Modos de adquirir el dominio y clasificación de los hechos

There are several issues that arise when this coursebook is placed against the criteria of task-based language teaching. One of the central issues is that, since tasks include a clear non-linguistic outcome by definition (see 3.1.2.1), the dimension of ‘outcome’ should be taken into consideration. Most, if not all, of the analysed ‘tasks’ fail to meet this criterion. Therefore, the ‘outcome’ dimension was not included in the analysis. This issue needs to be taken into consideration when examining teachers’ beliefs and practices in relation to TBLT. For example, look-outs were made for circumstances where teachers show their attitudes, either explicitly or implicitly, to this aspect or their attempt to adapt particular ‘tasks’ to make them have some sort of non-linguistic outcome. The authenticity of language input may be another issue. In the listening lesson, for example (see Figure 5.3); specifically, people do not usually rely on what they do on the day to arrange an appointment, but rather they should discuss time of the day to reach to an agreed meeting schedule (in this case, to see a film). The lack of input authenticity may lead to the lack of task authenticity, because such unrealistic

152

information could make learners feel that the task is artificial and less likely to be engaged in completing it.

Another issue that could be noted from the unit is that there is little connection in terms of meaning between the ‘tasks’ within lessons as well as within the unit. Each task seems to shift to the use of different language features. This can be serious, because it could affect whether teachers are inclined to form- or meaning- focused instruction in the classroom. For example, a teacher, noting the shift in the use of language features in different ‘tasks’ in one particular lesson, may decide to draw attention to the features, especially in Vietnam where textbooks are considered some sort of authority. Taking this issue into consideration will help reduce flaws in analysis and interpretation.

5.4 Summary

This chapter has provided an overview of the textbooks teacher participants were using, and presented an analysis of the four skills lessons of a textbook unit. No analysis of the Language Focus lesson was carried out, because this lesson focuses entirely on forms and represents no characteristics of task, and that no observation of such lessons was carried out in the course of data collection to make reference to in data analysis.

In general, the analysis of the lessons reveals that although they do not conform to a strong task-based design, the lessons represent a generic form of TBLT. Firstly, it can be seen that most of the tasks focus primarily on meaning. Therefore, relatively little explicit attention to form (‘focus on forms’) can be observed, especially in the receptive skills lessons. In this regard, it can be assumed that a focus on form may be delayed until the language focus lesson, or it rests on the teacher to attend to form spontaneously in during-task processes. The speaking lesson, however, can be quite form-oriented, where Tasks 2 and 3 display an orientation to using specific grammar features and given vocabulary items. However, the practice of these forms, if it occurs, does not seem to significantly relate to, or lead into, Task 4, where students talk about a film they have seen, rather than discussing the types of films with specific features practised in the

153

earlier tasks. In this sense, even if it is regarded as a ‘weak’ representation of TBLT, it still has a sequencing problem in that the language features practised in earlier tasks do not seem to occur in this latter task. Also, all the tasks in the speaking lesson are open in terms of solution. This, according to the literature, may be used to predict that carrying out the tasks result in relatively little negotiation of meaning (Ellis, 2003b). However, Tasks 1 and 4 provide non- linguistic outcomes which can be inferred from the instructions.

In terms of task authenticity, nearly all the tasks are interactional rather than situational. Even though the only BYR activity represents some real world characteristic, it is not wholly situational. It can be seen from the analysis that most of the tasks in this unit characterise some extent of interactional authenticity because they seem to provide students with opportunities to use language in meaningful ways. In such language use opportunities, in most of the tasks, use of language can be seen as spontaneous, in that there are no pre-determined language features that students have to use for task completion.

On the whole, although the analysis above indicates that the textbooks are not entirely in line with a strong task-based design, the materials can be regarded as useful for task-based implementation thanks to the favourable characteristics the tasks have in the analysed unit.

The following chapter will present the findings about teachers’ beliefs and practices from the data generated from lesson planning sessions, observations, stimulated recall, and group discussions.

154

CHAPTER SIX

6 FINDINGS: VIETNAMESE TEACHERS’ BELIEFS

AND PRACTICES REGARDING TASK-BASED

LANGUAGE TEACHING

This chapter reports on the findings of the data collected and analysed, in answering the overarching research question of the present study:

To what extent are the English upper secondary school teachers orienting to the implementation of TBLT in their context?

Specifically, four main research questions that encompass the question above are identified:

1. What relevance, if any, do the identified characteristics of tasks have for the Vietnamese teachers in their planning for and practice of textbook activities?

2. In what ways do the Vietnamese teachers’ beliefs about language teaching and learning converge with, or diverge from, the principles of TBLT? 3. What factors contribute to the facilitation, or hindrance, of the

implementation of TBLT in the Vietnamese context?

4. What can this study contribute to an academic understanding of the theoretical nature of the Vietnamese teachers’ beliefs and their relationship with classroom practices?

As in many qualitative research projects, the findings in the subsequent sections are presented in a way that the themes reflect the data collection procedures, and hence do not necessarily directly address the research questions above (each research question will be discussed in order in Chapter Six). Specifically, the first theme – planning for lessons – derives mainly from lesson planning data; the

155

second theme – classroom practices – is from observation data; the third theme – teachers’ beliefs about language teaching and learning– comes from stimulated recall data; and the fourth theme – textbook reflection – derives mainly from the focus group data. There are also cases where more than one source of data is used to support the theme in question, e.g., data from stimulated recall are used to illustrate themes about attitudes, the fourth theme. Presenting in this way helps gain better understanding because data are presented within the specific context of data collection procedures, thus providing better ideas of what was happening, rather than fragmented pieces of data deriving from various sources in order to support a particular theme. Presenting in this way also helps highlight the general trends that emerge from each of the data sources, and at the same time allows me to explore both individuals’ beliefs and practices and, simultaneously, conduct a cross-case analysis of each data source from all the eleven teachers in this study. As such, for each theme, the common beliefs and practices (general trends), with selected illustrations of data, are presented, followed by contrasting beliefs and practices from individuals in regard to the theme (if any).

This chapter presents findings following the sources of data. First, section 6.1 presents the way these teachers planned their skills lessons with reference to TBLT characteristics. Section 6.2 presents findings about the teachers’ practices in their actual classrooms, from observation data. Section 6.3 provides the teachers’ rationales for classroom behaviours reported in the previous section. The final section, section 6.4, is devoted to reporting teachers’ understandings and their attitudes in relation to the use of the textbooks and their perceptions of constraints to their effective implementation.

In the sections and subsections that follow, neither the teachers’ real names nor pseudonyms are used to identify the participants. Instead, each participant teacher is numbered according to their lesson planning groups and their teaching experience (see 4.4.4 for how the participants were numbered). Some pseudonyms are used in observation extracts, where students’ names were used, and sometimes in stimulated recall sessions, when teachers made reference, for example, to a colleague. The coding system used in this study follows a format of teacher-data source reference. For example, T2.O2.Year 10.Speaking stands for Teacher 2, the

156

second observation, teaching Year 10 in a speaking lesson; T3.SR1.Speaking means Teacher 3, the stimulated recall following the first observation of a speaking lesson; T5.FG2 means Teacher 5, the focus groups conducted in School B. However, where an extract including more than one teacher’s turn is used, such as in lesson planning and focus groups, a group-data source format of reference is used for coding. For example, G1.LP1.Speaking stands for Group 1, data from the first lesson planning session for a speaking lesson; SA.FG means an extract from teachers in School A, of their focus group data. Except for observation data, all other sources were conducted in Vietnamese and translated into English by myself. Observation extracts, however, were originally transcribed, and were only translated (in italics) where Vietnamese was used.

I acknowledge that the data presented below are necessarily selective and partial, in that extracts chosen are, in my view, intended to illuminate the nature of inquiry set in my research questions and are most representative regarding the participants’ beliefs and practices. Although peer debriefing and inquiry audit were carried out during the course of the study, it is in the nature of qualitative research that the data were primarily interpreted according to my own perspective as the researcher. Having this in mind, the selection of the presented data reflected my best belief that those data were necessarily the most representative regarding the themes and categories being represented.