The effects of task based language teaching on efl learners speaking skill at ho chi minh city university of sport m a

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS AND LITERATURE THE EFFECTS OF TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING ON EFL LEARNERS’ SPEAKING SKILL AT HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF SPORT A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the Master‟s degree in TESOL By TRẦN THẢO NGUYÊN Supervised by Assoc Prof Dr NGUYỄN THANH TÙNG HO CHI MINH CITY, MAY 2019 STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP I certify that the thesis entitled “The effects of task-based language teaching on EFL learners‟ speaking skill at Ho Chi Minh City University of Sport” is my original work It is based on my own research to meet the requirements for a thesis in the Master-in-TESOL degree at the Ho Chi Minh City University of Social Sciences and Humanities issued by the Higher Degree Committee All sources used for this thesis have been documented No other person‟s work has been used without due acknowledgement This thesis has not previously been submitted for assessment in any subject or course at the Ho Chi Minh City University of Social Sciences and Humanities or elsewhere Ho Chi Minh City, May 2019 Trần Thảo Nguyên i RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS I hereby state that I, Tran Thao Nguyen, being the candidate for the Master-inTESOL degree, accept the requirement of the Ho Chi Minh City University of Social Sciences and Humanities relating to the retention and use of the Master‟s theses deposited in the University library In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my thesis deposited in the University library should be accessible for the purposes of the studies and research, in accordance with the normal condition established by the library for care, loan, and reproduction of theses ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the following people without whom this thesis would not have been possible First of all, I extend my special thanks to Assoc Prof Dr Nguyen Thanh Tung for his wholehearted instruction and supervision during my research and thesis writeup Without his professional guide and encouragement, I could hardly have completed this thesis I also want to express my deep gratitude to the Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature and those who took a part in establishing, teaching and administrating the MA-in-TESOL program at the Ho Chi Minh University of Social Sciences and Humanities (USSH) Thanks to their enthusiastic contributions, I could enrich my intellectual and professional life for my professional development Moreover, I am grateful to all other USSH staffs who took good care of us as students all the time I enjoyed the wonderful program in terms of professional contents and social exchanges for academic purposes Additionally, my special thanks go to the beloved classmates of mine Together, we shared the hard but happy time during the MA-in-TESOL course Indeed, we made a team in which all members inspired and encouraged each other to move on to the destination Further, my sincere thanks are for enthusiastic colleagues at the Ho Chi Minh City University of Sport who assisted me a lot during the implementation of this study at the university Last but not least, I am indebted to my family for their great support before and during my work for the Master-in-TESOL degree Without my parents and husband, I could not reach that far iii ABSTRACT This study aimed at investigating the effects of task-based language teaching (TBLT) on the speaking skill of EFL learners at the Ho Chi Minh City University of Sport (HUS) and their attitude towards TBLT The participants of the study included 59 non-English-major freshmen at HUS 29 of whom were in the control group and the rest joined the experimental group The study was quantitativelyoriented and combined the experimental design to investigate the effects of TBLT on the participants‟ English speaking ability and a survey to reveal their attitude towards the treatment Version 20.0 of SPSS was employed for data analysis and statistical inferences It was found that TBLT enhanced the speaking skill in general and the aspects of grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and interaction in particular of learners in the experimental group; however, the influential rates of TBLT onto those aspects were of various extents The learners‟ oral interaction was improved the most with this method whereas their grammar and vocabulary got the least progress In terms of the learners‟ feelings about the applied method, the surveyed participants showed their highly positive attitudes toward TBLT and its role in improving their speaking skill In their belief, this method was effective for the potential development of their English speaking ability This study once again confirmed the educational value of TBLT with regard to learners‟ oral ability and their attitude iv TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP i RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii ABSTRACT iv TABLE OF CONTENTS v LIST OF TABLES ix LIST OF FIGURES x LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xi CHAPTER INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background to the study 1.2 Statement of the problem 1.3 Aim of the study and research questions 1.4 Significance of the study 1.5 Scope of the study 1.6 Thesis organization CHAPTER 2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW Tasks 2.1.1 Definitions 2.1.2 Characteristics 2.1.3 Types 10 2.1.4 Materials 11 2.2 TBLT in the historical development of EFL pedagogical methodology 12 2.3 Reasons for using TBLT 15 2.4 The relationship between TBLT and English speaking teaching 16 2.5 Basic principles for implementing TBLT 17 2.5.1 Principles underlying TBLT 17 2.5.2 Guidelines for TBLT implementation 18 2.6 Assessment of learners‟ attitude towards using TBLT 20 2.7 Empirical studies on TBLT and English speaking 21 v 2.8 Chapter summary 24 CHAPTER METHODOLOGY 26 3.1 Research site 26 3.2 Participants 27 3.3 Methodology 29 3.3.1 Approach 29 3.3.2 Methods 29 3.3.3 Research instruments 30 3.4 3.3.3.1 Tests 30 3.3.3.2 Attitudinal questionnaire 37 Analytical framework 38 3.4.1 Test data analytical framework 39 3.4.2 Questionnaire data analytical framework 39 3.5 Issues of validity and reliability 40 3.5.1 Test 40 3.5.2 Questionnaire 42 3.6 Chapter summary 44 CHAPTER 4.1 DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 45 Data analysis 45 4.1.1 Test results 45 4.1.1.1 Resemblance before experiment 45 3.3.3.1.1 Inter-rater reliability 45 3.3.3.1.2 Overall performance 46 3.3.3.1.3 Componential scores 48 Grammar and vocabulary 49 Pronunciation 51 Interaction 53 Impression 55 4.1.1.2 Difference after experiment 56 4.1.1.2.1 Inter-rater reliability 57 4.1.1.2.2 Overall performance 57 vi 4.1.1.2.3 Componential scores 60 Grammar and vocabulary 61 Pronunciation 63 Interaction 64 Impression 66 4.1.1.3 4.1.2 Summary of test results 68 Survey results 69 4.1.2.1 Issues of validity and reliability 69 4.1.2.2 Learners‟ attitude towards using TBLT 69 4.1.2.3.1 Understanding of TBLT 70 4.1.2.3.2 Attitude towards effects of TBLT and speaking tasks 72 4.1.2.3.3 Opinions about difficulties in TBLT classroom 74 4.1.2.3.4 Interest in TBLT 76 4.1.2.3 4.2 Summary of survey results 78 Discussion of findings 78 4.2.1 Participants‟ speaking skill 79 4.2.2 Learners‟ attitude towards using TBLT 81 4.3 Chapter summary 83 CHAPTER CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 84 5.1 Conclusions 84 5.2 Evaluation of the methodology 86 5.2.1 Strengths 86 5.2.2 Weaknesses 86 5.3 Recommendations 87 5.3.1 Recommendations for teachers 87 5.3.2 Recommendation for learners 88 5.4 Suggestion for further study 89 5.5 Chapter summary 90 REFERENCES 91 APPENDICES 98 APPENDIX A: Description of class procedures 98 vii Appendix A1: Lesson plan for control group 98 Appendix A2: Lesson plan for experimental group 99 Appendix A3: Lesson plan of Unit 1B for control group 100 Appendix A4: Lesson plan of Unit 1B for experimental group 101 Appendix A5: Description of speaking tasks for experimental group 103 APPENDIX B: Speaking tests and rubric 108 Appendix B1: Speaking tests 108 Appendix B2: Speaking rubric 118 APPENDIX C: Attitudinal questionnaire 120 Appendix C1: List of pilot panel 120 Appendix C2: Questionnaire – English version 121 Appendix C3: Questionnaire - Vietnamese version 123 APPENDIX D: Speaking scores 125 Appendix D1: Control group‟s pre-test scores 125 Appendix D2: Control group‟s post-test scores 126 Appendix D3: Experimental group‟s pre-test scores 127 Appendix D4: Experimental group‟s post-test scores 128 Appendix D5: Frequency table of pre-test speaking scores 129 Appendix D6: Frequency table of post-test speaking scores 130 Appendix D7: Descriptive statistics of speaking scores 131 Appendix D8: ANOVA of speaking scores 133 APPENDIX E: Survey results 137 Appendix E1: Statistic outputs for internal reliability of questionnaire 137 Appendix E2: Ranking of survey items in survey themes 139 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Previous studies on TBLT and English speaking 22 Table 3.1: Description of participants 27 Table 3.2: Frequency table of survey participants' personal information 28 Table 3.3: Schedule of teaching program 33 Table 3.4: Procedure of survey data collection 38 Table 4.1: Inter-rater reliability of the pre-test in speaking 45 Table 4.2: Statistics for mean comparison of pre-test scores 47 Table 4.3: Test of homogeneity of variances for pre-test scores 48 Table 4.4: Descriptive statistics of pre-test componential scores 48 Table 4.5: Results of one-way ANOVA for pre-test componential scores 49 Table 4.6: Inter-rater reliability of the post-test in speaking 57 Table 4.7: Statistics for mean comparison of post-test scores 59 Table 4.8: Test of homogeneity of variances for post-test scores 59 Table 4.9: Descriptive statistics of post-test componential scores 60 Table 4.10: Results of one-way ANOVA for post-test componential scores 60 Table 4.11: Reliability statistics 69 Table 4.12: Frequency table of items for learners‟ understanding of TBLT 71 Table 4.13: Frequencies of items for learners‟ opinion about effects of English speaking with TBLT 73 Table 4.14: Frequencies of items for learners‟ difficulties in TBLT classroom 75 Table 4.15: Frequencies of items for learners‟ interest in TBLT 77 ix Appendix D2: Control group‟s post-test scores POST-TEST SPEAKING SCORES OF CONTROL GROUP Participant GV1 GV2 P1 P2 I1 I2 Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student 10 Student 11 Student 12 Student 13 Student 14 Student 15 Student 16 Student 17 Student 18 Student 19 Student 20 Student 21 Student 22 Student 23 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 Im1 Im2 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 Final Final Final 7 5.5 6 8 5 5 4.5 5 7 5 9 7 5 5 5.5 9 12 12 12 8 8 8 8 10 10 10 10 11 10.5 7 10 10 10 8 GV: Grammar and Vocabulary mark P: Pronunciation mark I: Interaction mark Im: Impression mark Final_1: Final mark by rater Final_2: Final mark by rater Final: Average of 02 raters' final marks 126 Appendix D3: Experimental group‟s pre-test scores PRE-TEST SPEAKING SCORES OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Participant GV1 GV2 P1 P2 I1 I2 Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student 10 Student 11 Student 12 Student 13 Student 14 Student 15 Student 16 Student 17 Student 18 Student 19 Student 20 Student 21 Student 22 Student 23 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 Im1 Im2 2 3 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 Final Final Final 7 6 10 10 10 11 11 11 4 8 4.5 8 6 11 11 11 11 11 11 6.5 5.5 4 5.5 8 5.5 5 8 8 8 7 4.5 8 GV: Grammar and Vocabulary mark P: Pronunciation mark I: Interaction mark Im: Impression mark Final_1: Final mark by rater Final_2: Final mark by rater Final: Average of 02 raters' final marks 127 Appendix D4: Experimental group‟s post-test scores POST-TEST SPEAKING SCORES OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Participan t Student GV GV 2 P P 2 Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student 10 Student 11 Student 12 Student 13 Student 14 Student 15 Student 16 Student 17 Student 18 Student 19 Student 20 Student 21 Student 22 Student 23 3 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 2 Im Im 2 4 4 3 3 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 4 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 4 I1 I2 2 4 3 3 3 2 3 2 4 Fina Fina Fina l1 l2 l 8 12 14 12 13 11 11 10 10 7 11 10 11 14 15 13 14 13 13 11 12 11 10 11 11 11 10 15 15 10 12.5 14 12.5 13 11 11.5 10.5 10 7.5 11 10.5 11 9.5 14.5 15 9.5 GV: Grammar and Vocabulary mark P: Pronunciation mark I: Interaction mark Im: Impression mark Final_1: Final mark by rater Final_2: Final mark by rater Final: Average of 02 raters' final marks 128 Appendix D5: Frequency table of pre-test speaking scores FREQUENCY TABLE OF PRE-TEST SPEAKING SCORES GV P I Im Final Control group Experimental group Mark Frequency Percent Mark Frequency Percent 1.0 12 52.2 1.0 39.1 1.5 4.3 1.5 13.0 2.0 39.1 2.0 39.1 3.0 3.0 4.3 8.7 1.0 8.7 1.0 17.4 2.0 17 73.9 1.5 8.7 2.5 4.3 2.0 13 56.5 3.0 3.0 13.0 17.4 1.0 13 56.5 1.0 12 52.2 2.0 39.1 1.5 4.3 3.0 2.0 39.1 4.3 3.0 4.3 1.0 34.8 1.0 17.4 1.5 13.0 1.5 8.7 2.0 11 47.8 2.0 13 56.5 3.0 3.0 4.3 17.4 4.0 8.7 4.0 8.7 5.0 21.7 4.5 8.7 5.5 17.4 5.0 4.3 6.0 8.7 5.5 13.0 8.0 26.1 6.0 8.7 8.5 4.3 6.5 4.3 9.0 8.7 7.0 8.7 12.0 8.0 26.1 4.3 10.0 4.3 11.0 13.0 GV: Grammar and vocabulary mark P: Pronunciation mark I: Interaction mark Im: Impression mark Final: Total of GV, P, I and Im 129 Appendix D6: Frequency table of post-test speaking scores FREQUENCY TABLE OF POST-TEST SPEAKING SCORES GV P I Im Final Control group Experimental group Mark Frequency Percent Mark Frequency Percent 1.0 30.4 1.0 13.0 1.5 8.7 1.5 4.3 2.0 12 52.2 2.0 12 52.2 2.5 4.3 2.5 8.7 3.0 3.0 4.3 21.7 1.5 4.3 2.0 39.1 2.0 19 82.6 2.5 8.7 3.0 3.0 10 13.0 43.5 3.5 4.3 4.0 4.3 1.0 10 43.5 2.0 30.4 2.0 39.1 2.5 4.3 3.0 3.0 17.4 39.1 3.5 4.3 4.0 21.7 1.0 34.8 2.0 39.1 2.0 11 47.8 2.5 4.3 3.0 3.0 10 17.4 43.5 4.0 13.0 4.5 4.3 7.0 13.0 5.0 17.4 7.5 4.3 5.5 8.7 8.0 8.7 6.0 4.3 9.0 8.7 7.0 17.4 9.5 8.7 8.0 21.7 10.0 4.3 9.0 8.7 10.5 8.7 10.0 8.7 11.0 13.0 10.5 4.3 11.5 4.3 12.0 4.3 12.5 8.7 13.0 4.3 14.0 4.3 14.5 4.3 15.0 4.3 GV: Grammar and vocabulary mark P: Pronunciation mark I: Interaction mark Im: Impression mark Final: Total of GV, P, I and Im 130 Appendix D7: Descriptive statistics of speaking scores CONTROL GROUP – PRE-TEST Grammar and Pronunciation Interaction Impression vocabulary mark mark mark Final mark mark Valid 23 23 23 23 23 0 0 Mean 1.500 2.065 1.478 1.630 6.674 Median 1.000 2.000 1.000 2.000 6.000 Std Deviation 5839 4839 5931 5481 1.9978 Variance 341 234 352 300 3.991 Skewness 750 049 806 337 797 Std Error of Skewness 481 481 481 481 481 Minimum 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 Maximum 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 12.0 N Missing EXPERIMENTAL GROUP – PRE-TEST Grammar and Pronunciation Interaction Impression vocabulary mark mark mark Final mark mark Valid 23 23 23 23 23 0 0 Mean 1.630 1.957 1.500 1.957 7.043 Median 1.500 2.000 1.000 2.000 7.000 Std Deviation 6255 6200 5839 6200 2.1998 Variance 391 384 341 384 4.839 Skewness 677 179 750 179 494 Std Error of Skewness 481 481 481 481 481 Minimum 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 Maximum 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 11.0 N Missing 131 CONTROL GROUP – POST-TEST Grammar and Pronunciation Interaction Impression vocabulary mark mark mark Final mark mark Valid 23 23 23 23 23 0 0 Mean 1.717 2.109 1.739 1.826 7.391 Median 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 7.000 Std Deviation 5606 3679 7518 7168 2.0503 Variance 314 135 565 514 4.204 Skewness 072 1.873 485 273 448 Std Error of Skewness 481 481 481 481 481 Minimum 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 4.5 Maximum 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 12.0 N Missing EXPERIMENTAL GROUP – POST-TEST Grammar and Pronunciation Interaction Impression vocabulary mark mark mark Final mark mark Valid 23 23 23 23 23 0 0 Mean 2.109 2.630 2.913 2.717 10.370 Median 2.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 10.500 Std Deviation 6208 5881 7485 6880 2.4225 385 346 560 473 5.869 -.139 360 146 493 301 481 481 481 481 481 Minimum 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 7.0 Maximum 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 15.0 N Missing Variance Skewness Std Error of Skewness 132 Appendix D8: ANOVA of speaking scores PRE-TEST Descriptives N Mean Std Deviation Std Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Grammar and vocabulary mark Pronunciation mark Interaction mark Impression mark Final mark Minimum Maximum Upper Bound Control group Pre-test 23 1.500 5839 1217 1.248 1.752 1.0 3.0 Experimental group Pre-test 23 1.630 6255 1304 1.360 1.901 1.0 3.0 Total 46 1.565 6019 0887 1.386 1.744 1.0 3.0 Control group Pre-test 23 2.065 4839 1009 1.856 2.274 1.0 3.0 Experimental group Pre-test 23 1.957 6200 1293 1.688 2.225 1.0 3.0 Total 46 2.011 5527 0815 1.847 2.175 1.0 3.0 Control group Pre-test 23 1.478 5931 1237 1.222 1.735 1.0 3.0 Experimental group Pre-test 23 1.500 5839 1217 1.248 1.752 1.0 3.0 Total 46 1.489 5820 0858 1.316 1.662 1.0 3.0 Control group Pre-test 23 1.630 5481 1143 1.393 1.867 1.0 3.0 Experimental group Pre-test 23 1.957 6200 1293 1.688 2.225 1.0 3.0 Total 46 1.793 6016 0887 1.615 1.972 1.0 3.0 Control group Pre-test 23 6.674 1.9978 4166 5.810 7.538 4.0 12.0 Experimental group Pre-test 23 7.043 2.1998 4587 6.092 7.995 4.0 11.0 Total 46 6.859 2.0861 3076 6.239 7.478 4.0 12.0 133 Test of Homogeneity of Variances Levene Statistic Grammar and vocabulary mark df1 df2 Sig .005 44 946 1.093 44 302 Interaction mark 080 44 778 Impression mark 307 44 582 Final mark 047 44 830 Pronunciation mark ANOVA Sum of Squares Between Groups Grammar and vocabulary mark 196 Within Groups 16.109 44 366 Total 16.304 45 136 136 Within Groups 13.609 44 309 Total 13.745 45 005 005 Within Groups 15.239 44 346 Total 15.245 45 1.223 1.223 Within Groups 15.065 44 342 Total 16.288 45 1.571 1.571 Within Groups 194.261 44 4.415 Total 195.832 45 Between Groups Interaction mark Between Groups Impression mark Between Groups Final mark Mean Square 196 Between Groups Pronunciation mark df F Sig .534 469 439 511 016 901 3.571 065 356 554 134 POST-TEST Descriptives N Mean Std Std Error Deviation Grammar and vocabulary mark Pronunciation mark Interaction mark Impression mark Final mark 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Minimum Maximum Upper Bound Control group Post-test 23 1.717 5606 1169 1.475 1.960 1.0 3.0 Experimental group Post-test 23 2.109 6208 1294 1.840 2.377 1.0 3.0 Total 46 1.913 6174 0910 1.730 2.096 1.0 3.0 Control group Post-test 23 2.109 3679 0767 1.950 2.268 1.5 3.0 Experimental group Post-test 23 2.630 5881 1226 2.376 2.885 2.0 4.0 Total 46 2.370 5521 0814 2.206 2.534 1.5 4.0 Control group Post-test 23 1.739 7518 1568 1.414 2.064 1.0 3.0 Experimental group Post-test 23 2.913 7485 1561 2.589 3.237 2.0 4.0 Total 46 2.326 9500 1401 2.044 2.608 1.0 4.0 Control group Post-test 23 1.826 7168 1495 1.516 2.136 1.0 3.0 Experimental group Post-test 23 2.717 6880 1435 2.420 3.015 2.0 4.0 Total 46 2.272 8280 1221 2.026 2.518 1.0 4.0 Control group Post-test 23 7.391 2.0503 4275 6.505 8.278 4.5 12.0 Experimental group Post-test 23 10.370 2.4225 5051 9.322 11.417 7.0 15.0 Total 46 2.6816 3954 8.084 9.677 4.5 15.0 8.880 135 Test of Homogeneity of Variances Levene Statistic Grammar and vocabulary mark df1 df2 Sig .033 44 856 12.643 44 001 Interaction mark 183 44 671 Impression mark 003 44 960 Final mark 630 44 432 Pronunciation mark ANOVA Sum of Squares Between Groups Grammar and vocabulary mark Interaction mark 1.761 Within Groups 15.391 44 350 Total 17.152 45 3.130 3.130 Within Groups 10.587 44 241 Total 13.717 45 Between Groups 15.848 15.848 Within Groups 24.761 44 563 Total 40.609 45 9.136 9.136 Within Groups 21.717 44 494 Total 30.853 45 Between Groups 102.005 102.005 Within Groups 221.587 44 5.036 Total 323.592 45 Between Groups Impression mark Final mark Mean Square 1.761 Between Groups Pronunciation mark df F Sig 5.034 030 13.010 001 28.162 000 18.510 000 20.255 000 136 APPENDIX E: Survey results Appendix E1: Statistic outputs for internal reliability of questionnaire Case Processing Summary N % Valid 30 100.0 Cases Excludeda 0 Total 30 100.0 a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure Reliability Statistics All items Understanding of TBLT Effects of TBLT Difficulties in TBLT classroom Interest in TBLT Cronbach's Alpha 878 600 738 814 811 N of Items 45 10 10 10 15 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item-Total Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted No Item TBLT is an approach in which tasks are used for learners‟ communication A task is a communicative act in which learners interact in English for problem-solving Speaking tasks have clear outcomes 181.17 189.109 436 876 180.97 190.654 351 877 180.73 189.926 234 878 180.93 185.513 577 873 180.70 192.286 136 879 181.03 187.275 348 876 180.83 189.592 205 878 Speaking topics are appropriate for my real-life communication My teachers always introduces a speaking task before having us implement it I have to communicate in English with my partner to fulfill speaking tasks My teacher always gives us comments on our task implementation I am free to speak in speaking tasks 180.80 190.717 281 877 I can use my own personal experiences in speaking tasks 180.87 194.326 017 880 10 I can use the language I learn for communication in the real world Speaking tasks make me more autonomous in learning English oral skill I get gradually more familiar with speaking English through given tasks I am better in planning work for solving problems in speaking tasks Speaking tasks prepare me for real-life socialization 180.83 189.868 353 876 180.90 184.645 559 873 181.27 183.375 564 873 181.10 186.507 335 876 180.93 186.547 360 876 Speaking tasks help me form the habit of checking requirements before doing anything I get more creative when managing to express ideas in speaking tasks Speaking tasks help me form the habit of revising shortcomings for error correction 180.83 188.144 376 876 181.27 183.237 427 874 180.80 187.269 423 875 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 137 No Item Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item-Total Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted 18 Speaking tasks help me speak English more naturally 181.07 188.823 225 878 19 My own personal experiences are enhanced through speaking tasks I get more self-confident in speaking English through given tasks 180.97 187.344 422 875 181.17 183.868 481 874 21 I am in short of English vocabulary for speaking 180.73 187.651 271 877 22 It is hard to control English grammar in speaking 180.80 190.097 229 878 23 I am afraid of making mistakes when speaking in front of others The time for speaking tasks is too short 181.37 187.689 157 882 181.47 181.085 400 875 It is difficult to convey nonverbal messages in communication It is hard to find ideas for comparing tasks 181.20 185.683 297 877 181.37 185.689 264 878 It is difficult to figure out real-world situations for ordering tasks It is difficult for my pair/group to reach an agreement in arguing tasks My partner/ team-mates contribute few ideas in planning tasks My partner/ team-mates speak(s) very little in socializing tasks I feel great when getting more autonomous in English speaking class I feel motivated when my speaking skill gets better day by day Clear outcomes in speaking tasks make me feel purposeful in class My teacher‟s introduction before each speaking task makes me interested I feel interested when interacting with my pair/group for problem-solving I like the part in which my teacher comments on our task implementation I am interested in real-life topics of speaking tasks 181.30 187.045 297 877 182.17 178.006 491 873 182.30 183.183 324 877 182.23 182.392 347 877 180.90 189.886 377 876 180.73 189.995 325 876 180.90 188.024 285 877 180.83 186.764 335 876 180.97 184.999 631 873 180.80 188.028 316 876 180.60 188.938 402 876 I feel motivated when being given much freedom in speaking tasks It is great when my pair/group can use our own ways to solve tasks I like speaking tasks in which I can speak whatever I want I feel free when I can speak the way I like in speaking tasks I feel self-confident when reflecting my own experiences in speaking tasks I like speaking tasks when I can exchange ideas in a relaxed way I feel successful when sharing ideas with my friends in speaking tasks Speaking tasks are useful for the development of my oral communication 181.00 187.586 324 876 180.93 183.651 472 874 180.63 188.585 373 876 180.73 187.582 502 875 181.17 180.489 609 871 181.00 180.897 468 874 181.20 182.510 531 873 180.83 186.902 378 875 20 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 138 Appendix E2: Ranking of survey items in survey themes LEARNERS’ UNDERSTANDING OF TBLT # Item Mean SD My teacher always introduces a speaking task before having us implement it 4.47 571 Speaking tasks have clear outcomes 4.43 679 I am free to speak in speaking tasks 4.37 490 My teacher always gives us comments on our task implementation 4.33 802 10 I can use the language I learn for communication in the real world 4.33 479 I can use my own personal experiences in speaking tasks 4.30 466 Speaking topics are appropriate for my real-life communication 4.23 568 A task is a communicative act in which learners interact in English for problem-solving 4.20 407 I have to communicate in English with my partner to fulfill speaking tasks 4.13 730 TBLT is an approach in which tasks are used for learners‟ communication 4.00 455 * 1.00-1.79: SD; 1.80-2.59: D; 2.60-3.39: N; 3.40-4.19: A; 4.20-5.00: SA LEARNERS’ OPINION ABOUT EFFECTS OF ENGLISH SPEAKING WITH TBLT # Item Mean SD 17 Speaking tasks help me form the habit of revising shortcomings for error correction 4.37 615 15 Speaking tasks help me form the habit of checking requirements before doing anything 4.33 606 11 Speaking tasks make me more autonomous in learning English oral skill 4.27 640 14 Speaking tasks prepare me for real-life socialization 4.23 774 19 My own personal experiences are enhanced through speaking tasks 4.20 610 18 Speaking tasks help me speak English more naturally 4.10 845 13 I am better in planning work for solving problems in speaking tasks 4.07 828 20 I get more self-confident in speaking English through given tasks 4.00 788 12 I get gradually more familiar with speaking English through given tasks 3.90 712 16 I get more creative when managing to express ideas in speaking tasks 3.90 923 * 1.00-1.79: SD; 1.80-2.59: D; 2.60-3.39: N; 3.40-4.19: A; 4.20-5.00: SA 139 LEARNERS’ DIFFICULTIES IN TBLT CLASSROOM # Item Mean SD 21 I am in short of English vocabulary for speaking 4.43 858 22 It is hard to control English grammar in speaking 4.37 669 25 It is difficult to convey nonverbal messages in communication 3.97 999 27 It is difficult to figure out real-world situations for ordering tasks 3.87 860 23 I am afraid of making mistakes when speaking in front of others 3.80 1.270 26 It is hard to find ideas for comparing tasks 3.80 1.095 24 The time for speaking tasks is too short 3.70 1.149 28 It is difficult for my pair/group to reach an agreement in arguing tasks 3.00 1.174 30 My partner/ team-mates speak(s) very little in socializing tasks 2.93 1.172 29 My partner/ team-mates contribute few ideas in planning tasks 2.87 1.167 * 1.00-1.79: SD; 1.80-2.59: D; 2.60-3.39: N; 3.40-4.19: A; 4.20-5.00: SA LEARNERS’ INTEREST IN TBLT # Item Mean SD 37 I am interested in real-life topics of speaking tasks 4.57 504 40 I like speaking tasks in which I can speak whatever I want 4.53 571 32 I feel motivated when my speaking skill gets better day by day 4.43 504 41 I feel free when I can speak the way I like in speaking tasks 4.43 504 36 I like the part in which my teacher comments on our task implementation 4.37 718 34 My teacher‟s introduction before each speaking task makes me interested 4.33 802 45 Speaking tasks are useful for the development of my oral communication 4.33 711 31 I feel great when getting more autonomous in English speaking class 4.27 450 33 Clear outcomes in speaking tasks make me feel purposeful in class 4.27 785 39 It is great when my pair/group can use our own ways to solve tasks 4.23 817 35 I feel interested when interacting with my pair/group for problem-solving 4.20 551 38 I feel motivated when being given much freedom in speaking tasks 4.17 747 43 I like speaking tasks when I can exchange ideas in a relaxed way 4.17 1.020 42 I feel self-confident when reflecting my own experiences in speaking tasks 4.00 830 44 I feel successful when sharing ideas with my friends in speaking tasks 3.97 809 * 1.00-1.79: SD; 1.80-2.59: D; 2.60-3.39: N; 3.40-4.19: A; 4.20-5.00: SA 140