Journal of Language Teaching and Research Contents

More documents

Recommendations

Info

18 © 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH importance in task selection and design as whether learners are going to work individually, in pairs or in groups and where the task is going to be done may influence the roles and relationships of the participants in the classroom. Above are three frameworks selected from a number of proposals regarding task description. Each framework contributes to the difficult task of analysing learning tasks in their own way. Nunan‟s framework is particularly interesting since it points out the implicit assumptions of learner and teacher roles in tasks. More importantly, Nunan highlights the frequent discrepancy between teachers and learners‟ role perceptions and the need to involve learners in task selection and design. 4. Task types A variety of task typologies can be found in the professional literature. Tasks can be categorized in terms of their real-world value (i.e. real-world versus pedagogic tasks), the kind of input data (e.g. map, pictures, stories), how the input is organised (i.e. split versus shared information tasks), whether interaction is required in order to achieve the outcome (i.e. reciprocal versus non-reciprocal), the kind of activity that learners are going to perform (e.g. role-plays, discussions, decision-making activities), the type of discourse they elicit (e.g. narrative, description, instructions), the type of cognitive activity involved (e.g. information-gap, reasoning-gap, opinion-gap tasks) and so on. Clearly, there is no consensus on the classification of tasks. Besides, most of the distinctions are continuous rather than dichotomous (Nunan, 1989; Ellis, 2003). Take the reciprocal/non-reciprocal distinction, for example. Some tasks are obviously reciprocal (e.g. speaking tasks in which participants have to interact to achieve the outcome); some are non-reciprocal (e.g. listening tasks in which learners cannot interrupt); and there are some which are somewhere in the middle rather than at one end of the continuum (e.g. an interactive lecture in which students have the opportunity to interrupt the lecturer). What‟s more, there are many tasks which contain a number of subtasks. „Projects‟, for instance, often involve different types of tasks such as comparing, problem-solving, and sharing personal experiences (Ellis, 2003). An agreed classification of tasks therefore continues to elude the profession. Another question related to task types that remains unanswered is what kinds of tasks promote language acquisition. Research into task types has revealed a lot of useful findings. For example, small group work encouraged learners to use a greater variety of language functions than whole-class activities; two-way tasks (i.e. tasks in which the information to be exchanged is split between two or more participants) produce more interaction modifications than one-way tasks; tasks of the required information type (i.e. tasks that require all the participants to exchange information) generate more negotiation of meaning than tasks of the optional information type (Nunan, 1989; Ellis, 2003). Although these findings are of great value for syllabus designers and teachers, much has remained to be done in order to arrive at an adequate answer to the question. It is because there are a lot of factors that may influence the effects of tasks on learning such as the teaching cycle, the topic or content matter, the learners‟ characteristics and expectations, the situational factors and so on. Take, the learner and context factors, for example. Whereas a lot of research has proved that information-gap tasks help to promote acquisition, Prabhu, basing on his teaching experience in high schools in southern India, advocated reasoning-gap tasks (Ellis, 2003). Ellis (2003) therefore points out that “the type of task that works best may depend on the contingencies of individual teaching contexts” (p. 214). 5. Tasks and syllabus negotiation As already noted in the discussion on task components, there is a connection between learning tasks and the redistribution of the roles of the participants in the classroom. This has a significant implication for the implementation of syllabus negotiation: as a key unit of the syllabus, tasks can be used as the vehicle for encouraging learners to make choices regarding the learning content and form and play a more active role in their own learning. By involving learners in selecting, adapting and creating tasks, “one opens to the student the possibility of planning and monitoring learning – one breaks down the hierarchic barriers as it were” (Nunan, 1989: 20). Besides, negotiating tasks is a practical choice in situations where there exist such constraints as an externally determined syllabus, time constraints and large class size. As Breen and Littlejohn (2000) suggest, “making negotiation available at the higher levels of the pyramid (for example at the level of how students are to work on a chosen task) can offer initial experience for both teachers and students in managing shared decision-making, without jeopardising the structure of the course as a whole” (p. 287). III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A. Participants 77 first-year students (from among a population of 241 first-year students), 58 females and 19 males, from the two classes of practically analogous English proficiency level (predicated on the students‟ scores from the pretest) at the Faculty of English Linguistics of Hung Vuong University were invited to participate in the study. The average age was 19.26 years ranging from 18 to 24 years old. One first-year class (2010B) was treated as the experimental group (EG), and the other (2010E) as the control group (CG). The students in the experimental group were immersed in the selection of learning content and form through negotiating tasks with the teacher whereas the students in the control group were taught according to the syllabus imposed by the Faculty of English Linguistics. B. Instrumentation and Procedure
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH Pretest and posttest were employed as instruments to measure students‟ English proficiency level. The initial English proficiency level of the whole population of first-year students was investigated by the pretest, from which scores contributed to the choice of the experimental group and control group of virtually similar English competence level. Upon the arrival of the fifteenth week, the students in both experimental group and control group took the post-test, which sought to assess the impact of task negotiation on the students‟ English competence. The main purpose of the questionnaire survey is to learn about the students‟ evaluation of the course under study. The students‟ comments and opinions, though subjective, can yield significant insights into the impacts of task negotiation on the English teaching and learning. The questionnaires were handed out on the day the students took the posttest. The numbers of completed questionnaires collected were 35 in the experimental group and 37 in the control group. © 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER IV. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION A. Impact of Task Negotiation Practice on Learners’English Competence As regards the results of the posttest, the findings from an independent samples t-test demonstrated that Class 2010B (EG) mean score (M = 6.5366) was significantly higher (sig. 2-tailed value p = .024 < .05) than Class 2010E (CG) mean score (M = 5.2073), implying the English competence of the students of the EG improved at a higher level than that of the students of the CG. Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed TABLE 2: THE OUTPUT PRODUCED BY THE T-TEST ANALYSIS OF THE POST-TEST SCORES Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference .044 .024 1.375 70 .174 .3404 .24760 B. The Students’ Reactions towards the Course through Questionnaire Survey 1.376 69.954 .173 .3404 .24738 a. Students‟ evaluation of the tasks done in the course 1. Question 1 is concerned with the students‟ opinions about how interesting the tasks done in the course were. The results shown in Table 3 reveal a noticeable difference in the evaluation of the two groups. While almost all the students in the experimental group (94.3%) found the tasks very interesting, just more than half of the students in the control group did (56.7%). Particularly, more than twice as many experimental students chose the response with the highest intensity in the scale compared with the control students. On the other hand, 18.9% of the control students thought the tasks were boring. TABLE 3: STUDENTS‟ OPINIONS OF HOW INTERESTING THE TASKS WERE Experimental group Control group Responses Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 1 – not at all 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0 0.0 7 18.9 3 – somewhat 2 5.7 9 24.3 4 23 65.7 16 43.2 5 – extremely 10 28.6 5 13.5 Total 35 100.0 37 100.0 2. Similar findings can be drawn from the responses to Question 2, dealing with the students‟ perceptions of the usefulness of the tasks (see Table 4). A vast majority of the experimental students (94.2%) agreed that the tasks in the course were very useful whereas less than three-thirds of the control students (62.1%) did. Also, the number of students in the experimental group selecting the highest level is almost double that in the control group. And there were a few control students (13.5%) giving unfavourable responses to this question. 19
Page 1 and 2: Journal of Language Teaching and Re
Page 3: Length-based Bilingual Sentence Ali
Page 6 and 7: 2 © 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER JOURNAL
Page 14 and 15: 10 © 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER JOURNA
Page 24 and 25: 20 © 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER TABLE
Page 26 and 27: 22 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 100% 80%
Page 28 and 29: 24 © 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER TABLE
Page 30 and 31: ISSN 1798-4769 Journal of Language
Page 52 and 53: 48 © 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER Figure
Page 68 and 69: 64 © 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER ANOVA
Page 72 and 73:
ISSN 1798-4769 Journal of Language
Page 74 and 75:
70 © 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER TABLE
Page 76 and 77:
72 © 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER JOURNA
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
76 B. Methods © 2011 ACADEMY PUBLI
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
90 © 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER CORREL
Page 96 and 97:
92 posmean Stem-and-Leaf Plot Frequ
Page 98 and 99:
94 posetym Stem-and-Leaf Plot Frequ
Page 100 and 101:
96 © 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER CORREL
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
100 © 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER JOURN
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
130 B. Methodology and Instruments
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
134 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
168 © 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER TABLE
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
174 B. Data Analysis of the Final H
Page 180 and 181:
176 © 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER Figur
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
204 © 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER III.
Page 210 and 211:
206 © 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER Chi S
Page 212 and 213:
208 © 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER Chi S
Page 214 and 215:
210 © 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER APPEN
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
228 © 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER REFER
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
232 © 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER ENGLI
Page 238 and 239:
234 © 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER FREQU
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
244 © 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER Eigen
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
254 promote the development of the
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 289:
Aims and Scope Call for Papers and
Page 292:
(Contents Continued from Back Cover
show all

Journal of Language Teaching and Research Contents

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?