1.1 Introduction Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION In recent decades, task-based language teaching (TBLT) has received growing attention from both researchers and practitioners. TBLT locates L2 teaching and learning in tasks, that is in meaning-focussed activities where learners use whatever language resources they have to carry out the task to achieve its non-linguistic outcome (Ellis, 2009a). This emphasis on a non-linguistic outcome distinguishes tasks from exercises which focus on accurate usage of pre-selected language items (Ellis, 2003). TBLT posits that learners learn the language through transacting tasks that trigger ‘holistic language use’ (Samuda & Bygate, 2008) or similar cognitive processes as required of real life communication (Ellis, 2003, 2010a; Long & Crookes, 1992; Skehan, 1998; Van den Branden, 2006a; Willis & Willis, 2007). In essence, TBLT places emphasis on putting language to use to achieve a task outcome rather than on focusing on language forms for their own sake. TBLT has become increasingly popular in language teaching around the world, including Asia (Butler, 2011; Nunan, 2003). It has been adopted as EFL curriculum innovation in many Asian countries such as in China (Deng & Carless, 2009; Zhang, 2007), in Hong Kong (Carless, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2008), in South Korea (Jeon & Hahn, 2006), in Thailand (McDonough & Chaikitmongkol, 2007) and in Vietnam (Barnard & Nguyen, 2010; Le & Barnard, 2009). Research has thus begun to investigate the implementation of TBLT in these Asian EFL contexts. This body of research has, in the main, identified factors in contributing to the limited uptake of TBLT in these settings (see Butler, 2011 for a recent review). Less research has focussed on the analysis of teacher tasks in action and the underlying teacher thinking vis-à-vis prescribed textbook tasks in terms of task design features and methodology (pre-task, during-task, post-task). Similarly, little has been reported on the relationship between teacher thinking underlying the way they design and implement tasks, and student engagement in tasks and learning outcomes, an important relationship given the tandem nature of teaching and learning. Given the meaning-focussed nature of tasks, the learning dimension in tasks has been a concern of both practitioners and task researchers (Bygate & Samuda, 2009). Teachers are often worried about whether students learn anything during task-based interaction in EFL contexts in which students share a first language (L1) (e.g., McDonough, 2004). Similarly, task researchers are concerned that learners might resort to communicative strategies to successfully complete a given task, without ‘pressurizing’ their language use (Bygate, 1996; Bygate & Samuda, 2005, 2009; Skehan, 1998, 2007a; Skehan & Foster, 2001; Skehan, Xiaoyue, Qian, & Wang, 2012). These researchers argue that learners need to be ‘pushed’ to communicate for learning (Bygate & Samuda, 2009). Research has sought to manipulate task design features and task conditions to achieve this, as seen, for example, in the numerous studies on pre-task planning and focus on form in the during-task stage. In contrast, although public performance has long been recommended in task-based frameworks (Skehan, 1996a, 1998; Willis, 1996), and it might be commonly practised in classrooms, it has been rarely researched (cf. Skehan & Foster, 1997). The current research addressed these gaps. 1.2 Research context The foreign languages being taught in Vietnam have followed the political, economic and socio-cultural statuses of those foreign languages (Baecher & Dang, 2011; Phan, 2009). Today English has taken the predominant position as a foreign language in Vietnam, replacing Chinese, French and Russian. Teaching and learning EFL in Vietnam has burgeoned, since Vietnam’s Đổi mới (Renovation) policy in 1986 and accelerated when the country officially joined the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 2007. With the new role that English now plays in the development strategy of Vietnam, education authorities in Vietnam have called for innovative EFL instruction with the aim of producing a labour force with English proficiency to facilitate the country’s modernisation, industrialisation and global integration. The Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training has specifically emphasised the importance of the development of communicative competence for students via innovative teaching methodology that provides students with opportunities to use the target language. Methodological innovation in EFL instruction has been called for not only at university but also at primary, secondary and high school levels in Vietnam. The national English curriculum for Vietnamese high school students has been renewed through a series of new textbooks which were officially approved and adopted in 2006 (Le & Barnard, 2009; MOET, 2010). The new textbooks, according to their authors, reflect a communicative approach, learner-centeredness and task-based teaching as central focus (Hoang et al., 2006, 2007). The textbooks emphasise (1) “tasks as main activities to develop learners’ communicative competence”; (2) learners as “proactive and creative agents in the learning process”; and (3) teachers as “organiser, monitor, mediator, consultant, participant, and knowledge provider” (Hoang et al., 2007, p.6, translated from Vietnamese). This curriculum is by now well embedded into high school English language teaching in Vietnam. Although the new curriculum has been well in use for a while, research into its implementation is rare, with only two small-scale studies to date (Le & Barnard, 2009; Barnard & Nguyen, 2010). The former study looked at teacher classroom practice and found the dominance of teacher-fronted grammar-based teaching. The latter study focussed on teacher attitudes towards TBLT by means of ‘narrative frames’ which were guided reflections that teachers were asked to write. It found that teachers reported appreciating the values of communicative tasks, but emphasised the importance of explicit teaching of grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation. The paucity of research within the context of the new task-based programme for Vietnamese high school students is unfortunate, given the curriculum targeting millions of high school teachers and students in Vietnam. More empirical evidence on tasks in action is obviously needed, particularly from both teacher and student perspectives, and from both teaching and learning.