efl learner difficult role transition from secondary school to university-full paper

8/14/2019 EFL Learner Difficult Role Transition From Secondary School to University-Full Paper

1/22

International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies

ISSN: 2308-5460 July-September, 2013 www.eltsjournal.org

11

IJ-ELTS: International Journal of English Language& Translation Studies Vol: 1, Issue: 2EFL Learners Difficult Role Transition from Secondary School to University Teng, Feng

EFL Learners Difficult Role Transition from Secondary School to

University: From the Perspective and Perceptions of EFL Teachersof TBLT in Western China

Feng Teng

Nanning University, China

Abstract

Through a series of designed questionnaires, interviews and classroom observation,

this study finds out that there are overwhelming differences concerning perception

and implementation of TBLT in western Chinas secondary school and university

English classroom. These differences deeply affect first-year university students

having a difficult role transition in learning English from secondary school to

university. The difficulties lie in the deep-rooted attitudes towards examination,

learning strategies of passive acceptance, lack of motivation and awareness in tasks.

As TBLT is one emerging central methodology for teaching English in Asian context

(Nunan, 2003), its importance needs to be addressed in western China, especially inthe secondary schools in order to let EFL learners have a smooth transition when they

enter university.

Keywords: Task-based language teaching (TBLT), teachers perception and

implementation, students role transition, secondary school, university


2/22



12


1. Theoretical Background

Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) has become a hot issue in second language

teaching since 1980s. Although it can be traced back to the early educational research

of Dewey (1916) and Kilpatrick (1918) focusing on the relationship between

democracy and education, it was in the 1980s that TBLT, associated with

communicative language teaching, was adopted as a specific method in L2 teaching

and have attracted increasing interests. As a teaching methodology based on the

constructivist theory of learning and communicative language teaching methodology,

TBLT has received great attention by many linguistic researchers (Breen, Candilin &

Murphy, 1987; Prabhu, 1987; Nunan,1989). Breen (1987) points out that task refer to

a range of workplans, and these workplans are to help and facilitate learning a

language. And to accomplish a task, one needs particular objective, appropriate

content, a specific working procedure and a range of outcomes. Prabbu (1987)

proposes four classroom activities to illustrate task-based teaching which are- rule-

focused activity, form-focused activity, meaningful activity and meaning-

focused activity. The core of task-based teaching lies on the awareness of both

learners and teachers towards the notion of classroom activity. It involves a pedagogic

dialogue between teachers questions and learners responses. Teachers questions are

to invite learners to demonstrate their ability to use language in the specific

meaningful task. David Nunan (1989) stresses that task-based teaching involves

learners to use the linguistic knowledge they have to finish open-ended tasks, that

means there is no sole and set way to accomplish this goal. A task means a specific

job or something that the learners need to finish, or some problems that is to be

solved.

TBLT entered a new era in the 1990s and it has been widely used in the field of

applied linguistics as language pedagogy, as a unit of second language syllabus

design, and as an assessment instrument (Crookes & Gass, 1993a, 1993b). Littlewood

(1993a) stresses that tasks are learner-centred activities, and it can help the learners

acquire target language. According to Wills (1996) task belongs to a framework,

which includes pre-task, task cycle, language focus. Language learners have

exposure to the actual use of language at the stage of pre-task, then languagelearners conduct peer interaction and practice with the linguistic exposure they get,


3/22


4/22



14


The task-based language teaching (TBLT) method has been one of the suggested

teaching methodologies in China since 2001. The core element of teaching English

has shifted from focus on singular linguistic elements to communicative outcome.

Learners learn to speak rather than mechanical memorizing of single morpheme. The

new English language curriculum named the National English Language Curriculum

Standards for secondary schools was issued in July of 2001 and was carried out

experimentally in 42 designated national experimental districts throughout China

beginning 1stSeptember, 2001 (MOE, 2001, c.f. Long). From 2003, the application of

TBLT has become widespread in China. In 2011, the latest English language

curriculum standard was amended. According to the new English language

curriculum standard, different needs and characteristics of EFL learners should be

paid attention to. For example, there are differences in terms of developmental stages,

personality, cognitive ability, living district, and only on the basis of satisfying the

needs of EFL learner, these can achieve maximum success in communicative

competency of English. So, TBLT is showing its importance in achieving this goal,

especially the design of TBLT (MOE, 2011).

However, there have been few studies on the practical process of implementing the

task-based language teaching in the context of Mainland China ( Carless, 2004; Zhang

2005; Cheng, 2011; Xiang & Mads, 2012) The similarity of these researches is that

there is limited application of TBLT in China, and most of the researches focus on the

middle schools or primary schools. A very few studies have analyzed how TBLT is

undertaken in university.

2.2 Motivation for this study

The researcher of this study comes from Guangxi, one of the dynamic regions in

western China. As the center of ASEAN, it is getting more and more attention

worldwide. And other western parts of China including Yunnan, Sichuan, Gansu, are

also facing new opportunities and challenges as China began to focus on developing

the western part. One of the challenges is the practical use of English. Thus teaching

English is not only a subject at both secondary school and university, but also a local

and social requirement. In 2003, there were several curriculum innovations in ELT

launched by Guangxi education bureau in terms of pedagogy, syllabus, assessment,

and teaching materials. For example, how to improve students ability to


5/22



15


communicate in English, how to let students have cooperative learning strategy, how

to conduct off-school task-based learning in secondary school (Guangxi EOB, 2003).

It has been 10 years since this revolution in English teaching methodology was

launched. So, it is necessary and meaningful to conduct research or investigation on

whether these innovations have achieved any fundamental changes in ELT in middle

schools and university, and whether traditional teacher-dominated, knowledge-

transmitting and grammar-based methods are still prevalent in ELT paradigms.

Secondly, the researcher being the university English teacher feels the need to

investigate the subject as TBLT is being considered as a troubled and an impossible

task, not fit even to the local needs of teaching by the collogues. So, it is meaningful

to conduct a more through investigation to find out whether TBLT is effective in both

secondary school and university.

Thirdly, out of the researchers teaching experience to university first-year student,

the researcher observed that there is a big gap for the students to make transition from

middle school to university. EFL teaching begins from Grade 1 in junior schools and

when the learner enters university, they have already learnt this language for about 6

to 7 years. But their learning strategy is still on the stage of mechanical memorizing,

not to mention the practical language use. They are afraid of taking part in any

English activities or tasks. So, it is also meaningful to make a comparison on the

differences of applying TBLT in middle school and university and how it affects

learners performance.

2.3 Significance of this study

The major objective of this study is to investigate how TBLT is perceived and

conducted by EFL teachers in both secondary school and university. It can provide

new insights to curriculum and methodology innovators in Western China in terms of

the implementation of TBLT. It can also help teachers change what happens in the

classroom by using an effective methodology. This suits with the scenario proposed

by Swan (1985) which is to change learners low proficiency in classroom

comprehension tasks. That is changing what happens in the classroom not what

happens in the learner himself (p. 8).

This study also analyzes whether EFL learners role transition from secondary school

to university gets affected regarding the implementation of TBLT. This study can help


6/22



16


the EFL teachers in secondary schools to have a more profound understanding of

TBLT and how its practical use in English teaching classrooms will affect the

learners role transition to university. And also, it can help university teachers to

adopt an effective methodology in classroom which can help first-year students make

a transition to learn English in university.

2.4 Research Questions

The study aims to find out the answers to the following research questions-

1) Is it really difficult for the EFL learners in middle school to make a transition to

university and do they find it hard to accept university English teaching?

2) What are secondary school EFL teachers perceptions of TBLT?

3) What are university EFL teachers perceptions of TBLT?

4) What are the differences concerning the perception of TBLT between middle

school and university? Does that affect EFL learners in middle school to make a

transition to university English teaching?

3. Research methodology

The study adopted multiple-method design which includes: qualitative methods

(interviews and classroom observation) and quantitative methods (questionnaire).

To understand whether it is difficult for the EFL learners to make a transition to

university in learning English, a qualitative questionnaire and interviews were used to

assess the EFL learners difficult role transition.

As Tom Good puts it, "one role of observation research is to describe what takes place

in classrooms in order to delineate the complex practical issues that confront

practitioners" (p. 337). To understand EFL learners performance and the

implementation of TBLT, classroom observation was used to evaluate the process.

3.1 Participants and setting

The participants of the questionnaire were the EFL teachers in secondary schools and

universities and also university first year students. For the interview part, a

comfortable and relaxed setting was quite important since all the participants were

university first year students. The 20 participants were chosen from different majors,

in order to let them talk everything needs to be natural. The setting for conducting

classroom observation should be very relaxed and natural. The first classroom


7/22



17


observation was to be taken in high school, and a speaking class for university first

year student was also observed to make comparison.

3.2 ProceduresTo understand university first-year students thoughts about the differences of

learning English in secondary school and university, 800 university first year students

were offered questionnaires out of which 519 returned the answered questionnaires.

For the interview, 20 university first-year students from different majors were chosen

randomly. All the contents of the interview were transcribed. The results were

discussed in contrast with the results of the questionnaire I. In order to understand

FEL teachers perception and implementation of TBLT in secondary and university,

questionnaire II (see Appendix IIII) was designed and used. 30 middle schools were

visited in May and 400 teachers were requested to take part in the questionnaire out of

which 390 teachers actively participated. All the schools are located in Guangxi

province. 100 teachers in secondary school from other provinces including Gan Su,

Yun Nan, Gui zhou province, which are all in the western part of China, were also

sent the questionnaires but only 30 teachers mailed back the answered questionnaires.

There are more than 30 universities in Guangxi and most of them are connected, so it

was easy to request 500 teachers from different background to take part in this

questionnaire. The different backgrounds helped in collecting richer data for this

study. Out of the collected responses 412 responses are marked as useful and 380

responses were analyzed in order to have fair comparison with the responses from

secondary schools.

For the classroom observation, high school class and a university class were observed

and videotaped. The data was compared with the data from the questionnaire and

interview.

4. Data Collection and analysis

Every procedure of the study was dealt with caution in order to get plausible and

detailed answer. SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Science) version 19.0 for

windows was used to analyze the data. For all the questionnaires in this study, five-

points likert scales were used, strongly disagree=1, disagree=2, no comments=3,

agree=4, strongly agree=5.

4.1 Questionnaire 1


8/22



18


Appendix I is used and 519 responses were obtained from this. The students were

from different parts of western China and of different background. They have

different proficiency levels. But they share the similarity that they have learnt English

for 7 years and have never studied abroad. This appendix is to understand first-year

students ideas of whether there are differences between English teaching in middle

school and university and whether they have good role transition from middle school

to university. All the data were analyzed. The means and standard deviation were

calculated to compare and contrast the findings.

Table 1 First-year students perception of English classes in secondary school and

university (n=519)

Question SD/D(%) NC(%) SA/A(%) M SD

1I like university English course

very much

22.7 38.6 38.7 3.16 0.76

2. I think university English is very

interesting and creative

29.2 38.4 32.4 3.03 0.78

3. I think it is too hard to follow

university English course

23 19.4 57.6 3.15 0.76

4. I think there are many tasks to

finish in university English course.

28.6 9.7 61.7 3.33 0.89

5. I think the learning style is

different from secondary school

12.9 5.9 81.2 3.69 0.68

6. I think learning English in

secondary school is for examination

5.6 1.9 92.5 3.87 0.46

7. I think learning English in

university is for examination

42.2 29 28.8 2.83 0.82

8. Why I learn English in university

is that I really want to learn it well

37.8 23.5 38.7 3.01 0.87

9. I think my learning style has been

influenced by the way in secondaryschool

7.6 5.7 86.7 3.79 0.56

10. I think the way of learning

English in university is better than in

secondary school

31.8 38.6 29.6 2.98 0.78

Note: SD=Strongly Disagree D=Disagree NC=No Comment SA=Strongly Agree A=

Agree M=Mean Score SD=Standard Deviation

From table 1, concerning question 3, most students believe that it is very difficult to

follow and learn English course in university (SD/D 23%, SA/A 57.6%). In response

to question 4, most students believe there are more tasks in university English course


9/22



19


than in secondary school (SD/D 28.6%, SA/A 61.7%). About question 5(SD/D

12.9%, SA/A 81.2%) , this particularly indicates that students have the awareness that

learning style is different in university, and if you want to learn English well, you

need to change your learning style. From question 6 (SD/D 5.6%, SA/A 92.6%), it

can be understood that the core aim of English learning or teaching in secondary

school is for examination. And when students enter into university, it is very difficult

to change their learning style because their learning style has been greatly influenced

by the way in secondary school (Question 9 SD/D 7.6%, SA/A 86.7%). For questions

1,2,7,8,10, the data might not be compared because the gap of the outcome is not big,

and some of the untrue data from the students need to be considered.

4.2 Semi-structured interview

In this interview, a series of eight questions were asked to find our first-year students

perceptions about the strategic differences of learning English between secondary

school and university (see Appendix II). When it comes to the question of what did

you learn English for when you were in secondary school? The answer was for

examination (Transcript1 (T1), T2, T4, T6, T7, T8, T9, T11, T12, T13, T14, T15,

T17, T20), that counts for 70%. The purpose of learning English in university was

also examination (T1, T2, T6, T9, T13, T17), that is for 30% students. Other students

think learning English can help find a better job (T3, T4, T5, T7, T8, T9, T10, T11,

T12, T14, and T15). This is according to 55% participants. Nobody thinks that the

textbooks in secondary school are interesting and only three people (T3, T10, and

T16) think the textbooks in university are interesting. What they always did in English

classroom of secondary school were exercises and tests (T1, T4, T6, T9, T11, T14,

T15, T16, T17, T18, T19, and T20). The proportional rate is 60%. What they do in

university English is just listening and no activities (T1, T3, T6, T7, T11, T15, T16).

That is according to the 35% of the participants. What they do in university English is

just listening but sometimes they have tasks (T2, T4, T8, T12, T18, T19). It is also

according to the 35% of the participants. When it comes to the question whether there

are differences between teaching English in secondary and university, the answer was

yes (T, T2, T4, T5, T6, T7, T9, T10, T11, T12, T13, T15, T16, T18, T20). That is

according to 75% of the participants. However, no negative answer was recorded,

only some students avoided to answer the questions.


10/22



20


4.3 Classroom observation

The use of classroom observation was to have a vivid understanding of actual

language teaching in terms of using TBLT in secondary school and university. It was

also a way to collect data about learners behaviors in English classroom context. The

classroom observation continued for a month, and three typical lessons were chosen

and videotaped based on the teaching plan and teachers availability.

The majority of teacher As ( Zhangs) lessons were about instructions and exercises

and can be analyzed through several stages (See Appendix III). The first stage in a

new class was to have a quick preview of the language points learnt from the last

lesson. The second stage was to learn a new passage or new grammar points. The

third stage was to allocate students to finish the exercises. The last stage was to

explain the answer of the exercises. Some of the classroom tasks like role-play were

designed based on the dialogues in the textbooks, but unfortunately, most chapters of

the textbooks were about language points, and some additional exercises textbooks

were required to be purchased for the examination. In teacher Bs (Mareks ) class, a

new topic was introduced in each lesson (See Appendix III). In each lesson, at least a

task was designed to facilitate the use of language involving the topic. The tasks

included presentation, role-play, and debate with a clear purpose of improving

learners commutative competency in real-life context and tried to provide more

opportunities to have actual language use. And this purpose was in line with the

requirements of TBLT. The unsatisfied point was that learners were not fully engaged

in the tasks. It is always the same active learners only who were taking part in the

tasks. Most of the EFL learners were greatly affected by the way of learning in

secondary school which is sitting and listening and waiting for the explanation.

4.4 Questionnaire 2

This is specified in the Appendix IIII and from this 380 responses are obtained.

Table 2 Teachers in university have a better awareness of TBLT than teachers in

secondary school n=380

Part I perception towards TBLT SD/D(%) NC(%) SA/A(%) M SD

1.I am familiar with the theory

of TBLT

SC 5.3 13.7 81 3.76 0.53

UNI 5.1 11 83.9 3.79 0.50

2. I am familiar with the practi

TBLT

SC 23.1 20.2 56.7 3.3 0.8

UNI 13.2 6.4 80.4 3.6 0.6

3. TBLT is a student-cen SC 46.1 23.1 30.8 2.8 0.8


11/22



21


method UNI 30.1 15.4 54.5 3.2 0.8

4. TBLT focuses on the meani SC 30.2 15.2 54.6 3.2 0.8

UNI 16.5 6.4 77.1 3.6 0.7

5. TBLT focuses on grammar SC 63.8 23.1 13.1 2.5 0.71UNI 81.8 10.1 8.1 2.2 0.5

6. Test should be used to a

TBLT

SC 45.1 30.1 24.8 2.8 0.81

UNI 58.6 38.1 3.3 2.4 0.5

7. TBLT is the same with c

municative language teaching

SC 43.1 23.2 33.7 2.9 0.8

UNI 56.2 13.5 30.3 2.7 0.8

Note: SD=Strongly Disagree D=Disagree NC=No Comment SA=Strongly Agree A=

Agree M=Mean Score SD=Standard Deviation SC=secondary school UNI=university

From table 2, concerning the perception of TBLT, most of the EFL teachers in secondary

schools and universities have a clear understanding of the theory and practice. Although

university teachers seem to have a more thorough understanding than secondary school

teachers (SC 81%, UNI 83.9%, SC 76.7% and UNI 81.4%). The gap is narrow and

considering the slight difference of collected useful responses, this point can be

neglected. Most of the secondary and university English teachers think test is not

necessary for assessing the performances of TBLT (SC 45.1%, UNI 58.6%) and TBLT

does not focuse on grammar, especially the university English teacher (SC 45.1%, UNI

65.2%, SC 63.8% and UNI 81.8%). The unexpected point is that there are many teacherswho dont believe TBLT is student-centered, especially the secondary school teacher (SC

46.1%, UNI 30.1%).

Table 3 Teachers in universities have a better implementation of TBLT than teachers in

secondary school n=380

Part I Implementation of TBLT SD/D(%) NC(% SA/A( M SD

8. Our school requires us to

TBLT

SC 39.4 30.5 30.1 2.9 0.82

UNI 9.5 20 70.5 3.6 0.65

9. I often use TBLT in my teachi SC 56.6 20.3 23.1 2.6 0.83UNI 21.7 63.2 15.1 3.4 0.82

10. Our school gives suppor

using TBLT

SC 43.6 23.2 33.2 2.9 0.87

UNI 3.8 1 95.2 3.9 0.37

11. It is very difficult to imple

TBLT

SC 47 30 23 2.6 0.72

UNI 16.7 33.1 50.2 3.3 0.74

12. In the process of teaching

TBLT, the students are

passionate

SC 61.7 25.1 13.2 2.5 0.72

UNI 40.7 23.1 36.2 2.9 0.87


12/22



22


13. Students inactive involve-

-ment is the main reason of

avoiding using TBLT

SC 55.9 24.1 20 2.64 0.79

UNI 25 25 50 3.25 0.82

14. It is impossible to use TBLT

because of the important

examination

SC 16.5 23 60.5 3.44 0.75

UNI 46.4 13.6 40 2.94 0.92

Note: SD=Strongly Disagree D=Disagree NC=No Comment SA=Strongly Agree

A= Agree M=Mean Score SD=Standard Deviation SC=secondary school

UNI=university

From table 3, firstly, the secondary school does not require or give any supports on

implementing TBLT in English classroom. On the contrary, most universities give

emphasis on TBLT(SC 30.1%, UNI 70.5%, SC 33.2% and UNI 95.2%). Under this

situation, more EFL teachers in universities than secondary school use TBLT in

teaching English (SC 23.1%, UNI 63.2%). Although examination is not so important

in universities as in secondary schools (SC 60.5 %, UNI 40%), but because of

students inactive performance and insufficient passion in joining the tasks (SC20%,

UNI 50%, SC 13.2% and UNI 36.2%), one half of the EFL teachers in universities

think it difficult to implement TBLT in English classroom, not even the teachers in

secondary school (SC 23%, UNI 50.2%).

Table 4 Few EFL teachers have a positive view about using TBLT n=380

Part III Reflections after using

TBLT

SD/D(%) NC(%) SA/A(%) M SD

15. TBLT brings pressure

instead of help

SC 8.6 10.2 81.2 3.73 0.60

UNI 35.6 1.3 63.1 3.28 0.95

16. TBLT is better than

grammar-

-translation method in

classroom

SC 58.7 15.2 26.1 2.77 0.89

UNI 46.2 13.2 40.6 2.95 0.93

17. TBLT brings more

opportunities for students to

speak English

SC 26.7 23.1 50.2 3.24 0.84

UNI 14.6 12.2 73.2 3.59 0.73

18. The current textbooks are

useful for implementing TBLT

SC 44.3 32.7 23 2.79 0.79

UNI 41.6 25.4 33 2.92 0.86

19. I think TBLT can be

applied effectively in Western

China

SC 56 23 21 2.65 0.80

UNI 50.7 15.3 34 2.83 0.90

20. I think TBLT is appropriatefor the students in Western

SC 59 21 20 2.61 0.80UNI 56 20 24 2.70 0.85


13/22



23


China

21. TBLT lets students have the

motivation to learn English

SC 31 23 46 3.15 0.86

UNI 10.3 24.2 65.5 3.56 0.67

22. TBLT will let studentsunderstand what they lack in

learning English

SC 51.3 15.2 33.5 2.82 0.90UNI 42.5 12.3 45.2 3.02 0.93

23. Teaching in a large class is

difficult to conduct TBLT

SC 48.6 2.5 48.9 2.91 0.93

UNI 10.2 1.3 88.5 3.79 0.60

24. TBLT can improve students

results in examination

SC 64.5 23 12.5 2.48 0.71

UNI 49.2 15 35.8 3.87 0.91

Note: SD=Strongly Disagree D=Disagree NC=No Comment SA=Strongly Agree

A= Agree M=Mean Score SD=Standard Deviation SC=secondary school

UNI=universityThe shocking point learned from table 4 is that TBLT brings more pressure than help

for the EFL teachers, especially the secondary schools teachers(SC 80.2%, UNI

63.1%), and few EFL teachers think TBLT is better than the traditional grammar-

translation method (SC 26.1%, UNI 40.6%). Although more than half of the teachers

think TBLT can provide more chances for students to speak English (SC 50.2%, UNI

73.2%) and let students have the motivation to learn English (SC 46%, UNI 65.6%),

few teachers think TBLT is appropriate for the students in western China (SC 20%,

UNI 24%) and can be applied effectively in western China (SC 21%, UNI 34 %). The

similar problem for the EFL teachers in secondary schools and universities is the

inappropriate textbook (SC 44.3%, UNI 41.6%). The main problem for university

teachers behind not using TBLT is the large size of the classes (88.5%). The main

difficulty for the EFL teachers in secondary school is the examination as few teachers

think TBLT useful for examination (SC12.5%, UNI 35.8%).

4.5 Results and Discussion

For the mentioned question1, it is difficult for the EFL learners in middle schools to

make a transition to university and they find it hard to accept university English

teaching. It is also clear from questionnaire 1 that most of the first-year students think

the teaching in secondary school is for examination, and when they enter university, it

is difficult for them to learn English in a way that should be active. They may get

good results in examination, but when comes to the output ability of speaking or

writing, it is quite impossible for them to perform. They have stored the input they

receive, and then they transform their input into the sole goal of examination. Mixed


14/22



24


feelings can be found from the students. They think the goal for leaning English in

secondary school is for examination, but nobody wants to escape from this reality.

More than half of them also know learning English in university can help get a better

job after graduation. But very few students want to change their learning strategies.

Most of them just sit in the classroom and choose to be passive recipients to accept

what the teacher teaches. They all agree that there are differences in learning English

between secondary school and university, but they wont take the initiative to change

it.

For the mentioned questions 2 & 3, the findings of teachers perceptions and

implementations of TBLT from the questionnaires and interviews are in accordance

with the evidence from the classroom observation. The implementation of TBLT in

university is insufficient but the rate is still higher than secondary school. That means

TBLT is not totally used in university and very few secondary schools use TBLT in

their classroom teaching. Mixed feelings can also be found amongst the teachers.

More than 80% of teachers think that they understand the theory and the practice of

TBLT. However, they seem not to have a complete understanding of the theories.

Some common misconceptions, inadequate understanding could be found from the

questionnaires about TBLT, particularly in response to TBLT, almost one half of the

teachers think TBLT should be teacher-centered. The teachers should control and

dominate the classroom. Many teachers think the school does not give any supports

on implementing TBLT, but they also do not take the initiative to use this method by

themselves. More than 80% of teachers think TBLT brings more pressure than help.

And they also do not change this situation. Even more than 70% of the teachers still

think TBLT can provide more chances to speak English. Many teachers think the

textbook materials are inappropriate and TBLT is not an appropriate method in

western China. They are doubtful about the effectiveness of TBLT and they are

unsatisfied with a large class. And the lessons are still used for examination.

However, more than 60% of the teachers think that TBLT can let students have the

motivation to learn English.

For the mentioned question 4, the differences in implementing TBLT between

secondary schools and university deeply affect first-year students performances in

the class as can be seen from the questionnaire and classroom observation. A


15/22



25


mismatch can be seen from the implementation of TBLT in university with the

performances and involvement shown from the students. Learning English is no

longer for examination in university, but more than 30% of the students think that to

the pass of English examination weighs everything. When students have so many

tasks in the class that they have always dreamt of in secondary school, their attitudes

become passive and they just want to escape from the activities. Many first-year

students want to speak English as they had wished in secondary, but when they need

to speak English, they become afraid of showing themselves.

5. Conclusion

In a learning setting, where Chinese is the medium of instruction and examination is

the main aim of study, the success of learning a foreign language lies in the changing

of classroom practice from the traditional teacher-centered way to a student-centered

leaning practice. TBLT is an increasingly important in getting EFL learners acquire

communicative competency by providing more opportunities to be exposed to more

actual language use. Nunan (2003) points out TBLT as one emerging central concept

in many Asian context including China based on a series of interviews with teachers,

educators.

However, it can be critically found that TBLT is not implemented in China from this

study, especially the western part of China, a region where economy is under

developing and not so prosperous. Although the implementation of TBLT in

universities is more widespread than secondary schools, TBLT has not yet been

adopted empirically in classroom practice, especially in secondary schools. Not only

EFL learners in secondary school have limited accessibility to use English in their

daily life, they also need to memorize specific linguistic points again and again in

classroom in order to pass the examination. It is a big gap and it is difficult for EFL

learners in secondary school to adjust their learning style when they enter university.

The limitation of this study can be shown from the participants who were involved in

the study. Because of time constraints and also without any authority power to expand

the scope of the questionnaire, it didnt get full and in-depth responses. And also

when visited the 30 schools and had a face-to-face instruction, most of the responses

were helpful. But other data received from other regions might be misleading without

face-to-face instruction. This study only gives insight on how the EFL learners


16/22



26


learning style in university are influenced by the way in secondary school due to the

insufficient implementation of TBLT in secondary school. This study does not probe

into how and to what extent the differences of implementing TBLT between

secondary schools and universities influenced EFL learners.

The study of the EFL learners transition from secondary school to university is a

wide and vast topic which can be analyzed from a more micro perspective. This study

focuses on the macro perspective. A micro and in-depth perspective of analyzing

learner language, acquisition process, learning strategy is also a good way to study

role transition from secondary school to university in Chinese context.

About the Author:

Feng Teng is a lecturer and researcher in English with the department of English,

Nanning University, China. He has done intensive research on the TBLT (Task-Based

Language Teaching) in China specially in the regions like Guangxi, one of the

dynamic regions in western China, and other western parts of China including

Yunnan, Sichuan, Gansu to investigate the EFL teachers and students perceptions

towards this methodology and approach of teaching and difficulties and challenges

faced by them while implementing this concept in ELT. This paper is a part of this

research.

References:

Black, P., & William, D. (1998).Inside the black box: Raising standards through

classroom assessment. London: Department of Education &

Professional Studies, King'sCollege London.

Breen, M. (1987). Learner contribution to task design. In C. Murphy & D. Candlin

(Eds.),Language Learning Tasks(pp. 23-46). NJ: Prentice-Hall:

Englewood Cliffs.Candlin, C. N. (2001). Afterword: Taking the curriculum to task. In M. Bygate, P.

Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.),Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning,

teaching and testing. Harlow: Longman.

Careless, D. (2004) Issues in teachers reinterpretation of a task-based innovation in

primary schools TESOL Quarterly38(4), 639-662

Cheng, X.Y. & Samul, M. (2012). Perceptions and Implementation of Task-based

Language Teaching among Secondary School EFL Teachers in China.

International Journal of Business and Social Science 24(2), 292-302.

Crookes, G, & Gass, S. M. (1993a). Introduction. In G Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.),

Tasks in a pedagogical context: Integrating theory and practice.


17/22



27


Clevedon, Philadelphia,Adelaide: Multilingual Matters LTD.

Crookes, G, & Gass, S. M. (1993b). Introduction. In G Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.),

Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice.

Clevedon, Philadelphia,Adelaide: Multilingual Matters LTD.Dewey, J. (1916).Democracy and Education.New York: Macmillan.

Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy.Language Teaching

Research, 4 [Online].Retrieved from

http://ltr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/4/3/193

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford

University Press.

Good, T. L. (1988). Observational Research: Grounding Theory in

Classrooms.Educational Psychologist25, 375379.

Hu, R. (2013). Task-based language teaching: responses from Chinese teachers ofEnglish. Teaching English as a second language, 16(04). [Online].

Retrieved from

http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume16/ej64/ej64a1/

Kilpatrick, W. (1918). The project method. Teachers College Record 19(4).

Littlewood, W. (1993a). Cognitive principles underlying task-centred foreign

language learning. In N. Bird (Ed.), Language and content (pp. 39-55).

Hong Kong: Institute of Language in Education, Education Dept.

Long, X. (2007). A study of implementing TBLT in Chinas secondary school

English teaching. Unpublished MA thesis. Wuhan: Central South

University.

McNamara, C. (1999). General Guidelines for Conducting Interviews. Authenticity

Consulting, LLC. [Online].Retrieve from

http://www.managementhelp.org/evaluatn/intrview.htm

Newton, J. (2013). Incidental vocabulary learning in classroom communication tasks.

Language Teaching Research 17(2), 164187.

Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies

and practices in the Asia-Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 589-613.

Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.Prabbu, N.S. (1987). Second language Pedagogy: A perspective(pp.25-35). Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input

and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden

(Eds.),Input insecond language acquisition(p.8). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury

Xiang, Y.D. & Mads, J.K. (2012).Exploring Task-Based PBL in Chinese Teaching

and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Wikipedia. (2003).(Instructions andimplications for teaching English subject in Guangxi secondary school).


18/22



28


[Online]Retrieve from

http://www.gxedu.gov.cn/Item/8838.aspx

Wikipedia. (2011). English language curriculum standard issued by ministry of

Education). [Online].Retrieve fromhttp://mat1.gtimg.com/edu/pdf/edu/xkb2011/20120130155515499.pdf

Willis, J. (1996).A framework for task-based learning.Harlow, Essex: Addison

Wesley Longman.

Zhang, Y. F. (2005) The implementation of the task-based approach in primary school

English language teaching in mainland China Unpublished PhD

Dissertation. Hong Kong The University of Hong Kong


19/22



29


Appendix I Questionnaire 1

Years of learning English _____Experiences of studying abroad ______(yes/no)

Gender ______

Come from_______

Major _______

According to strongly disagree ( 1 ) disagree 2 no comments ( 3 ) agree 4 strongly

agree 5 , please write the number at the bracket.

1 I like university English course very much

strongly disagree ( ) disagree no comments ( ) agree strongly agree

2. I think university English very interesting and creative


3. I think it too hard to follow university English course


4. I think there are many tasks to finish in university English course.

strongly disagree ( ) disagree

no comments ( ) agree

strongly agree

5. I think the learning style different from secondary school


6. I think learning English in secondary school is for examination


7. I think learning English in university is for examination


8. Why I learn English in university is that I really want to learn it well


9. I think my learning style has been influenced by the way in secondary school


10. I think the way of learning English in university is better than in secondary school



20/22



30


Appendix II Interviews questions for the students

1) Why did you learn English When you were middle school?

2). Why do you learn English When you are at university now?3) What do you think about the textbook you are using? Is the textbook interesting?

Do they have any difference from the textbook used in middle school?

4) What did you normally do in your English lessons in middle school?

5) What do you normally do in your English lessons in university?

6) What kinds of activities did you have in the middle school English lessons?

7) What kinds of activities do you have in university English lessons?

8) What do you think about university English teaching? Do you think there are any

differences between middle school and university English teaching? If so, what are

they?

Appendix III Summary of classroom observation

Teacher A (Zhang)

Lesson 1 April 8th

, 2013

000 Greeting

1030 Review

2018 teacher instruction

2523 students self-study

4000 Exercises explanation

Lesson 2 April 15th, 2013

000 Greeting

1100 Review of the main points in last lesson

3037 learn a new passage

4000 learn the language points in the new passage

Lesson 3 April 22nd, 2013

000 Greeting

938 Review of the main points in last lesson

1520 Role-play of the conversation

2010 teacher comments3030 vocabulary learning

4000 Dictation

Teacher B (Marek)

Lesson 1 April 9th

, 2013

000 Greetings

637 Introduce a topic

1040 students prepare to present the topic

2030 presentation

3030 Teacher comments


21/22



31


3830 Group work

4000 Teacher summary

Lesson 2 April 16th, 2013

000 Greeting920 Warm-up

1409 Teacher presentation

3040 Role-play

4000 teacher comments

Lesson 3 April 23rd, 2013

000 Greeting

658 Warm-up

1120 new topic

2020 preparation for Debate3820 debate

4000 comments

Appendix IV Questionnaire II

Dear Teachers,

Thank you for your sincere cooperation for completing this questionnaire.

Teach in _____ (secondary school/university)

Years of teaching English ______________

Please write down the answer at the bracket.

Strongly Agree please write 5, write 4 for Agree, 3 for No comments, 2 for

disagreement and 1 for strongly disagreement.

Part I perception of task-based language teaching (TBLT for short)

1. I am familiar with the theory of TBLT ( )

2. I am familiar with the practice of TBLT ( )

3. TBLT is a student-centered method ( )4. TBLT focuses on the meaning. ( )

5. TBLT focuses on grammar. ( )

6. Test should be used to assess TBLT.

7. TBLT is the same with communicative language teaching ( )

Part II Implementation of TBLT

8. Our school requires us to use TBLT. ( )

9. I often use TBLT in my teaching. ( )

10. Our school gives support on using TBLT. ( )

11 It is very difficult to implement TBLT ( )


22/22

International Refereed & Indexed Journal of English Language & Translation Studies 32


12 In the process of teaching with TBLT, the students are very passionate ( )

13 Students inactive involvement is the main reason of avoiding using TBLT ( )

14 It is impossible to use TBLT because of the important examination ( )

Part III Reflection after using TBLT

15. TBLT brings pressure instead of help. ( )

16. TBLT is better than grammar-translation method in classroom. ( )

17. TBLT brings more opportunities for students to speak English ( )

18. The current textbooks are useful for implementing TBLT ( )

19. I think TBLT can be applied effectively in Western China ( ).

20. I think TBLT is appropriate for the students in Western China. ( )

21. TBLT let students have the motivation to learn English. ( )

22. TBLT will let students understand what they lack of in learning English. ( )23. Teaching in a large class is difficult to conduct TBLT. ( )

24. TBLT can improve students results in examination ( )

efl learner difficult role transition from secondary school to university-full paper

Documents