A study of Task-based Language Teaching in Online English Language Teaching

1
A study of Task-based Language Teaching in Online
English Language Teaching Yang
Suxiang Department of Foreign Languages, Henan
Polytechnic University
2
1. Introduction Task-based language teaching
(TBLT) has experienced more than two decades.
Many researchers (Long, 1981, 1985, 1989 Doughty
Pica, 1986 Probhu, 1987 Candlin Murphy,
1987 Brown Palmer, 1988 Breen, 1987, 1989
Nunan, 1989,1991, 1993 Crookes Gass, 1993a,
b Willis, 1996 Skehan, 1996a,1998 Robinson,
2001 Littlewood, 2002 Mori, J. 2002 Yuan
Ellis, 2003, etc.) published research papers,
books and textbooks about the subject.
3
In China, task-based language teaching was
introduced in the late 1990s. Many people like
Niu,1990 Wu, 1997, Xia Kong, 1998Sun, 1998,
Zhang ,1998Gong, 1998 Yu, 2000 Ni, 2001 Chai,
2001 Xie, 2001 Zheng , 2001Ruan , 2001 Huang,
2001Lu, 2002 began to research and use it.
4
With the rapid development of the information
technology, the application of Internet in
education becomes more and more popular. It
provides rich resources for English teaching,
embodying the teaching ideas of learning by
doing, inquiring learning and cooperative
learning, and making Internet-based English
teaching become true. But whether the
Internet-based English Teaching can improve the
students English learning urgent the author to
carry out this study.
5
The purpose of this study is to explore the
effects of combining task-based language teaching
with online English language teaching. The
questions involved in this study are 1) This
method could activate the students interests in
English learning. 2) This method could stimulate
the students potential ability in English
learning. 3) This method could improve the
students basic skills such as listening,
speaking, reading and writing in English leaning.
6

• 2. Rationales
• 2.1 Theory basis
• Cooperative learning
• 2) John Deweys learning-by-doing
• 3) inquiry-based learning
• 2.2 Jane Willis TBL framework

7
2.3 Wiles and Bondi Internet Lesson Planning
Template 1) Introduction 2) Questioning and
Planning 3) Process/Tasks 4) Outcome and
Evaluation
8
3. Research design 3.1 The subjects The
subjects involved in this study are non-major
English graduate students in two classes in Henan
Polytechnic University. Class 1 is the
experimental class and Class 2 is the controlled
class. The textbooks they used are New Century
Non-English Major Graduate English Book A. The
experimental period is from September, 2005
January, 2006. The measure tools are their two
final exams in two terms, and Qualitative and
quantitative approaches are used in generating
the results.
9
As for the data treatment, the author use
qualitative treatment and quantitative treatment.
For qualitative treatment, the teacher journal
and the students comments are used to show if
online English Teaching can activate the
students interest in English learning. For
quantitative treatment, the author uses
statistical analysis. Statistical methods can
make us find the things and relationships that we
cannot see with our naked eyes, and it has strong
persuasion.
10
The author also uses pretest and posttest to
compare the experiment results. The pretest for
written examination is the entrance class-divided
exam of the students. The pretest is used to show
the reliabilities of the study. The posttest for
written examination is the term exam of 2005-2006
the first term, which is used to show the
differences of the two classes. Oral tests are
the Public English Test System Level 3.
11

• 4.2 Comparison of the Ss improvement in English
  learning
• 4.2. Comparison of overall achievement of EC and
  CC
• in the pretest

12
Table 1 Descriptive statistics and significance
of differences of EC and CC in pretest
Class N Mean SD t test
Experimental Class 60 68.33 9.93 0.242
Controlled Class 52 70.37 8.11 0.242
p gt 0.05 this indicates that there is no
significant difference in their pretest. From
the above table 1, we can see there was no
significant difference between EC and CC before
the experiment, so it guarantees the reliability
of the study.
13
2. in the posttest Table2 Descriptive statistics
and significance of differences of EC and CC in
posttest
Class N Mean SD t test
Experimental Class 60 72.15 7.28 0.027
Controlled Class 52 69.17 6.62 0.027
Indicates p lt 0.05
14
4.3 Comparison of the basic knowledge and
skills 4.3.1. Comparison of listening 1. in
the pretest Means, standard deviations, and
numbers for each class on the pretest are shown
in Table 3. The results of the t test indicates
that there is no significant difference (p
0.432 gt 0.05) between EC and CC before the
experiment.
15
Table 3 Descriptive statistics of listening
Class N Mean SD t test
Experimental Class 60 16.7 2.46 0.432
Controlled Class 52 16.35 2.26 0.432
p gt 0.05 this indicates that there is no
significant difference in their pretest.
16
2. in the posttest Table 4 Descriptive
statistics of listening comprehension
Class N Mean SD t test
Experimental Class 60 17.88 2.11 0.002
Controlled Class 52 16.56 2.32 0.002
Indicates p lt0.01
17

• 4.3.2. Comparison of speaking
• in the pretest
• Table5 Descriptive statistics of oral item in the
  posttest

Class N Mean SD t test
Experimental Class 60 7.1 1.09 0.69
Controlled Class 52 7.01 1.03 0.69
From the above table 5, we can see there was no
significant difference between EC and CC in
speaking before the experiment.
18
2. in the posttest Table 6 Descriptive
statistics of oral item in the posttest
Class N Mean SD P
Experimental Class 60 7.1 1.09 0.009
Controlled Class 52 6.58 1.18 0.009
NB plt0.01
19

• 4.3.3. Comparison of reading
• in the pretest
• Table 7 Descriptive statistics of reading
  comprehensions

Class N Mean SD t test
Experimental Class 60 19.88 3.48 0.19
Controlled Class 52 19.04 3.23 0.19
From the above table 7, we can see there was no
significant difference between EC and CC before
the experiment.
20
2. in the posttest Table 8 Descriptive statistics
of reading comprehensions
Class N Mean SD t test
Experimental Class 60 19.93 2.67 0.0008
Controlled Class 52 18.39 1.97 0.0008
Indicates p lt0.001
21

• 4.3.4. Comparison of writing
• in the pretest
• Table 9 Descriptive statistics of writing

Class N Mean SD t test
Experimental Class 60 11.78 1.21 0.33
Controlled Class 52 12.1 1.94 0.33
From the above table 9, we can see there was no
significant difference between EC and CC before
the experiment.
22
2. in the posttest Table 10 Descriptive
statistics of writing
Class N Mean SD t test
Experimental Class 60 12.18 1.19 0.0005
Controlled Class 52 11.33 1.35 0.0005
Indicates p lt0.001
23
The results of the study show that the
students interests in English have greatly
improved. Before the lesson, they collect the
material on the Internet. In class they have heat
discussions and active presentations. After class
they write a lot of compositions. The students
learning by doing, inquiring learning and
cooperative learning has been fully developed.
24
In a word, Internet-based Language Teaching
can activate the students interest in English
language learning, can stimulate the students
potential ability in English learning, and
especially can improve their listening, speaking,
reading and writing abilities.
Although some limitations still exist in the
current study, it has yielded some useful
findings that are believed to have implications
for Internet-based English teaching.
25
Thank you !