Investigating the Feasibility of Adopting Task-based

Investigating the Feasibility of Adopting Task-based Language Teaching in a University Setting in Cambodia

By Meas, Sopheak

Dissertation presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Education

The University of Hong Kong

DECLARATION I hereby declare that this dissertation represents my own work and that it has not been previously submitted to this University or any other institution in application for admission to a degree, diploma, or other qualifications.

Meas, Sopheak August, 2010

|i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my deepest appreciation and heart-felt thanks to my research professor and dissertation supervisor, Dr. Fiona Hyland, for her guidance, instruction, encouragement, patience and care. Dr. Hyland never gave me pressure. Instead, throughout the course of my work, she encouraged me to work on my own and provided me with her constructive feedback afterwards. It was her who enabled me to finish this huge written work and it also was her who truly cared about my studies at the University of Hong Kong, making my learning here a memorable experience. I am deeply indebted to her. I would also like to extend my thanks to the Asia Pacific Scholarship Consortium (APSC) and the Faculty of Education for creating learning opportunities for many students from developing countries like Cambodia from which I come. I am particularly grateful to late Dr. Shirley Grundy for setting up this partnership. She and her work are always remembered. Moreover, I am also indebted to all my lecturers at the Faculty of Education in the University of Hong Kong. I thank them all for their input, support and inspiration throughout the whole course of my MEd study. I also owe my gratitude to the six teachers and one hundred and forty-three thirdyear students at a university in Cambodia where I conducted this research study for their active participation and support. I especially would like to thank the Head of the Department of English of the University for allowing me to carry out the study. Finally, I would like to extend my profound thanks to my dear family and friends for their love, support and encouragement. Thanks for their being around, cheering me up throughout the process of this thesis writing when I was under a hard time.

| ii

ABSTRACT As Carless (2007) and Johnson (2001) have pointed out, task-based language teaching (TBLT) has been a subject of immense interest within contemporary English language teaching. However, little is known about TBLT in the context of English as a foreign language such as Cambodia. Recognizing this gap, this study was initiated in order to investigate the feasibility of adopting TBLT in a university setting in Cambodia. The research method for this study involved semi-structured interviews with six university lecturers and a questionnaire survey with 143 third-year students at that same university. It also analyzed the current textbook and some supplementary teaching materials the six teachers used. The study found that a genuine task-based approach was not viable in this particular context due to several such constraints as students’ demands for direct grammar instruction; teachers’ insufficient knowledge of TBLT; teachers’ overriding use of an analytical P-P-P approach; the nature of the textbook; norm-referenced, knowledgebased examinations; etc. Rather, the findings suggested that task-supported language teaching might be more likely to be feasible in this setting. Based on these findings, pedagogic implications and the future research are discussed in the Cambodian context.

| iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Rationale and Significance of the Study......................................................... 1

1.1.1. The Researcher’s Personal Observations ......................................................... 1 1.1.2. English Language Teaching in the Cambodian Context .................................. 3 1.1.3. Purposes of the Study ....................................................................................... 4 1.1.4. Research Questions .......................................................................................... 4 1.2. Str ucture of the Disser tation ........................................................................... 5 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................... 6 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 6 2.1. Task-based Language Teaching in Language Lear ning ............................... 6 2.1.1. Definition of Task ............................................................................................. 6 2.1.2. Aspects of Task ................................................................................................. 8

2.1.2.1. Task-supported Language Teaching ............................................................. 8 2.1.2.2. Task-based Language Teaching .................................................................. 10 A Framework for Task-based Language Teaching .............................................. 11 A Framework for Task-based Course Design ...................................................... 15 TBLT and Assessment .......................................................................................... 18 2.2. TBLT and Second Language Acquisition Theor y ....................................... 19 2.3. TBLT in Asian Contexts and Issues Relating to Adopting It ..................... 26 2.3.1. Support for LBLT ........................................................................................... 26 2.3.2. Challenges for Adopting TBLT ...................................................................... 27

2.3.2.1. Students’ Avoidance of Using English ........................................................ 28 2.3.2.2. Teachers’ Avoidance of Using English ....................................................... 29 2.3.2.3. Minimal Target Language Production ........................................................ 30 2.3.2.4. Incompatibility with Assessment Demands ................................................. 31 2.3.2.5. Classroom Related Issues............................................................................ 32 2.3.2.6. Teachers’ Insufficient Understandings of TBLT ......................................... 33 2.3.2.7. Cultural Issues............................................................................................. 34 2.4. Research Questions ........................................................................................ 37 2.5. Summar y ......................................................................................................... 37

| iv

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY ................................................................... 38 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 38 3.1. Research Setting ............................................................................................. 38 3.1.1. Overview of the English Department ........................................................... 38 3.1.2. Faculty Members ........................................................................................ 39 3.1.3. Students ...................................................................................................... 39 3.1.4. Facilities and the Nature of Classrooms ...................................................... 40 3.1.5. The Course under Study .............................................................................. 41 3.1.6. The Textbook and Supplementary Materials ................................................ 41 3.1.7. The Course Assessment ............................................................................... 41 3.2. Par ticipants and their Background Information ........................................ 43 3.3. Research Design ............................................................................................. 44 3.4. Methods of Data Collection and Analysis .................................................... 45 3.4.1. Research Ethics........................................................................................... 45 3.4.2. Questionnaire Survey .................................................................................. 46 3.4.3. Semi-structured Interview ........................................................................... 49 3.4.4. Document Analysis...................................................................................... 51 3.4.5. Enhancing Reliability.................................................................................. 51 3.5. Summar y ......................................................................................................... 52 CHAPTER FOUR FINDINGS .................................................................................... 53 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 53 4.1. What Under lies the Cur rent Progr am ......................................................... 54 4.1.1. Students’ Perceptions towar d Language Lear ning and Teaching ........... 54 4.1.1.1. Students’ Perceptions of Effective Language Learning ............................. 54 4.1.1.2. Students’ Preferences Regarding Teacher’s Teaching .............................. 55 4.1.1.3. Students’ Preferences for Grammar Teaching and Language Tasks ......... 56 4.1.1.4. Students’ Perceptions of their Own Roles and their Teacher’s Roles ........ 58 4.1.2. Teacher s’ Perceptions towar d Language Lear ning and Teaching ........... 59 4.1.2.1. Teachers’ Perceptions of Effective Language Learning and Teaching ...... 59 4.1.2.2. Teachers’ Self-report on their Roles and Students’ Roles ......................... 60 4.1.2.3. Teachers’ Actual Approaches to Teaching ............................................... 61 4.1.3. Mater ials Cur rently Used by the Teacher s............................................... 64 4.1.3.1. An Evaluation of a Sample Unit in the Course Book................................. 64 4.1.3.2. An Evaluation of Teachers’ Extra Teaching Materials ............................. 66 4.1.3.3. Students’ and Teachers’ Evaluation of the Course Book........................... 67 |v

4.2. Perceptions of Students and Teacher s towar d the Cur rent Univer sity’s English Language Progr am (Core English)........................................................ 68 4.2.1. Students’ Perceptions ................................................................................ 68 4.2.1.1. Students’ Perceptions about Teaching and Learning in the Program........ 68 4.2.1.2. Students’ Evaluation of the Course Assessment ........................................ 70 4.2.1.3. Students’ Overall Evaluation of the Program (Core English) ................... 70 4.2.2. Teacher s’ Perceptions ................................................................................ 71 4.2.2.1. Teachers’ Self-report on the Course Assessment ...................................... 71 4.2.2.2. Teachers’ Self-report on the Course Effectiveness .................................... 73 4.3. Suggestions from Students and Teacher s for Improving the Progr am ..... 74 4.3.1. Students’ Suggestions ................................................................................ 74 4.3.2. Teacher s’ Suggestions................................................................................ 75 4.3.2.1. Curriculum and Classroom Factors ......................................................... 76 4.3.2.2. Assessment Factors .................................................................................. 77 4.3.2.3. Teachers’ Needs for Training and Support ............................................... 77 4.3.2.4. Resources and Others .............................................................................. 78 4.4. Feasibility of TBLT in the Univer sity under Investigation ........................ 79 4.4.1. Students’ Readiness for TBLT .................................................................. 79 4.4.1.1. Students’ Perceived Needs in Terms of Accuracy and Fluency ................. 79 4.4.1.2. Students’ Feelings about Speaking in English .......................................... 80 4.4.1.3. Students’ Communicative English Use Reported by the Teachers ............. 81 4.4.2. Teacher s’ Readiness for TBLT .................................................................. 82 4.4.2.1. Teachers’ Confidence in Using Communicative English........................... 82 4.4.2.2. Teachers’ Understanding and Awareness of TBLT ................................... 82 4.4.2.3. Teachers’ Self-report on Using TBLT....................................................... 83

4.4.2.4. Teachers’ Perceptions about the Suitability of TBLT in the University under Study .................................................................................................................... 85 4.5. Summar y ......................................................................................................... 87 CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS ........................................................ 88 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 88 5.1. How the Progr am was Perceived in Pr inciple and Actual Pr actice .......... 88 5.1.1.The Embedded Pr inciples....................................................................... 88 5.1.1.1. Learning by Doing and Communicative Language Learning .................... 88 5.1.1.2. Autonomous or Independent Learning...................................................... 89 5.1.1.3. Students as Active Participants and Teachers as Facilitators ................... 90 | vi

5.1.2. The Actual Pr actices ............................................................................... 91 5.1.2.1. Direct Grammar Instruction versus Interactive Learning ......................... 91 5.2. The Issues of the Cour se Assessment ............................................................ 93 5.3. The Suitability of Task-based Approaches for the Univer sity Setting under Study ....................................................................................................................... 94 5.3.1. Suppor ting Factor s.................................................................................. 95

5.3.1.1. Students’ Using Communicative English .................................................... 95 5.3.1.2. Teachers’ Confidence in Using Communicative English ............................ 96 5.3.1.3. A New Culture of Teaching and Learning .................................................. 97 5.3.2. Constr aints for TBLT ............................................................................. 98 5.3.2.1. Teachers’ Lack of Awareness of TBLT ....................................................... 98 5.3.2.2. Demands for Direct Grammar Instruction.................................................. 99 5.3.2.3. Washback Effect of Examinations ............................................................... 99 5.3.3. An Alter native Approach t o TBLT ...................................................... 100 CHAPTER SIX IMPLICATIONS & CONCLUSION ............................................ 102 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 102 6.1. Pedagogical Implications ............................................................................. 102

6.1.1. Assessment Reform ....................................................................................... 103 6.1.2. Changing or Adapting the Textbook to TBLT ............................................... 104 6.1.3. Focusing on both Forms and Form.............................................................. 105 6.1.4. Building Teachers’ Knowledge of TBLT ....................................................... 107 6.2. Limitations of the Study .............................................................................. 109 6.3. Research Implications.................................................................................. 110 6.4. Conclusion .....................................................................................................111 R EFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 112 L IST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................................... 126 Appendix 1: Final Examination ........................................................................... 127 Appendix 2: Informed Consent............................................................................ 145 Appendix 3: Questionnaire Survey (Original, unfilled format) ........................... 147 Appendix 4: A Sample of Students’ Completed Questionnaire ........................... 151 Appendix 5: Interview Protocol ........................................................................... 155 Appendix 6: A Sample of Teachers’ Interview Script .......................................... 157 Appendix 7: A Sample of Unit in the Course Book ............................................. 178 | vii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Overview of the TBL framework ........................................................... 12 Figure 2 Designing a task-based Course............................................................... 16

LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1 Students’ beliefs about the most effective way to learn English ........... 54 Table 4.2 Students’ preferences regarding teacher’s teaching............................... 55 Table 4.3 Students’ preferences for grammar teaching and language tasks .......... 57 Table 4.4 Students’ perceptions of their own roles and their teacher’s roles ........ 58 Table 4.5 Students’ evaluation of the course book ................................................ 67 Table 4.6 Students’ perceptions about teaching and learning in the current course.69 Table 4.7 Students’ evaluation of the course assessment ...................................... 70 Table 4.8 Students’ overall evaluation of the course effectiveness ....................... 71 Table 4.9 Students’ recommendations ................................................................... 74 Table 4.10 Students’ Perceived needs in terms of accuracy and fluency .............. 79 Table 4.11 Students’ feelings about speaking in English....................................... 80

| viii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CE

Core English

CLT

Communicative Language Teaching

EFL

English as a Foreign Language

ELT

English Language Teaching

ESL

English as a Second Language

FL

Foreign Language

GS

Global Studies

IELTS

International English Language Testing System

L1

First Language (native language/mother tongue)

L2

Second Language

LS

Literature Studies

MoEYS

Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport

PPP

Presentation, Practice and Production

SLA

Second Language Acquisition

SPSS

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

TBL

Task-based Learning

TBLA

Task-based Language Assessment

TBLT

Task-based Language Teaching

TOEFL

Test of English as a Foreign Language

WS

Writing Skills

| ix

CHAPTER ONE I NT R O DUC T I O N

Intr oduction This research employed an investigative, case study in order to find out how to adopt a task-based approach in an English language program in a university setting in Cambodia. First, this introductory chapter discusses the rationale behind and significance of this study. Then it presents the research questions and the last section of this chapter will set out the overall organization of this study.

1.1. Rationale and Significance of the Study 1.1.1. The Researcher’s Personal Observations I remember my first formal English learning began when I was in grade 10th of my high school studies in 1999 (it took three years to finish high school) although actually I had some English lessons before. During these years of my high school, I noticed that most of the English lessons seemed to center exclusively around grammar translation and drilling. Each lesson would start with the teacher reading an English text, followed by students repeating it out loud after him/her and later translating the text in the mother tongue (Khmer). After that the teacher would correct things that were previously mistranslated and explain about grammar, new words, etc. Then the class ended. In this case, it appeared that there was no opportunity for me to practice using English for communication, especially through speaking and writing. After three years, I |1

often found myself get lost in communicating with others, having a hard time in expressing myself. My level of English proficiency, I think, was barely pre-intermediate or less so. However, later I had an opportunity to study for my bachelor’s degree in English in an English-medium university in Cambodia. It took me four years to finish this degree, during which I found that the learning in this new place was almost totally different from that in high school. I had plenty of opportunities to learn meaningful English, especially through group work, pair work, role play and presentation. I noticed that, learning under these operating conditions, I could develop my English skills far better than I previously could. I also found that I liked to learn grammar through clear and detailed rules explanation, which was just the way many of my teachers taught us as well, because I considered grammar knowledge as an important aspect in my English proficiency. However, it happened that this kind of intensive grammar learning did not help me as much as that of learning through using English to communicate directly, for I could not apply the rule of that grammar point correctly immediately after the explanation. Now that I have taught English for about two years, moreover, I have discovered virtually the same things I myself felt and experienced about English learning. I have noticed that most of my university students (both intermediate and advanced levels) seemed to like studying English both in an interactive way and in an intensive mode. Yet, I found that it was learning by using language to communicate with their peers through pair/group work helped them learn more effectively. Perhaps it was because they could not make the best use of the grammar rule they learnt in their speaking and writing, and it was not until they had other opportunities to use the language could they master the

|2

language. Furthermore, I noticed that when I used an inductive way to teach them, they seemed to learn better. They appeared to have a lot of fun communicating with others while at the same time learning many things from each other.

1.1.2. English Language Teaching in the Cambodian Context Probably, my observations could be explained in the way how English has actually been taught and learnt throughout the history of English language teaching (ELT) in Cambodia. Pit and Roth (2004) and Moore and Bounchan (2010) have indicated that the teaching of English in Cambodia was considered illegal until 1988. Further, since its conception, the grammar-translation method and the presentation, practice, and production model that employ the long-standing teacher-centered approach have been of paramount dominance (Neau, 2003; Suon, 1990). Most teachers, especially those teaching low level in state schools, have been using these approaches to teach students. However, it appears that these methods of teaching do not help much to build students’ ability to use English communicatively satisfactorily enough. Instead, those having been taught through these approaches are seen as more accurate language users than fluent language communicators. That is why from 1989 the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (MoEYS) has introduced a number of alternative approaches to teaching English, among which communicative language teaching has been strongly recommended (Neau, 2003). Worse still, this new approach does not work with most state schools and only a certain number of higher educational institutions have been using it. Apart from that, although another new teaching method such task-based language teaching (TBLT) is perceived as a more suitable approach to helping students gain more

|3

language competence, particularly in communicative competence, there has been little research on how this approach could be adopted or adapted in the contemporary context of Cambodia. If the English language programs in this country are to prepare their students to become more effective and proficient users and communicators of English in the real world, a need to adapt or adopt TBLT should be given attention to.

1.1.3. Purposes of the Study In recognizing the need to help develop the ELT in Cambodia to become more effective, as well as to fill the gap of the lack of research into TBLT in the Cambodian context, I initiated this research study. In other words, this present study aims mainly at investigating principles and practices underlying the current English language program in a university setting in Cambodia and gauging the feasibility of adopting a task-based approach in the context. From this study, it is anticipated the findings will be used as a reference for the target university on how its current English language program can be enhanced, whether task-based learning can be adopted in this program, and how this adoption could be done appropriately. It is also hoped the findings may provide useful information for other universities in Cambodia that wish to integrate task-based learning to their English language curricula.

1.1.4. Research Questions In order to investigate principles and practices of the target university’s English language program and to consider how best to integrate task-based approaches to the program, the following research questions are asked:

|4

1. What principles and practices underlie the current university’s English language program? 2. What are the teachers’ perceptions of the current university’s English language program, and what do they think could be done to improve it? 3. How do the students feel about the approach already being adopted in the current university’s English language program, and what do they think could be done to improve it? 4. How can task-based approaches be most appropriately integrated into the current university’s English language program?

1.2. Str uctur e of the Disser tation The whole dissertation is divided into five chapters. Chapter One, this chapter, has introduced the rationale and significance of the study, followed by the presentation of the research questions. Chapter Two reviews the literature of past study regarding TBLT in language learning in general and in SLA theory. It also draws on the specific discussion of TBLT in Asian contexts, including its rationale for adoption and challenges that TBLT presents. Chapter Three delineates the research design, with detailed descriptions on its setting, participants and methods of data collection and analysis, in which the research ethics are also discussed. Chapter Four presents the findings of this study based on the four proposed research questions. Chapter Five discusses the findings presented in Chapter Four, with reference to some of the literature review. This dissertation ends in Chapter Six, which includes pedagogic implications, the limitations of this study, and the research implications for future study.

|5

CHAPTER TWO L I T E R AT UR E R E VI E W

Intr oduction The study’s aim is to investigate the principles and practices underlying the current English language program in a university setting in Cambodia, and to gauge the feasibility of adopting a task-based approach in the context. The literature review in this chapter, thus, focuses on three important aspects of TBLT and it also presents the research questions in the very last section of the chapter. Firstly, it looks at task-based language teaching and learning in general, including definitions and aspects of task. Secondly, it discusses the relationships between TBLT and SLA theory. Finally, it draws on the specific discussion of TBLT in Asian contexts including the rationale for its adoption and the challenges that the adoption of TBLT presents.

2.1. Task-based Language Teaching in Language Lear ning 2.1.1. Definition of Task Because the study explores the feasibility of adopting task-based language teaching in a university context in Cambodia, it is essential at this outset that the term ‘task’ be discussed prior to moving forward to other sections. The concept of ‘task’ is not actually a new phenomenon; there have already been several definitions and classifications of task from different perspectives across the world (e.g., Breen, 1987; Candlin, 1987; R. Ellis, 2003; Krahnke, 1987; J. F. Lee, 2000; Nunan, 2004; Prabhu, |6

1987; Samuda & Bygate, 2008; Skehan, 1998; Van den Branden, 2006b; J. Willis, 1996). According to Mishan (2005, p. 67), task came into view around the mid 1980s as the model for ‘full-blown methodologies’ as described in Prabhu (1987), Nunan (1989) and later in J. Willis (1996). Task, for R. Ellis (2003), is a predesigned plan that requires learners to use language practically, by utilizing their available linguistic resources and by giving a strong focus on meaning but without ignoring forms, to produce an observable outcome. It is also supposed to involve learners in any of the four macro-skills as well as in various cognitive processes. Similarly, Nunan (2004) maintains that a task can be formulated in terms of specific goals it is expected to serve, of the input data forming as the departure point, and of related procedures that learners use to complete the task. To Samuda and Bygate (2008, p. 69) a task is “a holistic activity which engages language use in order to achieve some non-linguistic outcome while meeting a linguistic challenge, with the overall aim of promoting language learning, through process or product or both”. Skehan (1998) describes a task using four main criteria: Meaning is primary; it is goal-directed; the activity is evaluated through outcome; and there is a real world relationship. Willis’s (1996) definition of tasks is that “tasks are always activities where the target language is used by the learner for a communicative purpose (goal) in order to achieve an outcome” (p. 23). As can be seen, the most common features of these definitions are that a task centers mainly around meaning-focused language use, without neglecting forms, in which language learners are required to use any of the four macro skills to complete the task, so that they can develop their communicative language ability more effectively. In other words, tasks refer to activities that require learners to use language with more emphasis

|7

on meaning, which is normally found outside of the classroom, in order to attain a task goal or objective. This kind of task is called ‘real-world or target tasks’, as opposed to ‘pedagogical tasks’ which exist in the classroom (Nunan, 2004)

2.1.2. Aspects of Task

As mentioned earlier, one of the central aims of the study is to investigate the possibility of adopting a task-based approach in a university setting in Cambodia where English is used as a foreign language, as opposed to a second language. Therefore, it is important that a discussion of different versions or aspects of task-based teaching and learning be given. This being so because oftentimes when task-based language teaching is carried out in different contexts (EFL and ESL), it can result in different forms as well. An understanding of these differences is therefore crucial to this study because it provides insight into what has happened around the above-mentioned university context.

2.1.2.1. Task-supported Language Teaching Task-supported language teaching is an approach that uses tasks to facilitate communicative language practice and that at the same time follows the form-based language teaching. It is based on linguistic content or, in White’s (1998) term, a Type A syllabus, an approach that is interventionist and analytic, but it also employs tasks as a means of providing communicative practices for that linguistic content or item. This approach has obviously used a more such traditional way of teaching as the presentation, practice and production model (P-P-P) (R. Ellis, 2003). In this manner, a linguistic item or a language point is first presented to the learners through examples, with or without

|8

explanation. However, oftentimes explanation is perceived as needed by both the teacher and learners. The language point is then practiced in a controlled way where students use pre-designed forms to carry out activities. After the first two Ps have finished, students are led to the last P, production stage, where tasks are employed to create an opportunity for them to use language in a so-called freer and more flexible manner, especially in hope that this will consolidate what is being learnt (Skehan, 1996b). To put it in another way, it is in this last stage that the learners have a freer opportunity, with less interference from the teacher, to use language communicatively meaningfully. However, J. Willis (1996) observes that the production stage is often left unfinished, mainly because the class runs out of time, and that this stage cannot be regarded free because students are required to produce pre-specified forms. In addition, R. Ellis (2003) warns that it would be wrong to describe tasksupported language teaching exclusively in terms of P-P-P since it can take other forms. According to Brumfit (1979, as cited in R. Ellis, 2003), it is possible to change the sequence of stages in P-P-P, in order that the task comes first and therefore serves as a diagnostic purpose. Brumfit (ibid.) suggests that the final P or the production stage be the leading and that the remaining two Ps, presentation and practice stages, be used only if the students are unable to use the targeted language point during the production stage. Yet, R. Ellis (2003) cautions of the possible remaining problem that “presenting and practicing features learners have failed to use correctly in production may not result in their acquisition if the learners are not developmentally ready to acquire them” (p. 30). Thus, it implies that selection of language point needs to be carefully made in order to suit the level of the learners, and that presenting and practicing anything that the students

|9

are not developmentally ready to learn may be a waste of time and afford. In short, task-supported language teaching regards tasks as a means of providing meaningful opportunities for practicing language items that have previously been introduced through the traditional P-P-P model.

2.1.2.2. Task-based Language Teaching As its name suggests, task-based language teaching (TBLT) is an approach that uses tasks as a way of providing the basis for the whole language curriculum where language is learnt apparently mainly through communication. As R. Ellis (2003) mentions “tasks can function as a useful device for planning a communicative curriculum, particularly in contexts where there are few opportunities for more authentic communicative experiences, for example, many FL situations” (p. 30). TBLT can then be said to be based on a Type B syllabus, an approach that is noninterventionist and holistic (White, 1998). In this manner, tasks are used as a departure point or a vehicle to create an opportunity for learners to acquire a language by experiencing how that language is actually used in real communication. As Feez (1998, p. 17) puts it: “learners learn language by interacting communicatively and purposefully while engaged in meaningful activities and tasks” in TBLT. Moreover, there is no restriction to learners in the use of language forms in completing the tasks. J. Willis (1996) maintains in this regard that “learners are free to choose whatever language forms they wish to convey what they mean, in order to fulfill, as well as they can, the task goals” (p. 24). Learners will just find other way round of getting words or forms that they do not yet know or cannot remember when the need to communicate arrives.

| 10

Learning is in itself experiment and errors should be regarded in a positive way as a normal part of the learning process. As such, teachers are advised to be the monitors or facilitators and should encourage every effort to communicate in the target language point (Prabhu, 1987; J. Willis, 1996). In summary, TBLT views tasks as the goal-driven “basic units for the organization of educational activities in intact language classrooms” (Van den Branden, 2006a, p. 1) and it places a strong emphasis on communication of meaning rather than on study of language features as the departure point for language learning activities.

2.1.2.2.1. A F ramework for Task-based Language Teaching So far as a distinctive feature of a task-based lesson concerned, designing such a kind of lesson involves a number of things such as stages or components of the lesson. Accordingly, a number of designs have been proposed (e.g., R. Ellis, 2003; J. F. Lee, 2000; Prabhu, 1987; J. Willis, 1996). However, common to them all is a threedimensional structure comprising 3 stages: Pre-task, during task and post task. For the purpose of this study, the design proposed by J. Willis (1996) was used as a framework to investigate principles and practices underlying the current program at the university under study, because this model offers very detailed and arguably exhaustive descriptions of task-based learning (Klapper, 2003). J. Willis (1996) names each stage of the model as Pre-task, Task Cycle, and Language Focus (F igure 1). She highlights that “most of the emphasis is on learners doing things, often in pairs or groups, using language to achieve the task outcomes and guided by teacher” who generally acts as a facilitator and language guide (ibid., p. 40-

| 11

41). However, even though learners work on tasks at their own rights, the teacher still has overall control and the power to stop everything if necessary.

Figure 1

Overview of the TBL framework, adapted from Willis (1996, p. 155)

| 12

As can be seen in Figure 1, in the Pre-task stage the teacher introduces and defines the topic area to the class in order to help students recall and activate topic-related words and phrases that will be useful both during the task and outside the classroom. The teacher is also to make certain that learners understand the task instructions. J. Willis (ibid.) warns that the focal point here in this stage is neither to introduce large amounts of new language, nor to teach a specific grammatical structure, yet rather to stimulate the students’ confidence in exercising the task and to provide them with something helpful on which they can depend at a later stage where needed. As for students, they are to jot down useful words and phrases from these pre-task activities or the recording of others performing the same or similar tasks. Finally, they must spend a few minutes preparing themselves ‘individually’ for the tasks. Here they will be able to cope with the taskproblem, thinking of what to say and how to say it prior to proceeding to the next stage. The Task Cycle consists of three other stages: the Task, Planning and Report stage. Students in the Task stage have a nurturing opportunity to use whatever language forms they can in order to do the task that may be based on a reading or listening text, simultaneously in pairs or small groups, to achieve the task-goal. The teacher’s main role here is to act as a monitor, observing from a slight distance and encouraging everyone to take part in the task assignment. Because this task component stage focuses on helping students build their fluency and strategies for communication, J. Willis (ibid.) suggests that it be ideal for the teacher to give a few positive comments only on the way students have done the task, not on correcting their grammatical errors. Later in the Planning stage, which assists students to plan their report effectively and maximizes their learning opportunity, the teacher needs to ensure that students are

| 13

clear with the purpose of the report. The teacher’s important role is also to act as a language adviser. He or she will help students to form their meanings and express their messages more clearly while students are preparing their report to present to the class, either orally or in a written form, for instance, how they did the task, what they decided or discovered, or how they managed to solve the problem, etc. The Report stage allows students to present their spoken reports to or display their written works in the class. The teacher acts as a chairperson, introducing the presentations as well as encouraging full participation from students. It is of vital importance that the teacher gives constructive comments to help improve the students’ work and build up their motivation and self-esteem, but avoid devaluating their achievements. The need for grammatical teaching and comments should therefore be delayed until the very last stage (of the framework). The last phase of the TBL framework is Language Focus that is divided into two stages and that supplements a chance for explicit language instruction. First is the analysis stage where students work on language analysis activities, also known as “consciousness-raising activities, language awareness activities or even metacommunicative tasks, i.e. tasks that focus explicitly on language form and use” (ibid., p. 102). These language-focused activities, which are based on the texts students have read or on transcripts of what they have heard, offer learners opportunities to organize and further construct the grammatical knowledge they already possess, to make and test hypotheses about that grammar, and to advance their ability to use lexical items. Learners may ask the teacher about the other features they have noticed during the task cycle stage, and the teacher’s key role is to lead them to get on with learning and making meaningful

| 14

discoveries by themselves, without interference. Finally in the Language Practice stage, the teacher may introduce the class to a few more language practice activities so as to increase the students’ confidence and a sense of security, in addition to partly shaping their understanding of the meaning and use of grammatical patterns. Students may work individually, in pairs or groups, as teamcompetition or teacher-led sessions on words, phrases and patterns from the analysis stage, or other language features occurring in the task or report stage. What is imperative here is that the teacher may introduce a wide range of items as needed while aiming at small improvement in each, bearing in mind that learning is an organic process. The difference between task-supported language teaching and TBLT, as R. Ellis (2003), Skehan (1996a) and others observe, is very similar to the distinction between a weak and a strong version of CLT (Communicative Language Practice). This is simply because TBLT emerges under the same continuum of CLT (Littlewood, 2004) and can be viewed as an offshoot from it (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). In the weak version, tasks are seen as a way of offering communicative practice for language features that have been previously presented to students using a traditional approach such as P-P-P. Tasks in this version are important but rather insufficient for a language curriculum. However, they are both necessary and sufficient in the strong version (R. Ellis, 2003; Littlewood, 2004; Nunan, 2004), which sees tasks as a vehicle of providing learners an opportunity to learn a language in a context where it is actually used for communication.

2.1.2.2.2. A F ramework for Task-based Course Design Like the framework for TBLT, a framework for task-based course design is another important element in this study, serving to understand principles and practices | 15

happening around the Cambodian university context, particularly illustrating how a taskbased syllabus and task-supported syllabus are designed. This study adopted the framework proposed by R. Ellis (2003) (F igure 2), mainly for its highly developed and teacher-friendly model, and will provide a very brief discussion of this.

Tasks

Language

1 Task types

1 Forms

2 Themes/topics

2 Functions

3 Sequencing criteria

Task-based syllabus Unfocused tasks

Focused tasks

Teaching materials – task workplans

Figure 2

Designing a task-based course, adapted from R. Ellis (2003, p. 206)

According to this figure, the design of a task-based curriculum requires a classification of tasks to be included in the syllabus. This specification consists of task types, thematic content of tasks and the sequencing of these tasks. Tasks can be classified into four types. First is a pedagogical classification, which consists of listing, ordering and sorting, comparing, problem-solving, sharing personal experience, and creative tasks that can be found in J. Willis’s (1996) work on types of tasks. Second is a rhetorical classification that follows a linguistic syllabus, using tasks to provide opportunities for the free production of language previously introduced and practiced. Third is a cognitive classification. This specification is formed on the ground | 16

of cognitive operations of different tasks involved, such as information gap, reasoninggap and opinion-gap activities. This classification also lies on the belief that by using language for reasoning, acquisition is fostered. Fourth comes a psycholinguistic classification. This is informed by the Interaction Hypothesis and is based on “interactional categories that have been shown to affect the opportunities learners have to comprehend input, [to] obtain feedback, and to modify their own output” (R. Ellis, 2003, p. 215). Interactant relationship, interaction requirement, goal orientation and outcome options all fall into these categories. The thematic content of tasks is topics that students are asked to communicate and will be made based on the pedagogical purpose of the course whether it is for general proficiency or specific use of L2. If for general proficiency use of L2, topics are things intrinsically interesting to, familiar with and relevant to students and their situations. Examples R. Ellis (ibid.) gives for these topics include birthdays, eating habits and how the body works. If for specific use of L2, topic selection may be an analysis of the target tasks or real-world activities. Finally, tasks must be sequenced so as to determine the degree of complexity of individual tasks and to meet learners’ level of development. This includes input, task conditions and task outcomes. R. Ellis (ibid.) comments that this kind of classification will result in a task-based syllabus consisting exclusively of linguistically unfocused tasks, tasks which “may predispose learners to choose from a range of forms but they are not designed with the use of a specific form in mind” (ibid., p. 16). In other words, such a syllabus is truly a task-based curriculum. However, if the language features such as forms and functions of

| 17

language are classified to be integrated into the syllabus, then the result will be a curriculum consisting solely of linguistically focused tasks or possibly a mixture of both focused and unfocused tasks. In this case, the curriculum will be a task-supported language one that treats both communicative tasks and language features. To this end, the framework indicates that from the syllabus teaching materials are developed in terms of task workplans in accordance with the nature of task focus.

2.1.2.2.3. TBLT and Assessment In a task-based language course, it is commonly found that assessment usually employs a task and a performance measure (R. Ellis, 2003) as its components to assess learners’ communicative ability in a second or foreign language. To put it in another way, it is task-based language assessment (TBLA) that is used in a task-based language course. Brindley (1994) defines TBLA as “the process of evaluating, in relation to a set of explicitly stated criteria, the quality of the communicative performances elicited from learners as part of goal-directed, meaning-focused language use requiring the integration of skills and knowledge” (p. 74). This kind of assessment is generally understood as, according to R. Ellis (2003), “a way of achieving a close correlation between the test performance, i.e. what the testee does during the test, and the criterion performance, i.e. what the testee has to do in the real world, and thus of ensuring the validity of the assessment” (p. 279). In this manner, the testing format will be ‘performance-referenced testing’ (D. Baker, 1989). However, in order to ensure face validity of the examination – the exam that tests what it is supposed to test (Passo de Oliveira, 2004) – and effective task-based assessment of L2 ability and performance, performance-referenced testing

| 18

alone may not be enough. Robinson (1996) and R. Ellis (2003) suggest that both systemreferenced testing – a kind of test that assesses knowledge as a system without reference to any particular use of language (D. Baker, 1989) – and performance-referenced testing should be included in the design of TBLA. Robinson argues that this integrative approach to task-based assessment could reconcile different decision-making requirements and needs, particularly in a way that the testing incorporates the generalizability and pedagogic relevance from system-referenced testing and the face validity and directness from performance-referenced testing.

2.2. TBLT and Second Language Acquisition Theory Traditionally, conventional second language curricula have regarded language acquisition as a series of steps of mastery learning, with lexical items, grammatical features, etc. being learnt one after another. The long-standing P-P-P model is commonly found in this Type A syllabus (White, 1998) or synthetic syllabus (Wilkins, 1976). Teachers typically start their lesson by presenting the target language, beginning with the easy part then with the harder one, in a context followed by some controlled practices. Students’ job is to learn each part of the language feature and incorporate it with what they already know. In this regard, P-P-P is said to offer the teacher the control over language content and pace of lesson (Lewis, 1996; Thornbury, 1999) and it defines a clear role for the teacher in relation to his or her authority in the classroom, thereby making it comfortable for him or her (Broady, 2002; Skehan, 1996b, 2003). More importantly, this approach is based on the belief that language is best introduced to learners as syllabus of structures, that repetition helps to automate response, and that | 19

practice leads learners to mastery of L2 automatically (Foster, 1999; Klapper, 2003; Lightbown & Spada, 2006; J. Willis, 1996). Nevertheless, research in second language acquisition (SLA) has indicated that learners do not actually learn what is taught in the same order as it is presented to them, regardless of how carefully the teacher and/or the course books organize it (R. Ellis, 1994; Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991; Skehan, 1996b; D. Willis & Willis, 2007). Furthermore, there is no proof that such acquisition happens, and therefore only most highly motivated and gifted students would be able to gain a usable level of fluency and accuracy after years of instructions (Shehadeh, 2005; Skehan, 1996a; D. Willis & Willis, 2007). Rather, language acquisition is a developmental, natural process that follows its own internal route, and learners themselves tend to use strategies and cognitive processes that are basically self-regulating of the way they are taught (R. Ellis, 2003; Foster, 1999; Shehadeh, 2005). In this respect, learners build on a series of system commonly referred to as interlanguages which, as learners incorporate new targeted language features with their existing knowledge, are grammaticized and reorganized progressively. As a result, the ground that language is a system of wordings governed by lexical and grammatical features and that the teaching of a specific grammar item leads to automatic learning has now largely been discredited (Skehan, 1996b, 1998). Skehan (1996b, p. 18) among others, for example, points out that:

The belief that a precise focus on a particular form leads to learning and automatization (that learners will learn what is taught in the order in which it is taught) no longer carries much creditability in linguistics or psychology. […]

| 20

Instead, the contemporary view of language development is that learning is constrained by internal processes. Learners do not simply acquire language to which they are exposed, however carefully that exposure may be orchestrated by the teacher.

An implication drawn from this perspective is that for language learning to be successful, the learners’ acquisition processes must be stimulated through a context that is supportive to this acquisition. Given this view, a great deal of research into task-based approaches have been developed to support it. Among them is the research about taskbased language teaching approach that is widely said to provide a rich environment best promoting the natural language learning processes in L2 acquisition. TBLT views tasks as the heart of language classroom constituent where students are engaged in such meaningful activities as problem-solving, debate and role-plays – tasks that allow students to discover language features by themselves (J. Willis, 1996). This being so because the main rationale of TBLT is built on the theory of language learning rather than on that of language structure (Shehadeh, 2005; Skehan, 1996b). Arguing in support of this claim Richards and Rogers (2001) maintain that “tasks are believed to foster processes of negotiation, modification, rephrasing, and experimentation that are at the heart of second language learning” or as many call ‘negotiation of meaning’ (e.g., Plough & Gass, 1993). Richards and Rogers continue to say that because tasks involve learners’ physical activity as well as partnership and group work, tasks are understood to increase motivation in learners, which in turn promote learning. Nunan (2004) also reasons in a similar way that intellectual growth occurs when

| 21

learners are engaged in and reflect on sequences of tasks. In other words, learners learn best when they are exposed to real time communication and interaction with their peers in the process of learning employing communicative tasks (R. Ellis, 2003; Yim, 2006). This is also reflected in D. Willis and Willis’s (2007) argument. They indicate that opportunities for communication and noticing form/meaning/function relationships provide the conditions under which communicative competence in SLA can most effectively be advanced. Moreover, a further relevant SLA area to TBLT has been work on the ‘negotiation for meaning’ hypothesis. Built on the Interaction Hypothesis, Long (1996) developed the negotiation for meaning hypothesis which places more emphasis on the importance of ‘corrective feedback’ during communication and interaction. This hypothesis argues that learners engaged in interaction must seek for negotiation for meaning when the communication is perceived difficult. As learners seek for conversational modifications, such as comprehensible checks, clarification requests or paraphrasing, when they encounter difficulty in communication it helps advance their language comprehension and acquisition. This is where an opportunity for meaningful communication and language development occurs, which tasks in TBLT are capable of providing, particularly when students work in pairs or groups to carry out tasks. Another work of Long (1991) on the ‘focus on form’ in language instruction is also of a relevant SLA area to TBLT. It rests on the belief that what learners need first and foremost are exposure to language and opportunities to use language interactively meaningfully before any attention is paid to specific linguistic forms. This is because as learners are exposed to real-time communication, they will develop a language system

| 22

that works although they will display deficiencies at every stage of development (Lightbown & Spada, 2006). Moreover, such an exposure will earn them self-confidence and motivation to make the most of their language (J. Willis, 1996), and once they can use language outside of the classroom communicatively comparatively well they will go on learning. D. Willis and Wills (2007, p. 33) point out in this regard that the best way to achieve this is to provide learners with “plenty of opportunities to use their language in the classroom in an atmosphere which rewards successful use and does not penalize inevitable failings in accuracy”. Obviously, TBLT accords closely with this view, for it rests on the ground that form is best acquired when the focus is on meaning (Prabhu, 1987). Other people like Schmidt (1990) also argues that with a primary focus on communication and meaning, it helps attract the learners’ attention to a formal aspect of language and therefore formulates ‘noticing’. Thus, when learners can ‘notice the gap’ (Swain, 1995) between the target language features and their current interlanguage system, as the linguistic features are salient, their language acquisition is encouraged to develop. Noticing of linguistic features then, as Klapper (2003) observes, happens incidentally or out of primarily meaning-based instruction, rather than being the heart of classroom activity. With TBLT, therefore, noticing such the gap is possible. This is because tasks are able to provide rich and plentiful opportunities to language learners to expose themselves to L2 and language use in a continual long process, so that they will be able to acquire those elements of language for which they are developmentally ready. However, TBLT is not without any criticisms. There have already been a number of articles critiquing this approach over the past decades. For one thing, TBLT has been

| 23

blamed for initially placing too much emphasis on fluency in communication at the expense of other language features such as accuracy and complexity (Shehadeh, 2005). It is concerned that as students are encouraged to give too strong an emphasis on meaning over forms, it could lead them to produce language this is fluent yet inaccurate. This is the case because, as Foster (1999) points out, in order for language to be meaningful it does not necessarily need to be well-structured. Therefore, students may be able to carry out a task successfully just using ill-formed or unchallenging language along with their gesture, rather than trying their best to utilize their available interlanguage. This concern is similar to that of Bruton (2002b), regarding in particular to the type of negotiated oral interaction around which TBLT is built. Bruton argues that this kind of negotiation could place students in a position where they will be exposed to masses of non-native language input that will barely offer to confirm their current interlanguage representations. As a result, this peer interaction would direct students to develop a language ability that is less desirable and accurate. A critic like Klapper (2003) is also worried that the raw data from meaning-driven tasks and their listening and reading related materials may be insufficient and limited, either structurally or lexically. In this case, without the treatment of a linguistic syllabus, the language structures would certainly be lacking. Consequently, a similar result will come into stage: the development of fluency over accuracy. However, Foster (1996), Foster and Skehan (1996), and Skehan and Foster (1997) have assured that by giving learners sufficient time to plan before they undertake a task, the fluency, accuracy and complexity of the language they use increases considerably. What is more is that TBLT has further been criticized for its unsuitability for

| 24

lower ability learners. Bruton (2002a, 2002b), for instance, points out that communicative tasks in TBLT that are used with monolingual learners may result only in uneven oral development and that tasks unable to provide sufficient linguistic support are more suitable with higher level students only, not with the lower ones. This is the case because for many learners, especially those in EFL contexts, it would be unlikely for them to have the language ability to carry out tasks successfully (Ronald Sheen, 1992; Ron Sheen, 1994), and so TBLT is of obvious value to those at higher proficiency levels only (Swan, 2005). Swan also continues to argue in a similar fashion that task-based approaches are unhealthy when classroom time is limited and out-of-class exposure is rather minimally small. In this regard, synthetic syllabuses with the use of the P-P-P model remain the norm for many teachers to use (Bruton, 2002a). Finally, one of the last yet not the least criticisms of TBLT lies in the ground that until now it has remained the approach that is based on unproven hypotheses (Seedhouse, 1999; Ron Sheen, 2003; Swan, 2005), or what Richards and Rodgers (2001, p. 241) call “the domain of ideology rather than fact”. Swan (2005) argues strongly that the hypotheses associated with TBLT are not supported by “convincing theoretical arguments, nor by empirical evidence and are contradicted by common language-learning experience” (p. 396). He speculates on the notion that TBLT which is claimed as more superior to the traditional teaching approach cannon be sustained and therefore will fail. However, ironically, even he himself acknowledges that “no approaches work as they are supposed to” (p. 387). Probably this could be because a new idea may appear strange at the beginning and so criticisms are commonplace. In this respect, R. Ellis (2003) modestly acknowledges that TBLT is rather complex and difficult to understand, thus

| 25

suggesting that pure tasked-based language teaching may be theoretically pleasing, whilst task-supported language teaching is more likely to be acceptable by practitioners at the classroom level. In short, even though there have been several criticisms on the ability of TBLT in promoting effective language learning, TBLT has still been the subject of current keen interest in the area of SLA studies as well as language learning and teaching (R. Ellis, 2000; Johnson, 2001). This is because it is a more promising approach to language teaching that is based on sound language learning theories. Therefore, the current research hopes to takes advantages of this approach so as to improve the language teaching and learning practices at the university under study. Furthermore, since there has been very little (if not no) research in the contemporary Cambodian setting, the present study likewise aims to fill in this gap, especially in resonating with attempts to introduce TBLT in other Cambodian contexts.

2.3. TBLT in Asian Contexts and Issues Relating to Adopting It 2.3.1. Support for TBLT Based on the significant contributions of TBLT, several governments and educational bodies in developed countries as well as in developing nations have adopted or integrated it as their national approach to English language pedagogy. In many Asian regions today, educators, governments and organizations have extensively adopted the communicative approach such as CLT and TBLT into their English curricula in hope that their people can enhance their communication skills in English more effectively (Adams & Newton, 2009; Littlewood, 2007). For example, as documented, TBLT has already | 26

been promoted since the mid-1990s in Hong Kong (Littlewood, 2007) and South Korea (KICE, 2008); in China since 2001 (Deng & Carless, 2009; Hu, 2005c); and in the Philippines since 1997 (Vilches, 2003). This is also true in Thailand. According to Todd (2006) the task-based curriculum has already been in place since 2001 and has undergone continuous, informal revisions over these years. Littlewood (2007) similarly notes that the idea of learning through tasks has existed indirectly in many countries’ educational systems. Thus, examining how communicative approach has been adopted and implemented in Asian contexts is crucial to the current research that seeks to integrate TBLT in the Cambodian university context. The following section is then devoted to the discussion on challenges with which many education settings in Asian countries have encountered when introducing and implementing the approach.

2.3.2. Challenges for Adopting TBLT Attempts to adopt or introduce TBLT or CLT into EFL contexts have had a low rate of success, and so too has their implementation itself. The implementation of this communicative approach worldwide has often been proved difficult and challenging on a number of accounts (e.g., Adams & Newton, 2009; Adamson, 2006; Anderson, 1993; Brindley & Hood, 1990; Carless, 2007, 2009; Chick, 1996; Cortazzi & Jin, 1996; G. Ellis, 1996; Hu, 2002, 2005a, 2005b, 2005d; Hui, 1997; Li, 1998; Littlewood, 2007; Sakui, 2004; Taguchi, 2002). Therefore, it is useful to explore areas of common problems and sensitive issues encountered when implementing this communicative approach, as this may help to understand what possible constraints there may be in the Cambodian | 27

university setting and will help us to make feasible suggestions on how TBLT can be adopted in the context appropriately.

2.3.2.1. Students’ Avoidance of Using English Of the many issues involved, avoidance of using English by students is seen as an inhibiting factor for the implementation. Littlewood (2007) points out that there are not a few teachers who are concerned that their students do not use English as means of communication. Carless’s (2004) study, for example, has indicated that teachers considered the use of Cantonese by pupils to carry out tasks as the most challenging experience they had, mainly because the use of mother tongue conflicted the teachers’ initial goals of students to using English. Other research by Li (1998) and Eguchi and Eguchi (2006) have very similar findings. While Korean students in Li’s study refused to participate in the oral class, Japanese students in the work of Eguchi and Eguchi were simply unwilling to use English to carry out communicative tasks, yet rather insisted using Japanese instead. Although the use of mother tongue (L1) or code-switching from the target language to L1 or vice versa may limit the rich exposure to potential learning given by task-based approaches, such usage is not uncommon in EFL contexts. Moreover, if it is used judiciously, learners can lend a positive contribution to the learning process instead (Carless, 2002; J. Willis, 1996). Carless (2002) points out a number of functions that L1 can serve, such as a chance for students to clarify with what the teacher has said; discussion of the requirements of a task and how it could be done; and a social function, especially in terms of creating group cohesion or reducing student anxiety. This issue may be countered with the claim that EFL students will be able to build | 28

their interest in learning if they are given sustained exposure to task-based learning (Adams & Newton, 2009). Tinker Sachs (2007) has shown that the use of communicative tasks in learning helped raise the amount of English use among Chinese primary school students and teachers alike. Zhang (2007) has very similar findings. Her studentparticipants were in favor of more communicative teaching although they were very accustomed to the traditional teacher-led classroom. These students also felt they themselves and the classroom instructions should use as much English as feasible. This implies if students like to use English as a medium of communication in their class (and possibly outside of it), TBLT could be used in that classroom.

2.3.2.2. Teachers’ Avoidance of Using English As well as the avoidance of using English by students, there is another source of concern for many EFL teachers. EFL teachers themselves may lack self-confidence to implement communicative tasks in English classrooms, for they tend to feel that their English language proficiency is insufficient (Burnaby & Sun, 1989; Littlewood, 2007). For instance, Samimy and Kobayaski (2004) have reported that when it came to teaching communicative English, Japanese teachers often asked their team-teaching partners to do it or simply used the traditional ways of teaching. Ho (2003) in his overview of 15 countries shows that teachers’ low command of English has prevented them from the use of communicative approaches. Li (1998) has also indicated that the Korean teachers in his study were all challenged by their deficiency in spoken English and in strategic and sociolinguistic

competence.

These

shortages

hindered

them

from

conducting

communicative activities in their classrooms. Savignon (2002) explains the nature of

| 29

these problems that a teacher’s level of communicative confidence normally comes under threat because of the inferior feeling he or she perceives that he or she is a non-native speaker of English. As such it discourages him or her from executing communicative English in the classrooms. Therefore, it may be necessary for teachers’ confidence in their English competence to be built up if TBLT is to be successfully implemented.

2.3.2.3. Minimal Target Language Production In a task-based lesson, there is often a fear that students do not produce satisfactory target language in completing communicative classroom tasks. This is of course not a good sign of TBLT implementation. Seedhouse (1999), in his analysis of transcripts of information-gap tasks of task-based lessons in L2 classrooms, has found out that when learners were required to work on information-gap task, they appeared to be so concentrated on completing the task itself that they produced only the very modest linguistic output necessary to complete that task. In his study about teachers in primary schools in Hong Kong, Carless (2004) also found out to his surprise that students in one class he observed were able to complete a survey-task in silence, simply because they already knew most of the information needed to work on the task. This is similar to Lee’s (2005, as cited in Littlewood, 2007) study which he noticed that many of the South Korean students he studied did not try to use the full language resources they had. Rather, they displayed only very low level of language output necessary to carry out the task. Issues in these cases can be minimized in many ways, however. Seedhouse (1999) proposes that by giving learners tasks that are a bit below their language ability, learners would be motivated to communicate. Others such as J. Willis (1996) and Cameron

| 30

(2001) suggest that teacher can act as language adviser, monitoring the class, giving language support to students as needed, etc. In this way, teachers will realize how much target language their students use and can help them to produce it at a satisfactory level.

2.3.2.4. Incompatibility with Assessment Demands Not surprisingly, examination systems in many Asian countries have long been blamed for inhibiting the implementation of communicative approach. CLT and TBLT have been critiqued as unable to prepare students sufficiently well for the more traditional, grammar-based examinations that have a strong final say on their academic life (Adams & Newton, 2009; Littlewood, 2007). Chow and Mok-Cheung (2004), for example, consider the ‘summative, norm-referenced, and knowledge-based orientation’ of the high stakes examinations in Hong Kong to be the main obstacle to implementing a task-based curriculum. This is also true in mainland China, according to Hu (2002), where the teaching of communicative tasks is constrained by grammar and vocabulary knowledge-oriented national examinations. Elsewhere in Korea similar situations persist. Li’s (1998) study revealed that grammar-based examinations were reported by all of his 18 respondents as the key constraint to implementing CLT in Korea. This finding later echoes Shim and Baik’s (2000, 2004) work, indicating that Korean teachers were in the dilemma of following the recommendation from the government to use communicative teaching on the one hand, and of meeting the demands by students and parents to give more focus on grammarbased lessons in preparation for examinations on the other hand. In Japan, Samimy and Kobayashi (2004) have warned of the washback effect of traditional examinations on the

| 31

teaching and curriculum. They point out that if the examination format remains the same, the ‘teach to the test’ will be a dominant approach in the English curriculum in Japan. Carless (2005) indicates that in an examination-oriented context, teacher beliefs about the nature and role of assessment obviously have a critical role to play in pedagogies that teachers are apt to follow. As such, teachers may give more priority to using the more traditional teaching methods and regard them as more suitable, irrespective of testing formats (Carless, 2007). Apparently, pressure from external examinations and assessment leaves little room for TBLT to grow since “the largely multiple choice testing formats lead administrators and teachers to prefer explicit teaching approaches” (Adams & Newton, 2009, p. 6).

2.3.2.5. Classroom Related Issues Another most common and main challenge in implementing TBLT entails classroom management. Traditional teaching that follows the P-P-P model, according to Broady (2002), Littlewood (2007) and Skehan (1996b, 2003), offers teachers the opportunity to both teach specified language features and manage discipline in the classroom. Yet TBLT inhibits this culture. Tsui (2003), in her case studies of ESL teachers in Hong Kong, reported that one of her teachers she observed encountered with the problem in differentiating noise that signalized disruptive classroom problems and noise that confirmed high levels of students’ involvement when these students were working on communicative tasks. This finding echoes what was earlier found in Morris, et al.’s (1996) study and later in Carless’s (2004) work. For instance, the study by Morris, et al. has indicated that “many teachers had difficulty resolving the dilemma over the

| 32

need for teacher control and the need to facilitate pupil-centered learning” (p. 58). Moreover, the commonly large class sizes in Asia cause concern over the implementation of TBLT. A number of studies in schools in Hong Kong (Carless, 2002), Korea (Li, 1998) and China (Burnaby & Sun, 1989; Zhang, 2007) have documented the difficulty in using communicative approach in large classes. In his study, Li (1998) indicated that by nature large class sizes are no easy to manage, thereby challenging teachers’ ability to make any necessary change to their teaching. Many teachers even become frustrated and demotivated with this challenge and have to switch from communicative tasks to direct grammar teaching. Carless (2002) similarly points out that noise and disciplinary problems occur inevitably, especially in large class sizes as well as in classes with students of multiple English proficiency. In addition, while Littlewood (2007) mentions that for logistical reasons it is not easy to carry out TBLT in large classes, Adams and Newton (2009) argue that these issues are applicable only to the interactive pair or group work. However, teachers can solve or minimize these problems by telling students clearly why they are asked to perform in pair or group work and what outcomes they are expected to produce (Carless, 2002; J. Willis, 1996), and by promoting collaborative learning where the high proficiency students help the weak ones (Tinker Sachs, 2007). The predominance of large class sizes in Cambodia may therefore be of concern to the adoption of task-based approaches in this context.

2.3.2.6. Teachers’ Insufficient Understandings of TBLT Carless (2003, p. 489) defines understandings in terms of the “ability to articulate the principles of task-based teaching and an awareness of the implications for classroom practice”. Introducing TBLT to contexts where teachers have limited knowledge of it | 33

often is a challenge. This is because TBLT is very new or seems to present itself vaguely in many settings. R. Ellis (2003, 2009) mentions that for teachers to utilize tasks effectively in their classrooms, it involves their understanding of the nature of tasks and the ways in which they can promote learning. Unfortunately, as Adams and Newton (2009) have indicated, there are not many teachers who have the opportunity to gain adequate knowledge and understanding of TBLT to enable them to carry it out in their classes. Careless (2003) who quotes Clark, et al. (1999) points out that Hong Kong teachers are uncertain about the notion of TBLT, which in turn inhibits the implementation. In the Korean context, Jeon (2006) and Li (1998) have similar findings. For instance, a majority of teachers in Jeon’s study were reported to have insufficient knowledge of TBLT, thus preventing them from executing it. This is also true in China. In a qualitative case study with three primary school teachers conducted in Guangdong, Zhang (2007) found that a few communicative activities were seen in classrooms in spite of the fact that the three teachers claimed of using TBLT. Zang points out in this respect that these problems occur because the teachers lack their understanding with the concept of task. With this respect, Adams and Newton (2009) suggest that by providing sustained support and training to teachers who are implementing task-based teaching, the problem can be addressed.

2.3.2.7. Cultural Issues As far as teaching contexts are concerned, cultural issues have over the years remained the common obstacles to the implementation of TBLT in most Asian contexts. In other words, the success or failure of TBLT could be linked to culture. Since TBLT | 34

advocates the nature of student participatory structures and challenges the traditional ways of teaching, a number of teachers and researchers have remained skeptical as to whether TBLT is compatible with countries whose culture of teaching and learning follows the traditional approaches (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996). For example, pedagogical practices in any culture that is influenced by the Chinese Confucian ideology of learning tend to be teacher-centered and emphasizes more on knowledge transmission (G. Ellis, 1996), and these norms are frequently referred to as barrier to the implementation of the communicative approach (Hu, 2005b; Littlewood, 2007). This is because traditional Chinese culture sees learning more as “a process of knowledge accumulation than as a process of using knowledge for immediate purposes” (Hu, 2005b, p. 653). In reference to this argument, Hui (1997, p. 38) adds that in the conventional Chinese culture, “teachers are viewed as knowledge holders. If teachers do not display their knowledge in lectures, or if they play games with students or ask students to role-play in class, then they are not doing their job!” (as cited in Yu, 2001, p. 196-97). Cambodian culture of learning may be seen as sharing a very similar norm with that of Chinese. Suon (1990) and Neau (2003) indicate that in teaching methodology, the grammar-translation method, involving rote learning and the learning of structural English that employs the prominent teacher-led approach, has been very common in Cambodian education. Nguyen (n.d.) has also indicated that Cambodian students are supposed to be as much quiet as possible in their classroom and that being talkative or interrupting is regarded as unwanted behaviors. This practice of course contradicts the rationale of the communicative approach. Elsewhere in Japan, similar issues present. For instance, using arguments and examples from Ellis (1996) and Matsuura, Chiba, and

| 35

Hildebrandt (2001), Samimy and Kobayashi (2004) note that there may be cultural conflict between theoretical rationale embedded in CLT and that of the Japanese culture of learning, making it unsuitable for Asian learners and teachers. With reference to these issues, Careless (2003) suggests that “an innovation, such as task-based teaching, needs to be adapted to local contextual conditions and the characteristics of the target learners” (p. 498). In a similar vein, many researchers have mentioned that pure task-based learning may not be suitable for EFL countries as it is in ESL ones, thus suggesting adapting than adopting it. It is also recommended teachers can follow the others’ ideas and experiences yet should not simply consider them as one-sizefits-all framework. They need to develop pedagogy appropriate for their own contexts, the ability of students and teachers themselves as well as the time and resources available in order to maximize the chances of successful teaching all aspects of language that learners most need to master (Lightbown, 2000; Littlewood, 2007; Swan, 2005). Thus, if the implementation of TBLT is to be successful, it needs to take into account seriously the local culture and norm of teaching and learning, in which it is being introduced. To sum up, there is a large body of literature and research on TBLT which has documented both the advantages and problems concerning its adoption and implementation. Yet there is very little, if at all, research on TBLT in the Cambodian context. Therefore, this study aims to fill this gap, by seeking to investigate the feasibility of integrating task-based approaches into the current Cambodian university setting and to make recommendations on how it could be best achieved.

| 36

2.4. Resear ch Questions In order to investigate principles and practices of the target university’s English language program and to consider how best to integrate task-based approaches to the program, the following research questions are asked:

1. What principles and practices underlie the current university’s English language program? 2. What are the teachers’ perceptions of the current university’s English language program, and what do they think could be done to improve it? 3. How do the students feel about the approach already being adopted in the current university’s English language program, and what do they think could be done to improve it? 4. How can task-based approaches be most appropriately integrated into the current university’s English language program?

2.5. Summar y In brief, this chapter has reviewed a number of related literature concerning TBLT by drawing from mainstream of education as well as from the field of L2 education. It has also discussed various problems and principles behind the adoption and implementation of TBLT in Asian contexts. The chapter is finally ended with the research questions. The next chapter will present the methodology of the study.

| 37

CHAPTER THREE M E T H O DO L O G Y

Intr oduction This chapter discusses the detailed methodology of the study. What is covered here includes the research setting, background information of the participants, and research design. This is then followed by the methods of data collection and analysis in which a section on the research ethics is also presented.

3.1. Resear ch Setting The research took place in one of the universities in Cambodia in its Department of English where the researcher has both studied for his BEd and been a member of the faculty. It should be noted that in Cambodia English is used as a foreign language as opposed to a second language and that the university under study is specialized in foreign languages training, in which English is the most predominant area of interest.

3.1.1. Overview of the English Department The English Department of the University is under the overall yet not exclusive management of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (MoEYS). In other words, MoEYS manages the Department financially, whilst the Department looks after itself academically. Regarding teaching staff, the Department usually recruits some excellent graduates of its Bachelor of Education degree (BEd) to be lecturers to teach English from years one to four. As a result, almost all of its lecturers are local, non native speakers of | 38

English and only one or two lecturers are native speakers of English. As far as the medium of instruction is concerned, English is the sole language use, except for a few subjects (i.e. Khmer and Regional History, Khmer Grammar, General and Applied Mathematics, etc.) in the Foundation Year (year one) where Khmer is used. With its promising provision quality of English education, the University’s Department of English is regarded as one of the most prestigious and leading language institutions in Cambodia.

3.1.2. F aculty Members There are roughly about eighty full-time and part-time faculty members who teach English in the Department of English. All of them have obtained their BEd/BA qualifications mainly from this university. Many also have masters’ qualifications and a few have PhDs’, and these are usually graduates from overseas. In regard with teaching experiences, the most senior lecturers have been teaching English in the Department virtually for two decades; the very junior ones have been here for a year. However, before joining the Department, most of them had taught English outside for at least two years already. Full-time lecturers are required to teach 24 hours weekly with three to four different subjects, while their counter parts have to teach 15 hours per week with two or three different subjects.

3.1.3. Students As for students, they have to pass a 90-minute entrance examination in order to study year one. The entrance examination, consisting entirely of vocabulary and grammar items and reading in the form of multiple choice questions, tests their English language proficiency at the intermediate level. Generally, before they are able to pass the | 39

examination, they may have already studied English outside for two to five years. Many of them study for two undergraduate degrees, while others study and work at the same time and the rest read for one degree. Depending on their preferences and availability, students can choose to study in the morning, afternoon or evening shift, and the duration of study is four years where students participate 15 hours per week in their class. In an overall picture, students here are normally very active in their learning if compared to those at other institutions.

3.1.4. F acilities and the Nature of Classrooms The Department of English of the University has two small libraries, one of which serves as the resources center for the teachers only. However, the libraries do not have enough books and many of these books, according to Pit and Roth (2004), are donations from organizations like the Asia Foundation. The Department also has two other small language laboratories, but which are under resources. Recently, it managed to build a roughly about-70-participant lecture hall, making it a bit easier for a large gathering. As far as resources are concerned, they are still questionable. For example, there are about 12 LCDs, 2 or 3 laptops, some 20 old CD players, and around 12 Overhead Projectors for the use of total about 60 classes. In this regard, each lecturer who would like to use any of these facilities needs to book it ahead of time; otherwise, they cannot get it. Regarding the nature of classroom, unlike the common classrooms in many other universities in Cambodia, all classrooms in the Department are made conductive to student centered environment. To put it in another way, it is always possible to move chairs for big group works, and students are strongly encouraged to be active in their learning process.

| 40

3.1.5. The Course under Study In the third year of the BEd and BA program in the Department, students have to take four core courses, without any elective, both in their first and second semester. These subjects include Core English (CE), Writing Skills (WS), Literature Studies (LS) and Global Studies (GS). Among them, CE is considered the most important subject that focuses more on enhancing students’ “communicative competence in grammar, discourse and strategic competency” (Suos, 1997, p. 42-43) at an advanced level in the four macroskills: Speaking, writing, reading and listening skills. This subject is conducted four sessions per week on a 90-minute session basis. The research was thus looking at this subject because CE is more about English language teaching that embraces all the four macro-skills.

3.1.6. The Textbook and Supplementary Materials The curriculum that has been in use for this subject is New Headway Advanced by Soars and Soars (2003), a commercial textbook. This book is claimed by the authors as using “an authoritative integrated syllabus, motivating topics, and clearly focused tasks combine with a real understanding of what works in the classroom” (ibid., back cover). Supplementary teaching materials are drawn from a wide range of resources available and appropriate (Suos, 1997). Teachers are of course left with their discretion in selecting materials in this regard. However, common extra materials are those that offer more practices on grammatical features, lexical items and reading.

3.1.7. The Course Assessment Assessment of the course is divided into two main components with a total | 41

weighting of 100 percent. The first component is an in-class, on-going assessment, which accounts for 50 percent of the total weighting. In this type of assessment, students are evaluated through a number of aspects including two progress tests with the inclusion of two listening tests, an individual news report, assignment and homework, class participation, attendance, etc. The progress tests, which include grammatical features and vocabulary items learnt in class and one or two readings brought from outside, are usually given between 25 to 30 percent and are developed by each individual lecturer to use in his or her own class. Listening test items are often extracted from either or both IELTS and TOEFL tests. As for the individual news report, each student is required to read any kind of current news and shares with the whole class in a form of presentation. This counts five percent. Assignment and homework are usually given 10 percent, where students are assigned with a particular topic to write about and where they are given homework to do almost every session. Class participation and attend often weight five percent. Students need to participate actively in their learning so as to achieve this. The second component is final examination, accounting for 50 percent (see

Appendix 1). This examination is jointly constructed by every lecturer who teaches the CE course. As such there is no actual standard format, but generally it consists of two parts. One is written test and another is listening test. The former usually is given 40 percent and consists solely of vocabulary, grammar and reading in the forms of multiple choice questions, gap filling and/or text completion. The latter is given 10 percent and test items are oftentimes taken from TOEFL and/or IELTS tests. When students can score from 50% up of the total 100, they are promoted into the next year level. Otherwise, they will have to sit for a supplementary examination or repeat the subject if they fail this test.

| 42

3.2. Participants and their Background Information A total number of 143 junior students coming from six different classes (representing morning, afternoon and evening enrolments), out of a total of 11 classes, and six teachers out of nine who were teaching the CE subject were invited to participate in the study. It should be noted that these teacher informants were all male. The participants were selected on the basis of purposive and convenience sampling. The rationale behind this selection of participants is that it enables researchers to find out the right people who have knowledge, information and experience being studied (Ball, 1990; Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993; Gay & Airasian, 2003; Patton, 2002), and that, because the researcher has been both a student and a faculty member of that university, it allows him to claim for an insider viewpoint that would help him to understand the local situation and establish close rapport with the local participants well (Deng & Carless, 2009). In addition, the six teachers were chosen based on a few other reasons. For one thing, they had different years of teaching experiences at higher education. They were also interested and willing to take part in the study. Finally, they were considered to feel comfortable with the recorded interview because they themselves had conducted interviews and had been interviewed before. As for the students, the reason why they were selected was because they were regarded as a good sample size that could represent the total 328 junior students in the program. However, even though this student sample size was a good representation, no claims could be made about generalizability because the research was specific to one year level only, rather than to a wider population. This then becomes one of its limitations, yet it will be dealt with later in the following section. | 43

3.3. Research Design Case study was chosen as an investigative technique in order to scrutinize the principles and practices that underlie the current English language program, and the perceptions of teachers and students towards this program. This selection was based on the following reasons. Firstly, according to Yin (2003, p. 23), case study enables an investigation of “a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context”. This seems to conform to the research’s aims stated earlier in which a current situation is being studied in its own right and setting. As well as this, because Asian contexts such as that of Cambodia have their own ‘culture of learning’ (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996) which is believed to be complex and sensitive, and which the communicative approach is different from that of Western settings where the approach originated, case study seems to lend itself a clear case for this research to investigate the feasibility of adopting TBLT in the Cambodian setting. This being so because case study is particularly useful to present the “complex dynamic and unfolding interactions of events, human relationships and other factors in a unique instance” (Sturman, 1999, p. 103). Finally, case study makes it possible for events and situations or people “to speak for themselves, rather than to be largely interpreted, evaluated or judged by the researcher” (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007, p. 254). In this case, data from the research help to enhance the validity and generalizability of the study as well. However, critics of case study have argued that most of the drawbacks of such research are threats to internal and external validity, and/or issues regarding reliability and generalizability (Allwright & Bailey, 1991; Brown & Rodgers, 2002; Merriam, | 44

1998). These issues arise, according to Hamel (1993), due partly to the bias introduced by the subjectivity of the researcher and partly to other matters around the case per se. To cope with and minimize these problems, the “methodological and data collection triangulation” (Dushku, 2000, p. 764) that employ both quantitative and qualitative approaches were used. Cohen, et al. (2007, p. 141) argues that triangulation techniques “attempt to map out, or explain more fully, the richness and complexity of human behaviour by studying it from more than one standpoint and, in so doing, by making use of both quantitative and qualitative data”. These multi-dimensional techniques then consisted of document analysis (a unit of the course book and some extra teaching materials), closed and open-ended questionnaires with 143 students, and semi-structure interviews with six teachers. In addition, although some may argue that the population was relatively small, which also may likely affect the generalizability of the findings of the study, detailed and rich description of the case study context (as described in section 3.1) and data can further provide many specific and useful reference points, often overlooked by other methods, for teachers and researcher to compare with their own settings (Bassey, 1999; Kumar, 1996; Merriam, 1998).

3.4. Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 3.4.1. Research Ethics As well as getting rich data concerned, how to get and use them ethically without any threat or harm to those providing the data is also of paramount importance in this study. Cohen, et al. (2007) have mentioned that there is a key ethical predicament requiring researchers to “strike a balance between the demands placed on them as | 45

professional scientists in pursuit of truth, and their subjects’ rights and values potentially threatened by the research” (p. 51). With this regard, any possible ethical issues pertaining to the study were dealt with before the undertaking of any data collection. For example, verbal permission was first sought from and granted by the Head of the English Department of the University before the study took place. All the six teachers and 143 students were afterwards invited to take part in the study, explained the purposes and objectives of it, and given the Informed Consent (see Appendix 2, for a sample of both students and teacher consent

form) to sign on before the questionnaires and interviews were administered. They also were informed of the nature of their participation which was entirely anonymous and voluntary and which had no negative consequences or discrimination to them should at any stage of the study they withdraw their involvement. Moreover, as the one-on-one interviews would be audio-recorded, the six teachers were informed of the use and assured that the recordings would be deleted after the study was read and approved by the examiners. All these procedures were carried out, therefore, to ensure that there was a high level of confidentiality of the data given by the participants (McDonough & McDonough, 1997) and that their ‘right of self-determination’ was both protected and respected at all regards (Cohen, et al., 2007).

3.4.2. Questionnaire Survey A questionnaire (see Appendix 3 and 4) was one of the most important data collection instruments for this study. Decision to use the questionnaire as the research tool was based on the ground that for one thing it offers greater anonymity of the respondents’ identity, so that they feel secure, and for another thing it is capable of | 46

generating a large quantity of data that pulls together different perspectives from students at a wider angle (Kumar, 1996). This questionnaire format employed both close-ended and open-ended questions. The choice of selecting the former lied in the argument that they can “generate frequencies of response amendable to statistical treatment and analysis” (Oppenheim, 1992, p. 115), “are quicker to code up and analyze” (Bailey, 1994, p. 118), and are suitable for a quantitative approach such as this study (Cohen, et al., 2007). The openended questions were used on the account that they can “catch the authenticity, richness, depth of response, honesty and candour which … are the hallmarks of qualitative data” (Cohen, et al., 2007, p. 321). By adopting these combined structures, the possible shortcomings of close and open-ended questions were minimized and dealt with accordingly. This questionnaire comprised four main sections, two of which were organized under sub-categories. The first section asked about demographic information of the respondents; the second section investigated their learning styles and preferences; the third section explored their beliefs about the current class (Core English) and the last one sought their general comments on the improvement of the program. It adopted both multiple choice questions that consisted of two and four options, and a five-point, Likerttype rating scale, with 1 being ‘strongly agree’ and 5 being ‘strongly disagree’. English was used in constructing the questionnaire yet the students’ language proficiency and level of understanding were not neglected. Piloting was carried out with fourteen people, five of whom were master’s students, three were second year students from the university under study and six were

| 47

from year three of that university. This trial was done in order to see if there were any irrelevant or unclear items in the questionnaire, so that adjustments could be made appropriately (Kumar, 1996; Oppenheim, 1992; Seliger & Shohamy, 1989). As a result, five questions were left out, four new items were added and some statements were revised and refined so as to avoid ambiguity in meaning. Additionally, the outlook of the questionnaire was also adjusted in order that it looked friendlier and more inviting to respondents (Cohen, et al., 2007; McDonough & McDonough, 1997). The questionnaires were finally administered in the first and third week of April 2010 at the aforementioned university in which 143 students from six different classes took part. These were self-administered with the presence of and assistance from the teacher who was responsible for the class and course being studied and who later was interviewed. Chairs were arranged in five rows, taken into account the considerable distance from each student’s seat so that they could not discuss with their peers when answering the questions. It took students about 10 to 15 minutes out of their 90-minute class to complete the whole questionnaire. At the analysis stage, all the questionnaires were first coded manually numerically. The close-ended questions were then computer-processed using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) 16.0 by Norusis (2008). Followed basic methods of data analysis recommended by McDonough and McDonough (1997), each individual question, frequencies and proportions were finally calculated and translated into percentages. As for the open-ended items, themes that reflected the purposes and objectives of the study were organized through the domain analysis (Cohen, et al., 2007). In other words, any units of data that shared common features with others were grouped

| 48

under one main theme that could possibly provide descriptive and inferential information about the case (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

3.4.3. Semi-structured Interview As the main method of data collection, a semi-structured interview (see Appendix

5 for the interview protocol) was employed to explore a wider picture of the current situation in the language program at the target university as well as to suggest ways in which the program could be further enhanced and how task-based learning could be best integrated into the context. The motivational driving force behind this selection was dependent upon the view that the semi-structured interview format allows “for greater flexibility within it” and “richer interactions and more personalized responses” (McDonough & McDonough, 1997, p. 183-84) between the interviewer and interviewee that may give further insights into the research topic (Merriam, 1998). Moreover, according to Seliger and Shohamy (1989), in the semi-structured interview the researcher is able to investigate information and gain access to data that has not been foreseen. Also, as a novice researcher, this interview schedule made it easier and more convenient for me because it requires fewer interviewing skills (Kumar, 1996). To cope with the pitfall of the possible loss of data during the interview, all the interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed shortly after the interviews and informants had been informed before the actual interview commenced. There were three different sections and twenty questions in the interview protocol. These included questions that Patton (1980) has described as demographic, feeling, knowledge, behavior, experience and descriptive questions, etc. The interview protocol

| 49

was written in two different languages – Khmer (the informants’ native language) and English – and the six informants were asked whether they would like the interview to be in Khmer or English. All of them chose the latter. The duration of each interview ranged from 30 to 45 minutes. Prior to the commencement of the actual interviews, two pilot interviews were carried out with a master’s student in Hong Kong and another with a teacher at the university being studied. Like the questionnaire survey, this pilot was tried out to learn about the practicality and clarity of the questions, so that changes could be made accordingly if errors occurred (Kumar, 1996; Oppenheim, 1992; Seliger & Shohamy, 1989). Results of the pilots led to the deletion of three questions, for they appeared to overlap with other questions, and to the inclusion of one question in order to further probe into the way the teachers had been teaching. There were also some refinements to the way in which questions were worded. The actual interviews with the six teachers were carried out intermittently during a three-week period in April 2010 in Cambodia. These teachers were from six different classes where their students had earlier been invited for the paper-and-pen questionnaires. No part of the teachers’ identity was asked in the interview since it was meant to be confidential and anonymous. The recorded interview data were finally transcribed and analyzed by the researcher (see Appendix 6, for a sample interview transcript) 1. Analyzing these data was carried out using the same methods found in the analysis of the open-ended questions of the questionnaire, in which themes of the data reflecting the purposes and objectives of 1

Due to the inconvenient length of the total completed interview transcripts, only one sample of the completed

transcript from Teacher A is attached. However, the rest are available upon request.

| 50

the study were organized through a domain analysis (Cohen, et al., 2007). Any units of the interview data that had something in common with others were grouped under one main theme that could possibly provide descriptive and inferential information about the case (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

3.4.4. Document Analysis A sample unit of lesson (see Appendix 7) from the current course book ‘New Headway Advanced Student’s Book’ by Soars and Soars (2003), and a sample unit of work of extra materials that the teachers used to supplement their teaching were used as another source of data. To do this, the “content analysis” method was adopted (Cohen, et al., 2007), in which the content or information of the data were analyzed with reference to

‘A framework for task-based course design’ proposed by R. Ellis (2003) and ‘A framework for task-based learning’ developed by J. Willis (1996). These qualitative data were also used to triangulate with the other data from questionnaires and interviews (Yin, 2003) in order to help shade light to the understanding of principles and practices that underlie the current English program.

3.4.5. Enhancing Reliability Member checking was sought in order to improve the validity and trustworthiness of the data of the study (Erlandson, et al., 1993; Guba & Lincoln, 1989). In other words, the analysis and transcripts of the interviews were sent back to the respondents for verification and comments regarding the accuracy issues. Moreover, as pointed earlier, the study was also enhanced through a three-dimensional data collection method, where

| 51

data from different angles were gathered and triangulated to establish the creditability of a case study (Gay & Airasian, 2003).

3.5. Summar y To sum up, this chapter has brought together the detailed methodology of the study, including the research setting, background information of the participants, research design, and methods of data collection and analysis. In the next chapter, a comprehensive report of the findings of the study will be presented.

| 52

CHAPTER FOUR F I NDI NG S

Intr oduction This chapter presents the findings of the study with reference to the research questions. In the first section, it describes and discusses the principles and practices that underlie the current university’s English language program. Section 2 presents the students’ and teachers’ perceptions toward the current program, followed by section 3, which focuses on the suggestions from students and teachers for improving the program. Section 4 describes the findings pertaining to the students’ and teachers’ readiness for TBLT in the university under investigation, with the final summary section bringing each section together. Therefore, this chapter aims at answering the following research questions:

1. What principles and practices underlie the current university’s English language program? 2. What are the teachers’ perceptions of the current university’s English language program, and what do they think could be done to improve it? 3. How do the students feel about the approach already being adopted in the current university’s English language program, and what do they think could be done to improve it? 4. How can task-based approaches be most appropriately integrated into the current university’s English language program? | 53

4.1. What Under lies the Cur r ent Pr ogram 4.1.1. Students’ Perceptions toward Language Learning and Teaching 4.1.1.1. Students’ Perceptions of Effective Language Learning In an open-ended question in the questionnaire, students were asked about what they felt to be the most effective way to learn English. Data from this question (Q21) generally showed that students tended to view language learning as more reliance on the process of learning and on themselves, rather than on other factors. Responses to the question were categorized according to themes and then rated in terms of frequencies of mention and percentages, as shown in Table 4.1 below.

Table 4.1

Students’ beliefs about the most effective way to learn English

Themes Learning by doing (e.g., speaking, debating, writing, etc.) Independent learning (e.g., reading books extensively and regularly, etc.) Rote learning

Frequencies of mention

Percentages

90

62.9

37

25.9

7

4.9

9

6.3

Others: Learning through authentic materials and English environment; loving English; having fun and realistic life’s goals; learning from teacher’s experience; and studying hard Note: Students could give only one response (n = 143)

As can be seen from the table, learning by doing was the most frequent response and was mentioned by 90 students (62.9%). Independent learning was also considered to be very important and was mentioned by 37 students (25.9%), while only seven (4.9%) considered rote learning as the most effective way to learn English. Nine student respondents (6.3%) regarded learning through authentic materials and English | 54

environment as well as by creating the interest of learning English and having fun as their most important way.

4.1.1.2. Students’ Preferences Regarding Teacher’s Teaching In another open-ended question (Q22), students were asked how they would like their teacher to teach them English. For this question, they could suggest more than one answer. Their responses were categorized according to themes and then frequencies of mention were calculated and converted to percentages (see Table 4.2 below). Table 4.2

Students’ preferences regarding teacher’s teaching

Themes Explain lesson or grammar in details and clearly with examples

Frequencies of mention

Percentages

58

25

42

18.1

40

17.2

Provide more extra materials on grammar and reading

31

13.4

Correct student’s mistakes and give timely feedback on their work

14

6

11

4.7

11

4.7

9

3.9

5

2.2

11

4.7

supported More time to do exercises or to practice (grammar, reading, listening and/or vocabulary) Create or encourage a more interactive or communicative learning classroom with students being active participants

Share personal experience and general knowledge or information with students Use various teaching styles, show seriousness in teaching and understand students’ needs or problems Guide or motivate students to learn independently Explain difficult words and teaching should focus more on vocabulary Others: Balance the workloads and theory and practice; be well prepared and fair; follow the textbook or teaching outline; and review lessons for students Note: Students could give more than one response (n = 232)

| 55

As table 4.2 indicates, as many as 58 students (25%) preferred their teacher to focus more on grammar teaching and explanation. The suggestion that the teacher should give students more time to practice or do grammar, reading, listening or vocabulary exercises was made by 42 students (18.1%), and 31 others (13.4%) mentioned the provision of more extra learning materials focusing on grammar and reading. The idea of creating or encouraging a more communicative language teaching and learning environment where students were active role players was also indicated by 40 students (17.2%). The students also preferred their teacher to use various teaching styles, show seriousness in the teaching, and understand their needs or problems, and this item was mentioned by 11 respondents (4.7%). Nine respondents (3.9%) would like their teacher to guide or motivate them to learn independently. The information from this open-ended question appeared to suggest that there may have been a tension between students’ preferences for their teacher to focus more on accuracy and their desire for a communicative and entertaining learning environment.

4.1.1.3. Students’ Preferences for Grammar Teaching and Language Tasks Results from another four close-ended questions in the questionnaire indicated that while the students would like their teacher to conduct explicit grammar lessons, they also indicated a preference for discovery learning and communicative classroom. Table 4.3 in the next page presents these findings.

| 56

Table 4.3

Students’ preferences for grammar teaching and language tasks (figures in percentages [n = 143]) Students’ responses in percentages Statements

You prefer your teacher to explain the content

1*

2

62.2

27.3

(grammar) explicitly/in details by giving you examples. You don’t feel that your teacher is competent enough if s/he doesn’t explain grammar to you in details. You are not satisfied if your teacher does not correct your grammatical errors. Your teacher should spend a lot of time on language tasks such as role play, debate, game, group and pair work, personal information sharing task, etc.

3

4

5

2.1

2.8

5.6 (89.5) 15.4

(4.9)

32.9

17.5

4.2

30 (48.3) 37.6

41.2

(21.7) 10.6

(78.78) 42

7.8

2.8

(10.6)

31.4

2.8

3.5

20.3 (73.4)

(6.3)

Note: *1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = neutral; 4 = disagree; and 5 = strongly disagree

As this table illustrates, the majority of the students (89.5%) agreed that they preferred their teachers to explain grammar explicitly, and only 4.9 per cent disagreed. The table also shows that 48.3 per cent of them agreed that they did not feel their teacher was competent enough if s/he did not explain grammar in details. However, 30 per cent remained neutral. In response to statement “You are not satisfied if your teacher does not correct your grammatical errors”, there was a lot of agreement (78.78%), and only 10.6 per cent disagreed with it. Further, as many as 73.4 per cent agreed that their teacher should spend a lot of time on language tasks such as role play, debate, group work/pair work, etc., whilst only around six per cent disagreed and 20.3 per cent of the students preferred to be neutral.

| 57

4.1.1.4. Students’ Perceptions of their Own Roles and their Teacher’s Roles Another set of data from two close-ended questions regarding students’ perceptions of their own roles and their teacher’s suggested that more students saw themselves as active role players in the classroom and that they were ready to challenge their teacher’s views if they did not agree with the views. Table 4.4 outlines these results.

Table 4.4

Students’ perceptions of their own roles and their teacher’s (figures in percentages [n = 143]) Students’ responses in percentages Statements

You don’t believe it is polite to disagree with your teacher about a certain topic even if you have a good reason to do so You believe that your teacher is a facilitator or monitor in the classroom, and students are active learners.

1*

2

4.2

14

3

4

5

39.2

19.6

23 (18.2) 33.6

43.4

(77)

(58.8) 6.2

1.4

15.4 (7.6)

Note: *1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = neutral; 4 = disagree; and 5 = strongly disagree

The table above shows that some 58.8 per cent of the total population disagreed that it was impolite to disagree with their teacher about a certain topic, whilst 18.2 per cent agreed. Yet, 23 per cent were undecided. Additionally, when asked whether they believed their teacher was a facilitator or monitor and students were active learners in the classroom, as many as 77 per cent of the students agreed it was the case, whereas only 7.6 per cent disagreed. Nevertheless, 15.4 per cent took no sides.

| 58

4.1.2. Teachers’ Perceptions toward Language Learning and Teaching 4.1.2.1. Teachers’ Perceptions of Effective Language Learning and Teaching Data from the interviews with the six teachers regarding their beliefs about the most effective way for students to learn English were very similar to those expressed by the majority of the students found in the open-ended questions presented earlier. All the six teachers mentioned that in order for language learning to be most fruitful, students needed to get themselves involved in the learning process and put what they had learnt into practice. The following comments were typical:

“The most effective way [for students] to learn a language … is use what they learn with four macro-skills: reading, listening, speaking and writing. … If they don’t use, I don’t think they learn.” (Teacher A)

“…In order to learn a language, you have to use a language. You have to speak. You have to write, listen more [and] read more.” (Teacher C)

In addition to extensive practice, the six teacher informants also emphasized the importance of good preparation and independent learning. As Teacher E put it “I think they should do a lot of reading before coming to class and more research about the content of the lesson that they are going to study in the class. … And if they don’t understand any point, they might get explanation at school”.

Further, when asked what they viewed as the most effective way to teach English, nearly all the teachers seemed to give very similar answers to each other. Four teachers | 59

believed that it was best to teach students to communicate or to give them more opportunity to practice, using language they have learnt from the classroom in the real setting. As Teacher B commented:

“…as I’ve mentioned earlier, communication is very important. So they need to practice a lot, which I believe I should teach them to do so – teach them to communicate, to use language for communication”.

Teacher F and Teacher A also mentioned the necessity of understanding students’ needs and ability and helping them learn. For example, teacher F said that:

“I think we need to understand how students learn the language and how we can facilitate their learning process and make it easy for them to learn.”

4.1.2.2. Teachers’ Self-report on their Roles and Students’ Roles Regarding the teacher’s perceptions towards student’s roles and their own in the classroom, the interview data revealed that the six teachers viewed students as active role participants in the classroom and saw themselves as the ones who coordinated the learning process. All the teachers felt that students should be active in the classroom and responsible for their learning, as is shown in the following comments:

“The students should be active and more conscious about what they study.” (Teacher E)

| 60

“I do not expect students to just come to class with the book and answers … We want them to do that at home, and when they come to school, we want to create an environment where they can use something in the book, something from their experience and then they share with the whole class.” (Teacher F)

All of them also mentioned the idea of helping, guiding or facilitating the learning process. As one of them put it:

“We say in the classroom we might be the managers, but to me we’re just guides; we’re just facilitators, helping them and facilitating the way they learn. We just tell them where to go, I mean we can just lead them where to go, but they go by themselves…” (Teacher D)

Teacher F also stressed the responsibility of the teacher to create this active learning environment. He mentioned he did not see himself as the knowledge holder, but as the role model who could inspire his students to study smarter and harder and who could create a safer environment for students to learn in. He would like them to engage actively in the classroom, feeling free to share their opinions and ideas with the class without worrying about making mistakes.

4.1.2.3. Teachers’ Actual Approaches to Teaching Despite these beliefs, the interviews with the six teachers suggested that when describing their actual teaching practices, teachers indicated both directly and indirectly

| 61

that they usually employed the Present, Practice and Production (P-P-P) model as their approach to teaching. All the six teachers claimed that before giving presentation of a language point, they firstly activated students’ interest by introducing something related to the language point to the class. Then they presented and got students to do some controlled practice of the language point. As soon as the presentation finished, they asked students to work in groups or pairs in order to further produce or practice the language point in a freer and less controlled fashion:

“I would give presentation, and then they practice with the handouts. Then we go to production where they use the language which they’ve just learnt.” (Teacher F)

“So after they’ve listened or they’ve learnt the explanation or theories of a language point, they need to go to the practice stage. To me, I’d put it into controlled and free practice stage.” (Teacher A)

Teacher E commented that although he saw the value of an inductive approach to teaching grammar, his students did not see it the same way as he did. Finally, after trying to use this implicit teaching for some time, he was discouraged to use it, so he had to turn back to his old way of deductive teaching. Apart from this, all the teachers also claimed that they usually employed pair work and group work, or individual and pair work or a combination of individual, pair and group work to carry out classroom activities or tasks. For example, Teacher D commented as follows:

| 62

“…there are different activities – we have individual work, pair work and group discussion. But it depends on the kind of lesson as well. However, these are three things I never forget: One is working individually, [second is] working in pair [and third is] working in group…”

Further, the majority of the informant teachers mentioned that they encouraged their students to communicate in the classroom very often, especially by not picking up their mistakes or by pretending not to understand when their students spoke in their mother tongue (Khmer), or by complimenting their speaking ability. Using group work and pair work was also one of their ways. Teacher A outlined his strategies like this:

“I also encourage them or tell them directly like ‘You should speak in English. The more you speak in English, the better your English speaking skills will become’ … Well sometimes when they talk in Khmer, I pretend to have fun with them by [asking] ‘Oh, what do you mean? Can you make it in English or whatever?’ … I rarely pick up their mistakes while they are talking to me…”

However, Teacher B expressed his worry that albeit his effort in using pair and group work as a means of promoting lively classroom interactions, only a few students saw the value of pair and group work:

“… Most of the students do not value pair work and group work, and they just complain that they have too much work. They also prefer traditional ways of learning and teaching; they just want to SIT down and listen … Moving or finding | 63

their partners or group members are very boring and difficult for them to do.”

This problem persisted because, as this teacher mentioned, these students were tired from work, so they wanted to sit and listen to the teacher only.

4.1.3. Materials Currently Used by the Teachers All the six teachers reported that they made wide use of the textbook. Therefore, to supplement their reported practices, an analysis of a sample unit in the course book, New Headway Advanced Student’s Book, and of some extra teaching materials the teachers provided was carried out. This evaluation is presented in two parts. The first one is an evaluation of the sample unit in the course book and the second one is about the extra teaching materials. Additionally, data from students’ questionnaire and teachers’ interview regarding the course book are also presented in the final part of this section.

4.1.3.1. An Evaluation of a Sample Unit in the Course Book Unit 7 of the course book was selected to be evaluated. The reason for selecting this particular unit was because the six teachers provided all extra materials they used for this unit, as well as because they also gave some examples from this unit. As revealed from the evaluation, the unit made use of a number of task types, including ‘pedagogical, psycholinguistic, and rhetorical’ tasks (R. Ellis, 2003). For example, the Listening and Speaking activity on page 68 fell into a listing task, whereby students listened to the recordings and completed the given chart, whose completed outcome was a list of information. Also, the Speaking activity on page 67 was considered to be a problem-solving task, requiring students to use their logic to solve the presented | 64

problem. These listing and problem-solving tasks were called pedagogical task type (ibid.). Besides, the Starter on page 63 and the Reading and Listening section on page 6465 fell into an outcome opinion task. This kind of task permitted students to produce both a single outcome and several possible outcomes, and it was called psycholinguistic task type (ibid.). The rhetorical task type could be located in the Speaking activity on page 67, which was used to provide an opportunity for freer production of language that had been presented and practiced (in Grammar Reference, page 153-54 and in the Language Focus section, page 66-67). The purpose of presenting this Language Focus and Grammar Reference was to “build awareness and get students manipulating the forms – modal auxiliary verbs” (J. Soars, Soars, & Sayer, 2003, p. 63). R. Ellis (2003) points out that when the target tasks or real-world activities are selected as topics, the pedagogical purpose of the thematic content of tasks is for specific use of L2. As far as the thematic content of this unit concerned, topics were employed mainly for the purpose R. Ellis has mentioned above. For example, the reading texts on page 64-65 were “originally a scripted radio letter” and the listening scripts about Words of Wisdom on page 68 were from “vox pop extracts” (J. Soars, et al., 2003, p. 63). However, these topics and the Starter on page 63, etc. could also be considered as tasks that were used for general proficiency use of L2 as well. This is because although the topics lacked relevancy to the local context of students, they appeared interesting to them and could stimulate them to communicate in the target language. Furthermore, tasks in the unit were sequenced from the easier to the more difficult ones. For example, the Starter on page 63 was introduced to students in a written form, which was easier for them to decode than the Listening and Speaking section under the

| 65

theme of ‘Words of Wisdom’ on page 68, which was introduced in a listening format. R. Ellis (ibid.) argues that information that is presented orally, requiring online decoding, is harder to process than the one presented in a written format, which can be decoded in the students’ own time. R. Ellis (ibid.) suggests that when the language features such as forms and functions are incorporated into the syllabus, then the result will be a syllabus that consists solely of linguistically focused tasks or possibly a mixture of both focused and unfocused tasks, whose curriculum is a task-based language one. An analysis of this unit suggested thus that the unit conformed more to a task-supported language curriculum, than to a pure task-based language syllabus. This is because the unit integrated language features (the present and future forms of modal auxiliary verbs) with the meaning-driven curriculum through the use of various task types discussed above.

4.1.3.2. An Evaluation of Teachers’ Extra Teaching Materials Another analysis of all the handouts or extra teaching materials given by the teachers during the interviews showed that practices of grammatical features (modal verbs) and vocabulary introduced in the unit were very extensive. For example, lexical items, perceived important for students, were extracted from the Reading and Listening and Listening and Speaking sections in the course book, and were designed in forms of word matching and word hunting for students to work on. Inevitably, this vocabulary needed to be learnt by heart. Grammatical items concerning modal verbs were also presented to students both as reference work and as an extension of practice. Speaking activities were less common and only teacher D and F introduced them to their students

| 66

through games for students to practice using the language forms. Authentic reading materials were also seen in the handouts, which required students to read at home. In this case, it appears that these extra materials also matched with R. Ellis’s (2003) focused tasks and were designed to provide learners with the opportunity to practice the target language (modal auxiliary verbs) in a freer and flexible manner. Therefore, these supplementary materials were also considered to be classified under the task-supported language syllabus mentioned earlier.

4.1.3.3. Students’ and Teachers’ Evaluation of the Course Book Data from the student’s questionnaire concerning the course book indicated that generally many students felt it was useful and relevant to their context, although about 30 per cent of the total population seemed unprepared to give any evaluation. Table 4.5 presents the results in this respect.

Table 4.5

Students’ evaluation of the course book (figures in percentages [n=143]) Students’ responses in percentages Statements

The current course book is very useful and interesting. The current course book covers themes that are contextualized (related to your context and personal experience) and practical.

1* 15.4

2 47.6

(63) 16.8

3 27.2

43

(59.8)

4 8.4

5 1.4 (9.8)

8.5 31.7

0 (8.5)

Note: *1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = neutral; 4 = disagree; and 5 = strongly disagree

According to this table, more than half of the students (63%) agreed that the current course book was very useful and interesting, whilst around nine per cent | 67

disagreed. However, 27.2 per cent voiced no opinion. In addition, when they were asked if the present book covered contextualized and practical themes, as many as 59.8 per cent agreed it was the case, while slightly more than half of this number (31.7%) remained neutral, and some 8.5 per cent disagreed. From the teachers’ perspectives, this course book was also mentioned by them all as actually useful and interesting for the course. Nonetheless, Teacher A, C and F were skeptical of the relevance of themes in the book to the Cambodian context, as suggested by Teacher C:

“I think this book is indeed very useful; it’s very good, I can say, because it covers a variety of topics, a lot of important figures [and] a lot of important events inside it. But this book is rather foreign to our context, to our students.”

4.2. Per ceptions of Students and Teacher s towar d the Cur r ent Univer sity’s English Language Pr ogr am (Cor e English) 4.2.1. Students’ Perceptions 4.2.1.1. Students’ Perceptions about Teaching and Learning in the Program Data from some close-ended questions pertaining to students’ beliefs or observation of their current course showed that, in general, learning tended to be more interactive among teachers and students but that grammar teaching remained strong (see Table 4.6).

| 68

Table 4.6

Students’ perceptions about teaching and learning in the current course (figures in percentages [n = 143]) Students’ responses in percentages Statements 1*

2

16

44.8

3

4

5

4.9

2.8

Your current class (CE301-302) has offered you a lot of communicative activities, such as role play, debate, sharing personal information or experience tasks, and pair and group works, etc. Your teacher usually encourages you to speak or to engage in classroom activities. Your teacher doesn’t usually focus on grammar explanation/teaching. Usually, your teacher doesn’t correct your grammatical errors.

(60.8) 24.5

50.3

(74.8) 4.9

14

(18.9) 4.2

17.6

(21.8)

You like the way your teacher is currently doing his grammar teaching. Your teacher has been using a lot of authentic/real teaching materials in carrying out classroom tasks.

31.5

16.8

25.9

(42.7) 11.9

37.8

(49.7)

(7.7)

17.5

23.8

25.4

35.6

37

4.9

2.8 (7.7)

37.1

20.3

(57.3) 37.3

15.5

(52.8) 17.5

4.2

(21.7) 11.2

2.1

(13.3)

Note: *1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = neutral; 4 = disagree; and 5 = strongly disagree

As this table shows, some 60.8 per cent of the students agreed that their current class had offered them more communicative activities, whereas only 7.7 per cent disagreed with this idea. A similar trend could be seen when students were asked if their teacher usually encouraged them to speak or get involved in classroom activities. As many as 74.8 per cent of them agreed it was the case. Only slightly more than seven per cent tended to be negative and 17.5 per cent remained neutral. In addition, 57.3 per cent of them mentioned that their teacher usually focused on grammar teaching, while 18.9 per cent agreed their teacher did not give more focus on grammar teaching. The table also shows that students tended to disagree with the statement “Usually, your teacher doesn’t | 69

correct your grammatical errors”. Moreover, the table illustrates that some 42.7 per cent of the students seemed to like the way their teachers taught them, whereas around half of this figure did not. Nonetheless, 35.6 per cent remained undecided whether they liked or did not like. As with the last statement “Your teacher has been using a lot of authentic/real teaching materials in carrying out classroom tasks”, 49.7 per cent of the student respondents indicated their agreement with it, whilst 13.3 per cent disagreed. However, 37.1 voiced no opinion.

4.2.1.2. Students’ Evaluation of the Course Assessment Data from a close-ended question pertaining to students’ evaluation of the course assessment revealed that 68.3 per cent of them saw it as effective. However, 25.4 per cent were unable to decide, whilst slightly more than six per cent viewed it as not effective in evaluating their real learning ability. Table 4.7 below summarizes these results.

Table 4.7

Students’ overall evaluation of the course assessment (figures in percentages) Students’ responses in percentages Statements

The overall course assessment is effective because it does assess your real learning ability.

*1 11.3

2 57

(68.3)

3 25.4

4 6.3

5 0 (6.3)

Note: *1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = neutral; 4 = disagree; and 5 = strongly disagree

4.2.1.3. Students’ Overall Evaluation of the Program (Core English) Data from another three close-ended questions regarding the course effectiveness showed that more students viewed it as effective (see Table 4.8 below). | 70

Table 4.8

Student’s overall evaluation of the course effectiveness (figures in percentages) Students’ responses in percentages Statements

The current course has prepared you well to

*1 10.6

communicate with others in English accurately and

(61)

fluently. You feel that your skills and ability to communicate in

11.9

English have improved a lot this year. Overall, you like your course (CE301-302) teaching

2 50.4

39.2

(51.1) 14

and learning environment.

45.5

(59.5)

3 32.6

39.8

31.4

4 5.75

5 0.7

(6.45) 8.4

0.7 (9.1)

7.7

1.4 (9.1)

Note: *1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = neutral; 4 = disagree; and 5 = strongly disagree

The table above shows that 61 per cent of the students agreed the current course had prepared them well to communicate with others in English accurately and fluently. However, 32.6 per cent remained uncertain. Additionally, in response to the statement “You feel that your skills and ability to communicate in English have improved a lot this year”, some 51.1 per cent agreed with it and very few (0.7%) disagreed, while almost 40 per cent were unsure whether they had improved. In general, the data suggested that more students (59.5%) appreciated the course and liked the learning environment, although 9.1 per cent did not and 31.4 per cent had no opinion.

4.2.2. Teachers’ Perceptions 4.2.2.1. Teachers’ Self-report on the Course Assessment Interviews with the six teachers regarding how students in the course were assessed indicated that students were evaluated mainly through indirect systemreferenced tests. Such tests were common in the final examination as well as in two on| 71

going tests used in class. Comments from two teachers below were typical:

“Students are assessed through two stages, as you already know. One is on-going assessment which counts 50%. For this assessment, students have to sit for two revision tests including two listening tests, yeah, and they do many other things like role play, news report, presentation, discussions, writing assignment, homework, quizzes, etc. And another one is the final exam, which accounts for 50 per cent … Structures of the two revision tests I have just mentioned usually include word-in-context or word-matching items, grammatical structures and one or two reading texts. And final exam is very similar or the same, I’d say …” (Teacher E)

“We assess our students through a number of things or criteria. We have two written tests – progress tests I mean – and we have two listening tests … We also have assignment, quizzes, presentation, attendance, our class participation – a lot of things – plus our final exams … Our progress tests and final exam test what students have learnt from their classroom. And we usually use multiple-choice formats or thing like that …” (Teacher D)

However, comments from these two teachers and those of others seemed to show that direct system-referenced assessment was also used, for example, through presentation, role play, news reports, etc. in the on-going assessment. Comments from Teacher D below further illustrated this:

“I try to combine between working on news report in groups with an individual | 72

speaking test … Each of them [students] has to sit for a speaking test, which means they have to sit one-on-one with me and speak. … And this I mean I follow the criteria that can be found in IELTS Speaking Module…”

4.2.2.2. Teachers’ Self-report on the Course Effectiveness When further asked about the extent to which the current course had prepared students to be competent and effective users of English in the real world, some teachers mentioned the course was effective enough and some were unconvinced of it. For instance, Teacher E who was positive about the course mentioned “I think, yes, it is a core subject which prepares students for proficiency simply because it is based on topics of real world problems and the four macro-skills and two minor skills: vocabulary and grammar”. However, Teacher A had a different perspective. He pointed out that generally if teachers could give a balance among the four macro-skills (listening, reading, speaking and writing skills), the course would be very effective. Nevertheless, the fact that the testing or assessment did not include writing or speaking made him skeptical of the effectiveness of this course. Teacher F also seemed to put the blame on the assessment process as one of the root-causes constituting to the ineffectiveness of the course:

“You know, honestly speaking, it may not be that effective because usually lecturers use the same tests from last year or the year before and so on. And the point is that some students have access to those tests, so they can do much better than their peers. And sometimes, you know, when they do assignment it’s just [a] one day process. For example, if tomorrow is the due date, they just do it today.” | 73

4.3. Suggestions fr om Students and Teacher s for Impr oving the Pr ogram 4.3.1. Students’ Suggestions An open-ended question sought students’ recommendations on how to improve the current course. In total, 203 suggestions were given, since each student could give more than one response. These suggestions were categorized according to themes and then frequencies of mention were calculated and converted to percentages, as outlined in Table 4.9.

Table 4.9

Students’ recommendations Themes

Teaching should focus more on grammar and give more

Frequencies of mention

Percentages

50

24.6

48

23.7

36

17.7

15

7.4

Reduce the class size to 25 and below

10

4.9

Change the course book

10

4.9

9

4.4

8

3.9

17

8.4

practices on those grammatical items Give more general practice or homework and tests, and supplement extra materials on grammar, reading, speaking and/or writing Offer more communicative or fun or interesting activities Give feedback to help students become independent learners, and pay more attention on their needs

Give more practice on vocabulary and/or suggest way to remember it Balance between the 4 macro skills Others: Be well-prepared; keep the current course book; give less handouts; more books for library; team-teaching; and free WiFi on campus Note: Students could give more than one response (n = 203)

| 74

Of these 203 recommendations, teaching that should give more focus on grammar and the practice of those grammatical features was the most frequent and was suggested by 50 students (24.6%). The suggestion that the teacher should give more practice in general or give more homework/tests and extra materials (grammar, reading, speaking and writing) was the second most mentioned recommendation and was made by 48 students (23.7%). Students also felt it was necessary that teaching should further emphasize communicative or fun/interesting activities. The importance of helping students become independent learners and of being aware of their needs was mentioned by 15 respondents (7.4%). Reducing the class size to 25 and below and changing the course book were also mentioned by 20 students. Others suggested that the teacher give more practice on vocabulary or suggest way to remember it. This idea was mentioned by nine, and another eight students recommended that a balance of the four macro-skills be given. Other factors included the teacher should be well-prepared, there should be teamteaching, etc. As the table shows, the most common features of these recommendations centered around building students’ accurate language and adopting more student-centered approach to teaching. It seems that these recommendations corresponded with students’ preferences regarding teacher teaching highlighted earlier in Table 4.2, where many of them would like both deductive teaching of grammar and an interactive and entertaining learning environment.

4.3.2. Teachers’ Suggestions From the teachers’ perspectives there were many factors to be addressed in order | 75

to improve the current course. These included factors relating to curriculum and classroom, assessment, teacher’s need for training and support, and resources, etc.

4.3.2.1. Curriculum and Classroom Factors Four teachers recommended that, in order for the course to be more effective, the current course book should be updated or adapted to the local context. For example, Teacher A saw the value of adapting the course book to the local context or having a course book that was contextualized as an effective means to stimulate students’ interest to learn:

“…If we can personalize the activities, students can find them interesting. And when they are interested in it, they really want to work on it. When they work on it, of course, they learn, yeah.”

Teacher B suggested integrating more grammatical features into the course book as he believed the existing grammar lessons were insufficient, although in general he thought the book was good. Additionally, at the classroom level, Teacher F recommended that teachers should introduce real world problems to their students to make them ready for their life outside the classroom:

“We have to do more research about, you know, current issues, current problems and then bring those things into the class; and we let them [students] involve with these things, so that when they go out to the world, they know everything already; they can communicate well because they seem to learn that already.” | 76

Teacher C suggested a similar thing. He mentioned that it would be a good idea to ask students to make newsletters for their class, so that they could learn a lot of things from them. He reasoned that students needed to read, interviewed people and presented their work – a process through which they would gain knowledge on grammar, general knowledge, and reading and speaking skills subconsciously.

4.3.2.2. Assessment Factors At the assessment level, different suggestions were given. These include introducing speaking test in the on-going assessment; balancing among the four macro skills and the two sub-skills (vocabulary and grammar) both in the teaching and assessment; giving more percentages to the on-going assessment, etc. For example, Teacher D mentioned that because speaking tests had never before been used in any assessment, he would like to introduce it into the assessment, especially as part of the on-going one. Teacher A also argued in a similar way:

“We’d better, yeah like, try to balance among the four macro-skills and the two sub-skills. Make sure the results of the assessment really reflect that students have high proficiency of the language.”

4.3.2.3. Teachers’ Needs for Training and Support Two teachers suggested that there should be training support to further help build up teacher’s knowledge and skills about language and that peer observation should be initiated in order for teachers to share experiences with each other. As Teacher B put it: | 77

“As for me, I’d suggest that support in the form of training or whatever should be provided to us. This will help refresh and broaden our ability to teach”.

In regard with peer observation, Teacher C commented as follows: “I think we should have peer observation just like at [another school]. We observe the other teacher, lecturer who is teaching CE (Core English), and then we can give comments as well as learn good points from one another. Very good, I can say it is very good.”

As this teacher pointed out, this kind of peer observation is beneficial not merely to the teacher who observes others and who is observed by others, but to the learning as well. This being so because that teacher may adopt a more effective way to teach, so the learning would be better accordingly.

4.3.2.4. Resources and Others Physical resource support was mentioned in the interviews by Teacher C and D as what needed to be resolved in order to improve the course. They suggested that there should be more books in the library for students to read as part of their self-study, and that classrooms should be equipped with enough teaching and learning materials such as OHP (Overhead Projector) and CD player, so that every teacher could use them without having to book in advance. Other aspects such as having a regular teaching meeting three or four times per month, and building up student’s responsibility on their learning were also mentioned, although these were not seen as urgent. | 78

4.4. Feasibility of TBLT in the Univer sity under Investigation 4.4.1. Students’ Readiness for TBLT 4.4.1.1. Students’ Perceived Needs in Terms of Accuracy and Fluency Results of close-ended questions regarding students’ perceived needs in terms of fluency and accuracy showed that there was a slight difference between the two. In other words, while students saw accurate English as necessary, fluent English was also considered important. Table 4.10 below summarizes these findings.

Table 4.10

Students’ perceived needs in terms of accuracy and fluency (figures in percentages [n = 143]) Students’ responses in percentages Statements

You

prefer

“accurate English” to “fluent but

ungrammatical English”. You very often prefer to have exercises on grammar items.

*1 14.8

2 29.6

(44.4) 20.2

39.2

(59.4)

3 19.6

32.9

4 26.1

5 9.9

(36) 4.9

2.8

(7.7)

Note: *1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = neutral; 4 = disagree; and 5 = strongly disagree

As can be seen from the table, 44.4 per cent of the students preferred accurate English to fluent but ungrammatical English. However, 36 per cent indicated a preference for more fluent English, while the others were undecided. The table also shows that some 59.4 per cent of the students very often preferred to have exercises on grammar items. Only 7.7% per cent disagreed with the statement, and 32.9 per cent remained neutral.

| 79

4.4.1.2. Students’ Feelings about Speaking in English Another set of data from some close-ended questions concerning students’ feelings about speaking in English revealed that overall students were ready for communicative English. Table 4.11 depicts these results.

Table 4.11

Students’ feelings about speaking in English (figures in percentages [n = 143]) Students’ responses in percentages Statements

You usually like to speak in English in your classroom. You feel embarrassed if you make a mistake when speaking in the classroom. You don’t feel comfortable to speak in English outside of the classroom.

*1 20.4

2 39.4

(59.8) 9.8

19.6

(29.4) 7.9

25.2

(33.1)

3 33.2

29.4

26.7

4 7

5 0 (7)

32.1

9.1

(41.2) 27.3

12.9

(40.2)

Note: *1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = neutral; 4 = disagree; and 5 = strongly disagree

Table 4.10 shows that around 60 per cent of the students indicated an agreement with statement “You like to speak in English in your classroom”, whilst only seven per cent disagreed and 33.2 per cent were unsure. When asked further whether they felt embarrassed if they made a mistake when speaking in the classroom, 29.4 per cent of them agreed it was the case when some 41.2 per cent disagreed. Concerning their comfort in using English outside the classroom, 40.2 per cent agreed that they felt comfortable to speak in English outside their classroom. However, 33.1 per cent disagreed and 26.7 were unable to tell.

| 80

4.4.1.3. Students’ Communicative English Use Reported by the Teachers The questionnaire data concerning students’ use of English for communication presented above were further confirmed by data from the teacher’s interviews. All the six teachers claimed that most of their students communicated much in English because group work and pair work gave them more opportunities to speak; the teachers themselves encouraged students to talk; there were classroom’s rules that English had to be spoken; and so on. Quotations from two of the teachers below illustrated these:

“As I have observed, most of the time my students talk to each other in English. And I myself also encourage them to speak in English, telling them the potentials of using it in the classroom.” (Teacher D)

“Of course, I can say that more than 2/3 of my students are communicating in English most often and they like asking a lot of questions … We usually work in pairs [and] in groups, so there must be student interaction, I mean interaction in English.” (Teacher C)

However, Teacher B admitted that even though the majority of his students frequently did communicate in English they sometimes spoke in the mother tongue, especially when they finished their assigned tasks earlier than usual. Then they were tempted to speak in Khmer.

| 81

4.4.2. Teachers’ Readiness for TBLT 4.4.2.1. Teachers’ Confidence in Using Communicative English The semi-structured interview data regarding teachers’ confidence in using English for communication revealed that five of them felt comfortable and confident in using communicative English, both inside and outside classroom, and only one teacher did not feel so. For example, Teacher E and Teacher D who were among these four confident teachers mentioned respectively as follows:

“To me, I feel very comfortable and confident using English in the class … For outside of class, I occasionally use English when I meet my former classmates or sometimes when I am in social events. When the communication is done in English, I am not too shy to use it.”

“…I’m very confident because I don’t care about grammatical mistakes … The main purpose of speaking is to communicate effectively, making sure that we all can understand each other, that’s it.”

Teacher C, who was not very confident in using communicative English, mentioned it was the fact that he was not a native speaker of English that made him feel skeptical of his English spoken ability. Nonetheless, he reported that he tried to communicate in English as much as he could.

4.4.2.2. Teachers’ Understanding and Awareness of TBLT Interviews with the six teachers showed that most of them had relatively low understanding of or simply did not understand TBLT at all although they were aware of | 82

CLT. Only Teacher F and Teacher A displayed some good understanding of it and the rest simply defined TBLT based on the name ‘task’ itself:

“You know, task-based language teaching refers to the way we design the task where students do that task and they learn around it. So the task teaches them something; by completing the task, they learn something around that … They, you know, use the language to complete the task.” (Teacher F)

“I know according to the word task because the teaching is based on task.” (Teacher B)

The definition given by Teacher B above hardly showed any understanding of TBLT and it appeared that he could define ‘task’ simply based on his guessing. However, these narrow understandings of TBLT in this context are actually common among the teachers who, as they claimed, had little or no exposure to the approach. For example, for Teacher A who could give a definition similar to that given by Teacher F above mentioned that he had some lessons in his final year of the Bachelor of Education degree. As for Teacher C, D and E who could not make it explained that they had not heard of it or had been aware of it through their teaching experiences only.

4.4.2.3. Teachers’ Self-report on Using TBLT Regardless of whether or not the six teachers understood TBLT, the researcher explained them the most common features of TBLT and asked them the extent to which they thought they had used these techniques in their classroom. From their self-report, | 83

five of them claimed that they had been using TBLT often or as often as needed, whilst Teacher F mentioned he had not used it at all. However, those claiming to use task-based activities in their teaching seemed to refer to the use of task as a consolidation of the language feature. For example, one of them put it this way:

“Yeah, I’d say as much as necessary like after students listen to presentation and also explanation, they need to, you know, use the language point that we’re learning in the classroom, like pretend to be in the real life situation.” (Teacher A)

On the other hand, Teacher F, who asserted that he had not used TBLT at all, happened to give an example of his classroom activities that reflected some features of it. He described his teaching as follows:

“For example, let’s talk about grammar. I teach them Present Simple, to talk about habits, and then I ask them to sit in a group of three or something, and then they write a description of their habits. And then I can ask them to share with their friends; they stand up, sharing with their friends or sticking that writing on the wall. After that, I ask them to go around and read it. By doing so, they have chance to stand up, you know, [and] go from one wall to another wall, and they can also have a little chat. So it is more relaxing and they learn to recognize several language features commonly found in the Present Simple.”

| 84

4.4.2.4. Teachers’ Perceptions about the Suitability of TBLT in the University under Study After a series of discussion about the features of TBLT, the teachers were asked to comment as to whether an approach such as TBLT could be used in the University in which they taught. Different perspectives were given on this issue. Four teachers mentioned that this approach was very suitable in the context. One (Teacher B) was uncertain and another (Teacher D) argued strongly that TBLT would be suitable only when it was combined with the traditional approach. As for those claiming that TBLT was compatible with the university context, they gave several reasons. First, they mentioned that the university had already been using the student-centered approach and that students here were usually encouraged to be actively involved in the learning process. Second, there was good cooperation between teachers and students, and even the weaker students were ready to talk. Third, a student-centered approach was considered by many of the teachers to be the most effective method to help students become active learners. Last, the university admitted students through entrance examination, so students had the same or similar language proficiency. Their comments below show these:

“… because I notice most students, even the poor students in the class, are ready to talk … And [the University] has already been using the student-centered approach where students are encouraged to participate in teaching and learning. And I can say this approach is the best approach.” (Teacher C)

| 85

“So, you know, if it can be introduced here, task-based language teaching is, to me, the most effective way of making students active learners, or at least students can familiarize themselves with a new approach of learning and teaching, not just to be passive learners, sitting in the chair and getting the explanation from teacher all the time.” (Teacher E)

Teacher B, who was unconvinced about the suitability of TBLT in the setting, mentioned that he was skeptical whether students were willing to cooperate with the teacher who would use TBLT. Teacher D, who suggested that TBLT should be incorporated with the old way of learning and teaching, put it like this:

“… although we say task-based learning is important, we still cannot separate it from the traditional way of teaching. We still combine … For me, I believe that when students get used to the old way of learning and teaching, they may not be willing to go quickly to a new one. So we should not forget it immediately. Do it step by step, and let the time change it, or it will fail.”

Finally, when asked if they would be in favor of TBLT if it were adopted in the context, Teacher A, C, E and F, who previously thought TBLT would be very suitable in the university setting being investigated, mentioned that they would strongly support it. Teacher B, who was doubtful about the suitability of TBLT in the context, indicated that he would be in favor of the adoption anyway. However, Teacher D would support it yet only with reservations because of the fear of the conflict between the old way and the new way of learning among students. | 86

4.5. Summar y Data from the students’ questionnaire and teachers’ interview as well as from the evaluation of the course book and some supplementary teaching materials seemed to suggest that there was a tension between explicit teaching and learning of grammar and conducting communicative activities in the current English language program. Moreover, the textbook and extra teaching materials themselves tended to be a more task-supported language curriculum than a pure task-based language syllabus. The data also revealed that in-class assessment seemed to be both indirect and direct system-referenced, while the final examination was rather indirect systemreferenced. However, the majority of the student respondents and some teachers thought the program was effective enough, although some teachers were unconvinced of the effectiveness of the current assessment. Despite this impression, students and teachers gave several suggestions for improving the program, with students’ recommendation suggesting teachers to focus both on deductive grammar teaching and on providing communicative and fun learning classroom environment. Finally, the data showed that there was not much room for the pure task-based approach in the context being investigated, even though most teachers speculated it was viable. However, if TBLT is to be adopted in the setting, most teachers would be much in favor of it. The next chapter will present the discussions of these findings with references to the review of literature.

| 87

CHAPTER FIVE D I SC USSI O N & A NAL YSI S

Intr oduction This current chapter aims to discuss and analyze the findings, which have previously been presented in Chapter Four. The discussion therefore looks more critically into the principles and practices that underlie the current university’s English language program. It then brings in the discussion on constraints and opportunities the context presents on adopting TBLT, with the last section reflecting whether TBLT is viable in this target Cambodian university setting.

5.1. How the Pr ogram was Per ceived in Pr inciple and Actual Pr actice 5.1.1. The Embedded Principles The study found that, in principle, there were three important aspects embedded in the program and considered to be most important for language learning.

5.1.1.1. Learning by Doing and Communicative Language Learning As we saw in section 4.1.1.1 and 4.1.2.1, the majority of the students and teachers in the study saw the value of learning by doing and learning through communication as one of the most effective methods in language learning. The teachers pointed out that it was only when students used what they had learned from the classroom, particularly through communication, then would they learn. These beliefs certainly contradict the conventional, long-standing approach such as P-P-P, which claims that language learning | 88

is best introduced to learner as a system of structures; that repetition helps automate response; and that immediate practice leads learners to mastery of L2 automatically (see Foster, 1999; Klapper, 2003; Lightbown & Spada, 2006; J. Willis, 1996). Instead, the views of both teachers and students accord with the main principle of communicative or task-based approach. This approach considers learning as a continual process of doing in which vigorous engagement in communication helps activate and foster the learner’s interlanguage systems (Feez, 1998; Shehadeh, 2005; Skehan, 1996b). R. Ellis (2003) argues in this respect that it is interaction that forms the most necessary aspect of task-based approach, especially because “development is not so much a matter of the taking in and possessing of knowledge but rather of the taking part in social activity” (p. 176). Sano, Takahashi and Yoneyama (1984, p. 171) also point out that “warm-hearted interaction between teachers and learners, as well as among learners themselves is the most essential factor in successful language learning.”

5.1.1.2. Autonomous or Independent Learning Another finding was that many student respondents and all the teacher informants regarded independent learning as the second most significant factors in regard with effective language learning. Again, the teachers stressed that to succeed in learning English students needed to be independent, learning things on their own most of the time. These views seem to suggest that both students and teachers think that students should depend less on their teacher and that the learning should be discovery in nature. These thoughts therefore support another principle of task-based approach, advocating the experiential approach to language learning and recommending less involvement from the teacher in the process of learning/doing tasks (J. Willis, 1996). In a similar fashion, | 89

Finch (2006) also notes that with the assistance of an interactive classroom environment in communicative approach, the learner’s autonomy in language learning is stimulated. This may appear to inform that the more students are engaged in communicative environment where they have rich opportunities to use language meaningfully, the more they may likely be able to try to use and practice the language.

5.1.1.3. Students as Active Participants and Teachers as F acilitators Findings from the students’ questionnaire regarding how they saw themselves and their teacher in the classroom suggested that there was a strong preference for a learnercentered or communicative approach, as shown previously in Table 4.4. The majority of the students believed that it was fine to go against the teacher’s viewpoints if they did not agree and that they articulated they were active learners and their teacher was a facilitator in the classroom. These findings were supported by the interviews with the six teachers (see section 4.1.2.2). All of them discouraged the idea of teacher-centered approach, yet were strongly in favor of the concept of learner-centeredness, where students were active role players in the classroom and teachers were coordinators or guides. These present results seem to challenge Nguyen’s (n.d.) view, mentioning that Cambodian students are supposed to be silent and obedient in the classroom and that challenging the teacher’s ideas is considered impolite and inappropriate. The findings also reject the claims made by W. Baker (2008), G. Ellis (1996) and Scollon and Scollon (1994) that Asian students who are influenced by Buddhist or Confucian philosophy of learning are not encouraged to confront with their teacher, since questioning the teacher may be thought of as casting doubt on the teacher’s knowledge to teach. However, these findings are consistent with Roth’s (1998, as cited in Pit & Roth, 2004) survey of the | 90

university students and lecturers in the university under study. His study found that the student-centered approach was also strongly favored by 87 per cent of his total 110 student respondents and by all of his 13 teachers. What was found in this study is also supported by Hood, Elwood and Falout’s (2009) study about Japanese student attitudes toward TBLT at Japanese universities. They found that the majority of their student respondents expressed a strong preference for learner-centered approach because the students believed it was useful for their learning.

5.1.2. The Actual Practices However, despite these positive preferences for an active learner-centered classroom, in actual practice, the findings revealed that there was a tension between the traditional P-P-P approach and the communicative approach in the current English language program. These were manifested in the following.

5.1.2.1. Direct Grammar Instruction versus Interactive Learning As discussed earlier in this chapter, most students believed that it was learning by doing and learning through communication that were more vital in effective language learning. However, when it came to their actual preferences for their teacher to teach them, the findings indicated that they would like the teaching to emphasize explicit grammar instruction and be interactive and entertaining (see Table 4.2 & Table 4.3 in the previous chapter). These findings were also validated by the findings from the students’ perspectives toward teaching and learning in the course (see Table 4.6) and their recommendations for improving it (see Table 4.8), and from the teachers’ self-report of actual teaching practices (see section 4.1.2.3). In their actual practices, the teachers | 91

themselves also used the P-P-P approach very often to teach grammar although at the same time they incorporated a more student-centered and communicative approach (e.g., group work and pair work) into their teaching as well. These students’ preferences and teachers’ practices therefore seem to conform to the principle of task-supported language teaching, where the P-P-P model is commonly found in it (R. Ellis, 2003), and where the communicative approach is employed to facilitate the use of language form in a freer and more meaningful way (Skehan, 1996b). Moreover, the combination of these findings in this study is in consistency with those previously found by Carless (2007) and Li (1998). Caress (2007) found that all his 11 Hong Kong secondary school teachers indicated preferences for the P-P-P approach and the need for direct grammar teaching because the teachers felt their students did not have enough grammatical input. Li (1998) in the Korean context reported that seven of his eight teachers mentioned that their students still perceived direct grammar teaching as important despite the fact that these students realized how essential it was to be able to communicate in English rather than to know English grammar. Apart from the students’ preferences and the teachers’ actual practices, which revealed that the university under study followed a task-supported rationale, the currently used materials also confirmed that these materials were considered to be classified under a task-supported language curriculum (as seen in section 4.1.3). In addition, since the organization of each unit in the book followed almost exactly the same basic structures

(reading and listening/speaking; language focus; listening/speaking/vocabulary; and writing) like the already-analyzed unit, it could be concluded that the book likewise complied with the task-supported language syllabus as well. This could be explained in a

| 92

way that usually various tasks (e.g., reading and listening/speaking tasks) were used to get learners expose to a range of language forms of the unit and stimulate the use of communicative language, before a systematic treatment of those language forms was given attention to, especially through both implicit and explicit explanation. After that, various other tasks, including exercises, were introduced in order to get learners produce those pre-determined language forms. However, it would be worth noting that many of the reading texts and listening tasks in the book were long and complicated and that they appeared to be lacking the requisite cultural knowledge of the Cambodian context. These issues apparently posed difficulties in terms of task complexity and code complexity to learners because learners lacked of familiarity of information with those foreign-oriented reading and listening tasks (R. Ellis, 2003; Prabhu, 1987). Therefore, this current textbook could not be used with a genuine task-based approach if this approach is to be introduced to the setting. It needs to be changed or made adaptable to TBLT.

5.2. The Issues of the Cour se Assessment Although the study found that the current program was perceived by more than half of the student respondents and three teachers as effective in making students become proficient and competent users of English, there were issues related to the course assessment. As the findings in section 4.2.2.2 and section 4.3.2.2 and descriptions of the course assessment in section 3.1.7 revealed, the assessment followed indirect systemreferenced assessment almost exclusively, except for some classroom assignments where

| 93

direct system-referenced assessment was used. In general, there were certainly no communicative test items both in the on-going, in-class tests and the final examinations. All items tested (grammar, vocabulary, reading and listening) were designed in the form of multiple choices and/or gap-filling items. D. Baker (1989) explains that this kind of tests is used to “provide evidence about the testee’s mastery of a language in a general sense by getting him to do something which is only indirectly related to language” (p. 24). If the result indicates that the test taker has passed the test, then s/he is thought of as having knowledge/proficiency to satisfy a promotion to the next level or a degree (ibid.). However, D. Baker (ibid.) warns that the decision made on the basis of this result is not healthy because the testee’s ability to perform/use language for genuine communication in the future is not guaranteed. This may suggest that the university would need to consider changing or adopting a more suitable testing system such as performance-referenced testing in order to ensure that what students achieve in their tests and examinations are also illustrative of their real learning ability.

5.3. The Suitability of Task-based Appr oaches for the Univer sity Setting under Study Results from the study revealed that a genuine task-based language teaching approach might not be suitable in the current university setting, despite the fact that there were already some positive aspects, some of which have already been discussed earlier in this chapter. Rather, the findings suggested that an alternative approach to TBLT would be more feasible. The following discussion will therefore present supporting factors and | 94

constraints on adopting TBLT, followed by the last section reflecting what alternative would be most appropriate for the context.

5.3.1. Supporting F actors The findings in this study showed many supporting aspects for TBLT in the context being studied. As some of these factors, such as the idea of learning by doing and through communicating, the notion of autonomous/discovery learning, etc., have already been discussed at the beginning of this chapter, the following sections will discuss only other positive areas.

5.3.1.1. Students’ Using Communicative English In regard with students’ using communicative English, the findings disclosed that generally the majority of the student respondents usually liked and felt comfortable to speak in English inside and outside their class. These findings were also supported by the data from the teachers’ interview, revealing that most of their students communicated much in English in the classroom. This would mean that there was a maximum target language production produced by the students. These combined findings of this study are therefore consistent with those found by Hood, et al. (2009) in the Japanese university setting. Their study revealed that the majority of their Japanese student respondents felt comfortable and were willing to communicate in English. However, the findings do not support the previous studies reported by Li (1998) and Eguchi and Eguchi (2006). Whilst Korean students in Li’s study refused to participate in the oral class, Japanese students in the work of Eguchi and Eguchi were simply unwilling to use English to carry out communicative tasks. In | 95

addition, these findings are also different from the previous findings such as those of Seedhouse (1999), Carless (2004), and Lee (2005, as cited in Littlewood, 2007), which reported that students in their study produced only very limited target language in carrying out communicative tasks. Nonetheless, as no observations of classes could be carried out, we cannot be very sure that the students’ and teachers’ perceptions in this present study were borne out in the classrooms.

5.3.1.2. Teachers’ Confidence in Using Communicative English Other findings regarding teachers’ self-confidence in using communicative English revealed that five of the six teachers felt very confident and comfortable, using English for communication inside and outside their classroom. These teachers claimed that they did not feel shy or care much about grammatical mistakes they would make when speaking, but that they had a strong self-confidence in their English language proficiency. These findings then contradict what Jeon (2006) and Yim (2006) found in Korea and Li (1998) found in China, reporting that the majority of their teachers felt uneasy to use English communicatively because of self-perceived inability. In this regard, what Burnaby and Sun (1989), Ho (2003), and Littlewood (2007) have previously claimed that EFL teachers’ lack of English competence prevented them from carrying out communicative tasks in their classroom is not necessarily true in this current university setting. Perhaps it is worth nothing the sources that made these teacher informants feel confident and comfortable in using English for communication. According to a study conducted at the same university under this present study, Moore and Bounchan (2010) reported that their ten lecturers all made widespread use of English in their daily life, in | 96

addition to the constant use of English in their teaching. Also, these lecturers had access to the availability of a wide range of English resources, including English speakers, broadcast media, etc., and English itself was a popular language that many of these lecturers seemed to have interest in learning/using. Moreover, the fact that many of them have earned their MEd/MA degree abroad would be another reason contributing to their confidence and ability to communicate in English.

5.3.1.3. A New Culture of Teaching and Learning As discussed earlier in this chapter, the majority of the students and all the teacher informants indicated a strong preference for the idea of a learner-centered, collaborative, interactive approach to language learning and teaching. The teachers no longer saw themselves as a knowledge transmitter and most students believed they were active role players in their classroom and that it was fine to challenge their teacher. These students and teachers also liked to learn and teach through entertaining and communicative tasks. This is perhaps because the university has long adopted a student-centered approach to language teaching and learning. According to Bowering (1998) the university, especially its BEd program, has provided leadership in communicative language teaching in higher education in Cambodia. Therefore, the findings in this particular context seem to challenge those of others which indicated that there was a clash between the traditional learning and teaching approaches and communicative approaches in Asia (see Cortazzi & Jin, 1996; G. Ellis, 1996; Hu, 2005b; Hui, 1997, as cited in Yu, 2001; Littlewood, 2007; Samimy & Kobayashi, 2004). However, it is important to acknowledge that this positive factor may be limited

| 97

to this specific Cambodian university context only and that it may not necessarily be the case in other contexts in the country. Therefore, we do not wish to generalize these findings as applicable to other settings.

5.3.2. Constraints for TBLT As far as the likely constraints of TBLT concerned, the study found that there were some factors which may hinder the adoption of a pure task-based approach in the setting. These problems include the following.

5.3.2.1. Teachers’ Lack of Awareness of TBLT The study found that, despite a strong self-claim from five of the teachers as having used TBLT in their teaching, these teachers actually did not use it. Instead, they employed tasks to use as a consolidation of the grammar feature that had previously been presented to their students. However, one of them who claimed as not using TBLT at all appeared to give examples of his typical lesson that could be considered task-based. This misreporting could be linked to the teachers’ lack of understanding or awareness of TBLT. The findings regarding their understanding of TBLT revealed that only two teachers (F and A) were able to define ‘task’. According to Adams and Newton (2009) this shortage of task-based knowledge is common among many EFL teachers. Therefore, these teachers’ lack of understanding of TBLT might lead them to interpret it incorrectly in their teaching, which may potentially inhibit the implementation of this pure task-based approach (see Carless, 2003, as cited in Clark, et al., 1999; Jeon, 2006; Zhang, 2007).

| 98

These findings suggest that if TBLT is to be introduced and implemented in this context successfully, the existing problems concerning teachers’ insufficient knowledge of the approach should be taken into account and dealt with in advance. Adams and Newton (2009) advise that only by providing sustained support and training to the practitioners of TBLT may the implementation of TBLT be guaranteed success.

5.3.2.2. Demands for Direct Grammar Instruction As pointed out earlier in this chapter, while many students saw the value of learning English through interactive tasks and collaborative manners as essential, a lot of them also preferred and recommended their teacher to conduct grammar lessons explicitly. Also, approximately half of the students perceived fluent English as necessary, but half of them, too, viewed accurate English as important. Furthermore, the fact that all the six teachers actually used the P-P-P approach to teach English grammar deductively suggests that it might be difficult to implement a genuine task-based approach. Although grammar has some place in TBLT, according to R. Ellis (2009), the teaching of direct explicit grammar teaching is not the heart of the pure task-based approach. This means that if TBLT is to be successfully integrated into this setting, it is necessary to get the right balance between grammar teaching and communicative tasks. As Nunan (1989) has pointed out it is now widely accepted that “there is value in classroom tasks which require learners to focus on form [and that] grammar is an essential resource in using language communicatively” (p. 13).

5.3.2.3. Washback Effect of Examinations A brief discussion in section 5.2 indicated that the on-going tests and final | 99

examinations in the current course followed the indirect system-referenced assessment, whose format was multiple-choice questions and/gap-filling items and which assessed students’ general language proficiency (such as knowledge of grammar, vocabulary, etc.) without reference to any particular use or purpose (D. Baker, 1989). This current assessment is also common in many other EFL settings such as Hong Kong (Carless, 2005; Chow & Mok-Cheung, 2004); China (Deng & Carless, 2009; Hu, 2002); Korea (Li, 1998; Shim & Baik, 2000, 2004; Yim, 2006); and Japan (Samimy & Kobayashi, 2004) and has been shown to be an inhibiting factor to the implementation of communicative approaches such as TBLT. In this regard, if TBLT is to be adopted in this university context, the format of testing in both the final examinations and in-class revision tests should be changed. Otherwise, the washback effects – “the effects of tests on teaching and learning, the educational system and the various stakeholders in the education process” (Wall, 1997, p. 291) – of these ‘high-stake tests’ will lead the teachers to teach to the tests. This is because results of these high stakes tests are seen as “either rightly or wrongly by students, teachers, administrators, parents, or the general public, as being used to make important decisions that immediately and directly affect them” (Madaus, 1988, p. 87). Likewise, even if the teachers would be willing to implement TBLT in their classroom, their students might not like it or be willing to cooperate if they felt that what they learnt in their classroom could not help them in the tests.

5.3.3. An Alternative Approach to TBLT The findings of this study suggest that a true task-based language teaching approach does not seem to fit well in the current English language program of the | 100

university being investigated. Rather, an alternative approach, such as task-supported language teaching, or what Carless (2007) terms ‘situated task-based approaches’, appears to be more viable in this context. Moreover, although Swain (2005) suggests that TBLT is more suitable with advanced learners, this seems not to be the case with this Cambodian setting, given its current constrains such as students’ demands for direct grammar instruction; teachers’ insufficient knowledge of TBLT; teachers’ overriding use of an analytical P-P-P approach; the nature of the textbook and extra teaching materials; norm-referenced, knowledge-based examinations; etc. Perhaps, task-supported language teaching could be an alternative to this context, with tasks being used along the lines of communicative practice (Carless, 2004).

| 101

CHAPTER SIX I M P L I C AT I O NS & C O NC L USI O N

Intr oduction In Chapter Five, the findings of the study have been discussed in relation to the research questions and with reference to some of literature. Based on these findings and the discussion, this final chapter of the dissertation will first of all present pedagogic implications of the study. It then delineates the limitations of this research, followed by the research implications of the study. Finally, it ends with a conclusion of the study.

6.1. Pedagogical Implications The findings and discussion have indicated that the majority of the students and all the six teachers had strong preferences for an interactive, student-centered approach to language learning and teaching and that they also enjoyed learning and teaching through entertaining tasks. In this sense, it appears that TBLT is a very suitable approach to meet their needs and preferences, because TBLT advocates the idea of learning in a learnercentered environment and through communicative tasks (Long, 1985; Skehan, 1998). However, since the study has also shown that many students still preferred deductive grammar learning; that all the teachers still used the long-standing P-P-P approach to teach grammar; that the examination systems followed traditional testing system; and that most teachers lacked of understanding of TBLT, etc., it is highly unlikely that TBLT fits well in this Cambodian university context for the time being. | 102

Instead, as pointed out in section 5.3.3, it is task-supported language teaching that appears to be more feasible in the setting, given these present constraints. In this regard, based on the findings and discussion, the study is now making some suggestions of what could be done in order to adopt TBLT appropriately in this university in the future, as follows.

6.1.1. Assessment Reform One of the first necessary things needing to be done is to change the present testing format in this university. This is because, as pointed out earlier in Chapter Five, the washback effects of the current examinations will lead teachers to teach to the tests since the examination results will have a strong impact on students’ future (Madaus, 1988). Changing this testing format can be done by introducing a more task-based assessment system into the current testing system. In other words, a new assessment format such as direct performance-referenced testing is sought in order to ensure that there is a validity of the current assessment and that this assessment can parallel changes that are to be made in the instructional program from a more traditional approach to a more task-based one. As discussed earlier in Chapter Two, section 2.1.2.2.3, to help ensure both the face validity of the assessment and the effective task-based assessment of L2 ability and performance, it is suggested that a direct performance-referenced testing system should be incorporated with the university’s existing system-referenced testing one, with more emphasis or weighting given to the former. This means that language production testing, such as speaking and writing that can be found in the direct performance-referenced assessment, should be integrated with the structure, vocabulary, reading and listening testing formats that can be found in the indirect system-referenced | 103

assessment. For example, integration may be made by testing both reading and writing together in that students are required to read a passage and then write a short paragraph or an essay based on that reading. As for speaking tests, students may be asked to perform an oral test in pairs or with their teacher, based on a certain task or topic. The teacher can assess students’ pronunciation, listening comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, fluency and accuracy, etc. Regarding a structure test to be included, this can be designed in a way that covers language functions and grammatical structures, by employing multiplechoice, text or sentence completion, and short answer-questions. Moreover, as a day to day assessment, students may be required to participate actively in their classroom tasks, engaging fully in pair and group work, so that they are more familiar with and prepared for oral tests. However, it is important to note that developing this kind of assessment is really a complicated process and requires both expertise and resources. Given the current condition at this Cambodian university context, this seems to be a challenging thing, which should be acknowledged.

6.1.2. Changing or Adapting the Textbook to TBLT As currently there is no task-based textbook that focuses on the Cambodian context, perhaps a solution would be either changing the present textbook to a more suitable one, or adapting current materials. If this textbook is to be changed, probably it would be good to establish a team of Cambodian teachers of this university in order for them to work together to write a new Cambodian task-based textbook. Altogether these teachers could bring in their | 104

experience, knowledge and understanding about the local context and culture to be incorporated into this new curriculum and design tasks that base on this setting, taking into account the integration of a more focus on unfocused tasks. However, again, concern over finding the right persons with the right expertise and locating funding would be another challenge for this target university. In the case of adapting, some changes in the way the course book materials are used or organized should be made, in order that a rich opportunity for task-based learning can be provided. For example, as the findings have indicated that students preferred both direct grammar teaching and entertaining tasks, teachers may try a new form of teaching by starting their lesson with a free production activity first, bringing in learning materials that are related to students’ context. Then teachers can use this stage as the basis for a task planning-report cycle, with further integration of contextual and unfocused tasks. Finally, teachers can bring students attention to the same language focus stage but give more attention to grammar teaching. If needed, teachers can also set some controlled practice activities as homework and employ the class time to exploit language use in order to increase students’ language production. In this way, students can have both fun learning opportunities and serious grammar instruction, while teachers will be able to maintain some form of grammar teaching as well.

6.1.3. F ocusing on both F orms and F orm One more issue indicated by the findings is to get the right balance between the focus on form and focus on forms in a task-based approach in this Cambodian university context. Although TBLT critics such as Sheen (2003) and Swan (2005) have argued strongly that there is no grammar syllabus in a task-based lesson or that TBLT outlaws | 105

grammar teaching, major TBLT advocates such as R. Ellis (2003, 2009) and Samuda and Bygate (2008), among others, have all indicated that grammar syllabus has some place in the pure task-based teaching. In other words, there is no such a case that grammatical forms cannot or should not be taught in a task-based lesson. R. Ellis (2009) points out that any attention to a grammatical feature can be given in all three phases of a task-based lesson although different advocates recommend focusing on grammar teaching at different phases. Indeed, grammar teaching is necessary in a task-based lesson because it is considered as an essential step for SLA to take place (R. Schmidt, 1994). Moreover, Foto and Ellis (1991) mention that “providing learners with grammar problems they must solve interactively integrates grammar instruction with opportunities for meaningful communication” (p. 605). Therefore, we do not propose that grammar instruction be excluded in a genuine task-based lesson, but that it should be integrated. However, as mentioned previously, since many students of the study wished for more explicit grammar instruction while they also would like to have some communicative learning tasks, and since the six teachers also used the traditional approach to teach grammar to their students, it might be good that task-supported language teaching is adopted for the time being. One of the main rationales behind this is that task-supported language teaching would enable both the teachers’ and students’ needs to be met, because it makes use of focused tasks in language learning, that is, it uses tasks to facilitate communicative language practice and at the same time follows the form-based language teaching. More importantly, the use of task-supported language teaching at this present time would be crucial to the future possibility of adopting a genuine task-based approach in the context. This being so because task-supported | 106

language teaching will enable both the teachers and students to familiarize themselves with and understand TBLT along the process of implementing task-supported language teaching. Thus, by the time TBLT is introduced in this Cambodian setting, both teachers and students would have already had some basic knowledge and understanding about it, thereby making it easier to implement this approach.

6.1.4. Building Teachers’ Knowledge of TBLT As the teachers in this study knew about the concept of communicative language teaching but were very vague about that of TBLT, it is deemed essentially necessary that their and other Cambodian teachers’ knowledge about and awareness of TBLT be built up. This is because in order for them to use tasks effectively in their classroom, it is important that they first understand the nature of tasks, the rationale and purpose of performing tasks, and the ways in which tasks can promote learning (R. Ellis, 2003, 2009). Building up these teachers’ understanding and knowledge of TBLT can be done through a number of ways. One of first things to do would be to provide training support such as teacher training programs and workshops about task-based teaching and assessment, etc. to them and other teachers who will use TBLT as an approach to teaching. These training programs and workshops should be able to help these teachers to understand and implement task-based teaching and learning in their classroom and also to convey their students of the importance of learning through tasks. More imperatively, through training and workshop, teachers will be made aware of and understand how to design task-based assessment to use in their classroom and the whole course as well. Moreover, as R. Ellis (2009) reminds us that teachers who are involved in a task| 107

based course must also be involved in the development of task-based materials, it is necessary that our Cambodian teachers be involved in the process of writing task-based materials as well. This may be done by creating a team who will work together to develop these task-based materials. Involving teaches in the process of writing materials in this way will allow them to better understand the nature of task, as well as to design appropriate materials to suit the level and needs of their students and ensure the relevancy of tasks to the context. Equally important, teachers would also be able to adapt their supplementary teaching materials to TBLT, especially in a case that a commercial textbook is used. What is also important is that when materials do not seem to work well with their students, these teachers can always make appropriate modification to the materials by themselves. What is more is that teachers should also be involved in peer observations of taskbased lessons. Observing others and being the observed would be vital, particularly in ways that teachers can reflect upon their own teaching and others’ in order to adopt a more effective approach to teaching. Moreover, observations would also offer teachers the opportunity to bring in problems they may have in their classroom and discuss with their colleagues to find appropriate solutions and support to deal with the problems. In this manner, observations of task-based lessons are crucial because they help to increase teachers’ continual professional development and self-improvement (Shortland, 2004), and to establish good practice as a means to improve students’ learning (Lomas & Kinchin, 2006). However, it should be acknowledged that locating the resources and funding to run the programs would be at the moment another very challenging matter for the

| 108

university. In this sense, these workshops and trainings should be conducted using the existing and available resources the university has at the present time. For example, a very small scale training program may be done by the researcher himself in order to kick off a task-base teaching project.

6.2. Limitations of the Study In this case study, both triangulation and member checking were used in order to ensure the creditability, validity and trustworthiness of the study (Erlandson, et al., 1993; Gay & Airasian, 2003; Guba & Lincoln, 1989). Nonetheless, despite all these methods taken, there are still some limitations, which impact the results of the study. One of the main limitations is the lack of classroom observations. Although teaching observation is considered to offer accurate account of what happens in the classroom and allows in-depth study of the whole individual in its natural environment (Bailey, 1994; McDonough & McDonough, 1997), it was not possible to carry out this kind of empirical study, due mainly to time constraints and logistic arrangement and costs. In this regard, we cannot be certain that what the teacher informants and student respondents have claimed respectively in their interview and questionnaire would be borne out in the actual classroom. Another limitation is to do with the small number of participants in this study. Since the research was carried in a short timeframe and was an initial endeavor to investigate the feasibility of adopting TBLT in a university context in Cambodia, the student population was limited only to 143 advanced level learners of English found at only one university in Cambodia. In this manner, the generalizability of the findings to | 109

other Cambodian contexts is limited and affected. However, it is considered that some of the findings might also be applicable to other levels in the future. The findings of the study will also lend some contributions to the task of effective curriculum planning and teaching at the target university as well as at other universities in the country that wish to prepare their students for better and successful communication in English in the real world in the future. Above all, the findings help fill the gap of the lack of research into TBLT in the Cambodian context.

6.3. Resear ch Implications As discussed earlier, this case study has looked only at one specific level of the students and the number of population was also fairly small. Recognizing this small scale study, it may not be possible to generalize the findings to the other Cambodian settings. Therefore, it is suggested that a larger scale study should be adopted by including more teachers and students at the university level. This study should invite more students from different year levels or language proficiency levels such intermediate and upper intermediate proficiency students (Year 2 and 3) and more teachers who teach those levels at this target university context. This inclusion will provide a better and wider view of the current situation, especially whether task-based learning is suitable with them or how task-based learning could be introduced in the context. Moreover, considering the lack of classroom observations, it may not possible to make very strong claims about the feasibility of TBLT in this Cambodian university context and other contexts either. Thus, future research should include such observations in the data collection methods. These observations will provide both “breadth and depth of information about participants and setting” (Gay & Airasian, 2003, p. 198), thereby | 110

offering more accurate information about what actually happens in the classroom, rather than what teachers and students reports (McDonough & McDonough, 1997). In addition, since this present study only interviewed six teachers, not the students, future studies should include both teachers’ and students’ interviews as a method of collecting data. The inclusion of both views from teachers and students will allow future studies to get richer and more in-depth information about the setting, thus helping to enhance the generalizability and reliability of studies.

6.4. Conclusion This case study has investigated the viability of adopting TBLT in a university setting in Cambodia where English is used as a foreign language. It has indicated that while there were some positive and supporting aspects for TBLT, there were also some constraints on adopting a pure task-based approach in this particular context. In this respect, the study has suggested that task-supported language teaching might be more feasible in the setting, given the current situation. However, if a more task-based approach is to be successfully adopted in this setting in the future, some potential constraints such as the teachers’ lack of understanding of TBLT, traditional examination, the nature of the course book and teaching materials, etc. must be dealt with in advance. Besides, although there are some limitations of the study, the findings are still of vital importance in some certain aspects. For one thing, this study has filled the gap of very limited study on TBLT in the Cambodian context. For another thing, it has also provided useful information on how TBLT could be adapted and adopted in this university setting in Cambodia as well as in other similar settings.

| 111

R EFERENCES

Adams, R., & Newton, J. (2009). TBLT in Asia: Constraints and opportunities. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 19, 1-17. Adamson, B. (2006). A course in English language teaching. Beijing: Beijing Higher Education Press. Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Anderson, J. (1993). Is a communicative approach practical for teaching English in China? Pros and cons. System, 27, 471-480. Bailey, K. D. (1994). Methods of social research (4th ed.). New York: Free Press. Baker, D. (1989). Language testing: A critical survey and practical guide. London: Edward Arnold. Baker, W. (2008). A critical examination of ELT in Thailand: The role of cultural awareness. RELC Journal, 39(1), 131-146. Ball, S. J. (1990). Politics and policy-making in education: Explorations in policy sociology. London: Routledge. Bassey, M. (1999). Case study research in educational settings. Buckingham: Open University Press. Bowering, M. (1998). Collaborative learning and foreign language development: A case study in a Cambodian university. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Sydney. Breen, M. (1987). Learner contributions to task design. In C. Candlin & D. Murphy | 112

(Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp. 23-46). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Brindley, G. (1994). Task-centred assessment in language learning: The promise and the challenge. Paper presented at the Annual International Language in Education Conference (Hong Kong, 1993). Brindley, G., & Hood, S. (1990). Curriculum innovation in adult ESL. In G. Brindley (Ed.), The second language curriculum in action (pp. 232-248). Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research. Broady, E. (2002). Changes, challenges and complexity: Recent debates in English language teaching. Language Learning Journal, 26(1), 62-67. Brown, J. D., & Rodgers, T. S. (2002). Doing second language research. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brumfit, C. (1979). Communicative language teaching: An educational perspective. In C. Brumfit & K. Johnson (Eds.), The communicative approach to language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bruton, A. (2002a). From tasking purposes to purposing tasks. ELT Journal, 56(3), 280288. Bruton, A. (2002b). When and how the language development in TBI? ELT Journal, 56(3), 296-297. Burnaby, B., & Sun, Y. (1989). Chinese teachers' views of Western language teaching: Context informs paradigm. TESOL Quartely, 23(2), 219-238. Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Candlin, C. (1987). Towards task-based language learning. In C. Candlin & D. Murphy (Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp. 5-22). London: Prentice Hall. Carless, D. (2002). Implementing task-based learning with young learners. ELT Journal, | 113

56(4), 389-396. Carless, D. (2003). Factors in the implementation of task-based teaching in primary schools. System, 31, 485-500. Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers' reinterpretation of a task-based innonvation in primary schools. TESOL Quartely, 38(4), 639-662. Carless, D. (2005). Prospects for the implementation of assessment for learning. Assessment in Education, 12(1), 39-54. Carless, D. (2007). The suitability of task-based approaches for secondary schools: Perspectives from Hong Kong. System, 35, 595-608. Carless, D. (2009). Revisiting the TBLT versus P-P-P debate: Voices from Hong Kong. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 19, 49-66. Chick, J. K. (1996). Safe-talk: Collusion in apartheid education. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language classroom (pp. 21-39). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chow, A. K. W., & Mok-Cheung, A. H. M. (2004). English language teaching in Hong Kong SAR: Tradition, transition and transformation. In W. K. Ho & R. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), English language teaching in East Asia today: Changing policies and practices (pp. 150-177). Singapore: Eastern University Press. 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 competencies, professional development and resources: Final report. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Education. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). New York: Routledge. Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1996). Cluture of learning: Language classrooms in China. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language classroom (pp. 169-206). Cambridge: | 114

Cambridge University Press. Deng, C., & Carless, D. (2009). The communicativeness of activities in a task-based innovation in Guangdong, China. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 19, 113-134. Dushku, S. (2000). Conducting individual and focus group interviews in research in Albania. TESOL Quarterly, 34(4), 763-768. Eguchi, M., & Eguchi, K. (2006). The limited effect of PBL on EFL learners: A case study of English maganize projects. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3), 2037-2225. Ellis, G. (1996). How culturally appropriate is the communicative approach? ELT Journal, 50(3), 213-218. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 193-220. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221-246. Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Feez, S. (1998). Text-based syllabus design. Sydney: National Center for English Language Teaching and Research. Finch, A. (2006). Task-based supplementation: Achieving high school textbook goals through form-focused interaction. English Teaching, 61(1), 1-26. | 115

Foster, P. (1996). Doing the task better: How planning time influences students’ performance. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching. Oxford: Heinemann. Foster, P. (1999). Key concepts in ELT. ELT Journal, 53(1), 69-70. Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 12-20. Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25(4), 605-628. Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational research competencies for analysis and application (7th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hamel, J. (1993). Case study methods. California: Sage Publications. Ho, W. K. (2003). English language teaching in East Asia today: An overview. In W. K. Ho & R. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), English language teaching in East Asia today: Changing policies and practices (pp. 1-32). Singapore: Time Academic Press. Hood, M., Elwood, J., & Falout, J. (2009). Student attitudes toward task-based language teaching at Japanese universities. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 19, 18. Hu, G. (2002). Recent important developments in secondary English-language teaching in the People's Republic of China. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15(1), 3049. Hu, G. (2005a). CLT is best for China - An untenable absolutist claim. ELT Journal, 59(1), 65-68. Hu, G. (2005b). Contexual influences on instructional practices: A Chinese case for an | 116

ecological approach to ELT. TESOL Quartely, 39(4), 635-660. Hu, G. (2005c). English language education in China: Policies, progress, and problems. Language Policy, 4, 5-24. Hu, G. (2005d). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of communicative language teaching in China. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 93-105. Hui, L. (1997). New bottles, old wine: Communicative language teaching in China. Forum, 35(4), 38. Jeon, I.-J. (2006). EFL teachers' perceptions of task-based language teaching: With a focus on Korean secondary classroom practice. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3), 192206. Johnson, K. (2001). An introduction to foreign language learning and teaching. Harlow: Pearson Education. KICE.

(2008).

The

national

school

curriculum:

English.

Retrieved

from

http://www.kice.re.kr/upload/article/10260/1225389324576_06_English(Final).pdf

Klapper, J. (2003). Taking communication to task? A critical review of recent trends in language teaching. Language Learning Journal, 27, 33-42. Krahnke, K. (1987). Approaches to syllabus design for foreign language teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kumar, R. (1996). Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners. Melbourne: Longman. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quartely, 40(1), 59-81. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman. | 117

Lee, J. F. (2000). Tasks and communicating in language classroom. Boston: McGrawHill. Lee, S.-M. (2005). The pros and cons of task-based instruction in elementary English classes. English Teaching, 60(2), 185-205. Lewis, M. (1996). Implications of a lexical view of language. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching. Oxford: Heinemann. 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(4), 677-703. Lightbown, P. M. (2000). Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 431-462. Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestions. ELT Journal, 58(4), 319-326. Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language Teaching, 40, 243-249. Lomas, L., & Kinchin, I. (2006). Developing a peer observation program with university teachers. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 18(3), 204-214. Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77-99). Califonia: College-Hill Press. | 118

Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. B. Ginsberg & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Cambridge: Cambride University Press. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego: Academic Press. Madaus, G. F. (1988). The influence of testing on the curriculum. In L. N. Tanner (Ed.), Critical issues in curriculum : Eighty-seventh yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 83-121). Chicago: University of Chicago. Matsuura, H., Chiba, R., & Hilderbrandt, P. (2001). Beliefs about learning and teaching communicative English in Japan. JALT Journal, 23(1), 69-89. McDonough, J., & McDonough, S. (1997). Research methods for English language teachers. London: Arnold. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). California: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Mishan, F. (2005). Designing authenticity into language learning materials. Bristol: Intellect. Moore, S. H., & Bounchan, S. (2010). English in Cambodia: Changes and challenges. World English, 29(1), 114-126. Morris, P., Adamson, R., Au, M. L., Chan, K. K., Chan, W. Y., Ko, P. Y., et al. (1996). Target oriented curriculum evaluation project : Interim report. Hong Kong: Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong. Neau, V. (2003). The teaching of foreign languages in Cambodia: A historical perspective. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 16(3), 253-268. Nguyen, T. H. (n.d.). Cambodia: Cultural background for ESOL teachers. Retrieved from | 119

http://hmongstudies.com/NguyenCambodians.pdf Norusis, M. J. (2008). SPSS 16.0 guide to data analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. London: Printer Publishers. Passo de Oliveira, C. (2004). Implementing task-based assessment in a TEFL environment. In B. L. Leaver & J. R. Willis (Eds.), Task-based instruction in foreign language education: Practices and programs (pp. 253-279). Washington: Georgetown University Press. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). California: Sage Publications. Pit, C., & Roth, H. (2004). English language teaching development in Cambodia: Past, present and future. In H. W. Kam & R. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), English language teaching in East Asia today (pp. 102-118). Singapore: Eastern Universities Press. Plough, I., & Gass, S. M. (1993). Interlocutor and task familiarity: effect on interactional structure. In G. Crookes & S. M. Grass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 35-56). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Robinson, P. (1996). Task-based testing, performance-referencing and program development. The University of Queensland Working Papers in Language and | 120

Linguistics, 1(1), 95-117. Roth, H. (1998). Curriculum design for a business English course. Unpublished master of applied linguistics dissertation. Macquarie University. Sakui, K. (2004). Wearing two pairs of shoes: Language teaching in Japan. ELT Journal, 58(2), 155-163. Samimy, K. K., & Kobayashi, C. (2004). Toward the development of intercultural communicative competence: Theoretical and pedagogical implications for Japanese English teachers. JALT Journal, 26(2), 245-261. Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Sano, M., Takahashi, M., & Yoneyama, A. (1984). Communicative language teaching and local needs. English Language Teaching Journal, 38(3), 170-177. Savignon, S. J. (2002). Communicative language teaching: Linguistic theory and classroom practice. In S. J. Savignon (Ed.), Interpreting communicative language teaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher education (pp. 1-27). New Haven: Yale University Press. Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11-26. Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (1994). The post-Confusian confusion (Research Report). Hong Kong: Department of English, City University of Hong Kong. Seedhouse, P. (1999). Task-based interaction. ELT Journal, 53(3), 149-156. Seliger, H. W., & Shohamy, E. (1989). Second language research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. | 121

Sheen, R. (1992). Problem solving brought to task. RELC Journal, 23(2), 44-59. Sheen, R. (1994). A critical analysis of the advocacy of the task-based syllabus. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 127-151. Sheen, R. (2003). Focus on form - a myth in the making? ELT Journal, 57(3), 225-233. Shehadeh, A. (2005). Task-based language learning and teaching: Theories and applications. In C. Edwards & J. Willis (Eds.), Teachers exploring tasks in English language teaching. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Shim, R. J., & Baik, M. J. (2000). South and Noth Korea. In H. W. Kam & R. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), Language policies and language education: The impact in East Asian countries in the next decade (pp. 246-261). Singapore: Times Academic Press. Shim, R. J., & Baik, M. J. (2004). English education in South Korea. In H. W. Kam & R. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), Language policies and language education: The impact in East Asian countries in the next decade (pp. 241-261). Singapore: Eastern Universities Press. Shortland, S. (2004). Peer observation: A tool for staff development or compliance? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 28(2), 218-228. Skehan, P. (1996a). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38-62. Skehan, P. (1996b). Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 1730). Oxford: Heinermann. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1-14. | 122

Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185-211. Soars, J., Soars, L., & Sayer, M. (2003). New headway adavanced teacher's book. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Soars, L., & Soars, J. (2003). New headway advanced student's book (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sturman, A. (1999). Case study methods. In J. P. Keeves & G. Lakomski (Eds.), Issues in educational research (pp. 103-112). Amsterdam: Pergamon. Suon, C. (1990). English language curriculum for secondary schools (Mimeographed report by Quarker Service Australia for the Ministry of Education). State of Cambodia. Suos, M. (1997). Pre-service and in-service training of teachers: The bachelor of education (TEFL) degree course at UPP. In P. A. Denham (Ed.), Higher education in Cambodia: Perspectives of an Australian aid project (pp. 41-47). Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 245-256). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 376-401. Taguchi, N. (2002). Implementing oral communication classes in upper secondary schools: A case study. The Language Teacher, 26(12), 3-8. Thornbury, S. (1999). How to teach grammar. Harlow, England: Longman. Tinker Sachs, G. (2007). The challenges of adopting and adpting task-based cooperative teaching and learning in an EFL context. In K. Van den Branden, K. Van Gorp & M. Verhelst (Eds.), Tasks in action: Task-based language education from a | 123

classroom-based perspective (pp. 253-264). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press. Todd, R. W. (2006). Continuing change after the innovation. System, 34, 1-14. Tsui, A. B. M. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching: Case studies of second language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Van den Branden, K. (2006a). Introduction: Task-based language teaching in a nutshell. In K. Van den Branden (Ed.), Task-based language education: From theory to practice (pp. 1-16). Cambridge: Cambride University Press. Van den Branden, K. (Ed.). (2006b). Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vilches, M. L. C. (2003). Task-based language teaching: The case of EN 10. RELC Journal, 34(1), 82-99. Wall, D. (1997). Impact and washback in language testing. In C. Clapham & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (Vol. 7: Language testing and assessment, pp. 291-302). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. White, J. (1998). Getting the learners' attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In C. Doughty & J. Willinams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 85-113). New York: Cambridge University Press. Wilkins, D. A. (1976). Notional syllabuses: A taxomony and its relevance to foreign language curriculum development. London: Oxford University Press. Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow, Essex: Longman. Yim, S. H. (2006). South Korean teachers' perceptions of TBLT. TESOL Review, 29-50. | 124

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Yu, L. (2001). Communicative language teaching in China: Progress and resistance. TESOL Quartely, 35(1), 194-198. Zhang, E. Y. (2007). TBLT innovation in primary school English language teaching in mainland China. In K. Van den Branden, K. Van Gorp & M. Verhelst (Eds.), Tasks in action : Task-based language education from a classroom-based perspective (pp. 68-91). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press.

| 125

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Final Examination (Structure/Written Test and Listening Test)

Appendix 2: Informed Consent (Teacher and Student)

Appendix 3: Questionnaire Survey (Original, unfilled format)

Appendix 4: A Sample of Students’ Completed Questionnaire Appendix 5: Interview Protocol Appendix 6: A Sample of Teachers’ Interview Script (Teacher A)

Appendix 7: A Sample of Unit in the Course Book (Unit 7: New Headway Advanced Student’s Book)

| 126

Appendix 1: Final Examination (Structure/Written Test and Listening Test)

| 127

| 128

| 129

| 130

| 131

| 132

| 133

| 134

| 135

| 136

| 137

| 138

| 139

| 140

| 141

| 142

| 143

| 144

Appendix 2: Informed Consent (Teacher and Student)

| 145

| 146

Appendix 3: Questionnaire Survey (Original, unfilled format)

| 147

| 148

| 149

| 150

Appendix 4: A Sample of Students’ Completed Questionnaire

| 151

| 152

| 153

| 154

Appendix 5: Interview Protocol

| 155

| 156

Appendix 6: A Sample of Teachers’ Interview Script (Teacher A) Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee:

So thank you very much for your time for the interview today. You’re welcome. May I start with the task? OK So could you tell me how long have you been teaching English at [this University]? Since 2003, it should be almost … 7 years. What about teaching outside? Before I started teaching at [this University], I taught at er a private center outside from … 2000 … to 2002, yeah. Two years, yeah. Two years? Yes. So altogether almost 10 years? Yeah, almost. Right, with this experience, what do you think is the most effective way for students to learn a language? Um to me, the most effective way to learn a language … is use what they learn with four macro-skills: reading, listening, speaking and writing, yah. You mean, learn to use? Learn by using. If they don’t use, I don’t think they learn. Um just listening to teachers, or just, you know, memorizing words, without putting words into sentences – into speaking and writing – students can’t learn. So in short, the most effective way to learn a language is to put what they have learnt in the class, like by memorizing or whatever or by reading into … practices, you know, communicating with other people using the two skills like speaking and writing. Okay, yeah. So as a teacher what do you think what is the most effective way to teach students? So a moment ago it was for general? General, general. Now this time, as a teacher? | 157

Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee:

As a teacher. Still because a moment I did not notice that your question was about general, the thing is as a teacher, as I observe myself and also other successful learners, I mean some of my students are successful learners. Um, they actually … have done, what I’ve just said like, um, really put what they learn into use, into practices. Um, and, um, you know using what they have learnt makes them you know, kind of like, remember what they have learnt. Um…hum [Nodding] Or in short we can say they know what they’ve learnt, so it means they can learn that language successfully. Okay. I see. Right, so what basic principles do you follow when teaching English language at university level? Okay. What do you believe when you teach? My philosophical stance regarding the basic principles – No, no. Sorry. Um, OK, the basic principles that I follow in teaching students at university is that I believe good students or successful students should be independent ones. Independent ones? It means they should not just learn things in the class; they should learn things on their own and I mean most of the time, even more than the time that they spend in the class with teachers. So how would you make your students become independent learners? Alright, to me I would … yeah of course, train them to be independent by giving them tasks … Oh Such as assignment or homework that requires them to do on their own. And not only that, but also when I give feedback when they have to submit the things they’ve done, I’d also encourage them to be independent by like telling them not to worry too much of their like, kind of, appropriate or not appropriate or mistakes in the things they have collected, or in the work they have done, by saying like … I’m interested in how much you have collected and I’ll give comments to you later like the things which are appropriate for the task or whatever. If I, you know, kind of stick with paying attention how accurate their | 158

Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee:

Me:

Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me:

language or their work they have done are, I think the students would copy from … the homework or other assignment that they believe that other students have done very well, like with high score. With high score, yeah. Yeah, and to me it’s also hard to track whether students really copy from other students’ work. But as I believe like students should be independent and for me when I give feedback I’d say I am interested in your work though it is not appropriate or whatever. The thing is I like to see how much you can do, rather than thinking of the, you know, thinking of the, you know, paying attention to their accuracy straight away. I think I can frustrate them, and yeah that’s it. So what do you believe, say, the roles of a teacher in the classroom? Um to me I normally, you know, … Do you control them? What do you mean by ‘control’? Eh okay… How much freedom do you give to them? Kind of like lead them to go in the right tracks, by being a facilitator … I’d mediate like the tasks for them to do rather than just ask them to follow what I think is right, by saying that I am your teacher or something. According to your observation, do you think your students feel happy with that? With you as being a facilitator than a mere teacher? Yeah, yeah. Um… um…. For example like, why do you think they are happy? Okay … I’ve just received comments from students and I’m happy to see these as well because they said they saw that I encourage them to learn. And to me I feel that, yeah, I agree with that like encourage them to learn on their own. Okay Oh I see. Now let’s say in terms of teaching material selection and activity organization, so how would you describe your present approaches to teaching English, especially in terms of this teaching material selection and activity organization? Oh, two things? Yes Material selection and another one is … Activity organization. | 159

Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me:

Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

Let’s go with the first, material selection. First for me to have the appropriate selecting of materials, I’d keep my students’ level in mind, that’s one thing. And another thing’s my students’ needs – what they actually need to learn. So what is the appropriate material for them? And I’d consult with ready-made materials and of course as well as my experience as a teacher for previous batch [teaching]. Okay Right. And for that level, what should be the appropriate materials, right. So two things, from my experience form previous batch teaching and also ready-made materials available at the library as well as bookstores. Okay. Um, why do you think…. What about another point? You still want to ask me about the material selection or you want to go through the activity organization? Yes, just follow with the material. So then follow with the material selection. Yes, thanks. You’ve mentioned that when you select materials, you need to consider the students’ needs and their levels. Why do you believe these two things are important? Well, keeping their levels in my mind can keep me on the right track in teaching, like what is the appropriate level material for students to work on? Students would find it frustrating to work on like too hard materials or too difficult materials. Oh! What about another point … the students’ needs? Of course, that’s more practical, I’d say like look at, you know, what they actually need to get in order to master a language point. Yeah You know, different students may have different needs and look at the majority of the students and keep students’ needs in mind, and …. You know, students’ needs can tell us what we should teach them. I see. Right. If we don’t put students’ needs in mind, we may tell them or teach them what they actually know already, or something, you know. So it is a waste of time to teach them or tell what they actually know already. Okay, so students’ needs tell what they should learn. | 160

Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me:

Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee:

Me:

What they should and what we should teach them? Yes. OK I see. Concerning the materials, do you often use real teaching materials, or just something that you’ve invented? Oh, really teaching materials, you mean from ready-made books? It could be the ready-made books. For example, like you are conducting, let’s say, a role play and you need telephones, something between like a receptionist and a customer. Okay Do you think you use telephones, real telephones? Oh, in the class? Yes, in the classroom. I don’t need to, but if I do still it doesn’t matter ‘coz every single of student has phone. Maybe some of them have more than one [laughing]. [Laughing] Ok, I see. The thing to me is that it’s not necessary to have the actual things. We can have some performance or gesture that show that it’s the telephone, by having like thump up and you know you fold three of your fingers [showing]. And then you have tinny finger at the bottom, so it looks like phone if you put [them] next to your ear. I see, yeah, it looks like one. And yeah, we don’t need real phone like or that real material. Oh so, you mean the thing we use in teaching? Yep. A moment I was thinking of like explanation on language points and put them into handouts or something. To you, do you think it is really important to have authentic teaching materials? Oh, I like to put it into two things then. If you talk about things, like telephone that you were asking a moment ago, I’d say it’s not necessary because we can have it by having gesture or performance and it is understandable, like it’s a phone. But if it is explanation on a language point that the students are learning, I’d say authentic material is important. They need to learn the original thing, what is the standard thing. Okay, yeah if it is not real, I don’t feel that students learn. So then it depends on activity and situation, you mean? | 161

Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee:

No, what I mean is it depends on the word ‘materials’ you’ve just mentioned. I mean whether it refers to things that we use, like equipment or tool that we use in assisting our teaching or learning in class, or the explanation of the language point, like … talking about teaching language for example grammar points. I think we need to have authentic materials on explanation of that language point; it’s unlike the tool or equipment that we need in teaching like telephone. Or if we need some … for example if talk about vocabulary like it’s to do with wild animals. So how can you bring those authentic things into class? Wild animals? [Laughing] I think it’s not necessary. Pictures or drawings can help, yes. Can help with that? Yeah, yeah can help. So going back to activity organization, the second part of the question. Activity organization, to me I prefer the sequences of activity. Sequences of activity? Not just one single activity. I mean I put them into steps, like if I like my students to communicate with each other like to talk with each other using the grammar point that I’m teaching, I would not ask them to talk with each other straight away using that language point. I’d put into steps like the first step we have preparation like brainstorming questions they need to ask each other. And second step they sit in pair and talk with each other and take note as well. And the third step they need to report what they got from their partners, so that’s what I mean by sequences of activity – with steps. Then you have, like, you’ve mentioned, pair works and group works? Yeah, pair works and group works. So that students can talk with each other. Without pair works and group works to let students have chance to talk, it’d be very difficult. I am alone, I have one mouth. I can’t talk to 25 or 30 mouths in the class. So I’d let them talk with each other by asking them to work in pairs or groups. How often then do you have like pair and group works? As often as necessary after students have listened to presentations from their friends regarding the language point that I’m teaching. Yes. Not just their friends’ presentations, but also my additional explanation | 162

Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee: Me:

Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

Me:

to the language point that they have learnt. So after they’ve listened or they’ve learnt the explanation or theories of a language point, they need to go to the practice stage. To me, I’d put it into controlled and free practice stage. What I’ve told you earlier, like sequences of activity, that’s part of free practice stage. What about controlled practice stage? For controlled practice stage, I’d give them some exercises about the language point. Mainly they are ready-made materials from grammar books. Grammar textbooks that you use? Yes, from the textbooks we’re using. Okay, actually you have already mentioned about the common activities that you select for your classrooms like you need to select any materials that suit your students’ needs and their levels, right? OK, yes. I wonder how you actually do that. In selecting? Yeah, that’s right. As I’ve said earlier regarding levels of students, because we have separate levels of students like elementary, pre-intermediate, intermediate, upper-intermediate, something like that, I know what they are and I keep them in mine. And I go to the ready-made materials and ready-made materials are very well-designed. They’re also actually identified already they are for advanced level students or intermediate level students. What about students’ needs? Regarding students’ needs, I have to do a lot of things, not simple things like keeping levels of students in mine. By asking them to take a test or a smaller version like quiz, the result of the test or quiz tells me the strengths and weaknesses of students. Second point of finding out what students’ needs are is through my observation … Probably because I don’t use just test and quiz, but also like ask them to work with each in the free practice stage like in pairs and in groups. I don’t just sit at the desk while they are working with each other; I have to monitor them, and that’s why I normally do. Just walk around? | 163

Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee:

Walk around and listen to them. This is part of my observation regarding [how to find out] what students’ needs are. And when I observe them, I listen to them and interact with them, from group to group and from pair to pair in class while they’re also working with each in the free practice stage. Yes. At that time I can find out what their needs are. The third point that I should do in order to find out what students’ needs are, I ask them, you know, talk with me straight way, maybe … Face to face? Yeah, maybe after class. Yes have, you know, kind of everyday conversation with them and talk to them, and they would reveal their problems. Like what … what problems they still have with their studies in the class. They sometimes subconsciously tell me what they actually need, so I can notice that. Right, that’s cool. Yah, these are three common points that I normally do to find out what students’ needs are. You have something more to add? I guess that’s it. Concerning grammar teaching, how do you usually teach grammar to your students? Um … You may give some examples. Um …. Right for me in order to get students attention I’d give them like kind of a small test probably to translate [sentences from] Khmer version to English version. And in those sentences should include the grammar points that I’m going to teach. I like to know whether students actually can, you know, express themselves regarding that thought in Khmer version into English. And after that I’d allow them to read the materials, I mean explanation on the grammar point that they are learning, and … in reading different parts of the grammar point that they are learning, they have to first read it individually. And after that they share with each other in separate groups, and different groups are responsible for different parts of the explanation of the grammar [point]. After that I ask them to present. It means in order of the explanation and | 164

Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

different groups have to present, you know, maybe a person from a group [is] to present. And after listening to their friends’ presentation, they have the rights to ask questions about what they …. The other groups have presented? They have doubts about, and then we discuss together in the class. For me I’d wrap up from part to part, like one part for one group after each of the group has done their presentation about that part. Yeah, yeah I see. And after that when I can finish, I mean we can finish, all the explanation of the grammar points that we are learning in the class (I use ‘we’ because me teacher and my students have done that together.), Right, right. Um … I’d go to controlled practice stage. I’d ask them to work on the exercises from the ready-made materials, like from grammar book. And then we also discuss with each other regarding the answers to those exercises. But before we discuss I also allow them to work in pairs or groups with each other, right. After they’ve gone through the controlled practice stage, I lead them to go to freer practice stage by asking them to use what they have learnt with the two skills – speaking or writing skills. Oh, I see. And I believe if students can put grammar points into sentences in communicating with each like using or writing it or speaking, yeah, I believe that they learn. Have you ever changed the sequences, let’s say, you have done like…? Oh that’s one of the ways. And another way, I’d start – it depends on how much time I have. If I feel I don’t have much time, I’d [laughing] go straight to presentation without asking them to take the test. Hahaha, I see. Yeah, but for the first way that I’ve told you a moment – a test, presentation, controlled practice, and then free practice. After controlled practice or after free practice, I’d go back to the test that I ask them to work on to clarify. Or it can be done after presentation as well. Sound interesting and complicated [laughing]. Okay, taking about variation of this regarding whether I change any step, well as I said if I don’t have much time I’d go straight to presentation and then I still keep the last two stages – controlled practice | 165

Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee:

and free practice. Oh you still maintain them? I do, but sometimes I swop the order of the stage as well. But again it’s to do with time [laughing]. With time [laughing]? If I have enough time I’d have all the three stages – presentation, controlled practice and free practice. Um … I’d just have … presentation and then free … Free practice? Free practice straight away but I notice that when I use this style of teaching or method of teaching, students have problems with producing sentences in the free practice stage because they haven’t done exercises yet in order to make sure that they understand what their friends or me or I have presented in the presentation stage. What do you usually do in the freer practices? Mainly think of activities or tasks that I believe make students have a chance to produce sentences by using the grammar points that we are learning. So it could be speaking or writing or something like that? Yes, those are the two common skills that I focus on in that stage, right. Same skills are [focused on] from time to time like writing and speaking, or speaking and writing. But the differences are the tasks that I ask them to do. Yeah, sometimes it can be games. Oh it can be games? I put them into games, yeah. That will be fun activities. Yes. I see. By the way, do you think your students communicate much in English in your classroom? Yes, I do, and [interrupt] Why do you think so? Before I go to why I think so, I can raise one of my class examples. You know they even create rules of fining those who speak [interrupt] Speak Khmer? Who speak, yeah, Khmer sentences instead of English in the class. Alright, let’s go to Why … maybe part of the reasons I told you a | 166

Me: Interviewee: Me:

Interviewee: Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

moment [laughing] already. Yeah, yeah [laughing]. Yeah. Or sometimes because you have more group works and pair works or something like that, and that’s why they have the opportunities to talk. Is that because of this one or what else? Okay, so the question is about like why I think I can lead students to talk much in English? Yeah to talk much in English. Ah I see. Just like what you said a moment … because I normally have activities that I can allow them to have chance to talk with each other to talk …. in English. Yes. And a part from that, I also encourage them or tell them directly like ‘you should speak in English. The more you speak in English, the better your English speaking skills will become’. Sounds good. Yah. Well sometimes when they talk in Khmer, I pretend to have fun with them by [asking] ‘Oh what do you mean? Can you make it in English or whatever? Oh I don’t understand what you were saying? What language were you using at that time [laughing]?’ [Laughing] So it becomes … [Laughing] I’m like, yah, dealing with students like indirectly and having fun with them. So they realize and change accordingly? Yeah yeah, that’s right. And a part from those three points I also keep admiring their language proficiency, so they feel encouraged to speak. Ah that’s nice, of course. I rarely pick up their mistakes while they’re talking to me. Of course, I’d … you know like ask them what language they were using like when they talk in Khmer in order to encourage them to talk in English. But I would not pick up their mistakes when they’re speaking in English in order to have fun. That’s not an appropriate thing to do. Right, I see. Right, I think not picking their mistakes while they’re talking can encourage them to speak in English. | 167

Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

OK, not just pointing at their mistakes, coz it may discourage them, right? That’s right, yeah. And for me if I want to talk about their mistakes that they have in order to improve them, I’d do it indirectly like I’d put them on the board LATER, not on the SPOT. Not on the spot? Not on the spot at that time, no not that one. And then I talk about it by not mentioning like whose mistake that is. Just tell the mistakes? I just say ‘we should not write like this or we should not say like this, so what do you think is the right way to say or write?’ Then the one who made mistakes will realize it? Yah, will realize but just indirectly. Coming back to you yourself, to what extent are you confident yourself in using English in your classroom? My English language proficiency myself? Yes. Yeah, I am confident and I think I can be, you know, more or less their model. That’s ‘coz for me myself I keep improving it. How? Well every day I try to notice the authentic structures from native speakers. Though I don’t live with native speakers, I try to set up environment that I feel I am living with native speakers. Like I have cable TV at home, and I have access to radio 100 FM and 101.5 FM. I mean BBC and ABC, respectively. So you feel quite comfortable using English? Yes, I do. But do you feel embarrassed or inferior when you make mistakes in front of your students? Well I should say it was only when I first started my teaching career that I felt this way. Um … I mean I felt kind of embarrassed when I made mistakes in front of them but well I told myself that’s simple things we do. We aren’t native speakers, so making mistakes are something inevitable. Oh I see. Then I keep improving myself like I’ve told you just now, and here at | 168

Me: Interviewee: Me:

Interviewee: Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

[this University] I don’t have the same feeling I did at my first place. I’m comfortable here with my English and ready for any challenges from my students. That’s great to hear so, yeah. Thanks. Another point about assessment, what do you think about the assessment criteria set forward by the English Department? To what extent do you think they are effective or not effective in assessing the student learning? Okay, effective and not effective? Yes, yes. Yeah I mean both. Let me talk about the good things first, I mean effective. Effective in a way that it’s … kind of like you know have separate percentages for different tasks. I mean we don’t just evaluate students by using only one task. So the more tasks the more realizable. It’s effective. I mean appropriate percentages, I think. Oh, so what are those different percentages for? Like [final] exam is 50% and other on-going class assessment is another 50%. Class assessment requires students to work on several things like presentation, role play, discussions, written assignment, homework, quizzes, two revision tests, etc. Any tasks that are harder to fulfill will be given more marks, yeah. That’s loads, I see. What about things that you think not effective? You know, in a way that it is not effective, especially for some subjects that I’m responsible for – Core English. I think Core English is supposed to help students with four macro-skills in the language because it is mainly [a] language-based subject. As I’ve said earlier, the four macro-skills: reading, listening, writing and speaking, the assessment that we have normally we focus on reading [and] listening but not much on writing, not much on speaking. And I feel that the percentage given by the Department mainly focuses on reading and listening. You know, I … don’t feel that there is a balance … in assessing student’s skills among the four macro-skills. So you think there should be more integration from writing and speaking into reading and listening? That’s right, that’s right. And for my subject and to my philosophical | 169

Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee: Me:

Interviewee: Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee: Me:

Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee:

stance of teaching, students can write, students can speak using the language points that we are teaching in the course. If they can use those language points in writing and speaking, I think they learn it and they are successful learners in the course. Oh I see. But what if our assessment focuses more reading and listening? If students have high scores, I don’t feel that those students really learn the, you know, things that we have in the course. Right I see. But that’s for language-based course. It’s not about skill-based course. Well I see, yeah. Concerning like tests or exams, do you think they test students’ memory or their real ability? What is your belief according to your experience and observation or evaluation? According to my experience with the …. Yes, for Core English Core English subject mainly about the four macro-skills: reading, listening, writing, and speaking, I don’t think they test students’ memory because it’s about putting the language into use with the four macroskills, though I feel that it’s to do with reading and listening. My point is … not about the students’ memory. It’s not about memory-based tests or something like that? No, no. So overall, to what extent do you believe the current program (Core English 3) is effective in preparing students to be proficient and competent users of English in the real world? Okay, I think, well, this one is very hard. To what extent means … like How much do you believe? Okay … Um … Okay for one course we have teaching and testing students. So I’d put it into two parts, teaching and test. OK Regarding teaching, if teachers in the course …. Should I talk about my course? Yes, why not? Or courses in general? Regarding courses in general, if teachers can balance among the four macro-skills, it’s very effective. But for my course itself, I believe I can balance among the four macros-skills. But | 170

Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

for testing part, I feel that … well as I’ve said earlier not so effective in a way that it does not focus, you know, much enough to the extent that is enough like or acceptable regarding writing and speaking. So I feel that students, yeah, from teaching, students can learn from the four macro-skills like in a balanced way. More or less they can be competent and proficient and yeah. To me I believe they don’t just learn from testing but mainly from our teaching. I see. So if I believe my course has a balance among the four macro-skills and that’s what I’d keep doing. I feel that students who get out of my course, you know, can get a balance among the four macro-skills and can be proficient learners. Right, right I see. So my opinion is that if students can get balance among the four-macro skills, like practices, I think when they graduate or when they get out of the course they can be proficient. Is this the case in general? What do you think? Um … I think it is, yeah. Well, yeah. So now let’s say in particular what do you think could be done to improve the current program – Core English 3 program? Um … What recommendation would you give? Okay, two recommendations. The first one to do with teaching. Teaching, yeah. Like those who are responsible for this subject need to understand that we need to help students with four macro-skills and two sub skills, vocabulary and grammar, which are basic points in the language. In short, we need to balance among all those skills in order to help students with the language in this Core English 3 course. What about the second point? The second point, yeah, of the recommendation that I have is for testing, for assessment, I think. We’d better, yeah like, try to balance among the four macro-skills and the two sub-skills. Make sure the results of the assessment really reflect that students have high proficiency of the language. I mean in the balanced way in terms of all the skills, necessary in the language. Okay. | 171

Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

Me:

What about the other areas? Do you have thing to say, like curriculum or teaching pedagogy? Oh, related to curriculum or the content available in the course book, it’s good if we can have our own course book, like more Cambodian-course book, rather than New Headway which is for foreign students, which is for any, not just Cambodian students – like any nationalities. Ah so the current course book is more general and not context-based one, right? Yes, it is. As I’ve said, it’s good if we can have our own course book which is designed to base on our own theme and context. But like nowadays if we don’t have like this, make sure teachers who are responsible for this subject know how to adjust the materials in the New Headway book, you know, appropriate for Cambodian students. Or try to adjust the tasks available in the course book to make them appropriate for Cambodian students. I mean Cambodian students can do, really related to Cambodian students, so that they feel encouraged to do. Learn something that is in their own context? Yeah, in their own context. If we can personalize the activities, students can find them interesting. And when they are interested in it, they really want to work on in. When they work on it, of course, they learn, yeah. Okay, so they will learn. Yep. Then can you tell me what you know about task-based language teaching, or what is commonly known as TBLT? Um … task-based language teaching to me is teaching in which we ask students to do tasks in order to learn a language point. What kind of tasks are you referring to? Well, it refers to real situations in real life that students are gonna face, I mean, in their everyday life. So they need to express themselves in the target language. Yah So we teachers need to sit down and imagine where the possible places that the students can express themselves in the target language in English of course. Like adverb of place or at restaurant of course or what, okay. Can you give such a task that you use in your classroom? You’ve said | 172

Interviewee: Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee: Me:

Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

Me:

‘real tasks’ that you use. Okay, like interviewing. Interviewing? Yah, pretending to be a celebrity and being interview by journalist or something. And they take turn to interview each other, take turn to be journalist and to be celebrity. And after that they report to the class, using the language point they’re learning. In what context are you aware of it? Of this task-based language teaching? Um … I saw that … You got some training? I got training, yeah. When I was in year four of my Bachelor of Education degree in Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL), I saw that word and I also got what it means at that time. And as far as I remember, I mean as I as far I understand from the word as the name itself [tells] like task-based, so it’s based on tasks. It’s based on tasks. Alright. So it means kind of teaching that students need to do tasks in order to learn something in that teaching, like language points. If I’m not mistaken, according to what you’ve mentioned, it seems like you’ve been using task-based language teaching in your classroom, right? I have, yeah. To what extent do you think you have used it? To what extent … Can you say it again? To what extent do you think you have used task-based approach? Yeah, I’d say as much as necessary like after students listen to presentation and also explanation, they need to, you know, use the language point that we’re learning in the classroom, like pretend to be in the real life situation. And I need to use it. Without it my class would be boring to my students. Are you trying to say that TBLT makes the students enjoy the class? Yes, and I think I like teaching because I have that as well. What if the school doesn’t allow me to use that one, I’d say ‘Oh I don’t want to teach’ [laughing]’. [Laughing] | 173

Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee:

Because without that I can’t make my class lively and enjoy my teaching. Hahaha, I see. So do you think TBLT is suitable for university context in Cambodia? I mean in general for language. Yes and No. Why? For Yes, if that university has, you know, an entrance examination for students to sit for. Make sure students in the class have very similar ability of language proficiency. So when we use it, it’s OK when the students have the same ability because the students have to be responsible for themselves, like they’re gonna take roles in the tasks. What if they don’t have similar ability? I think poor students are gonna be lost in the tasks and we can’t use task-based language teaching successfully in that situation. I get the point. So a moment I said Yes and No. For me No, in case that students do not have similar ability of language, resulted from like not having entrance examination or having entrance examination but without really marking the students’ entrance examination and decide to allow students to get in to the class, by thinking of just doing business. So make sure that the students in the course REALLY have similar ability or the same ability of language, okay. They should be in the same level so that they can catch up with each other in the class. Do you think this is the most important thing, or what? Um … What about our culture? Do you think this is appropriate or compatible with our culture, since this is, say, a new way of learning? Um … well … I was informally taught to be reserved or whatever not to talk much or being allowed to talk much, probably can be an obstacle for task-based language teaching. … But I don’t think it is the problem now, like not being allowed to talk much. Because right now I think people like tend to talk to each other rather than keep silent. If they tend to be reserved or keep silent, they can’t solve problems that they have with each other [learning tasks]. And what about learning a language? If they just keep silent, they don’t do tasks, like talk to each other, they don’t learn the point. So … I don’t think people are gonna hate it | 174

Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee:

Me:

Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee:

Me:

because of the tradition or what. But if it is a new thing and it makes students learn, I think it’s okay, though some people may feel it’s not appropriate for our culture. So it’s against our culture? Um … I can’t say it’s totally against our culture, but the thing is that it is not that to talk much to work, you know, on the tasks teachers prepared for. To me I’m not so sure whether talking too much is against Cambodian culture, or what [laughing]. Because sometimes as a student you have to argue with your teacher and it may be considered impolite or something like that. For that point, oh I see, yeah. Arguing with teachers, to me, arguing with teachers is okay but not quarrelling with teachers. [Laughing] Not quarrelling not fighting. Yah. Right now I can see students are encouraged to be active in class, to ask whenever they have questions rather than sit and keep mum. And keep that doubt in their head, okay, as a result they learn nothing or what. So I’d say it’s okay. What about at the teacher’s side? Previously, teacher was someone who was powerful in the class and who transferred knowledge to students. But when the role is changed, how would you comment on this point? To me, as a teacher, I wouldn’t want my students to be afraid of me in a way that I am powerful or what. I am their teacher, and I want them to respect me in a way that they learn things from me, they really learn things available in the course. So arguing or asking about the points that they don’t understand or challenging with the points that they don’t agree with, I think it’s good. Why do you think so? Because it encourages them to be active and learn more, and I won’t mind that. But for me, I try to be their model as well in a way I use polite words, so that’s what I expect from my students as well. So when they argue or when they ask politely and nicely, it is okay. And for me as a teacher I should do that as well. So when people talk or argue with each other in a nice way, I mean in, a polite way, that’s not the problem. And learning can happen from arguing with each other, from talking with each other, right, with nice talking. Say, given all these constraints, to what extent to do you think TBLT is | 175

Interviewee: Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee: Me:

suitable for [this University], if we decide to use it formally. Oh I think very much, very large extent. Why do you think so? Because, the first thing is that students at [this University] normally take entrance examination before they can be in year one class, so it means they have a very similar ability or the same ability of language proficiency. So I think it is appropriate, because students are gonna feel encouraged to work with each other because they have a very similar ability, right. And second point, well, at [this University] we encourage students to be active, to talk and to argue. So I think it is appropriate for students at [this University]. And the third point is that [this University] is responsible for training students’ foreign languages. So in learning a language, if students do not have chances to use the language they are learning, I don’t think they learn. So, yeah, it’s appropriate for [this University]. As I’ve said, it’s very large extent, yeah, for task-based language teaching. Very appropriate. Would you be in favor of? Yeah, yeah, I am. Like I’ve said without it I wouldn’t like teaching. So you have already supported it? Yes, yeah. Okay. I’m very much in favor and I keep using it and that’s what I do in my teaching. Do you see any possibility for, I mean, the leader to adopt this approach? Oh what do you mean by the leader? You mean the owner of the school? Yes, the owner, the management team. Well, I’m not sure whether the leader realizes that we actually adopted it already or what? Or what if it is proposed to the leader whether we should accept or adopt task-based language teaching? Um … I think the leader would see a lot of good things and I feel unsure whether actually they’ve adopted already or what? [Laughing] [Laughing] Or it’s just that they don’t know? Or maybe they don’t know they’ve adopted it. Who should I ask [laughing] whether … [Laughing] Yah | 176

Interviewee: Me: Interviewee:

Me: Interviewee: Me: Interviewee: Me:

Interviewee: Me: Interviewee:

Who should I ask in order to know whether the leader has adopted it already? Not sure Well I think the leader may have already adopted it because I’m here at [this University] not just a teacher, but I was a student as well. And I observed my teachers teaching at [this University] and I could see these things happen, and maybe they don’t know that they’ve been using TBLT, yeah. Right I see. Yah. Okay, that’s the end of the interview, and I’d like to thank you very much again for sparing your valuable time for this long discussion. It’s my pleasure. Would you mind if I come back to you again if I need further clarification of any points you have mentioned in this interview? Just in case there might be something that is not very clear. Oh, that’s okay. You can come to me any time and I’m pleased to help you with that. That’s very kind of you. Thanks very much again. You’re welcome. Thanks!

| 177

Appendix 7: A Sample of Unit in the Course Book (Unit 7: New Headway Advanced Student’s Book)

| 178

| 179

| 180

| 181

| 182

| 183

| 184

| 185

| 186

| 187