岐阜大学教育学部

教師教育研究102014

Task-based Language Teaching andGrammatical Accuracy～ An Experiment on Japanese University Students ～Yukako GO
教科教育専攻（英語教育専修）

郷友華子

1. BackgroundA task is a meaning-focused activity. It gives students many opportunities for interaction and output.
Students use language to achieve tasks, so many argue that it is effective in acquiring second language（Mackey, 1999; Van den Branden, 1997）. However, some researchers criticize Task-based Language
Teaching（TBLT）because it is inadequate for the grammar teaching（Sheen, 2003; Swan, 2005）. Theycriticize students cannot improve their grammatical accuracy through meaning-based tasks, but Samuda（2001）revealed that ESL learners could acquire the new language items through TBLT. This experiment
was carried out to investigate the effect of TBLT for Japanese learners.

2. Current experiment
2.1 Method
The subjects of this experiment are twenty national university students in Japan. Their major is English
education. In this experiment report, they are numbered from one to twenty to ensure anonymity.
First, a pre-test was administered to examine pre-existing levels of familiarity with the target features（For further information, see 2.2 Target features）. The pre-test consisted of a free translation test.
Students were asked to translate Japanese sentence contexts into English. Before the test, I gave  
instructions in Japanese. The instructions were as follows.
・Translate the underlined part from Japanese into English
・Translate using as many different expressions as possible
・Do not worry about making spelling and grammar mistakes
Expressions of possibility and probability were not restricted to the target features（For example, ‘seems’,‘likely’ and so on）, so the pre-test asked students to translate as much as possible. Students were tested onwhether they could use the target features appropriate for the contexts. The results of the pre-test showedthat students had not acquired the target language features.
Second, students were divided into two groups. Each group had ten students. One was a TBLT group andthe other was a PPP group. Each group had an English lesson for fifty minutes. To control the teacher
variable, I played this role. Audio and video recordings were collected through the lesson. There was no
significant difference between both groups in the results of pre-test（t=0.78, df=18）.
Third, students took a post-test（paralleling the pre-test）one week later to examine the effects of thetwo types of instructions. Before the test, I gave the same instructions as for the pre-test. The test results
showed that most students in both groups were able to use the target features more properly than in the
pre-test（For further information, see 2.4 Results and analysis）.
− 353 −

2.2 Target features
Samuda（2001）stated that ‘the modal auxiliaries must , might , may and could , but, although the rules ofform for these may be relatively straightforward, the socio-semantic options underpinning the choice of one
form over another are more complex, and less easily illuminated.’（p.125）. She focused on these four
expressions of probability or possibility in her research.
At first, these four expressions were to be used as target features in this experiment. However, theresults of the pre-test revealed that students were not able to use ‘probably’ as an expression of probability.
After the discussion with one native speaker（a specialist in English education）and one highly proficient
non-native speaker（also a specialist in English education）, ‘must’, ‘probably’, ‘might’, ‘may’ and ‘could’,
these five expressions were chosen as target features.

2.3 Two types of English classes
2.3.1 TBLT class
The following is the procedure for the TBLT class:① Oral Introduction and Explanation for the task（input）→8.5 minutes② Group Work（interaction between students）→8 minutes（audio recording）③ Progress Report（interaction between a teacher and students） →8.5 minutes＋
Implicit / Explicit Language Teaching（input）④ Group Work（interaction between students）→13 minutes（audio recording）⑤ Final Report（interaction between a teacher and students）→11 minutes⑥ Ending→1 minute
Table 1 TBLT class procedure① Oral Introduction

・The teacher has a bag that someone forgot and takes some things out of it,  

and Explanation for the asking students ‘Who forgot this bag? Make some guesses.’task
Teacher（T）: Let’s look inside and make some guesses about the owner. First…what’s this?
Student（S）: Lip cream.
T: Yes, the owner has lip cream in this bag, so is the owner male or female?
（pointing at the chart / See Table 3）
S: Female!
T: Yes, many young girls and women use lip cream, so the owner is female, you
think.
S:（nodding）
T: But recently some boys use lip cream, too!
S: Ah!（nodding）
T: So…is the owner male?
S: Um……
T: We’re not sure, but make some guesses from things in this bag. Next…

− 354 −

② Group Work・Ten students are divided into three groups（one group of four and twogroups of thrree）. In each group, students discuss and fill in the chart.
（Example of interaction）
Group B
S5: Age?
S6: Young.
S7: I think he is young. Twenties.
S5: Maybe, maybe young.
S6: Twenty-five to thirty-five?
S5: I write ‘young’ here?
S6, 7: Yes.

③ Progress Report・Each group makes a progress report. The teacher uses the target features in
the interaction.

Implicit Language Teaching T: What did you guess about the owner’s gender?
S1, 2: Male.
S2: Certain.
T: OK（filling in the chart）, but why? Please tell us.
S1: Because he has sports newspaper and…writing.（laughing）
T: Ah, writing.（laughing）So, the owner must be male, OK?
All: OK.
Explicit Language Teaching ・The teacher introduces the target features to students.
T: Group A, you think it’s certain the owner is male, OK?
All:（nodding）
T: Here is another way to say this. When you think it’s certain or almost
certain, you can use ‘must’. So, you can say ‘The owner must be male.’（writing
it on blackboard）
S: Ah…（nodding）Sokka（そっか）…
T: ‘Must’,（pointing at it on board）this shows you think it’s certain or almost
certain（pointing at the scale on the chart）, so you can say ‘The owner must be
male’, OK?
④ Group Work・Students go back to the discussion and prepare for the final report. I plannedto allow only ten minutes for this stage, but extended the time at the requestof the students.
（Example of interaction）
S1: Maybe student
S2: Yeah.
S1: Ah, must be? May be?
S2: Student! Student!
− 355 −

S1: Probably?
S3: Probably?
S2: Probably student?
S1: He is probably student.
S2: And he may be syukatsusei（就活生）.
All: Yes.
⑤ Final Report

・Students make a final report.
T: What did you guess about the owner’s hobbies?
S8: He probably likes baseball and he must be a fan of AKB.
T: OK（filling in the chart）. Any other ideas?
S8: He might have pollen allergy because he has mask, tissue and eye lotion.

⑥ Ending

・The teacher answers whose bag it is.

2.3.2 PPP class
The following is the procedure for the ppp class:① Presentation（input）→8 minutes② Practice（input）→6.5 minutes③ Production  
・Oral Introduction（input）→5.5 minutes

・Forming Individual Hypothesis→8.5 minutes

・Dialog Practice（input）→2.5 minutes

・Explanation for Pair Work（input）→2.5 minutes

・Pair Work（interaction between students）→9 minutes（audio recording）

・Preparing for Final Report→1.5 minutes

・Final Report（interaction between a teacher and students） →5 minutes
・Ending→1 minute
Table 2 PPP class procedure① Presentation

・The teacher has a bag that someone forgot and takes some things out of it
and introduces the target features to the students.
T: This owner has put cute pocket tissue and lip cream in this bag. Is theowner male or female? What do you think?
S: Male.
T: Yeah. Many young girls and women use lip cream and cute character goods, so allof you think the owner is female. Please look at the degree of possibility or
probability（pointing at the scale on the chart）. All of you think it’s certain theowner is female, OK? Here is another way to say this. When you think it’s certain oralmost certain, you can use ‘must’. So, you can say ‘The owner must be female.’（writing it on board）‘Must’,（pointing at it on board）this shows you think it’scertain or almost certain（pointing at the scale on the chart）, so you can use ‘must’.
− 356 −

② Practice・Students make sentences to practice using the target features.
Students also answer why they think so.
T: Please look at this picture. This is Ichiro. Do you think he is rich?
S: Yes.
T: Please make a sentence. He（     ）rich.
S: He must be rich.
T: OK, you think he must be rich. Why?
S: Because…he is a famous baseball player.

③ Production
Oral Introduction

・Students are given a worksheet（See Appendix）and also an oral introduction.

Forming Individual Hypothesis ・Students make guesses about the owner and fill in the chart.
I planned to allow five minutes for this stage, but extended the time at therequest of the students.
Dialogue Practice・Students read aloud the dialogue on the worksheet individually or in pairs
many times.

Explanation for Pair Work ・Students are told to gather information from their partners.
Pair Work・Dialogue helps students to exchange their ideas.
（Example of interaction）
S17: What do you think about job?
S20: I think he must be office worker.
S17: Must be!?
S20: Must be office worker. Because he has sports newspaper and recorderand timetable and receipt pad. I see many businessman read newspaper in the
train.

Preparing for final report ・Students make guesses again.
Final Report

・Same as that of TBLT group, but when students are not able to use thetarget features correctly, the teacher corrects them.
T: What do you think about the owner’s hobbies?
S19: Maybe…trip. Probably.
T: OK. You think the owner probably likes trips.
S19: Yes, probably likes trip.

Ending・Same as that of TBLT group.

− 357 −

Table 3 Extract from the chart used in TBLT group and PPP group
0%50%
possible100%

probablecertainMale or Female
AgeSingle or Married

2.4 Results and analysis
2.4.1 Results of pre-test and post-test
Table 4 The result of pre-test and post-test in TBLT group（Sub=Subject）
Pre-test

Post-test

Sub

must

probably

may

might

could

score

must

probably

may

might

could

score

1

○

×

×

○

×

2/5

×

×

×

×

○

1/5

2

×

×

○

×

×

1/5

○

○

○

○

×

4/5

3

×

○

×

○

×

2/5

○

×

○

×

×

2/5

4

×

×

×

×

×

0/5

×

×

○

×

○

2/5

5

○

×

○

○

×

3/5

○

○

○

○

×

4/5

6

×

×

×

○

×

1/5

○

×

○

×

×

2/5

7

×

×

×

×

×

0/5

○

○

×

×

×

2/5

8

○

×

○

×

×

2/5

○

○

○

○

×

4/5

9

×

×

○

×

×

1/5

○

×

×

×

×

1/5

10

○

×

×

○

×

2/5

○

○

○

○

○

5/5

Table5 The result of pre-test and post-test in PPP group（Sub=Subject）
Pre-test

Post-test

Sub

must

probably

may

might

could

score

must

probably

may

might

could

score

11

×

×

○

×

×

1/5

○

○

○

○

×

4/5

12

○

×

×

○

×

2/5

○

○

○

○

×

4/5

13

×

×

×

×

×

0/5

○

×

○

×

×

2/5

14

○

×

○

×

×

2/5

○

○

○

×

×

3/5

15

○

×

○

×

×

2/5

○

○

○

×

×

3/5

16

×

×

×

×

×

0/5

○

○

○

×

×

3/5

17

×

×

○

×

×

1/5

○

×

○

×

×

2/5

18

○

×

×

×

×

1/5

○

○

○

×

×

3/5

19

×

×

○

×

×

1/5

×

×

×

×

×

0/5

20

×

×

○

×

×

1/5

○

×

○

×

×

2/5

Results of the t-test showed that there was a significant difference between the pre-test and the post-testin the TBLT group（t= －3.07, df=9, p<.05）. There was also a significant difference between the pre-test
and the post-test in the PPP group（t= －4.02, df=9, p<.05）. In order to examine differences between the  effects of TBLT and PPP, a t-test about the differences between the pre-test and post-test of both groups
was administered. The difference was calculated by subtracting the pre-test score from the post-test score.
The result showed that there was no significant difference between the TBLT group and the PPP group− 358 −

（t= －0.35, df=18）. That is, both instructions did affect the students’ grammatical development and there
was no difference of effect between both groups.
We will look at the details of the results. The number of the students who used ‘must’, ‘probably’ and‘may’ properly increased in the post-test compared with the pre-test. This is true of both groups, with little
difference between them.
However, there is almost no change in the number of the students who used ‘might’ properly in bothgroups. The existent knowledge（‘might is an expression of less possibility than may.’）would affect students’use of the words. In PPP group, nobody used ‘could’ properly in the post-test. Students’ speaking in Pair
Work was restricted by the dialogue in the PPP group. Did they not have any chances to use ‘could’? There
were three students from the TBLT group who used ‘could’ correctly in the post-test, although they did notuse ‘could’ in the task activity. How much of this post-test result（i. e., the three students who used ‘could’correctly in the TBLT group.）can be attributed to the task is unclear.

2.4.2 Results of recordings
Table 6 Pre-focus, post-focus and PPP group expressions（the number of expressions）
Pre-focus

Post-focus

PPP

55.8%（24）

16.0%（15）6.9%（7）

Known expression
Maybe（I’m）sure

0%（0）

0%（0）

0%（0）

（I’m）not sure4.7%（2）

3.2%（3）0%（0）I think

16.3%（7）3.2%（3）

16.8%（17）Possible

7.0%（3）

13.8%（13）3.0%（3）

Probable

2.3%（1）

4.3%（4）0%（0）Certain

0%（0）

0%（0）

1.0%（1）Must

2.3%（1）

30.9%（29）19.8%（20）Probably

Expression from the chart

Target language features
9.3%（4）

19.1%（18）

29.7%（30）

May

0%（0）

3.2%（3）

22.8%（23）Might

2.3%（1）

5.3%（5）

0%（0）

Could

0%（0）

1.1%（1）0%（0）In the TBLT group, ‘maybe’ was the most widely used as an expression of possibility and probability prefocus, but its use decreased post-focus: 16.0% compared with 55.8% pre-focus. The target features（‘must’,‘probably’, ‘may’, ‘might’ and ‘could’）all occurred and increased post-focus: around 60% of total expressions.
In the PPP group, the usage percentage of the target features accounted for 70%. The activity used in
the Production stage was exchanging information. Students convey new information to others, but they still
use language in a predictable range because of the dialogue. William （2004） calls this activity‘Communicative language practice’.  This activity focuses more on forms than tasks. The difference between‘Communicative language practice’ and tasks would have affected the result. If the activity used in the
Production stage had been a task, the result would have been different.

− 359 −

2.5 Disscussion
The results of the pre-test and post-test showed that both instructions were effective in grammaticalaccuracy. Let us again consider the details of both instructions. Each group had an English class that lasted
fifty minutes. However, the duration times spent on form-focused teaching and on students’ speaking aredifferent. In the PPP group, students were given much time to focus on forms（14.5 minutes= ① + ② , See
2.3.2）than TBLT group（8.5 minutes= ③ , See 2.3.1）. As for the duration time spent on students’ speaking,
the TBLT group had more than double（32 minutes= ② + ④ + ⑤ , See 2.3.1）compared with the PPP group（14 minutes= ③ Pair work+ Final Report, See 2.3.2）. That is, TBLT was able to give students many
chances to use target features due to the brief grammar explanation in ③ Progress Report（See 2.3.1）.
This may suggest that TBLT is more effective for introducing of new language items than PPP.
From the percentage of expressions of probability and possibility（See Table 4）, we can see students of
the TBLT group started to use the target linguistic features, continuing to use their existent knowledge.
This is close to natural language acquisition and suggests that a task would not be just practice for learning
grammar. The result of the expressions of the PPP group showed that the students’ language use wasinclined toward some language items. In the PPP group, the interaction among students was restricted byform-focused teaching and the dialogue. The limited interaction would lead to the limited language use.
Although this experiment showed that grammar instruction in TBLT was effective for Japanese university
students, there were four main limitations in this experiment. First, the usage of the target language
features, especially ‘may’, ‘might’ and ‘could’ was questionable. In the pre-test, ‘may’ and ‘might’ were
thought to express the more probability than ‘could’. However, after the pre-test, I consulted with a native
speaker about the test, who advised changing the usage of ‘could’. As a result of this discussion, I decided toregard ‘may’, ‘might’ and ‘could’ as expressions for almost the same possibility. Some dictionaries orgrammar books may define these expressions differently（For example, ‘might’ is defined as expressions forthe less possibility than ‘may’）. We should recognize the difference between definitions in dictionaries andactual use by native speakers. In order to generalize these expressions to some extent, I should have corriedout a pilot-test using native speakers and highly proficient non-native speakers before doing this experiment.
Second, the instructions did not go as I had planned. For example, in the TBLT group, task activity afterform-focused teaching（④ Group Work, See 2.3.1）was planned to last about ten minutes（almost the sametime as pre-focus）, but the time was extended at the students’ request. The difference of time between prefocus（eight minutes）and post-focus（thirteen minutes）would affect the rate of expressions of probability
and possibility in the TBLT group.
The third is about experimental control. This is one of the major problems about the comparison ofteaching methods. For example, Baretta and Davies（1985）evaluated Prabhu’s（1987）project. They
compared the Communicational Language Teaching Project（CTP － a version of TBLT）to the StructuralOral-Situational approach（a version of PPP）
. Their evaluation project showed that there were two
problems facing them in comparison of methods: experimental control and test content bias.
For the valid experiment, we have to control the environment, for example, the sex, age, background,proficiency in language of learners, and so on. However, all variables cannot be controlled in a real school
environment. Even if it were possible to control these variables, another problem would occur. Does what
occurs in these sorts of laboratory conditions occur in real school environments? To what extent variables
should be controlled is a major problem.
In regards to test content bias, Baretta and Davies（1985）stated that ‘It was clear that if we used tests
that were solely CTP-based, we would be unfair to the structural group, and vice versa. The problem is a
− 360 −

familiar one in educational research.’（p.123）. Baretta and Davies prepared a series of tests to solve thisproblem. The series consisted of five tests: a structure test, a task-based test and three neutral tests（acontextualized grammar test, a dictation test and a listening/reading comprehension test）. As a result, the
TBLT group did better in the task-based test and the neutral tests. This result may suggest that TBLT isa better way of teaching language than the traditional method. However, Baretta and Davies（1985）pointed
out that ‘The impossibility of full experiment control and the potential for bias in test construction makegeneralization impossible.’（p.126）. We should consider these limitations when looking at the results.
In my experiment, the tests required students to translate sentences from Japanese into English withconsideration to contexts. Neither the TBLT group nor the PPP group practiced such activity（translation）, so the test was neutral for both groups. In order to confirm the validity of the two groups, at-test about the result of pre-test was administered. However, we must look at the details of the subjects（See table 4, 5）. The pre-test result showed that five students in the TBLT group could use ‘might’, but
only one student in the PPP group could use ‘might’. In further experiments, the subjects should be divided
equally based on an individual target language item. Then, we would be able to trace the effects on eachlanguage item.
Finally, the number or the quality of the subjects may not be sufficient for generalization（although wealready know the difficulties of generalization）. In my experiment, the subjects were twenty students. This
number may be too small for generalization, so the result in my experiment may not be applied to general
Japanese university students. As for the quality of the subjects, they are national university students whose
major is English education. Their level of English is thought to be above the average for general Japanese
university students. What would happen if the same experiment was carried out for other students of higher
or lower levels? This should be investigated in further experiments.

Reference list
Beretta, A., & Davies, A.（1985）. Evaluation of the Bangalore Project. ELT Journal , 39, 121-127.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K.（2011）. Research methods in education . London & New York:
Routledge.
Ellis, R.（2003）. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A.（1999）. Input, interaction and second language development: An empirical study of question
formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 21, 557-587.
Prabhu, N.S.（1987）. Second language pedagogy . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Samuda, V.（2001）. Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role ofthe teacher. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M.Swain（Eds.）, Researching pedagogical tasks: Second language

learning , teaching, and testing（pp.119-140）. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Sheen, R.（2003）. Focus on form-a myth in the making? ELT Journal , 57, 225-233.
Swan, M.（2005）. Legislating by hypothesis: the case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics , 26,
376-401.
Van den Branden, K.（1997）. Effects of Negotiation on Language Learner’s Output. Language Learning , 47,
589-636.
William, L.（2004）. The task-based approach: some questions and suggestions. ELT Journal , 58, 319-326.
和泉伸一（2009）『「フォーカス・オン・フォーム」を取り入れた新しい英語教育』東京 : 大修館書店
高島英幸（編）（1995）『コミュニケーションにつながる文法指導』東京 : 大修館書店− 361 −

高島英幸（編）（2000）『実践的コミュニケーション能力のための英語のタスク活動と文法指導』東京 : 大修
館書店
高島英幸（編）（2005）『文法項目別

英語のタスク活動とタスク―34の実践と評価』東京 : 大修館書店

寺内正典（編）（2012）『英語教育学の実証的研究法入門

Excel で学ぶ統計処理』東京 : 研究社

三浦省五（監）（2004）『英語教師のための教育データ分析入門 ―授業が変わるテスト・評価・研究－』東京 :大修館書店
Appendix Extract from the worksheet used in PPP group
Who is the owner of this bag?
You are detectives. You found a bag that someone forgot. Let’s look some things in this bag and make someguesses about the owner!
① First, make some guesses about the owner for yourself and write in your chart.
② Make pairs and exchange guesses.
（Example of dialogue）
A: What do you think about the owner’s job?
B: The owner is probably an office worker.
A: Why?
B: Because of the timetable. The office workers often go to business trips, so they need timetables.

− 362 −