University teacher’s conceptualization of task-Based teaching: a case study in taybac university

lassroom teaching practice instruction Orientation for teaching instruction in teaching plans Cam CLT ESA X Quyt TBLT Skill-based Between Skill-based and PPP Mit TBLT TBLT & ESA TBLT & ESA Dao Not stated PPP X Nho TBLT & CLT TBLT X Hong TBLT Test-based ESA Mo TBLT & CLT Between PPP and TBLT PPP Man Not stated Skill-based Skill-based Continued Teacher Compared research results Stated teaching method from interview Classroom teaching practice instruction Orientation for teaching instruction in teaching plans Chuoi A little TBLT PPP PPP Dua TBLT TBLT TBLT Chanh TBLT Between ESA and PPP X Xoai TBLT & CLT TBLT X (Note: X = no teaching plan offer) In the first place, the comparison between the number of some teachers who declared to use TBLT in their teaching and what they did in their classroom shows that there is a rather consistence between the cognition and practice. They implemented what they believed to be effective to their teachings. Dua is an instance; her routine from theory to practice is quite linear and unanimous. She is the only participants getting the most convergent answers among three times of investigations by the researcher with three different research instrument devices. Besides that Mit, Nho, Mo, and Xoai rank the second place in the unanimity between what they had stated and what they did in their teachings. In the other hand, there are inconsistencies between the declarations of some teachers who claimed to prefer TBLT with their classroom teaching practice and their orientation in their teaching plans. Quyt, Hong, Chanh are three teachers who had much deviation between the stated teaching method and the teaching instruction. All of these three teachers sang the same song when stated that ‘……… I usually use tasks and apply TBLT, I found it very effective………..’. The reason explaining for this fact in my analysis is that these teachers misunderstand the using of tasks in teaching with TBLT. The tasks they used are, in fact, in the care of TST. Another evidence for my view is that the conceptualizations of these three teachers about tasks and TBLT, presented in table 2 and table 3, proved that they did not interpret these two terms correctly. It appears that the type of responses that emerged within interview may strongly or partly be influenced by their moulded wanting in the orientation of applauding the method in innovation. The mixed research use is, therefore, necessary in the case study. CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS, PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY 5.1. Summary of the major points of the study. 5.1.1. Summary of the study The research consisted of a case study in TBU. The purpose of the building level research was to use mixed methods to explore the attitudes and conceptualization of TBLT. The study was also founded on a concern about how teachers imbed tasks in their teaching in the direction of TBLT and their ability in meeting the needs of ELT currency in general and the reality of classroom teaching practice in particular. All those mentioned issues are for the benefit of exploiting the potentials and feasibility of TBLT in near future in the rush of ELT methodology innovation. The study is, therefore, in hopes of drawing implications for policy formation of EFL teaching renovation. Data collection devices consistent with mixed methods and multiple sources included: the interviews for firsthand conceptualizations of TBLT, the observations for the reality of class teaching practice, and the teaching plan interpretations for in-depth information about the teaching fact of TBU teachers. I began analysing the qualitative data when hunches emerged during the data collection process and later more systematically analysed the data using reduction and synthesis. 5.1.2. Conclusions The following mentions are considerable briefest conclusions of research questions: • The last answer for RQ1 ‘What are the conceptualizations and attitudes of university teachers towards task-based language teaching?’ is ELT imbedded with tasks have been done in TBU, but the conceptualizations of teachers are not sufficient. The number who has remarkable understandings of this method theory takes only one third in spite of the fact that the attitudes of teachers about the method is really positive and the ELT innovation drew the attention to this method • With regard to RQ2 ‘To what extent do their conceptualizations match the composite view of task-based language teaching?’, a little consistence and a big gap of deviation were found. • As for RQ3 ‘How do they implement task-based language teaching in their classroom?’, the truth that the conceptualization and cognition of teachers orient what they do in classroom repeated one again. The concetualizations of TBLT deviated toward the direction of TST resulted in the practice in the same direction. The reasons why most teachers’ definitions of tasks and TBLT go somewhere in the middle of the range of the concept and the reasons of incongruence between teachers’ conceptualizations and the theory on TBLT comes as follows: 1) The lack of materials causes the fact that they do not have deep understandings of teaching methodology in general 2) The insufficiency of TBLT knowledge is more serious as there are no books of TBLT in our library. The really short overview of this method in two or three pages in a lot of ELT methodology books can only help them to verbal something about the advantages of this method. That is why no teacher can have right mention about the framework of TBLT. When they were asked what they usually do in while-task all of them stated that the learners do the task, and what they often do at the post-task most of them refer to the summary. When they were asked about the teaching of grammar, the answers were really diverse: some said TBLT teaching according to TBLT requires much grammar because this method mainly focuses on the accuracy (Hong and Quyt - teachers of reading skill,); Dao said grammar could be introduced in the first phase; Mo and Nho said they never introduced grammar because, in her opinion, grammar was not the target of tasks so it has no connection to the teaching according to TBLT. Chanh, a teacher of writing skill, claimed that she usually taught in while-task phase. 3) The urgency of innovation in teaching methodology in TBU did not focus teachers in a specific method but modern language teaching methods, in which TBLT is mentioned coinciding with CLT. This decision, made not long ago, could not mould teachers’ conceptualizations toward any specific method so the reluctances in interpretation understandable. Most of them can discuss verbally about modern teaching methods but may not study to find out the advantages of methods to form policy for actions. 4) Some teachers who are in low proficiency of both language and language teaching methodology employ traditional classroom teaching experience often find it difficult to implement task-based teaching and also other modern teaching methods in their classrooms. They do not see language as a tool and their students as language users, but rather as just learners of a language. 5) It is not surprising that the lack of complete consensus in the field about what constitutes a task, the abstract nature of some task characteristics presented in the literature result in a whole range of misinterpretations and misconceptions about the nature and role of TBLT. 5.1.3. Implications From the fact discussed above, some following implications should be put into consideration. 1) The university should provide the faculty more teaching equipment and documents of ELT methodology in order for everyone to study and have deeper understandings of teaching methodology in general and TBLT in particular. 2) The research on ELT methodology should be encouraged and drawn attention to so as to enhance the ability of trial, application, and accessment of new teaching methods. 3) The leaders of the faculty should ask the authority for permission of organizing periodical conferences about workshops of ELT researches and applications that teachers in the faculty have done, especially the teaching method that the innovation is aimed at like TBLT. 4) It is important to mention an important caveat that concerns the terminology of TBLT. Therefore, in addition to responding and explaining the above misconceptions to faculty members, it is also important to examine the benefits of task-based pedagogy. This may convince teachers that TBLT allows students to function as ‘language users’ in the real world and perform a wider range of language functions which correspond with the goals of proficiency-oriented language teaching. 5.2. Limitation of the study Although much of researcher’s efforts were made to identify the university teachers’ conceptualization of TBLT, including both the consistence and inconsistence at TBU, their implementations of TBLT in classes, there exist some limitations in this thesis. • Firstly, the discussion of thesis only focuses on some main points towards three research questions, while in the interview they voiced a lot of issues related to the teaching and learning at TBU. We can not have enough time, and persistence to cover all the aspects emerging from the interviews and class teaching in the field of ELT. May those diverse inquiries be discussed in other researches? • Secondly, the thesis would be more satisfactory if it was the combination of both qualitative and quantitative research; however, due to the limit of participants, the researcher could not carry out the questionnaire survey, which might be better at quantifying some of the points. • Next, the result of this research is fruitful for only a specific context which is the teaching and learning foreign language at TBU. Except for the place, we could not generalize to expand the study success to make any applications to another place, and no hypotheses were formulated as part of the design. • Moreover, if the researcher could carry the follow-up interviews after the observations of teachers’ in their classes to seek for more in-depth information about their attitudes and cognitions when they did some of the activities or techniques in class. • Lastly, if the participants could have given more teaching plans, the conceptualization of teaching practice would have become clearer because there was the correspondence between the teaching class and the teaching intention shown in the teaching plans. 5.3. Implications for future research Researchers have made significant strides in this field. However, it will be important to keep focusing on what is meant by "task-based second language teaching and learning." The term can evoke many different images, depending on which theorists and models are involved and on various and locations in which such teaching occurs. We have seen many variations and possibilities above. The definitional and conceptual question, • What do we mean by Task-based teaching?" can be broken down and elaborated as a series of questions: • What are optimal or at least relevant types of task-based teaching to fulfill different learning goals of diverse students of different ages, genders, mother tongue backgrounds, cultural backgrounds, backgrounds, needs, learning styles, interests, and occupations?• What are the most relevant criteria for sequencing tasks in task-based teaching? Do these criteria differ by any of the factors just listed? • With a focus on form, does a given sequence of tasks work better, or should tasks be spontaneously determined based on evident learner needs at the time? • How does the ordinary teacher find (or create) a task-based syllabus that fits the authentic language needs of his or her students? • Can an off-the shelf task-based syllabus ever work for multiple age groups in diverse settings in different parts of the world? • How much does cultural background influence the acceptability of different task types, input, and sequencing? From these questions and from the whole thesis, it is clear that task-based teaching and learning as a field is an exciting field that is experiencing much ferment at this time. Task-based teaching and learning potentially offer great riches if explored by teachers in their dual roles as instructor and action researcher. Professional researchers can provide additional answers to the questions raised here. The answers will enhance the teaching and learning of languages around the world. The ultimate beneficiaries will be the students whose needs will be more fully met if the questions are clearly raised, explored, and answered. LIST OF REFERENCES 1. Allwright, R. L. (988. Observation in the Language Classroom. London: Longman. 2. 2. 2. Arnold, J. 1998. Affective language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.3. Barnhart, R.K. 1988. Dictionary of etymology. Edinburgh: Chambers. 4. Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L. & Cocking, R. 1999. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.5. Breen, M. 1987. “Learner contributions to task design” in C. Candlin & D. Murphy (eds.): The Second Language Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 6. Breen, M. 1989. “The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks” in R. K. Johnson (ed.): The Second Language Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 7. Brinton, D. 2003. Chapter 10: Content-based instruction. In D. Nunan (ed.), Practical English Language Teaching. Hong Kong: Higher Education Press, 199-224. 8. Bygate, M., P. Skehan, and M. Swain. (eds.). 2001. Researching pedagogic Tasks, Second Language learning, Teaching and Testing. Harlow: Longman 9. Borg, S. (2003). "Teacher cognition in language teaching: a review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do". Language Teaching, 36(2), 81-109. 10. Canh, L.V. 2004. Understanding Foreign Language Teaching Methodology. Hanoi: Nha xuat ban Dai hoc Quoc gia Ha Noi. 11. Carless, D. 2003. Factors in the implementation of task-based teaching in primary schools. System, 31, 485–500. 12. Carless, D. 2004. Issues in teachers’ reinterpretation of a task-based innovation in primary schools. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 639–662. 13. Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. 1990. The calla handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. 14. Cohen, Andrew D. 1998. Strategies in learning and using a second language. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Longman. 15. Clark, J., Lo, Y.C., Hui, M.F., Kam, M., Carless, D., Wong, P.M., 1999. An Investigation into the Development and Implementation of the TOC Initiative With Special Reference to Professional Com- petencies, Professional Development and Resources: Final Report. Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong. 16. Coleman, S. D., Perry, J.D. & Schwen, T.M. 1997. Constructivist instructional development: Reflecting on practice from an alternative paradigm. In C.R. Dills & A. J. Romiszowski (Eds.), Instructional Develo pment Paradigms. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. 17. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. 18. Crookes, G. 1986. “Tasks classification: a cross-disciplinary review” Technique Report No. 4. Hololulu: Center for language classroom Research, Social Science Research Institute, University of Hawaii. 19. Cuban, L. 1993. How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms: 1890-1990 (2nd ed.) New York: Teachers College Press. 20. Dörnyei, Z. 2001. Teaching and researching motivation. London: Longman. 21. Dörnyei, Z. and Schmidt, R. (eds.). 2001. Motivation and second language acquisition. Manoa: University of Hawaii Press.22. Doughty, C. and T. Pica. 1986. ‘Information gap tasks: do they facilitate second language acquisition?’. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 305–25. 23. Duffy, T. M. C., D.J. 1996. Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 170-198). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. 24. Ellis, R. 2003b. Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.25. Feeney, A. 2006. Review of Task-based language teaching (2004) by David Nunan. ELT Journal, 60(2), 199-201. 26. Feez, S. 1998. Text-based Syllabus Design. Sydney : NCELTR. 27. Frost, Richard. “A Task-based approach.” British Council. BBC World Service. 7 Feb. 2006. ( 28. Foster, P. and Skehan, P. 1996. The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299-323. 29. Gillham, M. 2000. Case Study Research Methods. London: Continuum. 30. Grabinger, R. S. 1996. Rich environments for active learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. New York: Simon Schuster McMillan. 31. Grabowski, B. L. 1996. Generative Learning: Past, present & future. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. New York: Simon Schuster, McMillan. 32. Grabowski, B. L. 1997. Mathemagenic and Generative Learning Theory: A comparison and Implications for Designers. In C. R. Dills, and A.J. Romiszowski (Eds.), Instructional Development Paradigms. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. 33. Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold. 34. Hannafin, M. J. 1992. Emerging technologies, ISD and learning environments: critical perspectives. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 49-63. 35. Hargreaves, A. 1989. Curriculum and assessment reform. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Press. 36. Harmer, J. 1998. How to Teach English. Harlow, Essex: Addison Wesley Longman. Longman. 37. Ho, W. K. & R. Y. L. Wong. 2004. Prologue. In Ho & Wong (eds.), xxx–xxxvi. 38. Honeyfield, J. 1993. Responding to task difficulty. In M. Tickoo (Ed.), Simplification: Theory and practice (pp. 127-138). Singapore: Regional Language Center. 39. Ikeda, M. and Takeuchi, O. 2000. Tasks and strategy use: Empirical implications for questionnaire studies. JACET Bulletin, 31, 21-32. 40. Johnson, K. 1996. Language Teaching and Ikeda, M. and Takeuchi, O. (2000). Tasks and strategy use: Empirical implications for questionnaire studies. JACET Bulletin, 31, 21-32.. Oxford: Blackwell. 41. Karavas-Doukas, E., 1995. Teacher identified factors affecting the implementation of an EFL innovation in Greek Public Secondary Schools. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 8 (1), 53–68. 42. Kohonen, V. 1992. Experiantial Language Learning: Second lanuage learning as cooperative learner education. In David Nunan (eds.). Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching. Cambridge: CUP. 43. Kozulin, A. 1998. Psychological Tools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 44. Lamnek S. 2005 Qualitative Sozialforschung. Lehrbuch. 4. Auflage. Beltz Verlag. Weihnhein, Basel, 2005 45. Lantolf, J. 2000. ‘Second language learning as a mediated process’, Language Teaching, 33: 79-96. 46. Lee. J. 2000. Tasks and Communicating in Language Classrooms. Boston: McGraw-Hill. 47. Li, D., 1998. ‘‘It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine’’. Teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 677–697. 48. Littlewood, W. 1981. Communicative language teaching. Cambridge: CUP. 49. Littlewood, W. 2007. Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Lang. Teach, 40, 243–249. 50. Long, M. 1985. “A role for instruction in second language acquisition: task-based language teaching” in K. Hystelstam and M. Pienemann (eds.): Modeling and accessing Second Language Acquisition. Cleverdon: Multilingual Matters. 51. Long, M. 1985. Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass and C. Madden (eds), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House. 52. Long, M. 1991. ‘Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology’.  In K. de Bot., R. Ginsburg, and C. Kramsch S (eds): Foreign Language research in cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamin. 53. McCarthy, M. 1998. Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press. 54. Mc Donough, J., & Mc Donough, S. 1997. Research Method for ELT. London: Anold. 55. Moss, D., & Van Duzer, C. 1998. Project-Based Learning for Adult English Language Learners. ERIC Digest. Washington DC: National Clearinghouse for ESL Literacy Education, ED427556.56. Morris, P., R. Adamson, M. L. Au, K. K. Chan, W. Y. Chan, P. Y. Ko, A. W. Lai, M. L. Lo, E. Morris, F. P. Ng, Y. Y. Ng, W. M. Wong & P. H. Wong (1996). Target oriented curriculum evaluation project: Interim report. Hong Kong: Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong. 57. Nunan, D. 1989. Designing tasks for communicative language. Cambridge: CUP. 58. Nunan, D. 1992. ‘Socio-cultural aspects of second language acquisition’ Cross Currents, 19: 13-24. 59. Nunan, D. 1999. Second language teaching and learning.Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. 60. Nunan, D. 2003. The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asia-Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 589–613. 61. Nunan, D. 2004. Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 62. O'Malley, J. M. and Chamot, A.U. 1990. Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 63. Oxford, R. L. 1990. Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. 64. Oxford, R.L. (ed.) 1996. Language learning strategies around the world: Cross- cultural perspectives. Manoa: University of Hawaii Press.65. Prabhu, N. S. 1987. Second language Pedagogy. Oxford: OUP. Pica, T., Kanagy, R. and Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction and research. In G. Crookes and S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9-34). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. 66. Richards, J., J. Platt, and H. Weber. 1985. Aproaches Longman Dictionary of Appied Linguistics. London: Longman 67. Richards, J. and T. Rogers. 1986. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP. 68. Salaberry, M. 1997. ‘The role of input and output practice in second language acquisition’. Canadian Second Language Review. 53: 422 – 51. 69. Salaberry, R. 2001. Task-sequencing in L2 acquisition. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 6(1), 101-112. 70. Savignon, S. 1993. ‘Communicative Language Teaching: State of the Art’. In S. Silberstein (ed.). 71. Scarcella, R.C. and Oxford, R.L. (1992). The tapestry of language learning: The individual in the communicative classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. 72. Skehan, P.1996a. ‘A framework for implementation of task-based instructions’. Applied Linguistics. 17: 38-62. 73. Skehan, P.1998. Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, pp. 2 68-286. 74. Smith, D. 1971. Task training. In AMA Encyclopedia of Supervisory Training, 581-586. New York: American Management Association. 75. Stake, R.E. 2000. ‘Case studies’. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds). Handbook of Qualitative Research 2nd Edition. London: Sage. 435-486. 76. Swales, J. 1990. Genre Analysis. Cambridge: CUP. 77. Talbott, V. & Oxford, R.L. (1989). Task-based learning through the ESL video variety show. Papers in Applied Linguistics, 2, 73-82.78. Talbott, V. & Oxford, R. (1991). Creating a video variety show: Student-generated simulations. Oxford, R.L. (1990). Using and learning languages through simulations, Part II. Simulation and Gaming: An International Journal of Theory, Design, and Research, 21(1), 73-4. 79. Tierney, R.J., Readence, J.E. and Dishner, E.R. (1999). Reading strategies and practices: A compendium. 5th ed. New York: Allyn & Bacon. 80. Wilkins, D. 1976. Notional syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 81. Williams, M. and Burden, R.L.: Psychology for Language Teachers: A Social Constructivist Approach (esp. chapter 8). Cambridge University Press, 1997. (Eds.), Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. (pp. 52-62). Oxford: Heinemann. 82. Willis, J. 1996a. A flexible framework for task-based learning. In J. Willis and D. Willis, J. 1996b. A Framework for Task-Based Learning. Harlow, Essex: Addison Wesley Longman. Longman 83. Willis, J. 1998b. Task-based learning? What kind of adventure? Retrieved April 22, 2005 from 84. Willis, D. and J. Willis. 2001. Task-based language learning. In R. Carter and D. Nunan (eds.) The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Provides a sound basic introduction to task-based language teaching. 85. Wittrock, M. C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 11(2), 87-95. 86. Yule, G. 1996. Referential Communication tasks. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. APPENDICES Appendix A: Interview Questions Appendix B: Written Transcript of Taped Interviews Appendix C: Classroom observations Appendix D: Teaching plan of university teachers Appendix A: Interview Questions 1. In term of ELT approaches, what do you think teachers in your department are good at doing? 2. What do you understand by a task-based approach to teaching? What is your understanding of the term task? Do you employ tasks in your teaching? If so, what kinds, and how effective are they? 3. What do you think make task-based teaching different from other teaching approaches? 4. How well do you think teachers in your department understand task-based teaching? 5. What do you think are positive elements of task-based teaching? 6. What do you think are negative elements of task-based teaching? 7. How culturally suitable do you think task-based teaching is for your department (students)? 8. To what extent is task-based teaching implemented in your department? 9. Can you give an example of task you have carried out with your students? 10. What do you do in the post task stage of task cycle? 11. How do you see the relationship between task-based teaching and grammar? 12. What are the main issues in classroom implementation of tasks? 13. What do you think are the main factors facilitating or inhibiting the implementation of task-based approaches in your department? Appendix B: The schedule of Taped Interviews Survey Questions and Interviewee Responses for university teachers’ conceptualization of Task-based Language Teaching Teacher Gender Time Cam Female November 5th, 2008 Quyt Female November 5th, 2008 Mit Female November 5th, 2008 Dao Female November 5th, 2008 Nho Female November 5th, 2008 Hong Female November 5th, 2008 Mo Female November 5th, 2008 Man Female November 6th, 2008 Chuoi Male November 6th, 2008 Dua Female November 6th, 2008 Chanh Female November 6th, 2008 Chanh Female November 6th, 2008 Xoai Female November 6th, 2008 Appendix C: Samples of classroom observations (two samples in twelve) TEACHING OBSERVATION SHEET 1 Observer: Nguyen Viet Hung Teacher’s name: Cam Subject: Speaking Lesson: Difficulties Date: November 19th, 2008 Class: class of English, course 47th No of student: 40 * Furniture arrangement: Students sit in horizontal lines * The surroundings: 1) students have seats casually in 4 or 5 or 6 in a table; 2) teacher and students with relaxed feelings; * Course book: A-Z discussion. Full note of teacher’s and students’ activities: Time Teacher’s activities Student’s activities Comments 15h 50’ A. Warm up - Asks students to talk about their own difficulties in front of the class. - Teacher writes students’ answers on the blackboard. - Gives comment and some corrections (if any). - Talks about sollution for each difficulty. - Talk about their own difficulties in front of the class - Some difficulties they give out are: Earn money Learn some skill Full gap between 2 genrations Lose weight Find a job Keep fit Find a partner to live with - Listen and take notes - Listen and take notes. - This activity is good for students to brainstorm the ideas related to the forthcoming lesson, - It als creates easy feeling to students with the next lesson. - The instruction of teacher in this activity is clear, helpful and sufficient. 15h 57’ 16h 5’ 16h 6’ 16h 10’ 16h 15’ 16h 18’ 16h 22’ 16h 25’ 16h 35’ (It is the end time of the period) B. New lesson 1. Countries - Asks Sts to read the chart in the text book and decide what problem given is the most difficulty for them to deal with. - Calls on some students to talk about reason they choose. - Gives comments and sollutions for those difficulties. 2. Brainteasers? - Asks Sts to look through the task and study one by one. w the 1st part - Asks students to study situation and answer question “why nine times out of ten the man goes to Mahattan?” - Aks students for answers. - Give comments, checks and gives correct answer. w the 2nd part - Aks students to read situation and answer the question “How did the donkey get across? How? Do you give up?” - Asks for aswers. - Teacher listens to students’ answers, and comments about them one by one. Then she writes down some important ideas on blackboard. She explains the contents of words or phrases she has just written. w The 3rd part - Study 3 questions and answer. a. What goes on four feet, then two feet, then three but the more feet it goes on the weaker it be? b. What does Fridays come before Thursday? c. What is it that no-one wishes to have, yet which no-one wishes to lose? - Asks students for answers. - Teacher gives out feedbacks and comments for corrections and ideas of students’ performances. w The 4th :question. - Asks students to think and anwer the question “What are the plurals of these words: Child, datum, mouse”. - Teacher gives out feedbacks and comments for corrections and ideas of students’ performances. w The 5th question: Asks students to answer question “How many planets are there? Can you name them?” - Teacher shows her approval to Phuong’s answer. - Teacher gives out feedbacks and comments for corrections and ideas of students’ performances. 3. Project - Asks students to look through the projects below and decide what project in difficult for them to do - Teacher asks students to interview their nearby friends using the questions in the hand out. - After 5 minutes, teacher calls some students to report the result of their interview. - Teacher listens to reporter. - Gives comments, corrections and solluting suggestions. C. Homework - Asks students to prepare the left lesson. - Study the chart and decide. - They mainly work in individuals, sometimes some of them gather together in pairs for exchange of ideas. - Give reasons to explain for their choice. - Listen and take notes. - Study the task. - Study the situation and answer the question. - Present answers. - Listen to the teacher and check. - Read the situation and answer question - Three students raise hand to speak out their ideas. - The most persuasive answer: He didn’t get across the river because he is a donkey, he never eat carrot. - Others take important notes. - Study the 3 questions and answer. - 5 students are asked to stand up and talk about their ideas in individuals. - The most persuasive answer: a. A people or a person b. In dictionaries c. It is Bald - 3 students stand up and talk about their answers in individuals. - The most favourable answer: Children Data Mice - Two students are asked to stand up and talk about their ideas in individuals. - Phuong’answer: 1. Mercury 2. Venus 3. Earth 4. Mars 5. Jupiter 6. Saturn 7. Uranus 8. Neptune 9. Pluto - Listen to teacher and their friends and take notes. - Look through the project and practise. - Present answers. Hang’s answers: Hijack a plane because they afraid of the height. Find and interiew the oldest man in the world because they don’t know who he is and they can’t speak his own language well. Dub an American film in their own language because they know well about American and their culture. - Listen and take notes. - In this task, teacher’s instruction is clear and helpful too. - Students are attracted to teacher’s questions and answer with their enthusiasm. - Teacher gives proper complement. - Teacher does not work quite well as facilitator and monitor. - Teacher does not ask students the way to cooperate to complete the task: in individuals, in pairs, or in groups. - Teacher does not elicit other to raise questions to student speaking for further discussions. - Teacher does well in the role of chairperson, and she gives a proper feedbacks and complements. - It is not correct when Phuong says Pluto is a planet. Pluto is no longer consisdered to be a planet. - In this task, teacher’s instruction is clear and helpful too. - Teacher does not work quite well as facilitator and adviser. - Teacher works well as a chairperson. - Teacher should keep the time correctly to have enough time to summarize the lesson and give students thoroughful direction for their study at home. General Comments: - Type of instruction: ESA - Teacher leads her teaching rather successfully in CLT approach: + The communicative atmosphere in class is good: students are active and concerned very much to the lesson; they are free to express themeselves. + Teacher and students make a good rapport. + Teacher mainly focuses on meaning and fluency; some communicative objectives are achieved. - Teacher does not pay much her attention to the way students interact with one another. - Teacher gives feedbacks for corrections, and proper complements. - The time for each task is a reasonable. Therefore, it is good to exploit more communication in discussions, and teacher can take well the role of monitor and chairperson. - The learning tasks are mainly followed the course book. - Teacher should keep the time correctly to have enough time to summarize the lesson and give students thoroughful direction for their study at home. TEACHING OBSERVATION SHEET 2 Observer: Nguyen Viet Hung Teacher’s name: Quyt Subject: Reading Date: November 10th, 2008 Lesson: Unit 8 – Students won’t give up their French fries Class: Class of English, course 47th No of student: 40 * Furniture arrangement: Students sit in horizontal lines * The surroundings: 1) students sit in in 4, 5 or 6 in a table; 2) teacher and students are in relaxing feelings. * Course book: Selected Reading Full note of teacher’s and students’ activities: Time Teacher’s activities Student’s activities Comment 14h 15’ A. Warm up - Teacher steps into class, takes a seat, greets the class, and then chats with students. - Some students listen to teacher, others do chatting with teacher. - This activity is good for teacher and students to break the ice before the forthcoming lesson. However, it is better if the chat relates to the following lesson. 14h 20’ 14h 35’ 14h 40’ 14h 50’ 15h B. New lesson: THE STUDENTS WON’T GIVE UP THEIR FRIEND FRIES I. Pre - reading * Asks Sts to look through 3 questions in the text book, think about the answers to these questions. - After some minutes, teacher asks students to answer questions one by one. * Asks Sts to answer question: “Do you have a healthy diet? Why or why not” - Teacher shows her most approbation with Giang’s. * Teacher asks students to work in pairs to read the title of the article and guest what the article will be about. * Teacher asks students to answer below questions in front of the class according to the fact. • Where do most students in your college or university eat? • What does a typical meal consist of? • What do students eat between meals? • Are they generally concerned about health and nutrition while they are in college? Why or why not? - Teacher comments students’ answers. II. While - reading - Teacher asks students to skim the text. - Teacher goes round the class to see them doing the task, giving facilitations if necessary. - After 5 minutes, teacher stops the class: The time is up, now we check the answers. 1. Understanding the text A. Multiple choice. - Asks students to circle the two best answers each items given in the textbook. - Asks students to present their answers in front of the class together to check correct answers. - Teacher conducts the checking by asking eliciting questions: In the first question, who chooses... A/B/C/D, raise your hand, please! - Teacher asks student the reason they why they answer the question: Why do you choose....? Do you know how…………? - Teacher gives out the correct answers. Answer: 1.a, c 2.a, b 3.c, d 4.a, b 5.b, c 6.b, d B. Consider the issues. - Asks students to work in pairs and answer the 3 questions given in the text book. 1. According to the article, some experts.....disagree? 2. Considering the wide variety of food ...Why or why not? 3. In lines 94-96,...this problem? - Asks students to answer. - Gathers ideas and suggests the most answers. - Teacher shows her most approbation with Tung. 2. Reading skill. Scaning for specific information A. Scan the text to find specific information. - Asks Sts to scan the text on pages 87-91 to find the specific information. - Teacher asks students whether they finish the reading task or not. - Teacher lets them continue to do the task. - Asks for answers and check in front of the class together. - Teacher writes down correct answers on blackboard. * Answer:1. Debra Lee-Cadwell. 2. > 13 gram 3. Net nutrition 4. 144 carloies 5. Pizza B. Scan the Web to find specific information. - Asks students to scan the web given in the text book to find specific information and fill them in blanks with suitable information. - Teacher asks students whether they finish or not. - Asks for answers and check in front of the class together. - Teacher writes down correct answers on blackboard. * Answer: 1. fruits and vegetables 2. 5 or more serving 3. 2010 4. NIC and Product for Better Health Foundation. - Listen and take notes III. Post - reading - Homework: Teacher asks students to prepare the rest part of the lesson. - Teacher ends up the lesson. - Listen to teacher’s instructions and request, then do the task. - Read questions and think about the answers. - Answering teacher’s questions in individuals. 6 students are pointed to give answers. - Some students calls out their answers. - Giang’s answer: Unhealthy diet.Because they don’t eat on time and not enough nutrition. - Work in pairs and study. - 2 students raise hands to give answers: The article will be about a healthy diet and nutrition. - Five students give out their answers: - Quyen’s answers: + They eat at home or at restaurent + It consists of rice, vegetable, soup, meat, etc + They eat nothing. +They are’t conserned about health and nutrition because they don’t want to know and noone gives them any knowledge about health and nutrition. - Work in individuals to skim the text. - Some asks teacher for help with words and expressions. - Stop reading. - Students think about the answers and make their choices. - With each question, two students stand up, give their choices. - They explain the reason for their choice. - Listen to teacher’s instructions and request, then do the task. - Work in pairs to answer questions. - Give answers. - Listen and take notes. Tung’s answer: 1. They agree because it can make Sts confuse to choose food 2. They don’t have chance to eat well because there are variety of food can make them curious and they will eat alot. 3. Because the avalability of nutritional information does little or nothing influences students’ eating habits. - Scan the text and find the specific information. - Answer, check together and take notes. - Answer teacher’s questions in individuals. - Scan the Web and practise. - Answer teacher’s questions in individuals. - Others check and take notes. - It will help students to activate their mind to the field they are going to study. - The task is rather opne. - Teacher does not ask students work in individuals, pairs or groups. - It is good for students’ later study phase. - Teacher’s comments are not sufficient to the case. - Teacher’s instruction is clear, and students do the task well. - Teacher does not ask students work in individuals, pairs or groups. - Teacher does not complement much. Also, she does not correct errors thoroughly. - Teacher works quite well as a facilitator and an adviser. - It is somehow like teacher-centred teaching. - working in pairs is suitable to this kind of learning activity. - Teacher does not manage the class well in this task. Some students are distracted from the pair discussions. - This is simply a kind of closely- followed course book exercise without any adaptions to make it more communicative and contextualized. - It is little teacher-centred. - Teacher does not make use of post task phase; giving homework only is not sufficient. General Comments: - Instruction type: skill-based - The teaching is more teacher-centred than learner-centred. - Teacher does not pay much attention to the way of interaction between students. - The warm up has no relationship with the content of the reading. - Teacher has no instruction and no summary. - Teacher completely follows reading tasks in the course book. - Teacher mainly pays her focus on students’ reading to have the answers for the designed questions in the book, and pay attention to communication purposes. - She does not make use of good chance to deal with the post task stage, which is good for reinforcements and accuracy. - Teacher gives a little feedback for complements and corrections. - Teacher does not complement much, only say ‘yes’ or ‘OK’ for good answers. - Teacher does not work quite well as a facilitator and an adviser. Appendix D: Samples of teaching plan of university teachers (two samples in seven) TEACHING PLAN Teacher 2: Mit Lesson: judging by appearances I. Objectives II. Exponents III. Methods - Communicative approach IV. Teaching aids - Speaking 3 - Handouts V. Time: 2 periods VI. Procedure 1. Activity 1: Warm up - Show pictures of some people with different styles to the sts. Ask them to give comments on their appearances and any inference about their personalities from those appearances. 2. Activity 2: Shall I bother? - Ask sts to fill in the questionnaire individually, then move around and make an interview with some friends. - Ask some sts to report their interview and give comments on the interview results. - Group work: sts discuss the questions: Do you think it is very important to have a good appearance? When is it important to make a special effort for appearances? 3. Activity 3: All you really need is a big smile - Ask sts to add some more factors which may be important for appearance. Write on board the expressions they add. - Group work: sts discuss and choose the 3 most important factors for these people: a politician, a teacher, a salesperson, an MC, a lawyer. 4. Activity 4: Appearances can be deceptive - Ask sts to pick a number (written on a piece of paper). Each number corresponds to a statement. Sts then decide the statement is generally true or generally false. 5. Activity 5: Changing appearance - Pair work: sts list as much as they can the ways of changing or disguising appearance. (Wearing make-up; straightening the hair, having the hair curled, wearing wig, wearing jewellery, wearing glasses, tattoo (xam), wearing mask, having plastic surgery and liposuction, wearing special clothes…) - Ask sts qs: Have you ever tried to change your appearance? Reasons for the change? Was it a good or a bad change? Pair work: sts talk about their experiences of changing appearance then report the funniest and the most terrible experience. 6. Activity 6: I just can’t stand - Ask sts to add their own comments about the particular appearances they dislike. Then explain why. JAll you really need is a big smile!J 1. Here are some factors which may be important for appearance. In groups, add any others that you think are important. Clean hair Clean clothes Clean shoes New clothes Fashionable clothes Informal clothes Bright jewellery Expensive jewellery One piece jewellery of only A big smile A friendly expression A serious expression A straight back A relaxed attitude Bright eyes White teeth Strong shoulders Long legs Dimple cheek Others:……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………… 2. Choose the 3 most important factors for these people A politician ………………. …………………. ……………….. A teacher ……………… ………………… ……………… A salesperson ……………… …………………. ……………….. A lawyer ………………. ………………… ………………. An MC ………………. ………………… ……………….. TEACHING PLAN Teacher 3: Hong Lesson: Population Teaching aims: Students practice their reading skill to fasten their reading speed Students enrich their vocabulary and knowledge about population and environment Exponents : a reading text taken from internet Teaching methods : the interaction between the teacher and the students Time: 45 x 2= 90 mins. approx. Aids: Textbook, board Procedure Pre- reading (15mins) *Purposes: students get involved into the topic discussed in the reading passages and they know what they are going to read * Activities: Guiding questions — Can you make a sentence to describe the population in the world today? Which countries have the biggest population in the world? China, India, America, etc. — Which parts of the world have the highest birth rate? Are they all over population? Africa, South- East Asia, etc. — What are the disadvantages of over population? Poverty, hunger, low living standard, low education, illness, pollution, social evils, pressure on the government, etc. — How does over population affect the environment? make natural resources exhausted cause environment pollution cut down trees and forests — Do you think the rich countries or the poor ones impact more on our environment? * Introduce the reading passage B. While- reading 1. Read for the main ideas (10 mins) 1.1. Purposes: students practice speed reading and get the main content of the reading passage 1.2. Activities: - Divide students into 3 groups, ask group 1 skim through para.1-3, group 2 do the same with para.4-6 and the last group read quickly para.7-10 with 5 mins. - After skimming, ask each group to talk about the main ideas of the paras. they’ve read, write the students’ answers on the board + Para. 1-3: current population in the world and explains why huge increase in population is taking place + Para. 4-6: we are living on a finite planet but we haven’t saved it at all + Para. 7-10: man’s effects on the balance of nature and advice how to behave to the environment Ask students to combine the individual ideas to find out the general ideas of the whole passage: the relationship between human being and the environment and human is making bad effects on their nature. 2. Read for details (25 mins) 2.1. Purposes: help students understand clearly about the text and have the skill to exploit the reading text 2.2. Activities - Ask students to read para.2 only individually then answer question 1,2 in Comprehension Questions + Question 1: ask students to look at the number and the following sentence to draw the conclusion of the figure (d) + Question 2: ask students to read the whole paragraph, find out the topic sentence and the supporters then answer the question (c) Have students continue to read the para.3 only + Question 3: have students answer the question and explain for the choice (b) + Question 4: ask one student to paraphrase the sentence “eighty or even ninety… normal life span for human” into a simple sentence then answer the question Have students read the para.4 + Ask students to pay attention to the number and answer question 5, explain by doing the count on the board (b) - Ask students to read para.8, find out the main idea, topic sentence and the supporters to understand the author’s purposes, answer question 7 (a) - Let students read para.9 then ask: what’s the function of this paragraph? What’s the reality shown in it? and ask for the answer of question 6 (a) - Have students’ attention on the last para. and ask them what the function of this paragraph is, the main idea then answer the question 8 (c) 3. Read for reference and vocabulary expanding (20 mins.) 3.1. Purposes: students learn the way of using word in a text and enrich their vocabulary 3.2. Activities: - Ask students to work in groups as divided; they can discuss and exchange information with each other to deal with questions 9 to 16. in 10 mins. Teacher goes round the class to see how well each group works and help them with some difficult word or structures. - Ask for the answers and explanations, do the correction - Keys: 9.a, 10.d, 11.d, 12.a, 13.b, 14.c, 15.a,16.a Post- reading (20 mins) Have some students to read out the passage once and ask each group do the summary then present in turn. Homework: “What should we do to reduce pollution?” Write an essay to express your ideas.