The Use of Task-based Learning to Develop English Speaking

Ability of Mattayomsuksa 4 Students

Miss Uraiwan Sae-Ong

uraiwan.saeong@gmail.com

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to develop English speaking ability of Mattayomsuksa 4
students at the Demonstration School of Silpakorn University in Nakornpathom Province through
task-based learning. The informants were 40 Mattayomsuksa 4 students gained via random
sampling. The instruments used for collecting data were seven lesson plans, a pre-post speaking
test, a teacher’s observation form, a students’ self-assessment form, and group work assessment.
The data were statistically analyzed by mean, standard deviation, and t-test for dependent samples.
The results of this study indicated that the English speaking ability of Mattayomsuksa 4
students through task-based learning after the experiment was significantly higher at the .05
level.

Keywords: task-based learning, English speaking ability, group work

1
1. Introduction
Background and Rationale
English has played an important role on
the daily life of the Thai people for a number of
years due to its modern influences on
education, career, and economics. Speaking is
on of the major language skills which need to
be developed by non-native teachers of English
but is often difficult to improve in EFL
situations with limited access to other speakers
of English. In most such contexts, either inside
or outside the classroom (Gu, 2003) [1].
It has been found that learners have
various difficulties in learning English.
Several EFL learners cannot use English in
conversation or correspondence with others
effectively, especially in speaking. Therefore,
teaching methods have been received much
attention to solve this type of problem.
Many studies have proven that task-
based learning is an alternative approach to
resolve the crisis of teaching English. Oxford
(2006) [2] says that task-based teaching and
learning as a field is an exciting field that
potentially offer great riches if explored by
teachers in their dual roles as an instructor and
action researcher.
Task-based syllabuses have been
promoted by second language acquisition
researchers and educationalists as an alternative
to linguistic syllabuses on the grounds that
linguistic syllabuses are not effective in
promoting acquisition and task-based
syllabuses conform to what is known about
acquisition processes. (Ellis, 2003) [3].
Theoretically and practically, task-
based learning can both facilitate and be
facilitated by group work. According to a
number of research studies, group work is an
important part of task-based learning.
Therefore, to explore how group work operates
and what learners actually performance in
groups in language classroom will be
interesting. It is not know exactly what happens
during group work activities or the precise
effect of small group interaction on learning or
acquisition (Mercer, 2004) [4]. Little is known
about how learner interaction can facilitate
learning. (Gillies, 2004) [5], but studies suggest
that interaction and learning are related and
learner interaction and cooperation lead to
second language acquisition (Lightbown and
Spada, 1999[6]; Gass, 2003[7]).
Consequently, a study on the
effectiveness of employing task-based learning
with group work would be an interesting topic
research.
1.1 Objectives of the Study
1. To examine the use of task-based learning to
develop English speaking ability
2. To investigate the effectiveness of group
work incorporating task-based learning.
3. To explore students’ perceptions and
reactions to English speaking abilities after
learning through task-based learning.
1.2 Significance of the study
The results of this study will be
concluded with the evidence of an English
speaking ability and development through
communication by using task-based learning.
Also, this study will suggest on how to
incorporate group work using the task-based
approach.
1.3 Scope of the Study
Population and Participants
1. The populations in this study will be
Mattayom Suksa 4 students chosen by the
simple random sampling approach. The
participants will be 40 students purposively
selected from Satit Silpakorn School,
Nakornpathom.
2. The variables in this study are as follows:
2.1 Independent variables are task-based
learning and group work
2.2 Dependent variable is English speaking
ability
1.4 Definition of Terms
1. Task-based learning (TBL) refers to a
method of English teaching that requires the
learners to use authentic language through a
communicative approach in order to achieve an
outcome desired rather than form-focused
(Willis, 1998) [8] and (Ellis, 2003) [9].
2. English speaking ability refers to the
speaking performance to communicate by
sharing information fluently and accurately
2
including choosing and using appropriate
vocabulary and structure in all contents.
3. Group Work is activities and exercises
carried out by learners working in small, co-
operative groups and possess collective
perception, needs, shared aims,
interdependence, cohesiveness, and
membership. Group work also aims to cater for
individual differences, develop learners'
knowledge, and generic skills.
1.5 Statement of hypothesis
Task-based learning with group work
will develop learners’ English speaking ability.
2. Liturature Review
2.1. Definition of Task-based Learning
Task-based Learning has been
increasingly modified in recent years and has
been recommended as a way forward in
communicative language teaching. The
definitions for tasks are presented in a relative
order as follows.
Prabhu (1987) [10] defined a “task” as
an activity which requires learners to arrive at
an outcome from given information through
some process of thought, and which allows
teachers to control and regulate that process. In
line with Prabhu, Lee (2000) [11] defines a task
as a classroom activity or exercise that has an
objective obtainable only by the interaction
among participants, a mechanism for
structuring and sequencing interaction, and a
focus on meaning exchange. Moreover, a task
means a language learning endeavor that
requires learners to comprehend, manipulate,
and produce the target language as they
perform the set task (Richards,1986) [12].
Also, a task is an activity that involves real-
world language.
According to Willis (1998) [13], tasks
are activities in which the target language is
used by the learner for a communicative
purpose in order to achieve an outcome. Nunan
(2004) [14] uses the word ‘task’ instead of
‘activity’. He defines a communicative task as
a piece of classroom work which involves
learners in comprehending, manipulating,
producing, or interacting in the target language
while their attention is principally focused on
meaning rather than form. The task should also
have a sense of completeness, being able to
stand alone as a communicative act in its own
right. Ellis (2003) [15] defines “task” as
activities that call for primarily meaning-
focused on language use. In contrast, exercises
are activities that call for primarily form-
focused. According to, Bygate, Skehan, and
Swain (2001) [16] a “task” is an activity which
requires learners to use language, with
emphasis on meaning, to attain an objective.
In conclusion, while these definitions
vary, they all emphasize the fact that a task is
an activity that requires language learners to
use the language through a communicative
purpose in order to achieve an outcome.
Moreover, meaning is the major focus rather
than form.
2.2 Components of the TBL Framework
The components of the TBL framework
are pre-task, task-cycle, and post-task.
2.2.1 Pre-task. The purpose of the pre-task
phase is to prepare learners to perform the task
in ways that will promote acquisition.
2.2.2 Task cycle. The methodological options
available to the teacher in the during-task
phase. There are three stages of task cycle;
task, planning, and report.
The task stage is a vital opportunity for
learners to use language working
simultaneously, in pairs or small groups, to
achieve the goal of the task.
The planning stage describes how to
help learners plan their report effectively and
maximize their learning opportunities.
The report stage presents to the class
about how they did the task and what they
discovered or decided.
2.2.3 Post-task. An opportunity for a repeat
performance of the task, to encourage
reflection on how the task was performed, and
to encourage attention to form, in particular to
the forms which prove problematic to the
learners when they perform the task. Analysis
and practical activities are set in this stage to
touch in the major pedagogic goals above.
Analysis activities require learners to
identify and process specific language features
from the task text and/or transcript and may ask
3
about other features they have noticed.
Practical activities can combine
naturally with analysis stage and are useful for
consolidation and revision.
2.3 Related Studies on Task-Based Learning
Teaching English as a foreign language
by using task-based learning has been proven
by researchers at various levels; from basic to
advance. Many research over the past twenty
years have investigated task-based learning as
shown below:
Tanasarnsanee (2002) [17], compares
teaching Japanese language in 3Ps, and task-
based learning to the Japanese learner. The
result showed students who have learned
Japanese language by task – based learning
have a higher competence in the Japanese
language for communication than 3Ps.
As Willis (1998) [18] has revealed that
TBL supports students to extend learners in
using language for communication more than
3Ps.
Rattanawong (2004) [19] studies the
effects of teaching by using Task-Based
Learning towards English language
communicative ability of Pratom Suksa six
students. It was found that: the difference in the
means score in four skills of listening,
speaking, reading, and writing of the
experimental group was higher than those of
the controlled group at the .05 level of
significance.
Wichitpisan (2005) [20] investigated
the students’ English speaking ability through
Task-Based learning. The results of this study
revealed that: the students’ English speaking
ability before and after the task-based learning
experimental was significantly different at the
level of .01. Moreover, the students’ attitude
towards studying English speaking ability
before and after the task-based learning
experimental was significantly different at the
level of .01.
Yooyong (2008) [21] studied the
development of English speaking ability of
Mattayomsuksa 2 students at Banmarkkaeng
School in Udon Thani Province. The results of
this study indicated that the English speaking
ability of Mattayomsuksa 2 students after the
experiment was significantly higher at the .01
level.
2.4 Group Work
2.4.1 Defining of Group Work
Group work is task, activities and
exercises carried out by learners working in
small, co-operative groups (Nunan, 2004) [22].
Jaques (2000) [23] said that a
group can be said to exist as more than a
collection of people when it possesses the
following qualities, collective perception,
needs, shared aims, interdependence, social
organization, interaction, cohesiveness, and
membership. Group work is also a form of
cooperative learning. It aims to cater for
individual differences, develop learners'
knowledge, generic skills (e.g. communication
skills, collaborative skills, critical thinking
skills) and attitudes. (Wikipedia, 2009) [24]
Gully (1963) [25] said that group work is
constructed of more than two people. The
purpose of group work is to work corporately
in limited time. In addition, Button (1974) [26]
stated that communication and relationship are
the necessary part in being human, so to
construct group work supports humans to learn
and communicate with each other. Group
workers have to help the group to reach the
highest goal.
In summary, group work is activities
and exercises carried out by learners working
in small, co-operative groups which possess
collective perception, needs, shared aims,
interdependence, cohesiveness, and
membership. In addition, group work aims to
cater for individual differences, develop
learners' knowledge, and generic skills.
2.4.2 The Benefits of Group Work
Willis (1998) [27] said that the
advantages of group work are as follows: group
work gives learners more chance to practice
speaking. They will learn different things from
different people while weaker learners can
benefit by hearing better learners talking. Thus,
better learners can benefit by improving
through having to paraphrase, and explain.
Ellis (2003) [28] represents ten
potential advantages of group activities in
language instruction based on Jacobs (1998)
4
[29]: the quantity of learner’s speech can
increase, the variety of speech acts can
increase, there can be more individualization of
instruction, anxiety can be reduced, motivation
can increase, enjoyment can increase,
independence can increase, social integration
can increase, learners can learn how to work
together with others, learning can increase.
In summary, group work can be a
means for acknowledging and utilizing
individual students' additional strengths and
expertise. It can be used for real world work on
authentic real world projects. Also group work
can be also used to provide opportunities to
work in multidisciplinary teams when
exploring specific themes or issues.
2.4.3 Research into Group Work Behavior
The research below have represented
the result of group work behavior in teaching
English as a foreign language.
The group work research has been
described by Nunan and Pill (2000) [30]
investigated opportunities afforded to a group
of adult learners in Hong Kong to activate their
language out of class. They also investigated
which opportunities were principally to obtain
further practice, and which were used for
authentic interaction as a part of their daily
lives. The study found that learners have a wide
range of exposure to out-of-class English.
Srimai (2005) [31] studied the effects of
using cooperative – based learning center
instructional packages on science learning
achievement and group work behavior of
Mathayomsuksa 1 student. The results of this
study indicated that learners’ average
attainment of group work behavior taught by
the using cooperative – based learning center
instructional packages was almost 100 percent.
Phonlek (2007) [32] who performed a
research about the study on science
achievement and group work behavior of
matayomsuksa III students using five
techniques of cooperative learning
management. The results of this indicated that
the learners learned by five techniques of
cooperativeness where group work behavior
was higher than before significantly at the level
of .01
All of the research evidences have
proved that learning groups serve to underline
point of view of group interaction which is
token in learners’ work. The results of these
research have been able to touch upon the sort
of phenomena of group interactions which
appear to dominate the process in many groups.
3. Methodology
This study aims at studying the use of
task-based learning to develop English
speaking ability through communication of
Mattayom Suksa 4 Students. In this chapter,
the methodology is described in each
component as follows: participants,
instruments, procedure, and data analysis.
3.1 Participants
The participants of this present study
were Matayom Suksa 4 students of the
Demonstration School of Silpakorn University,
Nakornpathom. There was one class and the
researcher takes forty students, twenty male
and twenty female, randomly from them as the
sample by lotting.
3.2 Instruments
This study aims at studying the use of
task-based learning to develop English
speaking ability. The study also examines
student opinions, perceptions towards the
group work in learning English. The following
research instruments were applied in this study
for qualitative and quantitative data collection.
3.2.1 Task-Based Learning Lesson Plan
The design of task-based lesson
involves consideration of the stages or
components of a lesson that has a task as its
principal component. Various designs have
been proposed (Estaire and Zanon. 1994[33];
Lee. 2000[34]; Prabhu. 1987[35]; Skehan.
1996[36]; Willis. 1996[37])
1. Pre-task concerns the various activities that
teachings and learners can undertake before
starting the task. Framing the activity,
planning time, and doing a similar task are
important consideration of this stage.
2. Task-cycle centers on the task itself and
affords various instructional options, including
5
whether learners are required to operate under
time-pressure or not.
3. Post-task involves procedures for following-
up on the task performance such as learner
report, consciousness-raising, and repeat task.
The framework for planning of work
consists of six stages as the following:
1. Determine theme or interest area.
2. Plan final task or series of tasks to be done at
the end of the unit.
3. Determine unit objectives.
4. Specific contents which are necessary or
desirable to carry out final tasks: thematic
aspects to be dealt with, which will determine
linguistic content and other content.
5. Plan the process by determining
communication and enabling tasks which will
lead to final tasks; select, adapt, and produce
appropriate materials for them; structure the
tasks and sequence them to fit into class hours.
6. Plan instruments and procedure for
evaluation of process and product.
3.2.2 English Speaking Test
There were two types of test; pair-work
conversations and interviews with the
researcher. The evaluation was adapted from
(Oller, 1979) [38] and (Carroll, 1983) [39]. The
components of assessment were characteristics,
pronunciation, gesture, fluency, and accuracy.
The teacher rated each statement according to
learners’ performance.
3.2.3 Speaking Observation Form
Speaking Communicative Observation
Form was performed on the Ellis (2003)
[40]cited in the Interagency Language
Roundtable/ Foreign Service Institute (ILR/
FSI) oral performance scale in Holistic rating
scale. The learners were rated each statement
according to researcher and service-teacher.
This speaking observation form was used three
times after first, third, and fifth lesson plans by
the researcher.
3.2.4 Self-assessment in English speaking
ability
The assessment form covered three
aspects: communication, fluency, and
vocabulary and grammar structure. The self-
assessment was adapted from the Council of
Europe (2001). [41]
3.2.5 Group work assessment
Peer group assessment was used in this
present study to investigate the effects of group
work incorporating task-based learning.
3.3 Data Collection Procedures
In this study, the data were collected in
two phases: before and after the treatment. The
research was conducted as the following:
Pilot study: the researcher examined the
content of the lesson plan and test and agreed
that they were appropriate and valid to use in
the study. The lesson plan and tests were pilot
tests with one class of Mutthayom Suksa 4
students in the first semester of the academic
year 2009, Satunwittaya School. The purpose
of the pilot test was to check for clarity,
ambiguity, and suitable time for completion to
see if revision was needed for the actual test.
The data were collected from the conversation
sections excluding interview in Pre-test.
In this study, the researcher had taught
every lesson. The study was conducted for
eight weeks with a total of 16 sessions. During
the experimental stages, the participants had
met researcher twice a week for a total of 16
sessions including pre- and post-test. At the
final stage after the chat and feedback sessions
three times (during 8 weeks), the learners were
surveyed with a questionnaire to gather
opinions about perceived advantages and
disadvantages of learning English by using
task-based learning approach. The
questionnaires consist of rating scales and
open-ended questions for more information.
After teaching lesson plan 4, the researcher
gave assessment forms to learners and asked
them to assess their speaking English ability by
themselves. At the end of the instruction, the
learners were tested with the same forms of
parallel tests. Finally, the data were analyzed
quantitatively and qualitatively.
3.4 Data Analysis
The analysis of the data was performed
in two ways in order to answer the three
objectives in this study. Firstly, analyzed the
data by looking at the language used in
speaking English effectively, and perception
6
through communication; and secondly, Table 1 illustrates the comparison between the
identified the categories of the formulaic mean score of pre-test and the mean score of
sequences found in the target English post-test
secondary school textbooks.
The comparison of speaking English Table 1: A Comparison of the Mean Score of
ability of pre- and post-test were computed, Pre-test and Post-test
and then turned into Mean score, percentage, English
and t-test based on the total number of all speaking N Score M SD t
counting bases in Dependent Sample. The data ability
were presented in the form of chart for clarity
and ease of access. The analytical tool of Pre-test 40 20 11.25 3.73 -
speaking English behavior observation form 17.04*
was counted and then calculated into Post-test 40 20 16.23 2.54
percentages. After that the data were presented
into table to determine whether there was a
difference in terms of English speaking ability
of the learners before and after learning English As illustrated in table 1, it was found
by using task-based learning. Concerning the that the English speaking ability of
participants’ self-assessment in speaking Mattayomsuksa 4 students through task-based
English ability, the data were also computed, learning after the experiment was significantly
and then turned into Mean score and higher at the .05 level. The results of this study
percentage Then determine whether there was a indicated that the participants got significantly
difference in terms of speaking English ability. higher mean scores on Post-test (M = 16.23,
Lastly, the collected data were shown SD = 2.57) than Pre-test (M= 11.25, SD =
the analysis and interpretations through direct 3.73).
observation in the experiment activities, and a
discussion of findings. Those analysis and
Table 2: A Comparison of Self-Assessment in
interpretations related to: learners’ scores of
English Speaking Behavior
pre and post test, learners’ scores of trying out,
Performance Pre-TBL Post- TBL
and learners’ group work assessment.
teaching teaching
M SD M SD
4. Findings
1. Communication 2.30 0.69 3.20 0.72
The purpose of the study was to analyze
the use of task-based learning to develop 2. Fluency 2.25 0.81 3.23 0.53
English speaking ability.The participants of the 3. Vocabulary and 1.90 0.55 2.50 0.63
study were Mattayom Suksa 4 students at the grammar structure
Demonstration School of Silpakorn University, Mean Score 2.15 0.57 3.06 0.46
Nakornpathom. The data were analyzed
according to the following objectives: Table 2 shows that the participants
Objective 1: To examine the use of task-based scored higher on post TBL teaching (M =3.06
learning to develop English speaking ability. , S.D. = 0.46) than pre TBL teaching (M =2.15,
The hypothesis was tested by English speaking S.D. =0.57). The discrepancies of the mean
test, speaking observation form, and self- score of post TBL teaching and pre TBL
assessment in English speaking ability. teaching indicated that the participants could
To test this objective, the mean scores use and choose appropriate vocabularies and
of the learners’ English speaking ability on pre- grammar structure for communication fluently.
test and post-test were compared. An
independent t-test was used in this case.

7
 Table 3: Three Phases of Speaking Ability The findings in item 7 related to pronunciation,
Time most learners use sentences while they are
Performance 1 2 3 making conversation. For item 10, most
M SD M SD M SD learners pronounce the words clearly.
1. Learner is 4.16 0.59 4.61 0.4 4.88 0.2
active to use 7 5 Objective 2: To investigate the effectiveness of
English while group work incorporating task-based learning.
doing task.
2. Learner 4.94 0.20 4.99 0.0 5.00 0.0 Table 4: Group Work Self-Assessment
enjoys doing 8 0 Performance Time
task. 1 2 3
3. Learner is 2.91 1.05 3.51 0.9 4.16 0.6 Cooperative 82.5% 88.13% 93.13%
self-confident 1 4 learning
to make Democracy 79% 82.5% 91.25%
conversations Organization 77.5% 80% 86.75%
4. Learner 2.50 1.12 3.36 0.8 3.98 0.6 Mean Score 79.6% 83.54% 90.38%
provides ideas 6 6
in classroom.
5. Learner asks 2.33 0.90 3.34 0.8 3.83 0.7 As indicated in table 4, the percentages
some questions 8 6 of group work self-assessment found that task-
about the task. based learning incorporating group work are
6. Learner tries 2.33 0.84 3.18 0.8 3.91 0.6 more than 80% of cooperative learning,
to edit them 0 7 democracy, and well organization. Likewise,
during using the data had been illustrated that the
language. effectiveness of group work incorporating task-
7. Learner uses 2.45 1.10 3.36 0.9 4.00 0.7 based learning from before, during, and after
sentences. 1 6 experiment; 79.6%, 83.54%, and 90.38%
8. The speed of 2.36 0.97 3.35 0.8 3.95 0.7 respectively.
learner’s 2 0
speech. Objective 3: To explore students’ perceptions
9. Learner uses 2.40 0.92 3.45 0.7 4.08 0.6 and reactions to English speaking abilities after
appropriate 7 5 learning through task-based learning
vocabulary and
idioms. Table 5: Learners' Perceptions of TBL
10. Learner 2.45 1.10 3.46 0.9 4.19 0.6
pronounces 1 6 Questionnaire Items
clear 5 4 3 2 1
pronunciations (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
1. TBL makes 40 57.5 2.5 - -
Mean score 2.87 7.74 3.66 6.58 4.2 5 learners enjoy
learning English.
2. A task involves a 32.5 57.5 10 - -
According to table 3, learners displayed primary focus on
increased speaking skills in all sub-elements meaning.
for example, the mean score jumped up from
2.5 to 3.98 in item 4; learner provides ideas in
classroom. Obviously, learners did not hesitate
to share idea at the third time observation.

8
Questionnaire Items activates learners' needs and interests and
5 4 3 2 1 provides a relaxed atmosphere to promote the
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) target language use.
3. A task has a 27.5 55 17.5 - -
clearly defined 5. Conclusion and Discussion
outcome. 5.1 Research Findings
15 40 40 5 - 1. Learners’ English speaking ability was
4. A task is any significantly improved at the .05 level after
activity in which the using the task-based learning approach.
target language is 2. Learners’ average attainment of group work
used by the learner. incorporating taught by task-based learning
5. TBL is based on 25 57.5 20 - - approach was 90.38 percent.
the student-centered 3. Learners had positive perceptions and
instructional reactions to English speaking abilities after
approach. learning through task-based learning.
6. TBL activates 47.5 47.5 5 - - 5.2 Discussion of the findings
learners' needs and
The overall aim of the study was to
interests.
examine the use of task-based learning to
7. TBL provides a 47.5 47.5 5 - -
develop English speaking ability. These
relaxed atmosphere
research questions stated at the beginning of
to promote the target
the paper served as a guide in presenting the
language use.
findings of the study.
8. TBL materials in 30 55 15 - -
Learners' reports for each task reveal
textbooks are
that the tasks used in researcher’s class created
meaningful and
variety for learners and were helpful in their
purposeful based on
learning. As Willis (1996) [42] suggests,
the real-world
learners feel the need for various interaction
context.
patterns that focus on themselves rather than on
9. TBL pursues the 42.5 42.5 15 - -
the teacher. Furthermore, she claims that TBL
development of
is capable of fulfilling such needs. For almost
integrated skills in
every task, learners had valuable comments
the classroom.
reflecting their satisfaction from the tasks used
10. TBL gives much 15 55 25 5 2.5 that day. For example, learners were offered
psychological the online shopping task; learners had to
burden to teacher as compare products and make the decision to buy
a facilitator. the best product depend on budget and need.
Willis (1996) [43] points out that, carefully
Table 5 presents the aspects of learners' chosen tasks make learners participate in
perception of TBL. First, in response to item 1, complete interactions and this raises
almost learners (strongly agree 40%, agree motivation. In addition, the presentations given
57.5%) responded positively when questioned by the learners turned out to be a task type that
about enjoyment in the classroom. In response is highly motivating for learners. (Ruso. 2007)
to item 4, about half of learners considered task [44].
as a kind of activity in which the target The findings of the learners' diaries
language is used by themselves. revealed that tasks encouraged learners’
Item 6 and 7 explored teachers' beliefs performance. Many learners said that miming
in TBL as a learning method. While more than task could help them recognize new
90% of the learners responded that TBL vocabularies easily because they could hook

9
vocabulary with mimes As Lightbown and
Spada (1993) [45] mention; some learners feel
the need to add physical action to their learning
processes to experience the new knowledge in
ways that involve them better. The findings of
the diary studies also indicate that tasks have
been beneficial for structure learning.
Grammatical structure learned while watching
role-play or while listening to a song becomes
more effective and permanent. Learners
imagined the meaning and situation that had
been seen instead of grammar rule.
Presentations especially contributed
significantly to learners’ learning. During these
presentations, they were not only improving
their spoken English but their knowledge of
social topics and relevant vocabulary as well.
Learners noted they were highly satisfied with
this communication task. As has been argued
by Lightbown and Spada (1993) [46],
communicative need is a factor that defines
motivation in second language.
As Cook (1996) [47] states, the choice
of teaching materials should match with
learners’ motivation. In this class learners were
satisfied with the materials and accordingly it
was easy for them to follow the lesson and feel
motivated. The reason of this satisfactory may
come from learners were a part of producing
the supplementary materials in many activities
by themselves.
The analysis of my diaries revealed that
after using TBL approach to the class, my
teaching is improved in four areas. The barrier
between me and my learners decreased.
Secondly, the class became more learning
centered, so the motivation of learners
increased. Thirdly, I realized the importance of
preparing daily lesson plans in teaching.
Finally, as a result of reflection I found the
chance to go over the mistakes I made while I
was teaching so as not to repeat them.
The findings from the questionnaire
clearly revealed that learners were satisfied
with variety of tasks. From the questionnaire
findings, the three types of tasks which were
most liked by the learners were:
1. Producing storyboard; this task, learners
asked me to produce as a genuine TV.
advertisement. Every group prepare the task
perfectly, all learners participate the task with
enjoyment.
2. Finding the strange information after reading
a passage; almost learners said that this task
was challenge their ability and they had never
done this task before.
3. Telling story; learners enjoyed imaging their
own story by using picture. Some learners said
that this activity was co-operative activity
because learners had differences among
learners in specific skills and abilities.
Almost learners agreed that English
lessons started to be enjoyable and benefited
from the course after TBL was
employed. However, there are two negative
learners in task-based learning. They stated that
task-based learning was much more activities
to do. Moreover, they preferred working alone
while learning. One of them said that she
wanted to focus on grammatical structure,
follow the pages in the book, and doing
exercises in order.
6. Recommendation and Suggestion for
Practice
This research found that task-based
learning allows learners to develop English
speaking. It is useful for teachers or those
interested can apply in this field. However,
teachers should recognize the learners’
fundamental knowledge for the better
effectiveness, before designing tasks. Also, in
the post-task stage, the structure of language
should be summarized clearly with
supplementing when needed. Moreover,
activities should be clear and diverse. To
benefit different styles, teachers should take
problems in previous classes into account in
order to prevent similar problems.
10
References
[1] Gu, P.Y. (2003). The vocabulary learning
art of two successful Chinese EFL learners.
TESOL Quarterly, 37(1), 73-104.
[2] Oxford, R. (2006) Task-Based Language
Teaching and Learning: An Overview.
Proceedings from the Asian EFL Journal
International Conference, 8(3).
[3], [9], [15], [28], [40] Ellis, R. (2003). Task-
based learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
[4] Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse
analysis: analyzing classroom talk as a social
mode of thinking. Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 1 (2), 137-168.
[5] Gillies, R. M. (2004). The effect of
cooperative learning on journal high school
students during small group learning. Learning
and Instruction, 14, 197-213.
[6], [45] , [46] Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N.
(1999). How languages are learned. Revised
edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press
[7] Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In
C.J. Doughty & M.H. Long (eds), The
handbook; of second language acquisition.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing (224-225).
[8], [18], [27] Willis, J. (1998). A Framework
for Task-Based Learning. Longman: de
Henseler Books.
[10], [35] Prabhu, N. (1987). Second
Language Pedagogy. Oxford; Oxford
University Press.
[11], [34] Lee, J. F. (2000). Tasks and
communicating in language classrooms.
Boston: McGraw-Hill.
[12] Richards and other. (1986). Longman
Dictionary of Applied Linguistic. London:
Longman.
[13], [37], [42], [43]. Willis, J. (1998). A
Framework for Task-Based Learning.
Longman: de Henseler Books.
[14], [22]Nunan, D. (2004). Task-Based
Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
[16] Bygate, M., Skehan, P., and Swain, M.
(2001). Researching Pedagogical Tasks:
Second Language Learning. Teaching and
Testing. Harlow, UK: Longman.
[17] Tanasarnsanee, M. (2002). 3Ps, Task-
Based Learning, and the Japanese Learner
English Teaching. An International Journal 5.
[19] Rattanawong, C. (2004). Effects of
teaching by using task-based learning towards
English language communicative ability of
Pratom suksa six students. Chulalongkorn
University.
[20] Wijitpaisarn, P. (2005). The use of Task-
based Learning Program to Enhance
Communicative English Speaking Ability of
Mattayomsuksa 3 Students to Be Young Tour
Guides. Srinakharinwirot University.
[21] Yooyong, Bancha (2008). The Use of
Task-based Learning to Develop English
Speaking Ability of Mattayomsuksa 2 Students
at Banmarkkaeng School in Udon Thani
Province. Srinakharinwirot University.
[23] Jaques, D. (2000). Learning in Groups: A
Handbook for Improving Group Work, 3rd ed.
London: Kogan Page.
[24] Wikipedia. Retrieved January 15th,
2009 from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_work
[25] Gully, H. E. (1963). Discussion
Conference and Group Process. New York,
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
[26] Botton, L. (1974). Developmental Group
Work with Adolescent. London : University of
London Press.
[29] Jacobs, G. (1998). Cooperative learning
or just grouping students: The difference makes
a difference. In W. Renandya and G. Jacobs
(eds.): Learners and Language Learning (145-
171). Singapore: SEAMEO.
[30] Nunan, D., & Pill, J. (2002). Adult
learners’ perceptions of out-of-class access to
English. Unpublish manuscript, the English
Centre, University of Hong Kong.
[31] Srimai, M. (2005). The effects of using
cooperative – based learning center
instructional packages on science learning a
achievement and group work
behavior of Mathayomsuksa 1 student.
Srinakharinwirot University.
[32] Phonlek, S. (2007). A study on science
achievement and group work behavior of
11
matayomsuksa III students using five
techniques of cooperative learning
management. Master’s Profect, M.Ed.
(Secondary Education). Bangkok :
Graduate School, Srinakharinwirot University.
[33] Estaire, S. and Zanon, J. (1994). Planning
Classroom: A task based approach. Oxford:
Macmillan Publishers Limited.
[36] Skehan, P. 1996. A framework for the
implementation of task-based instruction.
Applied Linguistics 17: 38-62.
[38] Oller, W. (1979). Language Test at
School: A Pragmatic Approach. London:
Longman.
[39] Carroll, B. J. (1981). Testing
Communicative Performance. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
[41] Europe (2001). The self-assessment is
adapted from the Council of Europe (2001).
[44] Ruso, N. (2007). The Influence of Task
Based Learning on EFL Classrooms.
Retrieved from http://www.asianefljournal.com
/profession_teaching_articles.php
[47] Cook, V. (1996). Second language
learning and teaching. London: Edward
Arnold.

12
 APPENDICES

- Task-based Learning Lesson Plan

- Oral Presentation Evaluation

- English Speaking Test

- English Speaking Rating Sheet

- Communicative Observation Form

- Self-assessment

- Group Work Assessment

- Learners’ Perception Questionnaire

13
 Lesson Plan APPENDIX 1

Course: Eng. 401 Level: M.4 Time: 2 periods

Topic: ONLY THE BEST 1
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Vocabulary: advertisement, luxury, mysterious, precious, extravagant, fabulous

Structure: Use the passive to emphasize what was done instead of who did it.
Simple present: This car is made in Japan.
Simple past: This perfume was developed in France.
Present perfect: Our bikes have been used by cyclists all over the world.
Future: A cure for AIDS will be found by researchers.

Comparatives and superlatives

Adjective Comparative form Superlative form
- The Bee car is safe. - It’s safer than other cars. - It’s the safest car on the road.
- The Bee car is compact. - It’s more compact than others. - It’s the most compact car there is.

Goal: The students will be able to orally present the comparisons about the products in front of the class.

Enabling Aims:
Materials and Sources
1. Able to pronounce and tell the meaning of specific vocabulary.
2. Able to conclude the grammar rule onto notebook correctly.
3. Able to create resume and present it to the class.
4. Able to present the job profile to the class.

- Real products - Advertisement pictures -Vocabulary flash cards -Reading passage

- CD - textbook - worksheet 1.1-1.4 - Speaking Evaluation

14
Methods of Teaching

Content Teacher Students Evaluation

Pre-task (50 minutes)
Find the differences - Introduces the task “Find the - Listen to the task “Find the
differences”. differences”. Pictures

- Has students find the differences of - Find the differences of

advertisement pictures. advertisement pictures.

- Presents vocabulary. - Note down vocabulary on their

Vocabulary: advertisement, luxury,
mysterious, precious, extravagant,
fabulous
Worksheet 1.1-1.3
- Divides students in group of 5 to read
the given passage adapted from the
original passage on pages 30-31
- Has students spot differences between
a written passage and a CD version.
notebook.
- Read and discuss the given
passage in group. Reading passage
- Spot the differences between a
written passage and a CD version.

15
 Content Teacher Students Evaluation

Task cycle 1 ( 50 minutes)
Task (5 minutes)
- Has each student design a product that - Design a product that students
they would like to create. Students have would like to create.
to tell the reason why it is created, how
it is different from others, and what
special feature it has.

Planning (15 minutes) - Gives students ten minutes for sharing - Share the idea in their group.
the idea in their group.

Reporting (30 minutes)
English Speaking Evaluation
- Tells all groups to choose the best
product to present in front of class.
- Provides the evaluation form to
evaluate the presentations.
- Ask students to present the product.
- Choose the best product and
prepare to present it in front of the
class.
- Evaluate the presentations. English Speaking
- Present and jot down different Evaluation
features of the product.

16
Comment:

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…….. …….. …………………………..

(_______________________________)

__________________________________

17
 Presentation Evaluation

Group:…………………………….Topic: ………………..Date: ………………..

Rate oral presentation in the following aspects:

CRITERIA Excellent Good fair Poor Very

poor
5 4 3 2
1
CONTENT:

- Attractive
- Accurate.
- Easy to understand.
ORGANIZATION:

- Give main points and well structured.

- Time limit; in time and on time.
DELIVERY:

- Clear pronunciation and use physical

behavior
- Not read from script.
VISUAL AIDS

- Good visual quality and easy to

understand.
- Creative and attractive to listeners.
Group Work

- Well prepared.
- Help to do the task (every member)

TOTAL SCORE

Comments:
_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

18
English Speaking Test APPENDIX 2

Interview Questions for Speaking Test. (5-10 minute)

1. Could you tell me about yourself?
2. What do you like doing in your free-time?
3. Could you tell me about the job you would like to have in the future?
4. What do you think? How can you use your English in the future?
5. Which English skill do you find easiest to learn? Why?
6. In what ways do you practice your English?
7. What is an ideal teacher like for you?
8. Would you rather live in a big city or in the country? Why?
9. How do you think our life is easier nowadays than it was in the past?
10. Have you or someone in your family ever had an accident? If, yes, tell me about it.

Conversation (5 minutes)

Situation: In summer, while you are studying and working in America. You get some
troubles because there are many different cultures of your own.

Task: You and your roommate decide to talk about the differences between people
from different regions of your country and these people adapt themselves to the
environment.

Some of the things you could talk about are:

- Character - Language - Customs - Religion - Culture

19
English Speaking Rating Sheet APPENDIX 3

Student:________________________Rater:___________Date:________Score:_____

Score 1 2 3 4 5
Behavior

Communication Not able to Only catches part of Gist of dialogue is Present the case Can initiate expand
understand or speak. normal speech and relevant and can be clearly and can and develop a theme
unable to produce basically develop the speaking
continuous and understood. Needs dialogue coherently proficiency
accurate discourse. to ask for repetition and constructively. equivalent to that of
or clarification. Some hesitation and an educated
repetition due to a speaker. Express
measure of idea clearly and
language but relevantly to the
interacts effectively. topic.

Fluency Speech is so halting Usually hesitant; Speed and fluency Speed of speech Speech as fluent and
and fragmentary as often forced into are rather strongly seems to be slightly effortless as that of
to make silence affected by affected by affected by a native speaker.
conversation language language problem. language problem.
virtually impossible. limitations.

20
 Score 1 2 3 4 5
Behavior

Grammar & Errors in grammar Grammar and word- Makes frequent Occasionally makes Makes few (if any)
Vocabulary and word order so order errors make errors of grammar grammatical and/or noticeable errors of
severe as to make comprehension or word order which word-order errors grammar or word
speech virtually difficult. Must often occasionally which do not, order. Use of
unintelligible. rephrase sentences obscure meaning. however, obscure vocabulary and
Vocabulary and/or restrict Frequently uses meaning. idioms is virtually
limitations so himself to basic wrong words; Sometimes use that of a native
extreme as to make patterns. Misuse of conversation inappropriate term speaker.
conversation word and very somewhat limited and/or must
virtually impossible. limited vocabulary because of rephrase ideas
make inadequate because of lexical
comprehension vocabulary. inadequacies.
quite difficult.

21
English Speaking Ability Evaluation APPENDIX 4

Pre-test Post-test

Student:________________________Rater:___________Date:________

Score 1 2 3 4 5
Behavior

Communication

Fluency

Grammar and

Vocabulary

Total Score _____________

English Speaking Ability Evaluation

Pre-test Post-test

Student:________________________Rater:___________Date:________

Score 1 2 3 4 5
Behavior

Communication

Fluency

Grammar and
Vocabulary

Total Score _____________

22
 Appendix 5: Group work appraisal sheets 1

Group work self-assessment sheet

Name:………………………….……………………………………… Class…………

Did you ……………….

1. listen to other people? Yes No

2. answer to other people’s ideas? Yes No
3. help to organize the talk? Yes No
4. help others to the group? Yes No
5. explain your ideas clearly? Yes No
6. understand the ideas? Yes No
7. enjoy the discussion? Yes No

Did everyone in the group……………

8. join in? Yes No
9. listen to each other? Yes No
10. help each other? Yes No

11. Has the talk helped you to understand the subject?

______________________________________________________________________

12. Has the group work made you think?

______________________________________________________________________

13. What part of the assignment did you do best?

______________________________________________________________________

14. What part of the assignment did the group do best?

______________________________________________________________________

15. How would you improve your group work?

______________________________________________________________________

16. How could your group improve the next task?

______________________________________________________________________

17. Please add comments. …………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

23
 Group roles: Analyzing talk 2

Name:………………………….………………………………… Class………………

Record 4-5 minutes of your group discussion.

Listen to the tape, or read the transcript carefully.

1. Are all members of the group involved? _____________________

2. Does any member of the group talk too much? __________________

3. Who starts talking first?

___________________________________________________________

4. Who shares the ideas?

___________________________________________________________

5. Who leads the discussion?

___________________________________________________________

6. Who helps and encourages others?

___________________________________________________________

7. Who asks questions?

____________________________________________________________

8. Who provides information?

___________________________________________________________

9. Does anybody stop others from speaking? Yes No

10. Does anybody not listen to what has been said by others? Yes No

11. Does anybody not allow others to speak? Yes No

12. Does anybody make fun of other people? Yes No

13. Does anybody stop the group from exploring more deeply? Yes No

14. Please add comments.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………

24
First Section APPENDIX 6.1

What are your views on language learning?

พฤติกรรมการเรียนรูทางภาษาอังกฤษ มากที่สุด มาก ปานกลาง นอย นอยที่สุด

5 4 3 2 1
1.นักเรียนสามารถเรียนรูในการพูด
ภาษาอังกฤษโดยไมมีตําราเรียน
2. นักเรียนหลายคนไมสามารถพูด
ภาษาอังกฤษหลังจากเรียนไปได
3. นักเรียนยังคงพูดคําผิดบอยๆถึงแมวา จะ
ไดรับการแกไขแลวก็ตาม
4. หากนักเรียนไดรับการสอนไวยากรณ
กอนเปนอันดับแรกจะทําใหผูเรียนใช
ภาษาอังกฤษไดดีขึ้น
5. นักเรียนมีความกลาและพยายามที่จะ
พูดภาษาอังกฤษถึงแมวา จะพูดผิดก็ตาม
6. ครูควรที่จะแกไขเวลานักเรียนพูดผิดทุก
ครั้ง
7. การอานจะสงเสริมใหเกิดการเรียนรู
ภาษาไดเปนอยางดี
8. นักเรียนชอบเรียนโดยเริ่มจากเนื้อหา
ความหมายกอนการเรียนไวยากรณ
9. นักเรียนมีโอกาสในการพูดภาษาอังกฤษ
มากขึ้น
10. การเรียนรูจ ากงานปฏิบัติทําใหนักเรียน
ตองแสวงหาขอมูลเพื่อนํามาใชในการ
ทํางาน

25
Second Section APPENDIX 6.2

Learners' Understandings of TBL Concepts

คําถามเกีย่ วกับงานปฏิบตั ิ มากที่สุด มาก ปานกลาง นอย นอยที่สุด

5 4 3 2 1
1. งานปฏิบัตกิ อใหเกิดการสื่อสาร

2. งานปฏิบัติเนนนักเรียนเขาใจความหมาย
มากกวาการเรียนกฎไวยากรณ

3. งานปฏิบัตมิ ีวัตถุประสงคในการทํางานที่
ชัดเจน
4. นักเรียนเปนผูใชภาษาในการปฏิบัติงาน
ตางๆมากกวาครูผูสอน
5. งานปฏิบัติเนนใหเกิดการเรียนรูโดยมี
ผูเรียนเปนศูนยกลาง

6. การเรียนโดยใชงานปฏิบตั ิทําใหนักเรียน
เกิดความสนใจและกระตือรือรนในการเรียน
7. งานปฏิบัตชิ วยใหเกิดบรรยากาศแหงการ
เรียนรู
8. กิจกรรมที่นาํ มาใชในงานปฏิบัติ เปนเรือ่ ง
ที่ผูเรียนสนใจ มีความหลากหลายและ
สอดคลองกับสภาวะปจจุบนั
9. นักเรียนไดพัฒนาทักษะการฟง พูด อาน
เขียนไปพรอมๆกัน
10. ครูเปนเพียงผูชว ยในการทํางานปฏิบัติ
เทานัน้ สวนใหญผูเรียนจะตองลงมือปฏิบัติ
ดวยตนเอง

26
Third Section APPENDIX 6.3
แบบรายงานตนเองของนักเรียนเกี่ยวกับการเรียน

คําชี้แจง: ใหนักเรียนทําเครื่องหมาย / ในชองใหตรงกับความจริง

มากที่สุด มาก ปานกลาง นอย นอยที่สุด

พฤติกรรมนักเรียน 5 4 3 2 1
1. นักเรียนทํางานปฏิบัติสอดคลอง
กับเนื้อหาบทเรียน
2. นักเรียนไดประสบการณจากการ
ทํางานปฏิบัติดวยตนเองจนเกิด
ความเขาใจ สนุกสนานและจํา
บทเรียนไดดียิ่งขึ้น
3. นักเรียนใชภาษาอังกฤษในการ
สื่อสารระหวางเพื่อนและครู
4. นักเรียนใหความรวมมือกับเพื่อน
ในการทํางาน
5. นักเรียนชอบการทํางานเปนกลุม
หรือคูมากกวาการทํางานเดีย่ ว
6. นักเรียนตั้งใจฟงการนําเสนอ
ผลงานของกลุม อื่นๆ
7. นักเรียนชอบการสอนที่ใชงาน
ปฏิบัติ
8. นักเรียนมีความมัน่ ใจในการใช
ภาษาอังกฤษมากขึ้น
9. นักเรียนไดฝกทักษะพูด ฟง อาน
เขียน
10. นักเรียนไดนําความรูไปใชใน
ชีวิตประจําวัน

27
Fourth Section APPENDIX 6.4

1. ความรูทนี่ ักเรียนไดรับจากการเรียนสามารถนําไปใชในชีวิตประจําวันไดอยางไรบาง
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
2. ความรูและสาระสําคัญที่ไดจากการเรียนเรื่องนี้คือ
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………...
3. นักเรียนมีความรูสึกอยางไรตอการเรียนการสอนภาษาอังกฤษตลอด 16 คาบที่ผา นมา และมีปญ  หาอะไรบาง
ระหวางปฏิบตั ิกิจกรรม
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
4. ในการเรียนการสอนครั้งนีน้ ักเรียนคิดวามีกิจกรรม วิธสี อน หรือสิ่งใดที่เหมือนหรือแตกตางกับที่นกั เรียนเคย
เรียนมาบางหรือไม
- สิ่งทีเ่ หมือนกับที่เคยเรียน คือ
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………
- สิ่งที่แตกตางกับที่เคยเรียน คือ
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………..

28
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
5. นักเรียนชอบการเรียนการสอนภาษาอังกฤษโดยแบงเปนกลุมหรือไม พรอมทั้งเหตุผล
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………
6. นักเรียนชอบการเรียนโดยใชงานปฏิบตั ิหรือไม พรอมทั้งบอกเหตุผล
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………
7. จากการเรียนการสอนที่ผา นมากนักเรียนไดพัฒนาตนเองดานใดบาง

……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………

8.ทักษะใดทีน่ กั เรียนตองการเรียนรูมากทีส่ ุด (ฟง พูด อาน เขียน) พรอมทั้งบอกเหตุผล

……………………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………….
9. นักเรียนอยากใหมีการเรียนการสอนโดยใชงานปฏิบตั ิตอไปหรือไม เพราะเหตุใด
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………
10. ขอเสนอแนะ (กิจกรรม วิธีการ อุปกรณ รวมถึงครูผูสอน)
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

29
 APPENDIX 7

Criteria Levels of Evaluation English Speaking Communication

Oller (1979) sets five rates of English speaking evaluation:
5. Speaking proficiency equivalent to that of an educated native speaker
4. Able to use the language fluently and accurately on all levels normally pertinent to the
professional needs.
3. Able to speak the language with sufficient structural accuracy and vocabulary to
participate effectively in most formal and informal conversations on practical, social, and
professional topics.
2. Able to satisfy routine social demands and limited work requirements.
1. Able to satisfy routine travel needs and minimum courtesy requirements.
Carroll. (1983: 135) identifies the interview assessment scale as follows:
9. Expert speaker. Speaks with authority on a variety of topics, and to expand and develop
a theme.
8. Very good non-native speaker. Maintains effectively with his own part of a discussion.
7. Good speaker.
Presents case clearly and logically and can develop the dialogue coherently and constructively
6. Competent speaker. Is able to maintain theme of dialogue, to follow topic switches and
to use and appreciate main attitude markers. Stumbles and hesitates at times but is reasonably
fluent otherwise.
5. Modest speaker. Although gist of dialogue is relevant and can be basically understood,
there are noticeable deficiencies in mastery of language patterns and style. 4. Marginal speaker.
Can maintain dialogue but in a rather passive manner, rarely taking initiative or guiding the
discussion.
3. Extremely limited speaker. Dialogue is a drawn-out affair punctuated with hesitations
and misunderstandings.
2. Intermittent speaker. No working facility; occasional, sporadic communication.
1-0 Non - speaker. Not able to understand and/or speak
The following banding system is a draft of a revised scale of Heaton (1990).
6. Pronunciation good: has mastered all oral skills of the course.
5. Pronunciation slightly influenced by L1: has mastered almost of the oral skills of the
course.
4 Pronunciation influenced a little by L1: has mastered most of the oral skills of the course.
3. Pronunciation influenced a little by L1 – pronunciation and grammatical errors – several
errors causing serious confusion – longer pauses to search for words or meaning – fairly limited
expression – much can be understood although some effort needed for parts – some interruptions
necessary – has mastered only some of the oral skills of the course.
2. Several serious pronunciations: has difficulty in explaining or making meaning clearer –
only a few of the oral skills of the course mastered.
1. A lot of serious pronunciation errors: very few of the oral skills of the course mastered.

30