Exploring the effects of communicative tasks on student's oral production in an EFL setting in the Chilean context

Texto completo

(1)Running Head: IMPROVING STUDENTS ORAL PRODUCTION THROUGH TBLT. Exploring the Effects of Communicative Tasks on Students’ Oral Production in an EFL Setting in the Chilean Context Varinia González Inostroza Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Chile. Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree Seminar and English Bachelor Degree of Alberto Hurtado University December, 2017.

(2) 2 IMPROVING STUDENTS ORAL PRODUCTION THROUGH TBLT. Abstract Task-based language teaching (TBLT) is a communicative approach widely applied in settings where English is taught as a foreign language (EFL). It has been extensively demonstrated as useful to improve learners’ communicative skills. The study reported here was based on the experiences of 45 ninth-grade students from a subsidized school in Santiago, Chile. A qualitative method was used in this study to investigate the effect communicative tasks on students’ oral production. Three qualitative data collection instruments were used to gather data: a student test, field notes and interviews. The findings reports positive influence of tasks in the students’ improvement of their speaking skills, as well as on their motivation, towards speaking English and their perceptions of tasks. Keywords: Task-based language teaching, TBLT, tasks, oral production, speaking English, student’s perceptions, students’ preferred tasks..

(3) 3 IMPROVING STUDENTS ORAL PRODUCTION THROUGH TBLT. Introduction Improving oral communicative competence of English as Foreign Language (EFL) students in Chile is a difficult task given they rarely have the possibility of using the language outside the classroom. As a consequence, being provided with abundant opportunities for the use of the target language in the classroom is extremely important. This has prompted recurrent questioning of how to apply an effective method that help learners in their communicative skills improvement in the English learning process. Specifically, there has been great concern about speaking skills as it is the least practiced skills in the contexts where this language is taught as a foreign language (Bahrani & Soltani, 2012; Jones & Hodson, 2011; Díaz Larenas, 2012). Over time, the field of language teaching has experienced numerous changes. In current times, new trends in language teaching tend to promote the use of communicative competence instead of applying traditional teaching methods focused on grammar, vocabulary and the teaching of the four main skills in isolation. A a result, many researchers and teachers have investigated the benefits of integrating language skills in English education and when the interest is put into giving more opportunities for oral production and integrating the four skills in the classroom. Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) is one of the communicative approaches that has demonstrated significant results in contexts where students have little connection with English language (Lochana & Deb, 2006; Hadi, 2012; Shintani, 2014; Cordoba Zúñiga, 2016). Indeed, research has tended to confirm that TBLT offers potential in regard to to motivation, communication, oral production when learning a foreign language (Ellis, 2009; Barnard & Viet, 2010; Robertson, 2014). The present study was designed to investigate an effective strategy that might potentially assist 9th grade students improve their oral production at a subsidized school.

(4) 4 IMPROVING STUDENTS ORAL PRODUCTION THROUGH TBLT. located in Santiago, Chile where English is taught as a foreign language in two sessions of 90 minutes per week. The participants in the study were 44 students (26 girls and 18 boys) with differing proficiency levels including beginners, elementary English and intermediate English learners (according to the CEFR descriptors). The age of the students ranged from 14 to 16. Given these students have little or no exposure to the target language outside the classroom, the question emerged about the role of communicative tasks and their impact on the spoken interaction of this group of students. The question that guided this study was: What is the effect of communicative tasks on 9th grade students’ oral production in an EFL context? Methodology The proposed methodology for this research was based on the principles of qualitative research. This approach seeks to “describe and to interpret the shared and learned patterns of values, behaviors and beliefs of a culture-sharing group” (Creswell, 2007, p. 68) and to involve the researcher in the real setting, and to allow the researcher observe evident situations to exploring tendencies and behavior over time (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007). This approach helped me to deeply analyze the phenomena that were affecting English learning in this context and the effect of communicative tasks on the students’ oral production. In order to gather data to respond the research question, three qualitative data collection tools were applied: tests, Observations through Field Notes and Interviews. Test: A English referenced test was applied to fifteen students before and after the intervention (See appendix A). Students were selected according to their participation and performance in previous English classes. The test consisted of a oral interview carried out in English, in which fifteen questions varied from easier to more complex related to personal information and issues associated to the English class. The purpose of the test was to assess.

(5) 5 IMPROVING STUDENTS ORAL PRODUCTION THROUGH TBLT. to which spoken fluency domain students corresponded according to the Common European Framework of Reference’ descriptors’ (Council of Europe, 2008). Field notes: Observation through field notes was another data collection instrument used for each English class. These registered information of the students’ production of oral English while students engaged in five different communicative tasks (See appendix B) consistent with those proposed by Willis (1996). This tool allowed to identify reactions and problems in the completion of the tasks, as well as the reflections associated to them. Interview: An interview was undertaken with twelve students at the end of the intervention (See Appendix C) which was administered in Spanish. Questions included exploring student opinions on tasks, how they felt when performing the activities and what strategies they liked the most and why. The purpose of this interview was to know the effect that communicative tasks had on the students and to inquire how these strategies affected students’ oral production. The collected data was analyzed using exploratory data analysis for the pre- and post-tests. Under this approach in which data are mostly descriptive, self-explanatory and can be easily understood (Given, 2008). In addition, thematic coding was used to analyse for classroom observation and the interview. In accordance to Given (2008), thematic coding is a data analysis strategy “in which qualitative data are segmented, categorized, summarized and reconstructed in a way that captures, the important concepts within the data set” (p. 867) The data analysis process was initiated after all classroom observations, tests and interviews were completed. For the test, an Assessment Rubric (See Appendix D) was designed, based on the CEFR spoken fluency descriptors. In this rubric, there were three levels of classification: Beginner, Elementary English Learner and Intermediate English Learner, which corresponded to the number of questions correctly answered. In this study.

(6) 6 IMPROVING STUDENTS ORAL PRODUCTION THROUGH TBLT. “correct” means that students were able to understand the questions and to give appropriate answers by a word, an utterance or by full sentences. The number of correct answers given by each of the twelve students, in the pre- and post-test, were combined and entered into a grid and then tabulated through an Excel data based. For the observations and interviews, interesting or salient elements from the data related to the research question, were labeled and organized as codes. Subsequently those codes that were similar in nature were grouped together and assigned into overarching thematic categories. Category descriptions were displayed in a chart and relevant findings were described in detail to support the interpretation of the researcher. Classroom observation corresponded to each one of the nine class sessions which included the implementation of five communicative tasks such as Memory games, Puzzles, Guessing games, Mystery objects and Interviews. These tasks were based on topics already familiar to students. In regards to the interviews, these included students’ opinion about the communicative tasks, their perceptions about the tasks usefulness in improving speaking, students’ preferred tasks and how they felt while solving the tasks. Findings The results obtained from data analysis provide significant support to the relationship between TBLT and the improvement of students’ oral production. Increase of English spoken fluency based on pre and post test In terms of oral production in the foreign language the post-test results indicated a slight increase in the percentage of correct answers in the post-test than in the pre-test. Figure 1 shows the results of the pre- and post-tests in respect to the average percentage of correct answers given to the 15 questions. The pre-test graph shows an average of 8,25 correct answers while the post-test graph shows an average of 10 correct answers..

(7) 7 IMPROVING STUDENTS ORAL PRODUCTION THROUGH TBLT. AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF CORRECT ANSWERS (15 QUESTIONS) 12 10. 10,00. 8. 8,25. 6 4 2 0. Pre-test. Post-test. Figure 1. Pre and Post-test numbers of correct answers. Figure 2 and 3 show the number of students classified in each one of the three levels of the rubric designed to assess students’ spoken fluency, in respect to the results in the preand post-test. Figure 2 shows that 2 students were ranked as Beginners, 8 students were ranked as Elementary English Learner and 2 students were classified as Intermediate English learner. Figure 3 shows that in the post-test the number of students ranked as Beginners decreased as the two students ranked in this level in the pre-test were moved to the next level, likewise the number of students classified as Elementary English learners remained as other two students were moved to the next level, i.e., the Intermediate English Level based on the number of correctly answers given in the post-test. SPOKEN FLUENCY LEVEL: PRE-TEST 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0. 8. 2. Beginner. 2. Elementary. Intermediate.

(8) 8 IMPROVING STUDENTS ORAL PRODUCTION THROUGH TBLT. Figure 2. Pre-test spoken fluency level of students. SPOKEN FLUENCY LEVEL: POST-TEST 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0. 8. 4. 0 Beginner. Elementary. Intermediate. Figure 3. Post-test spoken fluency level of students Figure 4 shows the number of correct answers given by each student in the pre- and post-test. The results indicates that most of the students were able to increase the number of questions correctly answered. PRE AND POST TEST RESULTS 16. Pre-test. 14. 1515. 15 14. 12 10 8. 12. 11. 1010 8. 6 4. Post-test. 5. 9. 8 6. 7. 8. 9. 9 6. 7. 8. 8. 7 4. 2 0. 8. STUDENTS. Figure 4. Total of answers given by students in both the pre-test and post-test. Tasks promote oral production In general, findings of this research demonstrated that at the beginning of the intervention the majority of students were affected by a fear of failure. However, as time.

(9) 9 IMPROVING STUDENTS ORAL PRODUCTION THROUGH TBLT. passed, they started interacting more spontaneously in the target language, used the vocabulary learned, asked and answered questions about the activities and since students were increasingly exposed to speaking activities, they were more willing to use the target language without worrying about making mistakes. Students helped each other with vocabulary and pronunciation of words. In this regard, it was possible to observe how more proficient students were constantly consulted: “Alexandra! How do we pronounce could?”, “How do we say suggestion?”, “what’s the meaning of going out?”. Although, the questions were mostly expressed in L1 students displayed a clear involvement in the activities and it showed their eagerness to engage with the tasks. Positive perceptions of tasks In regard to students’ perceptions of tasks, they reported in the interview that communicative tasks allowed them to interact a lot with peers when they engaged in taskbased activities “There were people participating in the activities that before were not interested”, “I liked the activities because everybody dared to participate in the class” (Interview 1). Therefore, the learning motivation was different from past learning experiences “I liked these activities because they were different from what we’ve been doing in English classes” (Interview 3). They expressed to be motivated to speak English which led them to have a positive attitude towards their own abilities when producing the target language orally. In addition, students pointed out that as the activities were learner-centered they were more active than in other kind of activities. They appreciated the fact that these tasks favored the use of the physical space of the classroom as a whole “I liked not to be seated in rows (…) we could use the whole classroom. It is more comfortable when we can move from one place to another” (Interview 4). Students’ preferred tasks.

(10) 10 IMPROVING STUDENTS ORAL PRODUCTION THROUGH TBLT. With reference to students’ preferred tasks, they affirmed enjoying the tasks related to topics they knew or those which were suitable for them according to their level of proficiency. “I liked to speak about my favorite musician”, “I liked when we talked about our favorite music styles and artists”, “I did not like much when we did the puzzle activities (…) (The activities) were confusing and it was like I did not know enough English to do them”. The majority of the students expressed having a major interest for Guessing games, since they considered them more creative, interesting, mainly because they made the classroom more lively and because those strategies involved them more deeply in variety of communicative functions. “I liked the one about guessing our classmates’ preferences because we all wanted to know the right answer in first place”, “I liked when we had to guess information because we not only used the language, we mimicked, nodded, used facial expressions, etc.”, “While doing the guessing games we all were talking in English”, “I liked guessing games because it was funny and nobody was afraid to talk in English”. Furthermore, students enjoyed the activities that involved interviewing classmates, as they provided an organize structure that was easy to follow. Implications The purpose of this study was to understand the effect of communicative tasks in an EFL context where students lack of opportunities to produce English orally and to examine whether TBLT served the function of improving students’ oral production. The findings of this study provide support to literature in the same regard and allow to conclude that there was a positive impact of communicative tasks on students’ speaking skills. The data collected in this study concluded that students improved their English oral production after having them involve in communicative tasks. This conclusion is consistent with some assertions found in recent literature, including Vaca Torres & Gómez Rodríguez.

(11) 11 IMPROVING STUDENTS ORAL PRODUCTION THROUGH TBLT. (2017) and Córdoba Zúñiga (2016), who affirmed that TBLT increases students language competence as they had a strong need to use the language orally in order to express ideas and complete the tasks required in the speaking activities. Similarly, Lochana & Deb (2006) demonstrated that task-based teaching enhances the language proficiency of learners as it promotes free oral interaction among students when solving tasks. Hadi’s (2012) study concluded that TBLT activities train students’ oral production, the use of vocabulary learned, as well as problem-solving skills. This is supported in the present study when students reported that performing tasks strengthen the spoken production in the target language because they needed to interact among themselves and to use the language to solve constrains in communication. For instance, many students freely and spontaneously dared to use the target language, asked and answered despite their mistakes. Students were less afraid of making mistakes and were more willing to asked for clarifications at the moment of performing the speaking tasks implemented. Concerning students’ perceptions of tasks, Córdoba Zúñiga (2016) asserted that though TBLT students had “more opportunities to interact with their classmates and the teacher-researcher by asking and answering questions and holding conversations with the classmates about the tasks (p. 21). In this regard, the present study also supported the idea that TBLT create more opportunities of interaction with peers as they expressed that every students wanted to participate without feeling ashamed. In terms of students’ participation and their preferred tasks to produce English orally, Chuan (2010) stated that students are keen on learning actively not passively. Shintani (2014) affirmed that students display more positive attitude towards learning English when the activities provide room for being more active while performing tasks. This study allowed to observe that tasks motivated them to speak English and they promoted active participation..

(12) 12 IMPROVING STUDENTS ORAL PRODUCTION THROUGH TBLT. Although, these studies differ from Hadi (2012) and Chuan (2012) in which teachers expressed negative perceptions related to classroom management because of the noise that was almost impossible to control. Finally, Thanh & Huan (2012) states that learners were highly motivated when working towards meaningful goals and achievable tasks. This idea is supported by the findings in this study since students affirmed that they liked tasks related to motivating topics that were familiar for them such as hobbies and music, among others. Students also manifested they preferred tasks that promotes the use of other communicative functions besides speaking. Conclusions The results and research findings of the present study positively proved that TBLT approach in an EFL context promotes students’ oral production. Students felt more motivated towards speaking English as they were provided with opportunities to use the target language without being afraid of making mistakes. The research also supported that students preferred communicative tasks since they are different from traditional lesson and because they are practical (Thanh & Huan, 2012). As the literature and present findings have shown, the communicative tasks could be regarded as one of the most promising pedagogic approaches to enhance EFL students’ speaking skills. The attempt of this research was a good starting point for Chilean EFL teachers to reflect upon the activities they have been implementing to address the teaching of English in their specific contexts. In this regard, teachers cannot ignore the possible contributions of this study to the communicative purpose of learning English as a foreign language..

(13) 13 IMPROVING STUDENTS ORAL PRODUCTION THROUGH TBLT. However, in the implementation of communicative tasks, there are some conditions that should be considered. For instance, the development of communicative tasks in the classroom implied a less-controlled environment than more traditional approaches; which means that teachers should carefully plan the most appropriate conditions to carry out the communicative tasks in order to maintain students focused on tasks and not on doing something else. In this respect, further research could consider aspects related to the completion of the tasks under a set of pertinent rules that foster the use of communicative tasks in an acceptable class environment..

(14) 14 IMPROVING STUDENTS ORAL PRODUCTION THROUGH TBLT. References Bahrani, T., & Soltani, R. (2012). How to Teach Speaking. Journal of Education and Practice, 3(2), 26. Barnard, R., & Viet, N. G. (2010). Task-based language teaching (TBLT): A Vietnamese case study using narrative frames to elicit teachers’ beliefs. Language Education in Asia, 1(1), 77-86. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2013). Research methods in education. Routledge. Córdoba Zúñiga, E. (2016). Implementing Task-Based Language Teaching to Integrate Language Skills in an EFL Program at a Colombian University. Profile Issues in TeachersProfessional Development, 18(2), 13-27 Council of Europe (2008). Common European framework of references for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Five qualitative approaches to inquiry. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, 2, 53-80. Díaz Larenas, C. (2011). Exploring knowledge of English speaking strategies in 8th and 12th graders. Profile Issues in Teachers Professional Development, 13(2), 85-98. Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221–246 Given, L. M. (Ed.). (2008). The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Sage Publications..

(15) 15 IMPROVING STUDENTS ORAL PRODUCTION THROUGH TBLT. González Humanez, L. E. & Arias, N. (2009). Enhancing oral interaction in English as a foreign language through task-based learning activities. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 2(2), 1-9. Hadi, A. (2012). Perceptions of task-based language teaching: A study of Iranian EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 6(1), 103. Jones, D., & Hodson, P. (Eds.). (2011). Unlocking speaking and listening. Routledge. Lochana, M., & Deb, G. (2006). Task based teaching: learning English without tears. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 8(3). Robertson, M. (2014). Task-Based Language Teaching and Expansive Learning Theory. TESL Canada Journal, 31, 187-198. Shintani, N. (2014). Using tasks with young beginner learners: The role of the teacher. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 8(3), 279-294. Thanh, L. N., & Huan, N. B. (2012). Task-based language learning and student motivation in vocabulary acquisition. Language Education in Asia, 3(1), 106-120. Vaca Torres, A. M., & Gómez Rodríguez, L. F. (2017). Increasing EFL learners’ oral production at a public school through project-based learning. PROFILE Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 19(2), 57-71. Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. New York: Longman..

(16) 16 IMPROVING STUDENTS ORAL PRODUCTION THROUGH TBLT. Appendix A Sample of an Oral Referenced Test The following is a list of questions which may prove helpful in categorizing students according to their level of spoken proficiency. (Questions can only be answered in English) 1. What’s your name? 2. How old are you? 3. Do you have any pet? 4. How many siblings do you have? 5. What kind of music do you like? 6. Do you like studying English? 7. What strategies do you use to practice your English? 8. Where did you learn English? 9. How many hours do you spend studying English? 10. Have you ever been in a foreign country? 11. What are you going to do when finishing high school? 12. Have you thought on what to study after school? 13. Can you come up with some ideas to improve the learning of English in the school? Explain. 14. Could you please tell me about your hopes and dreams concerning your future? 15. Why do you think students are not getting good marks in the English courses here in the school?.

(17) 17 IMPROVING STUDENTS ORAL PRODUCTION THROUGH TBLT. Appendix B Description of the tasks implemented in the present study. Task No. Task 1. Lesson and Task. Task Skills. Lesson: “Music and. Question and answer, sharing personal. Dream Jobs”. information, report.. Memory Games Task 2. Lesson: “Music Trends”. Matching, sharing personal information. Puzzles Task 3. Lesson: “Visiting Chile”. Question and answer, report.. Guessing Games Task 4. Lesson: “Traditional. Question and answer, decision-making. recipes”. Interviews Task 5. Lesson: “Halloween”. Problem-solving. Mystery Objects. Appendix C Sampling of Interview Questions 1. ¿Tú crees que necesitas mejorar tu nivel de inglés hablado? ¿Por qué? 2. ¿Qué opinas acerca de las distintas estrategias empleadas en clase para el mejoramiento del inglés hablado? 3. ¿En qué medida crees que estas estrategias te han ayudado a mejorar tu inglés en el transcurso de las últimas clases? 4. ¿Cómo te sentiste durante y después de haber participado en las diferentes actividades que promueven el uso del inglés hablado? 5. ¿Cuál de la cinco estrategias empleadas te gustó más y por qué?.

(18) 18 IMPROVING STUDENTS ORAL PRODUCTION THROUGH TBLT. Appendix D Rubric for speaking activities based on CEFR Spoken Fluency’ descriptors: ELEMENT. Students' spoken fluency. LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE. Beginner. Elementary Englis h Learner. Intermediate Englis h Learner. Can manage very short isolated, mainly pre-packed utterances, with much pausing to search for expressions, to articulate less familiar words, and to repair communications.. Can construct phrases on familiar topics with sufficient ease to handle short exchanges, despite very noticeable hesitation and false starts.. Can make him/herself understood in short contributions, even though pauses, false starts and reformulation are very evident..

(19)