- Home
- Various Articles - Tertiary
- Effects of Task-Based Language Teaching on Students’ Grammar Acquisition at Van Lang University
Effects of Task-Based Language Teaching on Students’ Grammar Acquisition at Van Lang University
Tran Thi Thanh Mai, an EFL lecturer at Faculty of Foreign Languages, Van Lang University, has been teaching English for more than thirteen years. As an EFL lecturer and a material writer, she has published extensively on various EFL issues both nationally and internationally. Her current
professional interests include techniques and approaches in teaching English skills and language units, literature learning and play activities. Email: mai.ttt@vlu.edu.vn
Abstract
In traditional grammar instruction, learners were often exposed to isolated grammar rules, which can lead to a separation between language acquisition and its real-world usage. Bridging this gap, task-based language teaching has emphasized the significance of context and promoted learner autonomy, encouraging them to actively use grammar structures in relevant and authentic situations. The purpose of this paper was to find out the effects of task-based language teaching on students’ grammar acquisition at Van Lang University in the second semester of the academic year 2023-2024. The samples included 74 English-majored freshmen. Data were collected through an experimental design and a survey mainly based on Larsen-Freeman’s theoretical framework. The results indicated the neutral effect of this approach on learners’ grammar acquisition as well as their mixed perceptions towards the approach.
Introduction
Considered as the structural glue and the “code” of language, grammar is controversially at the heart of language use (Grabe, 2004). Not surprisingly, both methods of teaching grammar, deductively and inductively, have been the source of extensive discussion. In line with the increasing of currently international integration, the fostering of communicative competence in foreign language learning has been taken into account. As a matter of fact, in tertiary levels, grammar course plays a key role on the curriculum of English language. In order to improve college students’ grammar skills, task-based language teaching (TBLT), an innovative approach to language instruction that places emphasis on practical application and meaningful communication, becomes one of pedagogical choices for improving English learners’ communicative competence in all four language skills highlighted by Vietnam Ministry of Education and Training (MOET, 2006). When compared with traditional teaching methods, this approach which has become prevalent since the mid-1980 in grammar teaching has effectively addressed the current issues in the instruction of grammar.
Regardless of its subsequent emergence in the field of language teaching methodology, TBLT has demonstrated greater favorability as it allows for the integration of traditional methods and enables teachers to provide guidance and direction when needed (Ellis, 2003). In the teaching of English grammar, tasks serve as effective instruments for promoting learners' interactive engagement in generating and comprehending information to foster authentic language usage (Brown, 2007).
Despite unavoidable debate regarding the theory of TBLT and its impact on language instruction overall, including the teaching of English grammar specifically, this approach remains a compelling subject for researchers in the TESOL field. In response to the present societal demand for competent individuals in the realm of foreign languages, Van Lang University has taken on the responsibility of equipping the community with well-qualified language professionals. Among the key aspects emphasized is the proficiency in utilizing English for effective real-world communication. The application of TBLT in improving grammar competence of English students has been found to be advantageous and disadvantageous, according to prior research. However, there are very few study articles on this subject that were produced in Vietnam, especially at Van Lang University. While fluency and accuracy are crucial for comprehension, students at VLU struggle to express themselves correctly in speaking and writing tasks. Recognizing this reality, the university has introduced grammar courses spanning two semesters to enhance students' grammatical foundation. The first semester of the school year 2023-2024 witnessed students' scores in Grammar in use 1 course at an alarming rate. Specifically, the statistical marks showed that 53.4% of 267 students got an average mark (5 to 6), and 6% of them got a good mark (8 to 9). Noticeably, up to 25.2% of them failed the exam.
Table 1. The students’ grades in Grammar in use 1 course
Mark |
Number of students |
Percentage |
<5 |
112/267 |
41.9% |
5 |
63/267 |
23.6% |
6 |
41/267 |
15.4% |
7 |
22/267 |
8.2% |
8 |
21/267 |
7.9% |
9 |
8/267 |
3% |
10 |
0/267 |
0% |
Among the various pedagogical methods available for teaching grammar, TBLT stands out as a promising option. Consequently, this research aims to examine the impact of TBLT on the acquisition of grammar among EFL freshmen at Van Lang University and explore their perceptions of this approach to learning grammar. As far as previous research is concerned, the findings has shown that TBLT has actually facilitated students better grammar skills than those who have been involved in traditional classes. Particularly, TBLT enhances learners’ passion for learning remarkably, significantly promotes deeper understanding, and greatly cultivates cooperative learning among students (e.g., Wang, 2019; Namaziandost, Nasri, & Ahmadi, 2019; Kafipour, Jafari, & Khojasteh 2018; Marlina, 2014; Yildiz & Senel, 2017; Tale & Goodarzi, 2015; etc.). However, there is ongoing debate and discussion within the field about the effectiveness and suitability of TBLT owing to its drawbacks ranging from time-consuming design and implementation, lacks of explicit instruction to limited concentration on individual needs (e.g., Ki, 2000; Astuti, 2019; Huynh & Nguyen, 2023, etc.). Besides, the limitation of some previous studies is the sample data is not large enough and lacks experiments to verify the effects of TBLT on tertiary students, especially in teaching and learning grammar. Based on the description above, this research adopts a model from the research of Astuti (2019) and expands the number of participants by conducting an experimental study at Van Lang University, Vietnam.
The paper’s aim entails two research questions as follow:
-
Does TBLT have any effect on the first-year VLU English majors’ grammar acquisition?
-
What are the first-year VLU English majors’ perceptions towards the use of TBLT in learning grammar?
Regarding the above-mentioned questions, this paper is based on the following null hypotheses:
H01. Task-based language teaching approach has no significant effect on the first-year VLU English majors’ grammar acquisition.
H02. Task-based language teaching approach has no significant effect on the first-year VLU English majors’ motivation.
Literature review
An overview of TBLT
TBLT is of great concern to various scholars and educators (e.g. Long & Norris, 2000; Littlewood, 20024; Nunan, 2004; Branden, 2006; Richard, 2006; Larsen-Freeman, 2011; Ellis, 2009; Houghton, 2018; etc.). Historically, N. Prabhu pioneered the development of task-based language teaching in the southern Indian city of Bangalore. Prabhu's belief, as cited in Littlewood (2004), was that students could enhance their learning efficiency by directing their attention towards the task at hand rather than solely focusing on the language they were using (Prabhu, 1987). Particularly, Long (1985) and Prabhu (1987) advocated for a system that allows learners to engage in functional tasks that facilitate language production and provide explicit opportunities for language learning (Branden, 2006). TBLT aims to create a prerequisite for learning and application. As far as its noticeable benefits are concerned, this approach is enormously advantageous in terms of boosting learners’ motivation, facilitating better comprehension, and fostering collaborative work among learners. To be specific, a task-based lesson typically involves actively engaging learners in creating and participating in activities, which in turn enhances their motivation to learn. Such lessons provide ample opportunities for students to demonstrate their thinking through their actions, allowing teachers to be more responsive to their individual needs. TBLT allows students to apply their acquired knowledge practically within the task's context, thereby improving their procedural knowledge. Through this approach, both the team peers and the instructor contribute different perspectives on the same situation, leading to meaningful deliberation. The task also enables students to present their own work and have interactive peer evaluation (Ki, 2000). Both Richard (2006) and Larsen-Freeman (2011) characterized TBLT as a means of a process-based approach emphasizing the acquisition of language through meaningful tasks and interaction. According to Ellis (2013), when implemented in the classroom, TBLT is advantageous since learners have ample opportunities to engage in natural learning through real-world activities, contributing to the development of learners' communication skills beyond the classroom setting (Houghton, 2018). Regarding learners’ motivation, Nunan (2004) proposed that TBLT could boost intrinsic motivation due to its learner-centered instructional process.
Apart from the above-mentioned remarkable merits, however, the use of TBLT may not be appropriate for all learners particularly for beginners for insufficient linguistic support can lead to uneven oral development (Bruton, 2005). Additionally, Hismanoglu and Hismanoglu (2011) argued that prioritizing fluency over accuracy could potentially be detrimental to learners.
The conceptual framework for TBLT
Willis and Willis (2007) devised a task-based framework that comprises three key components and several sub-parts. Instead of explicitly opting for the structures or vocabulary to be taught within a unit, teachers employ tasks to accomplish diverse objectives based on the students' needs and interests. This approach surpasses the conventional language instruction method known as the "3 Ps" (Presentation, Practice, and Production), as introduced by Skehan (1998) and Ellis (2003). The framework benefits teachers and learners in terms of facilitating alternative assessment and interactive communication.
Figure 1. The conceptual framework for TBLT adapted by Nunan (1989) and Willis (2007)
A number of researchers from numerous countries around the globe such as China (Wang, 2019), Korea (Lee, 2021), Japanese (Suzuki, 2015; Hanaoka & Izumi, 2019), Iran (Kaivanpanah, 2012; Namaziandost & Bohloulzadeh, 2017), Kosovo (Dragobuzhda, 2020), Thailand (Watcharin, 2014), and Indonesia (Astuti, 2019) have conducted different research on the effectiveness of TBLT on EFL learners’ grammar achievements. The sample of the paper was also heterogeneous ranging from young learners, secondary school students, high school students to college students. In relation to the research outcomes, TBLT has proven to be a beneficial approach since it has a positive impact on learners' grammar proficiency. Although substantial research in Vietnam has been carried out to investigate the impact of TBLT on English language skills such as reading skills (Nguyen & Duong, 2022), speaking skills (Nguyen & Van, 2021), writing skills (Nguyen & Luu, 2018), together with exploring the perspectives of teachers and students regarding its application in classroom settings (Huynh & Nguyen, 2023), there has been limited research conducted regarding the effects of this approach on grammar achievement, except for a quasi-experimental study undertook by Pham & Do (2021), which specifically focused on the performance of grammar in speaking and writing skills. Consequently, there haven't been any studies that investigate the effectiveness of TBLT on EFL learners’ grammar acquisition at Van Lang University, leading to motivate the researcher to undertake this paper.
In NamazianDost & Bohloulzadeh (2017)’s study titled “The effect of task-based language teaching on motivation and grammatical achievement of EFL junior high school students”, they examined the impact of TBLT on the motivation and grammatical achievement of 80 junior high school Iranian EFL students. The data were analyzed using Paired and Independent Samples t-tests. The findings indicated that the experimental group performed significantly better than the control group, suggesting that TBLT could enhance grammar ability among Iranian EFL learners. In addition, the results of the motivation questionnaire showed a significant difference between the experimental and control groups' motivation in the post-test, indicating a significant increase in motivation among the experimental group. Overall, the study suggested that TBLT can be effectively implemented in English classes to foster grammatical proficiency in Iranian EFL learners.
Wang (2019) conducted a survey on the application of task-based approach in English grammar teaching in Chinese junior high schools with the aim of validating the significant influence of implementing the task-based approach on the teaching and learning of the English language. Drawing upon the principles of the task-based approach theory, the paper outlined the key aspects of task design, teaching process, and contextual considerations as well as urged educators to integrate the task-based approach into the instruction of English grammar at the junior high school level. Noticeably, one of the study’s limitations is its focus on highlighting the most perplexing and significant concepts related to TBA rather than strategies for enhancing the abilities of both students and teachers.
Astuti (2019)’s six-month descriptive qualitative study designated “Learning basic grammar using task-based learning: a perspective on analyzing online media text” presented an analysis of using task-based learning to examine online media text as a means of learning basic grammar at IAIN Tulungagung. The findings revealed that the perspectives of 45 Indonesian undergraduate students on analyzing online media text using task-based learning varied, including factors such as lack of interest, passivity during the learning process, low interest in reading, reliance on peers, and difficulty in analyzing online text. The study also reported several benefits of task-based instruction in teaching Basic English Grammar, such as deepening understanding of the materials, fostering cooperation, improving memory retention, effective time management, identifying different grammar components, and enhancing communication abilities. However, the disadvantages of task-based learning in learning Basic English Grammar through analyzing online media text included difficulties in analysis, unfamiliarity with the learning model, boredom and discomfort with the strategy, and feeling burdened with tasks.
Dragobuzhda (2020)’s study named “Teaching grammar through task-based language teaching” shed light on the perspective of teachers regarding the role of TBLT, which can serve as a basis for further research involving learners. To investigate the effects of TBLT on students' grammar learning and teachers' instructional approaches to grammar, forty English teachers participating in the study filled up a questionnaire consisting of eleven multiple-choice questions. In the end, the findings indicated that TBLT led to a substantial improvement in students' understanding of grammar and yielded meaningful outcomes when compared to traditional grammar teaching methods.
Research method
The paper aims to investigate the efficacy of TBLT in teaching grammar courses to VLU English freshmen majors and to reveal their perceptions towards this approach. To accomplish the above-mentioned purposes, a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods is utilized in this action research. Data is gathered through tests and questionnaires.
The study is carried out at Van Lang University (VLU), a prestigious private university located in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Established in 1995, VLU is known for its commitment to providing quality education and fostering a dynamic learning environment for its students. VLU offers a wide range of programs across various disciplines, including business administration, economics, law, foreign languages, tourism, information technology, and to name just a few. Of all programs, the English Language program at VLU is designed to provide students with a comprehensive understanding of the English language, including its grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and usage, which equips students with effective communication skills in both spoken and written English, enabling them to confidently interact in various professional and social settings. Remarkably, it is widely noted that students' grammar proficiency seems to be limited, even after completing two advanced grammar courses, as indicated by the average grade of 4.5 in grammar over the past three years. The sample consisted of 74 first-year students majoring in English, who were from two classes (71K29NGNA01 and 71K29NGNA02) during the 2023-2024 academic year. Irrespective of their gender, the individuals' ages spanned from 19 to 21 years old. To be honest, they would enroll in two 10-week advanced grammar courses with the use of the course book “Advanced Oxford Practice Grammar” authored by George Yule (2019).
Grammar tests were used by the researcher to get information about the learners’ proficiency in grammar. In total, a sequence of two tests (a pretest and a posttest) was given to students at a ten-week interval. Test items were varied including multiple-choice questions, gap-filling, error correction and sentence rewriting. The tests were designed to be marked in an objective manner by incorporating and evaluating all the grammatical points and structures covered in the course syllabus. In particular, all tests employed a multiple-choice format with four options. Prior to administering the tests to the participants, they were piloted with the top-performing students from other classes who possessed a strong understanding of the subject matter. This was done to ensure that the tests were free from any ambiguities, meaning that no test item had more than one possible correct answer. Each test was given a time limit of 60 minutes, and a total of 10 points were allocated for grading. Noticeably, the instrument can be said to have content validity when it can clearly define what it is supposed to measure. In this study, the scope of the tests was taken from the grammatical points which students must master from the course book. Hence, research could ensure the objectives of the tests. In order to ensure the reliability of the test, rubric score was used.
Apart from grammar tests, a set of bilingual questionnaires was utilized to explore the participants’ perceptions of TBLT. The questionnaire's response section was designed using a five-point Likert scale, which ranged from "strongly disagree" (1) to "strongly agree" (5), allowing participants to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement. The 10-item questionnaire aimed to assess each participant's perception of the effectiveness of TBLT on their grammar acquisition. The questionnaire was divided into two sections. The first section focused on individuals' attitudes towards the benefits of TBLT in enhancing their grammar competence. The second section addressed the potential drawbacks of using TBLT in the process of achieving their grammar knowledge. To ensure the consistency and the coherence of the questionnaire, the researcher tested the questionnaire data with the help of Cronbach’s alpha, which is above 0.7 confirming the questionnaire's validity for the research (Pallant, 2007:9).
The study consisted of four distinct phases. During the first phase, the necessary materials for the lessons were organized, which included questionnaires, lesson plans, and grammar tests. Moreover, at the beginning of the lesson, the researcher administered the pilot of the questionnaires and grammar tests. Not surprisingly, preparing lesson plans for classroom instruction was the most time-consuming task. The next step involved administering a pretest to 74 participants before the trial lessons, constituting the second phase. Subsequently, the lessons implemented Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) to the experimental group (class 71K29NGNA01) and students of control group belonging to class 71K27NGNA02 learned grammar with the traditional method, i.e explaining grammar rules explicitly and practicing exercise drills. Upon completing the 10-week course, the students underwent the first posttest to evaluate their grammar proficiency. Additionally, three weeks after the initial posttest, the students were given another posttest to assess their ability to retain grammar knowledge. The third phase focused on distributing a survey questionnaire to an experimental group. Prior to handing the questionnaires out, the researcher dedicated additional time to provide clear instructions and guidance to the students on how to carefully respond to all of the questions. Last but not least, the fourth and the most significant phase was to revolve around the manner in which the data were processed, organized, assessed, and analyzed to obtain the research findings. To be specific, the scores obtained from the pretest and posttest were computed, calculated, and transformed into average scores, taking into account the total number of participants. The data analysis process involved several steps. T-test analysis was used to see if there was any significant difference between the experimental and control group regarding their performance on the grammar pre-test. In addition, the data obtained from the post-test administration to the participants after ten weeks of intervention was also analyzed by the T-test to examine the differences in the grammar acquisition among these two groups. As far as the feedback gathered from the questionnaire was concerned, it was initially read, sorted, and interpreted to understand the participants' perceptions of TBLT. The researcher then compared the valid percentages of agreements and disagreements to determine the overall treatment. As suggested by Alkharusi (2022), the interpretation of M would be: (1) Mean: 1.00 – 1.49: Strongly disagree; (2) Mean: 1.50 – 2.49: Disagree; (3) Mean: 2.50 – 3.49: Neutral; (4) Mean: 3.50 – 4.49: Agree; and (5) Mean: 4.50 – 5.00: Strongly agree.
Findings and discussion
Research question 1: Does TBLT have any effect on the first year VLU English majors’ grammar acquisition?
One of the prominent goals of the study was to examine the impact of TBLT on students' English grammar performance. The participants underwent a pretest and a posttest before and after the intervention. The objective of the pretest was to determine if there were any differences in grammar competence between the experimental and control group, while the purpose of the posttest was to compare the participants' ability to retain grammar knowledge after being exposed to TBLT and traditional grammar instruction. T-test analysis was employed to determine whether there existed a remarkable distinction between the experimental and control groups regarding their grammar competence on the pre-test. Additionally, the data collected from the post-test administered to the participants after a duration of ten weeks of intervention were also subjected to T-test analysis in order to investigate the variations in scores among them. Accordingly, the study results denoted that the experimental group retained grammar as well as the control group. This could be explained through the mean score of the two groups on the posttest in Table 4.
Grammar acquisition
Results indicated that mean score of the experimental group on the pretest was 6.2 and for the control group was 6.4 and the standard deviations were 1.00956 and 1.22766 respectively (Table 2). Calculation of observed p-value between the experimental and control group (sig = 0.307) and comparing it with the critical value of P = 0.05 concluded that there was no statistically significant difference among pre-test scores of the control and experimental group regarding their grammar competence on the pre-test.
After the intervention, the mean score for the post-test in Table 4 showed 6,84 with standard deviation (SD) of 0.855 for the experimental group and 6.94 with SD of 1.193 for the control group. As far as Levene’s test for equality of variances was concerned, the F value (1.215) and the p-value (0.274, which is greater than 0.05) indicated that the variances of the two groups were considered equal and there were no significant differences between them. Moreover, test for equality of means pointed out t = - 4,26 by degree of freedom of 72 and the significant level of the reported p-value (sig = 0.672) was higher than the critical p-value which meant there was no significant difference between the performances of the participants in the two groups. In other words, the first Null hypothesis was accepted based on the results obtained from T-test. So with the 95% confidence, the researcher could come up with the conclusion that task-based language teaching approach has no significant effect on the first-year VLU English majors’ grammar acquisition.
Based on the findings obtained, it could be said that the task-based language teaching approach could not retain VLU students’ grammar competence well as expected. Based on the experiment, it could be proved that students made a slow grammar acquisition through both traditional grammar instruction and task-based approach. To make it clear, through the task-based language teaching approach, there was a shortage of opportunities for students to be exposed to explicit and formal grammar instruction, which was revealed through some researchers (e.g. Ki, 2000; Astuti, 2019; Huynh & Nguyen, 2023, etc.). Based on the researcher’s observation, students sparingly practiced grammatical structures in a targeted and repetitive manner since task-based activities often focused on communicative tasks and language use in context, requiring them to concentrate much on meaning, fluency, and task completion. Without enough focused practice and feedback on their grammar usage, students may struggle to internalize and apply the grammar concepts (Astuti, 2019).
The findings of this research approved the first hypothesis. Specifically, there was no statistically significant difference in grammar acquisition between the control and the experimental group. Therefore, it can be claimed that the participants in the latter group acquire grammar no better than those in the former one. The findings of this study were quite contradicted with the research findings conducted by NamazianDost & Bohloulzadeh (2017) regarding roles of task-based approach in L2 grammar acquisition. They proved that the experimental group outperformed the control group in grammar performance. In this study, the control group in which grammar rules was explained explicitly by means of forms, drill, and exercises (recall, study, and activate) whereas the experimental group in which grammar points were presented by different kinds of communicative tasks, leading learners to feel uncertain about grammar rules and structures. Undoubtedly, task-based teaching can enhance students' communicative language skills, but it can also present obstacles when it comes to mastering grammar. A major issue is the lack of direct grammar instruction in task-based approaches, which prioritize language use over formal grammar explanations. This can lead to confusion and difficulty for students in applying grammar rules correctly. Furthermore, the focus on communicative tasks may not always allow for enough practice of grammar concepts, making it challenging for students to fully grasp and internalize them. Without proper support and guidance, some students may struggle to connect the communicative aspect of tasks with building a strong foundation in grammar. Integrating explicit grammar instruction and targeted practice within task-based activities is essential for helping students develop a well-rounded language proficiency.
Research question 2: What are the first-year VLU English majors’ perceptions towards the use of TBLT in learning grammar?
The questionnaires included 15 statements used to explore the students’ perception on the use of TBLT intervened by the researcher. Items 1-10 were to explore the students’ experience of the effectiveness while the rest of the items examined their attitude toward the drawbacks of TBLT as shown in Table 6 and Table 7 respectively.
Table 6. Students’ attitudes toward the effectiveness of TBLT
The table presented the results of a survey examining student perceptions of task-based language teaching (TBLT) and its impact on grammar learning. The survey included 10 items, and a total of 38 valid responses were collected. As shown in Table 6, most students expressed positive attitudes towards the use of TBLT in grammar learning with higher percentages of agreement (A). Generally, the responses showed that most students rank the benefits of applying this approach in grammar learning 4 and 5 on a 5-point Likert scale. The item that received the highest average score was “TBLT makes learning grammar more engaging and enjoyable” (M = 4.29, SD = 1.14), indicating that students generally found TBLT to be an engaging and enjoyable approach to learning grammar. What is more, students felt that TBLT encouraged more meaningful and authentic grammar practice (M = 3.68, SD = 1.12) and allowed them to apply grammar in practical, communicative tasks (M = 3.61, SD = 1.31). However, students' responses were more varied when it came to the impact of TBLT on developing a deeper understanding of grammar in context (M = 3.55, SD = 1.08), improving problem-solving skills for grammar usage (M = 3.21, SD = 1.45), and helping them grasp grammar concepts better than traditional instruction (M = 3.13, SD = 1.38). The question with the lowest average score was "TBLT fosters better long-term retention of grammar knowledge" (M = 2.05, SD = 1.01), suggesting that students were less convinced of TBLT's effectiveness in promoting long-term retention of grammar knowledge. Overall, the results indicated that students generally had a favorable attitude towards TBLT and its impact on various aspects of grammar learning, such as engagement, practice, and application. However, there were some mixed perceptions regarding its effectiveness in promoting deeper understanding, problem-solving, and long-term retention of grammar knowledge.
Although TBLT benefited students in terms of engagement, practice and application, its application was somewhat disadvantageous, according to the following findings.
Table 7. Students’ attitudes toward the drawback of TBLT
Table 7 presented the participants’ perceptions regarding the challenges and drawbacks of task-based language teaching (TBLT) for grammar learning. The highest mean score was obtained by the item “There is a lack of structured grammar presentations and drills” (M = 3.71, SD = 1.27). This indicated that students expressed concerns about the potential absence of explicit grammar instruction and practice in the TBLT approach. Additionally, students felt that TBLT “makes it potential for less focus on explicit grammar rules and explanation” (M = 3.68, SD = 1.07) and “has the possibility of communicating ungrammatical language during tasks” (M = 3.66, SD = 1.02). Regarding the challenges of implementation, students perceived that TBLT “requires more time and effort” (M = 3.50, SD = 1.64) and “is difficult to implement effectively without proper teacher training” (M = 3.50, SD = 1.52). These findings revealed that students were aware of the increased demands and complexity associated with effectively implementing TBLT for grammar instruction, particularly in terms of teacher preparation and the potential trade-offs between communicative practice and explicit grammar focus. To conclude, the responses suggested that although students generally had a positive attitude towards TBLT for grammar learning (as shown in Table 6), they were also mindful of potential drawbacks and challenges associated with this approach. These include the perceived lack of structured grammar instruction, the risk of communicating ungrammatical language, and the increased time and effort required for successful implementation. Therefore, the findings from the questionnaire partly rejected the second hypothesis.
Conclusion
The findings of this paper provide valuable insights into the use of task-based language teaching (TBLT) for grammar acquisition and the perceptions of first-year English majors at Van Lang University. Regarding the first research question, the results indicate a neutral effect of TBLT on the students' grammar acquisition. The statistical analysis failed to reject the null hypothesis (H01), suggesting that the TBLT approach did not have a significant impact on the participants’ grammar learning outcomes. This neutral effect may signal the need for further investigations into the specific implementation, duration, or other contextual factors that could influence the effectiveness of TBLT for grammar instruction with a large scale of samples.
Nevertheless, the second research question revealed more positive insights. Generally, the students held favorable views towards the use of TBLT in learning grammar. Particularly, the survey responses showed high mean scores, indicating that students recognized the potential benefits of TBLT ranging from increasing opportunities for communicative practice to developing broader language skills. On the other hand, the students were also aware of potential challenges, such as the lack of structured grammar presentations and the increased demands on teachers’ instruction and preparation.
These findings suggest that even though the TBLT approach did not lead to measurable improvements in grammar acquisition, the students were receptive to and appreciative of this pedagogical approach. This highlights the importance of considering both learning outcomes and learner perceptions when evaluating the effectiveness of instructional approaches. Further research may be necessary to explore the optimal integration of TBLT and explicit grammar instruction to address the students’ concerns and unlock the full potential of this approach.
Acknowledgements
The author of this article acknowledged the support of Van Lang University at 69/68 Dang Thuy Tram St. Ward 13, Binh Thanh Dist., Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
References
Alkharusi, H. (2022). A descriptive analysis and interpretation of data from Likert scales in educational and psychological research. Indian Journal of Psychology and Education, 12(2), 13-16
Branden, K. (2006). Task‐based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (3rd ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). The methodology of task‐based teaching. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 11(5), 79–100.
Ellis, R. (2012). Task‐based language teaching: Responding to the critics. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL 8, 1–28.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Thomson/Heinle.
Grabe, W. (2004). The role of grammar in ELT. Pearson.
Lee, J. H. (2021). Misunderstandings and understandings of English grammar instruction in task-based language teaching: English grammar instruction via focus on form and task design. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 2021(21). https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.21..202108.752
Littlewood, W. (2004). The Task Based Approach: Some Questions and Suggestions. ELT Journal, 58(4), 319-326.
Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. Modelling and assessing second language acquisition, 18, 77-99.
Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching.
Modelling and assessing second language acquisition, 18, 77–99
struction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching.
Modelling and assessing second language acquisition, 18, 7
Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching.
Modelling and assessing second language acquisition, 18, 77–99
Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching.
Modelling and assessing second language acquisition, 18, 77–99
Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching.
Modelling and assessing second language acquisition, 18, 77–99
Long, M. H. & Norris, J. M. (2000). Task-based teaching and assessment. In M. Byram (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language Teaching, p.597-603. London: Routledge
Namaziandost, E., Nasri, M., & Ahmadi, S. (2019). The comparative effect of content-based language teaching and task-based language teaching on Iranian pre-intermediate EFL learners’ reading skill. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 9(10). https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0910.03
Norris, J. M., Brown, J. D., Hudson, T. D., Bonk, W. (2002). Examine abilities and task difficulty in task-based second language performance assessment. Language Testing, 19(4), 395-418.
Nunan, D. (2006). Task-based language teaching in the Asia context: Defining ‘task’. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3). Retrieved from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/Sept_06_dn.php
Prabhu, N. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richards, J. and Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seedhouse, P. (1999). Task-Based Interaction. ELT Journal, 53(3), 149-156.
Skehan, P. (1996). A Framework for the Implementation of Task-Based Instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38-62.
Solares, M. E. (2006). TBLT: Challenges and Problems in an Online Course Design for Teacher Development. Retrieved from http://www.tblt.org/download/solares.doc
Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by Hypothesis: The Case of Task-Based Instruction. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 376–401
Yildiz, M., & Senel, M. (2017). Teaching grammar through task-based language teaching to young EFL learn-
ers. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 17(2), 196–209.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Essex: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
Willis, D. & Willis, J. (2001). Task based language teaching. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds), Teaching English to speakers of other languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Willis, J., & Willis, D. (2007). Doing task‐based teaching. Oxford handbooks for language teachers. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press
Yildiz, M., & Senel, M. (2017). Teaching grammar through task-based language teaching to young EFL learners. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 17(2), 196-209.
Please check the Pilgrims in Segovia Teacher Training courses 2025 at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Pilgrims f2f courses at Pilgrims website.
Improving EFL University Courses Through Practical Techniques from The Science of Learning
Hall Houston, TaiwanEffects of Task-Based Language Teaching on Students’ Grammar Acquisition at Van Lang University
Tran Thi Thanh Mai, VietnamDetermining Authenticity in the Era of ChatGPT
Lee Jiwon, South Korea;Shin Minsong, South Korea;Jeon Juyeon, South Korea;Max Watson, South Korea