the effects of task based learning on non english major students’ reading comprehension at niie nguyen tat thanh university

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY THE EFFECTS OF TASK-BASED LEARNING ON NON-ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS’ READING COMPREHENSION AT NIIE NGUYEN TAT THANH UNIVERSITY A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in TESOL Submitted by HUYNH HUU NGHIEM Supervisor: Assoc Prof PHAM VU PHI HO Ho Chi Minh City, 2019 MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY HUYNH HUU NGHIEM THE EFFECTS OF TASK-BASED LEARNING ON NON-ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS’ READING COMPREHENSION AT NIIE NGUYEN TAT THANH UNIVERSITY Major: Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) Code: 60 14 01 11 MASTER OF ARTS IN TESOL Supervisor: Assoc Prof PHAM VU PHI HO Ho Chi Minh City, 2019 STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP I certify that this thesis entitled “The Effects of Task-Based Learning on NonEnglish Major Students’ Reading Comprehension at NIIE Nguyen Tat Thanh University” represents my own work Except where reference is made in the text of the thesis, this thesis contains no material published elsewhere or extract in whole or in part from a thesis by which I have qualified for or been awarded another degree or diploma No other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgment in the main text of the thesis This thesis has not been previously submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in any other tertiary institution Ho Chi Minh City, 2019 Huynh Huu Nghiem i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The long journey of the study cannot be completed without the encouragement of many people in a variety of ways First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Mr Pham Vu Phi Ho (Assoc Prof.) for his on-going support, invaluable feedback, and patience throughout the study I am also thankful for my students at NIIE Nguyen Tat Thanh University for their contributions as willing participants Lastly, my special thanks go to my family, friends, and colleagues who always love and support me unconditionally during the time I conducted the study ii ABSTRACT Teaching reading is an indispensable part of English teaching However, choosing appropriate teaching method is not simple For this reason, this research “The Effects of Task-Based Learning on Non-English Major Students’ Reading Comprehension at NIIE Nguyen Tat Thanh University” was carried out with the aims to investigate if Task Based Learning (TBL) was better than Grammar Translation Method (GTM) which had been used widely in improving reading comprehension Moreover, the researcher wanted to investigate if there was significant difference in task focus achievements between TBL and GTM Finally, this study was designed to research how the students felt when implementing TBL in reading classroom practice The study was conducted within 12 weeks over 29 students from experimental group taught by TBL and 30 students from control group taught by GTM The data collection instruments were pre-test, post-test and interview The findings of this study indicated that generally TBL is more effective than GTM in improving students’ reading comprehension Moreover, GTM is beneficial for teaching reading tasks related to identifying appropriate vocabulary and structural words while TBL is suitable for teaching reading tasks related to authentic readings, reading for gist or real conversations Finally, this study also pointed that the students did express the positive attitudes towards TBL Based on the findings, this study concluded with some recommendations for both teachers and students and limitations for future research in terms of TBL Key words: GTM = Grammar Translation Method, TBL= Task Based Learning iii TABLE OF CONTENT STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii ABSTRACT iii TABLE OF CONTENT iv LIST OF FIGURES viii LIST OF TABLES ix Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the study 1.2 Statements of problem 1.3 Aims of the study 1.4 Research questions 1.5 Significance of the study 1.6 An overview of the study Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Reading 2.1.1 Definition of reading 2.1.2 Reading comprehension 2.1.2.1 Reading strategies 2.1.2.2 Reading factors 12 2.1.3 Levels of reading 12 2.1.4 Teaching reading 14 2.1.4.1 Principles in teaching reading 15 2.1.4.2 Principles in learning reading 16 2.1.4.3 Reading activities 16 2.1.4.4 Problems in reading comprehension 17 iv 2.1.4.5 Models of reading process 18 2.2 The task-based learning 20 2.2.1 Definition of task-based learning 20 2.2.2 The task-based learning framework 21 2.2.3 Task types 24 2.2.4 Advantages of task-based learning 26 2.2.5 The roles of teachers and students in task-based learning 27 2.2.5.1 The roles of teachers in task-based learning 27 2.2.5.2 The roles of students in task-based learning 28 2.3 Grammar translation method in teaching reading 28 2.4 Previous studies 31 2.5 Research gaps 36 2.6 Chapter summary 37 Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY 38 3.1 Research design 38 3.2 Pedagogical setting 39 3.3 Participants 40 3.4 Teaching material 41 3.5 Instruments 42 3.5.1 Pre-test and post-test 43 3.5.2 Interview 45 3.6 Training procedure 46 3.7 Data collection 48 3.8 Data analysis 48 3.9 Chapter summary 50 Chapter 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 51 4.1 Reading comprehension ability of experimental and control 51 groups in the pre-test 4.2 Research question 1:” Which method is more effective to teach reading v 52 comprehension at NIIE Nguyen Tat Thanh University GTM or TBL?” 4.2.1 A comparison of students’ reading performance in pre-test and 53 post-test 4.2.1.1 Control group 53 4.2.1.2 Experimental group 53 4.2.2 A comparison of students’ reading performance in post-test in both groups 54 4.3 Research question 2: “Is there any significant difference in task focus 56 achievements between TBL and GTM?” 4.4 Research question 3: “What attitudes the students express 59 towards TBL?” 4.4.1 Students’ preference about TBL 59 4.4.2 How TBL enhances students’ reading achievement 62 4.4.3 Reading challenges 63 4.5 Discussion 65 4.5.1 Research question 1: “Is there any significant difference in achievement 66 between non-English major students taught reading comprehension by TBL and those taught reading comprehensions by GTM?” 4.5.2 Research question 2: “Is there any significant difference in task focus 68 achievements between TBL and GTM?” 4.5.3 Research question 3: “What attitudes the students express 69 towards TBL?” 4.6 Chapter summary 70 Chapter 6: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 71 5.1 Conclusions 71 5.2 Recommendations 72 5.2.1 Recommendations for the researcher 72 5.2.2 Recommendations for the students 73 5.3 Limitations and recommendations for further studies 73 5.4 Chapter summary 74 vi REFERENCES 75 APPENDIX A: LESSON PLAN 84 APPENDIX B: PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST SPECIFICATION 86 APPENDIX C: LESSON CONTENT 88 APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS 89 APPENDIX E: PRE-TEST 98 APPENDIX F: POST-TEST 102 APPENDIX G: STUDENTS’ TEST SCORES IN BOTH GROUPS 106 APPENDIX H: PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST DATA ANALYSIS 107 APPENDIX I: TEXTBOOK DESCRIPTION 119 APPENDIX J: ANSWER KEY 120 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Task based learning framework 22 Figure 2.2 Principles of Grammar Translation Method 30 viii APPENDIX G STUDENTS’ TEST SCORES IN CONTROL GROUP STUDENTS’ TEST SCORES IN THE EXPERIMENTAL GROUP 106 APPENDIX H PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST DATA ANALYSIS T-TEST GROUPS=Group(1 2) /MISSING=ANALYSIS /VARIABLES=PreR /CRITERIA=CI(.9500) T-Test Notes Output Created 23-Aug-2019 21:16:37 Comments Input Active Dataset DataSet1 Filter Weight Split File N of Rows in Working Data File Missing Value Definition of Missing 59 User defined missing values are treated as Handling missing Cases Used Statistics for each analysis are based on the cases with no missing or out-of-range data for any variable in the analysis Syntax T-TEST GROUPS=Group(1 2) /MISSING=ANALYSIS /VARIABLES=PreR /CRITERIA=CI(.9500) Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.000 Elapsed Time 00:00:00.000 [DataSet1] 107 Group Statistics Group PreR N Mean Std Deviation Std Error Mean GTM 30 19.50 5.469 999 TB 29 19.48 3.291 611 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F PreR Sig Equal variances assumed 5.103 028 Equal variances not assumed Independent Samples Test t-test for Equality of Means t PreR df Sig (2- Mean Std Error tailed) Difference Difference Equal variances 015 57 988 017 1.180 015 47.840 988 017 1.171 assumed Equal variances not assumed Independent Samples Test t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower PreR Equal variances assumed -2.346 2.381 Equal variances not assumed -2.337 2.371 T-TEST GROUPS=Group(1 2) /MISSING=ANALYSIS /VARIABLES=PostR /CRITERIA=CI(.9500) Upper 108 T-Test Notes Output Created 23-Aug-2019 21:16:56 Comments Input Active Dataset DataSet1 Filter Weight Split File N of Rows in Working Data File Missing Value Definition of Missing 59 User defined missing values are treated Handling as missing Cases Used Statistics for each analysis are based on the cases with no missing or out-ofrange data for any variable in the analysis Syntax T-TEST GROUPS=Group(1 2) /MISSING=ANALYSIS /VARIABLES=PostR /CRITERIA=CI(.9500) Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.032 Elapsed Time 00:00:00.016 [DataSet1] Group Statistics Group PostR N Mean Std Deviation GTM 30 20.73 4.906 896 TB 29 24.76 4.453 827 Independent Samples Test Std Error Mean 109 Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F PostR Sig Equal variances assumed 063 803 Equal variances not assumed Independent Samples Test t-test for Equality of Means t df Sig (2-tailed) Mean Std Error Difference Difference PostR Equal variances -3.297 57 002 -4.025 1.221 -3.302 56.781 002 -4.025 1.219 assumed Equal variances not assumed Independent Samples Test t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower PostR Equal variances assumed -6.470 -1.580 Equal variances not assumed -6.467 -1.584 T-TEST PAIRS=PreR WITH PostR (PAIRED) /CRITERIA=CI(.9500) /MISSING=ANALYSIS T-Test Upper 110 Notes Output Created 23-Aug-2019 21:17:45 Comments Input Active Dataset DataSet1 Filter Weight Split File N of Rows in Working Data File 59 Missin Definition of Missing User defined missing values are treated as g missing Value Cases Used Statistics for each analysis are based on Handli the cases with no missing or out-of-range ng data for any variable in the analysis Syntax T-TEST PAIRS=PreR WITH PostR (PAIRED) /CRITERIA=CI(.9500) /MISSING=ANALYSIS Resou Processor Time 00:00:00.047 rces 00:00:00.015 Elapsed Time [DataSet1] Paired Samples Statistics Mean Pair N Std Deviation Std Error Mean PreR 19.49 59 4.493 585 PostR 22.71 59 5.072 660 Paired Samples Correlations N Pair PreR & PostR Correlation 59 727 Paired Samples Test 111 Sig .000 Paired Differences 95% Confidence Interval of the Mean Pair Std Std Error Deviation Mean Difference Lower Upper Pre RPo -3.220 3.577 466 -4.153 -2.288 stR Paired Samples Test t Pair PreR - PostR df -6.915 Sig (2-tailed) 58 000 SORT CASES BY Group SPLIT FILE SEPARATE BY Group T-TEST PAIRS=PreR WITH PostR (PAIRED) /CRITERIA=CI(.9500) /MISSING=ANALYSIS T-Test Notes Output Created 23-Aug-2019 21:18:20 Comments Input Active Dataset DataSet1 Filter Weight Split File Group N of Rows in Working Data File Missing Definition of Missing User defined missing values are treated as Value Handling 59 missing Cases Used Statistics for each analysis are based on the cases with no missing or out-of-range data for any variable in the analysis Syntax T-TEST PAIRS=PreR WITH PostR (PAIRED) 112 /CRITERIA=CI(.9500) /MISSING=ANALYSIS Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.032 Elapsed Time 00:00:00.015 [DataSet1] Group = GTM Paired Samples Statistics Mean Pair N a Std Deviation Std Error Mean PreR 19.50 30 5.469 999 PostR 20.73 30 4.906 896 a Group = GTM Paired Samples Correlations N Pair PreR & PostR a Correlation 30 Sig .945 000 a Group = GTM Paired Samples Test a Paired Differences 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Std Mean Pair Deviation Std Error Mean Lower Upper P r e R -1.233 1.813 331 P 113 -1.910 -.556 o st R Paired Samples Test a t Pair PreR - PostR df Sig (2-tailed) -3.725 29 001 a Group = GTM Group = TB Paired Samples Statistics Mean Pair N a Std Deviation Std Error Mean PreR 19.48 29 3.291 611 PostR 24.76 29 4.453 827 a Group = TB Paired Samples Correlations N Pair PreR & PostR a Correlation 29 Sig .552 002 a Group = TB Paired Samples Test a Paired Differences Mean Pair PreR PostR -5.276 Std Std Error Deviation Mean 3.807 Lower 707 Paired Samples Test 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference a 114 Upper -6.724 -3.828 t Pair PreR - PostR df -7.463 Sig (2-tailed) 28 000 a Group = TB SPLIT FILE OFF T-TEST GROUPS=Group(1 2) /MISSING=ANALYSIS /VARIABLES=PostPart1 PostPart2 PostPart3 PostPart4 PostPart5 /CRITERIA=CI(.9500) T-Test Notes Output Created 23-Aug-2019 21:19:33 Comments Input Active Dataset DataSet1 Filter Weight Split File N of Rows in Working Data File Missing Definition of Missing Value Handling 59 User defined missing values are treated as missing Cases Used Statistics for each analysis are based on the cases with no missing or out-of-range data for any variable in the analysis Syntax T-TEST GROUPS=Group(1 2) /MISSING=ANALYSIS /VARIABLES=PostPart1 PostPart2 PostPart3 PostPart4 PostPart5 /CRITERIA=CI(.9500) Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.000 Elapsed Time 00:00:00.000 115 [DataSet1] Group Statistics Group PostPart1 PostPart2 PostPart3 PostPart4 PostPart5 N Mean Std Deviation Std Error Mean GTM 30 3.20 1.095 200 TB 29 4.34 721 134 GTM 30 4.07 868 159 TB 29 3.00 1.035 192 GTM 30 4.60 1.976 361 TB 29 7.59 1.900 353 GTM 30 3.23 1.135 207 TB 29 5.69 1.339 249 GTM 30 5.63 1.474 269 TB 29 4.14 1.807 336 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F PostPart1 Equal variances assumed Sig 1.836 181 959 331 009 926 2.436 124 1.148 289 Equal variances not assumed PostPart2 Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed PostPart3 Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed PostPart4 Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed PostPart5 Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Independent Samples Test t-test for Equality of Means t df 116 Sig (2-tailed) Mean Std Error Difference Difference PostPart1 Equal variances -4.725 57 000 -1.145 242 -4.757 50.341 000 -1.145 241 4.294 57 000 1.067 248 4.281 54.640 000 1.067 249 -5.915 57 000 -2.986 505 -5.919 56.999 000 -2.986 505 -7.610 57 000 -2.456 323 -7.588 54.855 000 -2.456 324 3.489 57 001 1.495 429 3.477 54.014 001 1.495 430 assumed Equal variances not assumed PostPart2 Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed PostPart3 Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed PostPart4 Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed PostPart5 Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Independent Samples Test t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower PostPart1 PostPart2 Upper Equal variances assumed -1.630 -.660 Equal variances not assumed -1.628 -.662 569 1.564 Equal variances assumed 117 Equal variances not assumed PostPart3 PostPart4 PostPart5 567 1.566 Equal variances assumed -3.997 -1.975 Equal variances not assumed -3.996 -1.976 Equal variances assumed -3.103 -1.810 Equal variances not assumed -3.105 -1.808 Equal variances assumed 637 2.354 Equal variances not assumed 633 2.358 118 APPENDIX I TEXTBOOK DESCRIPTION 119 APPENDIX J ANSWER KEY FOR THE PRE-TEST ANSWER KEY FOR THE POST-TEST 120 ...MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY HUYNH HUU NGHIEM THE EFFECTS OF TASK- BASED LEARNING ON NON- ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS’ READING COMPREHENSION AT NIIE NGUYEN TAT THANH UNIVERSITY. .. ? ?The Effects of Task- Based Learning on Non- English Major Students’ Reading Comprehension at NIIE Nguyen Tat Thanh University? ?? was carried out with the aims to investigate if Task Based Learning (TBL)... STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP I certify that this thesis entitled ? ?The Effects of Task- Based Learning on NonEnglish Major Students’ Reading Comprehension at NIIE Nguyen Tat Thanh University? ?? represents my own