the nature o f the language students’ produce It seems that i f teachers w ant to emphasize accuracy in a task perform ance, they need to ensure that the students can com plete the task in th e ir own tim e However, i f they w ant to encourage fluency, they need to set a tim e lim it

The second task perform ance option involves deciding w hether to a llo w the students access to input data w hile they perform a task For example, to increase the frequency o f

students? use o f correct words to describe the picture，the teacher could provide students

w ith a lis t o f key words or even some basic sentence patterns to fo llo w Joe (1998) reports a study that compared learners’ acquisition o f a set o f target words (w hich they did not know p rio r to perform ing the task) in a narrative recall task under two conditions w ith and w itho u t access to the text She found that the learners who could see the text used the target w ords more frequently, although the difference was evident

o n ly in verbatim use o f the w ords not in generated use (i.e , they d id not use the target words in o rig in al sentences) Joe’ s study raises an im portant question Does borrow ing fro m the input data assist acquisition? In Prabhu^s p o in t o f vie w , he sees definite value

in borrow ing fo r m aintaining a task-based a c tiv ity and also probable value in prom otion acquisition

The th ird perform ance option consists o f introducing some surprise element in to the task For example, after describing the differences o f pictures, the teacher may give another set o f pictures to the students and ask them to fin d sim ila ritie s o f tw o pictures

by using oral expressing O r, after they have seen th e ir ow n picture fo r 30 seconds, the teacher could ask students to recall and lis t the actions, objects, and signs they saw

A fte r w hich they could te ll each other w hat they remembered and fin d out differences

H ow ever, there is s till no obvious evidence to show i f introducing such a surprise had any effect on the fluency，com plexity o r accuracy o f the learners9 language This does not mean that th is option is o f no pedagogic value, as requiring learners to cope w ith a surprise serves as an obvious way o f extending the tim e learners spend on a task and thus increases the amount o f talk It may also help to enhance students’ in trin sic interest

in a task

Process options: Process options d iffe r from task perform ance options in that they concern the way in w hich the discourse arising fro m the task is enacted rather than pedagogical decisions about the w ay the task is to be handled Whereas performance options can be selected in advance o f the actual perform ance o f the task, process options

m ust be taken in flig h t w h ile the task is being perform ed (E llis , 2002)

Figure 3 contrasts tw o sets o f classroom processes The firs t set corresponds to the classroom behaviors that are typical o f a tra d ition a l form -focused pedagogy where language is treated as an object and the students are required to act as 4eamers’ The second set reflects the behavior that characterize a task-based pedagogy, where language is treated as a to o l fo r com m unication and the teacher and students ftm ction

p rim a rily as 'language users’ (E llis 2001) Thus, the set o f behaviors w hich arise are

cru cia lly dependent on the participants' orientation to the classroom and to their

m otives fo r perform ing an activity

2.2.3.3 The post -ta s k phase

The post-task phase affords a number o f options (E llis 2006: p i4) These have three

m ajor pedagogic goals: (1) to provide an opportunity fo r a repeat performance o f the task; (2) to encourage reflection on how the task was perform ed; (3) to encourage attention to form , in particular to those form s that proved problem atic to the learners when they perform ed the task

Repeat performance: When learners repeat a task th e ir production im proves in a number o f ways (e.g., com plexity increases, propositions are expressed more clearly, and they become more fluent) For example, after the m ain task, the teacher can have students draw their tw o sim ila r pictures w ith several differences to quiz their partner

B y so doing, students not only have an opportunity to repeat the lin g u istic knowledge they have ju s t learned but also create a task fo r themselves to examine their fluency Besides, Skehan and Foster (1999) also suggested that students can carry out the second perform ance p u b licly, w hich is lik e ly to encourage the use o f a more form al style and thus may push learners to use the gram m aticalized resources associated w ith this style (G ivo n，1979)

Reflecting on the task: W ills (1996) recommends asking students to present a report on how they did the task and on what they decided o r discovered The teacher’ s role is to act as a chairperson and to encourage the students The reports can be oral o r w ritten and should p rim a rily focus on sum m arizing the outcome o f the task However, they could be invited to re fle ct on and evaluate th e ir ow n perform ance o f the task For instance, to help them reflect on th e ir w ork, the teacher m ay ask students “ W hat’ s the most d iffic u lt part w hile you are try in g to express inform ation to your partner?” and

“ W hat d id you do i f your partner can，t understand w hat you described?” A d d itio n a lly, students could also be invite d to consider how they m ight im prove th e ir performance o f the task B y so doing, students may develop their m etacognitive strategies o f planning,

m onitoring, and evaluating Furtherm ore, there is also a case fo r asking students to evaluate the task itse lf Such inform ation w ill help the teacher to decide whether to use sim ila r tasks in the future o r look fo r a d iffe re n t type

Focusing on forms: Once the task is completed, students can be invited to focus on form s That is, they m ight focus d irectly on grammar Teachers should select form s that the students used incorrectly w h ile perform ing the task or 4 iseful，o r "naturar form s (Loshcky, B le y, & Vrom an 1993 cited by E llis 2006) that they failed to use at a ll In other w ords, teachers should seek to address errors o r gaps in the з и к іе г ^ L2 knowledge A ccording (E llis 2006)，there are fo u r m ain activities available to the teacher to deal w ith target form s: (1) R eview o f learner error; (2) Consciousness-raising tasks; (3 ) Production practice a ctivitie s; (4) N o ticin g a ctivities.

2.3 Challenges of Teaching Speaking

Speaking is “ the process o f b u ild in g and sharing meaning through the use o f verbal and non-verbal sym bols, in a va rie ty o f contexts” (Chaney, 1998, p 13) speaking is a crucial part o f second language learning and teaching Despite its importance, fo r many years, teaching speaking has been undervalued and E nglish language teachers have continued to teach speaking ju s t as a repetition o f d rills o r m em orization o f dialogues

H owever, today’ s w orld requires that the goal o f teaching speaking should im prove students’ com m unicative s k ills , because, o n ly in that w ay, students can express themselves and learn how to fo llo w the social and cu ltu ral rules appropriate in each com m unicative circumstance Yet, it is more d iffic u lt to design and adm inister classroom activities that develop learners9 a b ility to express themselves through speech than to do so fo r listening, reading o r w ritin g U r (1996: p，121) lists out these problems

as In h ib itio n ，N othing to say, Uneven o r lo w participation, and M other-tongue

In his ow n paper，K im (2004) singles out Asian countries’ c o lle c tiv is tic culture as one

o f m ajor factors w hich impede the im provem ent o f student’ s spoken English In the

c o lle c tiv is tic societies, people are hierarchically related and social interaction is strongly defined by age and gender C hildren raised in e o lle ctivistic com m unities fo rm a sense o f

s e lf fro m recognizing th e ir place in the com m unity hierarchy and fro m a ffilia tio n w ith the group C hildren in such societies are less lik e ly to be asked to form ulate and share their opinions or to ta lk about what they are learning in school The role o f sharing opinions and knowledge is reserved fo r people w ith higher status In order to sharpen their com m unicative s k ills ，students should aggressively participate in class and group

a ctivitie s In this vein, “ Eloquence may be silver, silence is gold” (K im 2004: p5) is another m ajor cultural barrier to the im provem ent o f spoken English For th is reason,

discussions, debates, group activities, and the interactions between students and teachers are d iffic u lt to be fu lly utilized From childhood, students have been taught never to

“ show o f f ’ and stand out from the group A talkative person is characterized by a

“ weightless” person

A part from cultural obstacles to speaking English in Secondary School context, such other problem s as the context o f the w ider curriculum ，tra d ition a l teaching methods, class sizes and schedules, resources and equipm ent, the low status o f teachers who teach com m unicative rather than analytical skills, and English teachers’ deficiencies in oral

E nglish and sociolinguistic and strategic competence are considered the constraints fo r

im plem entation o f teaching speaking A lthough most o f EFL teachers generally fe lt that they were h ig h ly p ro ficie n t in English grammar, reading, and w ritin g , theừ a b ilities in

E nglish speaking and listening were not adequate to conduct the com m unicative classes necessarily In addition，teachers’ lo w strategic and sociolinguistic competence in

E nglish w ould lim it th e ir use o f C LT A s teachers’ so ciolinguistic and strategic competence must be much greater in a com m unicative classroom than in a traditional gramm ar-focused classroom, the participants generally fe lt incom petent to conduct a com m unicative class

u ( 1998) points out the other main group o f constrains com ing fro m the students These constraints included the students’ generally lo w English pro ficie n cy, lack o f m otivation

fo r com m unicative competence, and resistance to participating in class The teachers

w ho participate in L i’ s study said that their students usually have a sm all English vocabulary and a lim ite d command o f E nglish structures Because students did not have the necessary proficiency in English, the teachers found it hard to do any oral com m unicative a ctivitie s w ith them A lthough an increasing number o f people in ELF countries have realized how im portant it is to be able to com m unicate in English rather than to know E nglish grammar w e ll, students in secondary schools s till care much more about grammar A ccording to L i, students have become accustomed to the traditional classroom structure，in w hich the s it m otionless, take notes w h ile the teacher lectures, and speak o n ly when they are spoken to A fte r so many years o f schooling in traditional settings, students re ly on the teacher to give them inform ation d ire ctly, m aking it very

d iffic u lt to get the students to participate in class a ctivitie s “ The inconsistencies among teachers in th e ir expectations o f students also discouraged students from participating in class a ctivitie s” (L i: 1998: p691)

O ther key factors causing difficulties for teachers and learners to teaching speaking arelarge classes, grammar-based exam inations About 48-50 students in a secondary school class are very d iffic u lt fo r class management because everyone starts to ta lk, the class can be very noisy Teachers and students in nearby classrooms w ill com plain about the noise in the English class M oreover, it is not possible fo r the teacher to give each o f them attentions W ith so many students in one regular classroom, there is not even enough space fo r the students and the teacher to move around to carry out the com m unicative activities E specially when the desks and stools are fixe d to the floor, you cannot even move them ，and that makes it d iffic u lt to rearrange seats to fo rm nice groups fo r discussion W ith a clear goal in m ine - to help students succeed in the fin a l exam ination in secondary education， th is consists m a in ly o f grammar, reading comprehension and controlled w ritin g , teachers often devote valuable class tim e to teaching test- taking s k ills and d rillin g students on m ultiple-choice grammar items.

2.4.1 The role o f the textbook: How teachers use o f the textbook

Textbooks are a key com ponent in most language programs In a ll o f high schools in Vietnam , textbooks are prescribed by m inistry o f tra in in g and education In some situations，textbooks serve as the basis fo r much o f the language inp u t that learners receive and the language practice that occurs in the language classroom (Richards,

2001 ).

A llrig h t (1990 cited by Huong 2007) emphasizes that m aterials control learning and teaching process In many cases teachers and students re ly heavily on textbooks，and textbooks determine the components and methods o f learning; they control the content，

methods, and procedures o f learning Students learn w hat is presented in the textbook, and the w ay the textbook presenting m aterial is the w ay students learn it M oreover，

textbooks are an invaluable tool, fo r both teachers and students They provide a coherent approach to object, and they help define w hich parts o f the m aterial are o f core

im portance and therefore should be taught Textbooks provide a springboard fo r classroom discussion, and they often contain a ctivitie s to concretize and expand on the

m aterial

Richards and Rogers (1986 cited by Huong 2007) v ie w instructional m aterials as detailed specifications o f content, and guidance to teachers on both the intensity o f

coverage and the amount o f attention demanded by particular content and pedagogical tasks Studolsky (1989) suggests that it is necessary to distinguish three areas o f influence on teaching and teacher planning: topics w hich occur in textbooks, the actual

m aterial and exercises w hich occur on the pages o f a book, and teaching suggestions given in the teacher’ s manual A teacher nig h t teach a to p ic presented in a book but use his o r her ow n m aterials to supplement o r replace the presentation in the book; he o r she

m ight use teaching suggestions given in the manual w itho u t using the student text itse lf;

o r use m aterials from other textbooks or workbooks to supplement the treatm ent given

in the book

But H ow to use textbooks e ffe ctive ly depends on the teacher’ s experience (inexperienced teachers make more use o f textbooks than experienced teachers) and on the subject m atter being taught (subject m atter teachers use textbooks as a source fo r the content o f lessons, though not necessarily procedures fo r teaching content, w hile reading teachers tend to use textbooks more closely)

Freeman and Porter (cited in Studolsky 1989)，in an investigation o f how teachers use textbooks found that even when the choice and sequence o f topics to be taught was determ ined by the textbook, teachers s till had to make sig n ifica n t decisions concerning tim e allocation, expected standards o f performance, and m o d ifyin g instruction to suit

d iffe re n t students a b ilities w ith in the same class Teachers were also selective in the topics they chose from th e ir textbooks

A fte r a syllabus has been produced, the textbooks w ill determine how the topics are explained and the depth o f coverage This can be a very strong influence as textbooks are the primary resource used by teachers and pupils in most classrooms, bi subjects w ith a small number o f pupils, a single textbook might be produced and this w ill define the detailed coverage o f the content For subjects studied by a large number o f pupils many textbooks w ill be available and these might have slightly different emphases and approaches which teachers can choose from

(M orris 1995, p 100)

In her ow n study, Studolsky found that the teachers varied considerably in theừ use o f textbooks，the greatest area o f influence being choice o f instructional topics，though this did n o t extend to sequencing o f topics The teachers d iffe re d most in th e ir use o f classroom practices and teaching techniques and th e ir use o f activities fro m the teacher’ s edition Teachers were extrem ely selective in w hat they used from the textbooks and in fo llo w in g though on recommendations in the teacher9 manuals

S tudolsky’ s study suggests therefore that teachers’ a b ilitie s to teach and to em ploy

pedagogical reasoning s kills were not negatively affected by the use o f a textbook Rather, the book served sim ply as a resource, w hich they drew from in diffe re nt ways Hence she concludes:

We have not found little evidence in the literature or our case studies to support the idea that teachers teach strictly by the book Instead, we have seen variation in practice that seems to result from teachers’ own convictions and preferences，the nature o f the materials they use，the school context in which the teach, the particular students in their class, and the subject matter and grade level they are teaching, (p 180).

Richards and M ahoney, in their study, they said that there is also evidence o f a widespread c ritic a l attitude towards textbooks For exam ple, although teachers believe that textbooks contain interesting m aterial the support fo r th is b e lie f is not strong I t can also be seen that the m ajority o f teachers do not slavishly fo llo w the dictates o f the textbook There was strong evidence to show that teachers chose not to fo llo w the stated order o r m ethodology o f the textbooks o r to use a ll the available tasks, activities and exercises provided in the book M ost teachers made th e ir ow n decisions about om itting sections o f the textbook o r m o difying o r supplement the textbook they were involved in

m aking th e ir own m aterials to supplement the textbook they were using M any also used textbooks in tandem w ith other textbooks, using a m osaic o f textbooks to meet

th e ir teaching needs

2.4.2 Teachers as key actors in curriculum innovations

It is w id e ly acknowledged that teachers are key actors in curriculum innovations

C urriculum innovations usually require a change in teacher practice (F ullan, 2001; Havelock, & Huberman, 1977) However, experienced teachers do not tend to change

th e ir current practice easily because it is rooted in th e ir beliefs，and in the practical knowledge they have accumulated during th e ir years o f teaching (Fullan，2001; Van

D rie l, Beijaard & V erloop，20이 ) I f teachers don't have the rig h t competencies to f t ilfil

th e ir new roles o r i f they are not convinced about the useftilness o f an innovation, it provides an im portant p itfa ll fo r innovative projects in higher education Competencies and m otivation o f the teachers in universities are o f crucial im portance to the q u a lity o f the educational innovations, as we can delineate fro m the tasks o f the teachers，the high rate o f dynamics in the disciplines and professions, and in the permanent changes in the demands that are made on the q u a lity o f university education by agencies fo r quality assurance and accreditation and through ranking activities

H ow can we involve university teachers in such a way that they can actually and perm anently cope w ith innovation o f content, innovation o f curriculum structures and innovative learning arrangements? In other words that they are empowered to do so (Short & Johnson, 1992)? The im plications o f the dynam ic changes in universities are that we should focus on the learning processes o f the teacher in a learning organisation

It is not enough to focus on the competencies o f the teacher at a certain moment and leave it to that in a static view Teachers in higher education p rim a rily are content specific experts, proud on their discipline, appointed and promoted because o f their knowledge o f their subject area o r profession N ext to this, they are teacher, but their

q u ality as teacher is considered by the in stitu tio n most o f the tim e as a second criterion

fo r authority, power and status To accom plish changes in teacher practice, teachers should not only im plem ent innovations, but they should also become actively involved

in the developm ent o f innovations In general, it is assumed that teachers develop co- ownership o f a new curriculum when they are a ctive ly involved in its development (F ullan, 2001)

2.4.3 Factors affecting students9 participants in speaking activities

Leaning to a foreign language requires more than know ing its gram m atical and semantic rules Learners must also acquire the knowledge o f how native speakers use the language in the context o f structured interpersonal exchange，in w hich many factors interact Therefore, it is d iffic u lt fo r E FL learners to speak the target language flu e n tly and appropriately In order to provide effective guidance in developing competent speakers o f English, it is necessary to examine the factors affecting learners’ oral com m unication The fo llo w in g sections w ill deal w ith the factors often cited as

in flu e n tia l to learners’ oral com m unication

Aural medium. The central role o f listening comprehension in the L2 o r foreign language acquisition process is now largely accepted A nd there is little doubt that listening plays an extrem ely im portant role in the developm ent o f speaking abilities

U sually，one speaks, and the other responds through attending by means o f the listening process (Shum in，1997) In fact, during interaction, every speaker plays a double role- both as a listener and a speaker u W h ile listening, learners must comprehend the te xt by retaining inform ation in memory, integrate it w ith what fo llo w s, and continually adjust their understanding o f w hat they hear in the lig h t o f p rio r knowledge and o f incom ing

inform ation” (M endlsohn and Rubin 1995:p，35) I f one cannot understand what is said, one is certainly unale to respond So, speaking is closely related o r interwoven w ith listening, w hich is the basic mechanism through w hich the rules o f language are internalized The fleetingness o f speech，together w ith the features o f spoken English- loosely organized syntax, incom plete form s, false starts, and the use o f fille rs , undoubtedly hinders E FL learners' comprehension and affects the development o f their speaking a b ilities, as w ell.

Socio-cultural factors. M any cultural characteristics o f a language also affect L2 or foreign language learning From a pragm atic perspective, language is a fo rm o f social action because lin g u istic com m unication occurs in the context o f structured interpersonsal exchange，and meaning is thus socially regulated ( D im itracopoulou, 1990) In other words, “ shared values and beliefs create the traditions and social structures that bind a com m unity together and are expressed in their language,，

(C arrasquillo，1994.p55) Thus, to speak a language, one m ust know how the language

is used in a social context It is w e ll known that each language has its own rues o f usage

as to when, how, and to w hat degree a speaker may impose a given verbal behavior on his/her conversational partner (Berns, 1990) Due to the influence or interference o f

th e ir own cultural norm s，it is hard fo r normative speakers to choose the form s appropriate to certain situations For instance, in culture o f Asian countries, paying a com plim ent to someone obligates that person to give a negative answer such as “ N o It

is not so good,” and so on in order to show “ modesty,” whereas in N orth Am erican culture such a response m ight be both inappropriate and embarrassing

Affective factors. “ The affective side o f the learner is probably one o f the most

im portant influences on language learning success or fa ilu re ” (O xford, 1990, p: 140) The affective factors related to L2 o r foreign language leaning are em otions, s e lf­esteem, empathy，anxiety, attitude, and m otivation L2 o r foreign language learning is a com plex task that is susceptible to human anxiety (B row n, 1994)，w hich is associated

w ith feelings o f uneasiness, frustration, self-doubt, and apprehension, speaking a foreign language in p u blic，especially in fro n t o f native speakers, is often anxiety- provoking Sometimes, extreme anxiety occurs when E F L learners becomes tongue-tied

o r lost fo r words in an unexpected situation, w hich often leads to discouragement and a general sense o f failure Learners often very cautious about m aking errors in what they

say, fo r m aking errors would be a public display o f ignorance, which w ould be an obvious occasion o f “ losing face，in some cultures such as in the countries in Asia (Shum in, 1997) C learly, the sensitivity o f learners to m aking mistakes, o r fear o f

“ losing face,” has been the explanation fo r their in a b ility to speak English w ithout hesitation

Language environment. The target language, o r language being learnt and taught, can be either foreign language or second language In the E nglish as a second langue environm ent, learners have a tremendous advantage, an instant “ language laboratory” available to them 24 hours a day (B row n, 1994) That result in learners' need to com m unicate In an English context as a foreign language environm ent, English is rarely heard outside schools, thus practicing E nglish outside is very rare W ithout the reinforcem ent o f an English-speaking environm ent, m o tivation becomes a product o f the teachers' in itia tiv e on the one hand and the learners’ w ill to succeed or fear o f

fa ilu re on the other (E llis , 1996) E FL is often part o f the school curriculum and therefore subject to not only contextual factors such as support from local com m unity, governm ent policies，but to teachers’ language proficiency, resources, materials, and the

a b ility to evaluate learners as w e ll To summarize，teaching and learning in an EFL context clearly impose a treat challenge fo r learners and teachers

Classroom conditions. Classroom conditions can affect m otivation Harmer (1991) states that physical conditions have a great effect on learning and can alter a learner’ s

m otivation either positively or negatively He considers b a d -lit and overcrowded classrooms to be excessively dem otivating Teachers should ask themselves whether the board is easily visib le and whether the board surface is in good conditions Harmer (1991) also recommends that teachers should presum ably try to make th e ir classes as pleasant as possible to im prove the atmosphere w ith posters, learners’ w ork，etc, on the

w alls

In the lig h t o f large classes or over-crowded classes, W oodward (2001:218) comes to a conclusion that a d e fin itio n o f a large class is one that feels large to you H is conclusion conveys the im plicatio n that whether a class is large or not depends on the way teachers feel, and on the lo ca lity values H owever, teachers should hear in m ind problems associated w ith “ large” classes They include noise，too m any people and fixe d objects

in a restricted space, not enough m aterials fo r everyone, not being able to respond to

d iffe re n t needs，the d iffic u lty managing the class，etc One element related to the physical conditions is the stock o f resources o f w hich teachers are ale to make use Lam (2003，p 26) states her vie w that a language teaching situation may be characterized by the presence or absence o f all or any o f the fo llo w in g : tapes, tape-recorders, language laboratories，w all-pictures, w all charts, flannel boards, other display fa cilitie s, slides, film strip s, film s , televisions, radios, record-players, video-recorders, and libraries.

2.4.4 Previous studies on the implementation ofE FL innovations.

Wang (2008) explores teachers，perceptions o f the language p o lic y im plem entation in the Chinese te rtia ry context W ith data collected fro m classroom observations and

fo llo w -u p interview s, he concludes that there is a discrepancy between policym akers’ intentions and teachers’ executions Teachers fa ile d to im plem ent fa ith fu lly w hat was required fro m policym akers in the classroom because o f the large class size，students’ language proficiency, m otivation, leaning behaviour, perceptions o f teachers’ role, and

in stitu tio n a l evaluation mechanism on teaching excellence

Adamson and Davison (2003) conducted a study to evaluate the process o f

im plem entation o f a more student-centered task-oriented approach to English language teaching in Hong K ong prim ary schools Findings show how the reform was progressively reinterpreted by the various stakeholders, resulting in a hybrid and evolving set o f accommodations to local cultures w hich u ltim a tely may be assim ilated

by them A lso, factors w hich can cause the slippage between the intended curriculum and actual im plem entation were ide n tifie d , w hich included co n flictin g attitudes and beliefs between curriculum designers and classroom teachers as w e ll as the lack o f real understanding o f the established pedagogical cultures

V ery recently, K irkg o z (2008) explores the im plem entation o f the Com m unicative Oriented C urriculum in itia tiv e in the context o f a m ajor curriculum innovation in teaching English to young learners in T urkish state schools U sing a m ultidim ensional qualitative research procedure, com prising classroom observations, teacher interview s and lesson transcripts, K irkg o z shows that teachers’ instructional practices ranged along the transm ission and interpretation teaching continuum , and teachers’ understandings and th e ir p rio r training had an im pact on the extent o f th e ir im plem entation o f the curriculum in itia tive

In Vietnam , Canh (2008) conducted a study using a questionnaire survey on 249 upper secondary school teachers and a focused group interview to explore their beliefs about the new English textbook Results show that teachers had a positive attitude towards the curriculum innovation but th e ir conceptualization o f com m unicative language teaching did not correspond to the view s either o f the textbook w riters or the composite view documented in the com m unicative language teaching literature.

CH A PTER 3: M ETH O D O LO G Y

This chapter presents the research m ethodology The chapter begins w ith the description

o f the participants o f the study and then the choice o f data collection instruments is discussed

3.1 Participants of the study.

3.1.1 The context o f study

The study was conducted in a high school w hich is located in the Red R iver D elta area, around 30 kilom eters fro m Hanoi It has been the most reliable address fo r students and parents o f the d is tric t in term o f the number o f students passing university entrance exams, and high school finals as w e ll

There are 96 teachers o f difference subjects at the school and approxim ately 2.500 students M ost o f these students come from com paratively poor fam ilies because theừ parents are farmers who are w orking a ll day on the fields Therefore, the students do not have much tim e to self-study A fte r school, they have to be on the rice paddy to help

th e ir parents

The school year o f 2007-2008 T O A H igh School has 689 students grade 10 divided into 13 classes (fro m 10A1 to 10A13) A m ong them, are three classes (10A 1，10A2, 10A 3) g ifte d at natural scientific subjects and one class (10A 4) gifted at social scientific subjects

Therefore, the teaching o f English in general, and the teaching speaking English in particular has encountered w ith a treat deal o f d iffic u ltie s O nly a few students w ish to take university entrance exams in English, w hich means few students have real interest

in learning English In other words，the m a jo rity o f the students pay not m uch attention

to English The learning o f speaking is fa r worse F irst, in classroom interaction, the students are enthusiastic when fa m ilia r subject matters are presented in Vietnamese: students to students’ interaction, even in E nglish lessons are conducted in Vietnamese, except when they are asked to use E nglish by th e ir teacher In explaining new words，

new concepts and new structures, E nglish rarely used because the students w ould not understand i f they were explained in English M o stly，in E nglish lessons, there is a

predominance o f teacher-talk As the students grow older, in the upper grades, they become more reluctant to speak W hat is alarm ing is that, there is not only poor speaking comprehension but responding in E nglish as w e ll in this school To answer the teachers4 questions, the students usually use Vietnamese when they do not know the words in English or when they w ish to ask a question but cannot express themselves

w ith confidence in English It means they do not try to use E nglish as much as possible Second, there is tremendous peer pressure both among the teachers and among students, not to speak English outside the classroom In fact, i f one spoke in English，one w ould

be thought unusual, isolated and even a show -off Thưd, there has so far been no-one who is a native English speaker corning to our school as supervisor, which means the students have no real condition to use English W hat is more? Large classes w ith at least

48 students in each are one trouble in teaching speaking In addition, the arrangement o f desks and benches in the classroom fo llo w s tra d ition a l way w ith tw o rows o f desks and benches facing the board The classroom equipm ent are a chalkboard w ith some lamps,

tw o ce ilin g fans Last but not least, the school rules also cause d iffic u ltie s in organizing com m unicative games to stim ulate the students to speak

Thus fo r practical purposes，the natural use o f E nglish in our school is confined to

a rtific ia l classroom context, between fo u r w alls, in the E nglish language class and under the school rules

3.1.2 The Teachers

The 6 teacher subjects o f this research were a ll trained in u n iversity in Vietnam One teacher used to be the teacher o f Russian Three o f them have been trained in the in- service tra in in g courses so they have certain lim ita tio n s in terms o f com m unicative competence in the target language, especially，English speaking a b ility They are teaching English in grade 10 (2007-2008) They are from 25 to 45 years o f age w ith at least 3 years o f experience None o f them has master degree They a ll have no chance to

go aboard fo r ftirth e r studies

T a b le 1: T h e teachers^ p ro file (N = 6)Teacher Sex Age Length o f teaching

3.2 Data collection instruments

Three d iffe re n t instruments: student questionnaire and teacher questionnaire, classroom observation, and teacher post-observation interview s were used in th is study F irst, tw o survey questionnaires were adm inistered to both students and teachers The student questionnaire was aim ed to find out th e ir interest in speaking English and theừ preferred speaking activities in the classroom w hile the teacher questionnaire was aim ed to e lic it their view s and opinions o f various aspects o f speaking teaching (D etails o f these tw o questionnaires were given in 3.2.1 and 3.2.2) Inform ation from the student questionnaire was used as the fram ew ork fo r classroom observation, w hich was to compare how teacher activities matched the students' expectations and preferences In contrast，inform ation from the teacher questionnaire was to fin d out teachers1 opinions

o f the strengths and lim ita tio n s o f the textbook and the cu rricu lu m goals w ith regard to speaking as w e ll as th e ir com m only used strategies to develop th e ir students' speaking skills In addition to these types o f inform ation, teachers* comments on th e ir students’ attitudes to, and interest in , speaking were also collected b y means o f this questionnaire Then observations o f classes were also conducted in order to investigate how the teachers have im plem ented their speaking task in the classrooms Post-observation