Developing Speaking Skill Through Task Based Language Teaching

DEVELOPING SPEAKING SKILL THROUGH TASK
BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING
A Thesis Submitted to the Department of English Education
In Partial Fulfillment for the Masters of Education in
English
Submitted by
Dikendra Raya
Faculty of Education
Tribhuvan University
Janta Multiple Campus,
Itahari, Sunsari, Nepal
2016
DEVELOPING SPEAKING SKILL THROUGH TASK
BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING
A Thesis Submitted to the Department of English Education
In Partial Fulfillment for the Masters of Education in English
Submitted by
Dikendra Raya
Faculty of Education
Tribhuvan University
Janta Multiple Campus,
Itahari, Sunsari, Nepal
2016
T.U. Regd. 9-1-9-112-99 Date of Approval of the Thesis
Second Year Examination Proposal: 2072-10-15/29-01-2016
Roll No.: 2180006 (2068/2011) Date of Submission: 2072-12-30
Campus Roll No.: 3 (2067/2010) (12-04-2016)
2
DECLARATION
I hereby declare to the best of my knowledge that this thesis is original; no part of it
was earlier submitted for the candidature of research to any university.
Date: 2072-12-25/07-04-2016 Dikendra Raya
3
RECOMMENDATION FOR ACCEPTANCE
This is to certify that Mr. Dikendara Raya has completed this thesis entitled
Developing Speaking Skill Through Task Based Language Teaching under my
guidance and supervision.
I recommended this thesis for approval and acceptance.
Date: 2072-12-26/08-04-2016 Tirtha Raj Acharya (Guide)
Lecturer
Department of English Education
4
RECOMMENDATION FOR EVALUATION
This thesis entitled Developing Speaking Skill through Task Based Language
Teaching by Mr. Dikendra Raya has been recommended for evaluation by the
following Research Guidance Committee.
Mr. Kamal Raj Dahal ________________

Lecturer and Chairperson
Head Department of English Education
Mr. Tirtha Raj Acharya (Guide) ________________

Lecturer Member
Mr. Chet Nath Niroula ________________

Asst. Lecturer Member
Date: 2072-01-02/14-04-2016
5
EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
This thesis entitled “Developing Speaking Skill through Task Based Language
Teaching” by Mr. Dikendra Raya has been evaluated and approved by the
following thesis Evaluation Committee.
Mr. Kamal Raj Dahal ________________

Lecturer and Chairperson
Head Department of English Education
Mr. Govindaraj Bhattarai ________________

Professor Expert
Central Department of English Education
Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur
Mr. Tirtha Raj Acharya (Guide) ________________

Lecturer Member
Date: 2073-04-06/21-07-2016
6
DEDICATION
I dedicate this humble work to my parents who were very enthusiastic, proud and
supporting through my study; to my wife, Kalpana, for her patience in the difficult
situations and for her encouragement; and to my son, Dikson.
7
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to extend my deep sense of profound gratitude to my thesis guide
Mr.Tirtha Raj Aacharya, lecturer of Janta Multiple Campus and member of the
research guidance committee of the Department of English Education, for making
constant supervision and guiding me with regular inspiration, encouragement and
insightful suggestion throughout the thesis. I would like to acknowledge his
invaluable instructions, suggestions, guidance and strong cooperation in completing
the thesis. Frankly speaking, without his valuable support this thesis would not be
fruitful and praiseworthy.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Mr. Kamal Raj Dahal, lecturer and
head department of English Education at Janta Multiple Campus for his inspiration
and valued suggestions.
I owe a debt of profound gratitude to Mr. Nir Kumar Rai, campus chief, Mr. Tol
Nath Kafle, head of Education faculty and Mr. Chet Nath Niroula Assistant
Lecturer at Janta Multiple Campus for their contribution of continuous guidance,
regular inspiration and enthusiastic encouragement to complete this thesis. At the
same time I would like to thank the principal, subject teacher and class nine students
at Public Higher Secondary School for their irreplaceable support.
Thanks are due to Miss. Irada Basnet who helped me to collect materials and Ratna
Photocopy center for neat computer setting.
Date: 2072-12-24 Dikendra Raya
8
ABSTRACT
This research report Developing Speaking Skill through Task Based Language
Teaching was aimed to find out the roles of Task Based Language Teaching in
teaching English as a foreign language at the secondary level students‟ oral
performance, enlist effective tasks and suggest some ways to develop speaking skill.
It has been carried out practically. For this purpose, Public Higher Secondary School
Dharan-13 was selected by purposive sampling method and 40 students from grade IX
were taken as sample population. Test items and questionnaires were the main tools
for data collection. A pre-test was administered to determine the existing proficiency
level of the students. They were divided into two groups: experimental and control
group on the basis of the sections they belonged to. After dividing them into two
groups, both groups were taught 25 lesson plans separately. After completion of
teaching 25 lesson plans, a post-test was administered using the same test item of the
pretest. Then performance scores of the students of both tests were compared and
analyzed. The main finding of the research is that use of task based language teaching
was found more effective for developing speaking ability than traditional way of
teaching.
This thesis consists of five chapters. Each chapter is divided into different sub-
chapters. The first chapter is an introductory chapter. It includes general background,
statement of the problem, rationale of the research, objectives of the research,
research questions, significance of the study and delimitations. The second chapter
deals with the review of the related literature, implications of related literature,
theoretical and conceptual framework. The third chapter deals with the methodology.
It includes design of the study, sources of data, sample population, sampling
9
procedure, data collection tools, data collection process and data analysis and
interpretation procedure. The fourth chapter deals with results and discussion. It
includes interpretation of pretest and posttest, interpretation of students‟ responses
and ways to develop students‟ speaking ability. The fifth chapter deals with summary,
conclusions and implications.
10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Declaration i
Recommendation for Acceptance ii
Recommendation for Evaluation iii
Evaluation and Approval iv
Dedication v
Acknowledgements vi
Abstract vii
Table of Contents viii
List of Tables ix
List of Abbreviations and symbols x
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Page
1.1 General Background 1
1.1.1 Task Based Language Teaching 3
1.1.2 Task Features 5
1.1.3 Types of Tasks 6
1.1.4 Principles of Task Based Language Teaching 9
1.1.5 Frameworks of Task Based Language Teaching 10
1.2 Statement of the Problem 15
1.3 Rationale of the Research 16
1.4 Objectives of the Research 17
1.5 Research Questions 17

11
1.6 Significance of the Study 18
1.7 Delimitations of the Research 19
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 Review of Related Literature 20
2.2 Implications of Related Literature 24
2.3 Theoretical Framework 24
2.3.1 Problems with Speaking 27
2.3.2 Components of Speaking Skill 31
2.3.3 Activities for Teaching Oral Skill 32
2.4 Conceptual Framework 39
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS AND PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY
3.1 Design of the Study 40
3.2 Sources of Data 41
3.2.1 Primary Sources 41
3.2.2 Secondary Sources 41
3.3 Sample Population 42
3.4 Sampling Procedure 42
3.5 Data Collection Tools 42
3.6 Data Collection Procedure 43
3.7 Data Analysis and Interpretation Procedure 44
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Interpretation of Pretest and Posttest 45
4.1.1 Holistic Comparison 46
4.1.2 Item Wise Inter Test Comparison 48
12
4.1.3 Item Wise Intra Test Comparison 53
4.2 Interpretation of Students‟ Responses 59
4.2.1 Holistic Comparison 59
4.2.2 Item Wise Comparison 60
4.2.3 Ways to Develop Students‟ Speaking Ability 62
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
5.1 Summary 64
5.2 Conclusions 65
5.3 Implications 69
5.3.1 Policy Level 69
5.3.2 Practice Level 69
5.3.3 Further Research 71
References
Appendix
Appendix A: Speaking Test Questions
Appendix B: Lesson Plan
Appendix C: Teaching Materials
Appendix D: English Speaking Ability Evaluation Form
Appendix E: Questionnaires
Appendix F: Speaking Test Scores
Appendix G: Testing Statistical Significance
Appendix H: Rubric of Speaking Test
13
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1: Sample Population 42
Table 2: Overall Comparison of Pretest and Posttest 46
Table 3: Overall Comparison of Control and Experimental Group 48
Table 4: Comparison of Mean Scores of Pretest and Posttest Item 1 49
Table 10: Comparison of Control and Experimental Group Item 1 54
Table 16: Comparison of Mean Scores of Tasks 59
Table 17: Comparison of Tasks for Asking for and Giving Directions 60
Table 18: Comparison of Tasks for Describing People 60
Table 19: Comparison of Tasks for Ordering a Meal 61
Table 20: Comparison of Tasks for Making a Phone Call 61
Table 21: Comparison of Tasks for Making an appointment 61
Table 22: Comparison of Tasks for Making a Reservation for Hotel Room 64
14
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
Av Average
D Difference
ed. Edited
et. al and others
PPP Presentation Practice Production
TBLT Task Based Language Teaching
TPR Total Physical Response
TTT Test Teach Test
𝑛 Number
M Mean
𝜎 Standard Deviations
t Paired T-test
𝑋 Mean of Posttest and Experimental Group
𝑌 Mean of Pretest and Control Group
𝑛1 Number of Classes in Posttest and Experimental Group
𝑛2 Number of Classes in Pretest and Control Group
𝑠2 Sample Variance
𝐻0 Hypothesis 1
𝐻1 Hypothesis 2
𝛼 Level of Significance
% Percentage
𝜗 Degree of Freedom
∑ Sum
15
16
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 General Background
Of all the four skills of learning English viz. listening, speaking, reading and writing,
speaking seems intuitively the most important. People who know language are
referred to as ‘speakers’ of that language, as if speaking included all other kinds of
knowing; and many if not most foreign language learners are primarily interested in
learning to speak (Ur, 2005 p. 120). The speaking skill refers to ability to express
themselves through speech or oral language. It is an essential tool for
communication that helps to express ideas, thoughts, feelings and emotions with
other people. It is the tool that helps for thinking and learning. It shapes, modifies,
extends, and organizes thoughts. Therefore oral language is taken as foundation of
all language development and the foundation of all learning. Therefore, it is the base
for other language strands. Speech is a vehicle to link individuals to society. Harmer
(2001) and Gower et al. (1995, cited in Vilimec, 2006) note down that from the
communicative point of view, speaking has many different aspects, including two
major categories – accuracy, involving the correct use of vocabulary, grammar and
pronunciation practiced through controlled and guided activities, and, fluency,
considered to be ‘the ability to keep going when speaking spontaneously.’ So
speaking does not only include the ability to express ideas feelings, emotions, in
order to convey the message to each other in oral form rather it involves many other
aspects such as accuracy, fluency, correct use of vocabulary, grammar and
pronunciation in controlled way, ability to speak spontaneously.
17
Similarly, Ur (2005) taking similar stand, says, “Language proficiency can be defined
in terms of accuracy and fluency if a learner has mastered on a language
successfully, it means that he or she can understand and produce it both accurately
and fluently.” Therefore, accuracy and fluency are more focused in speaking the
target language in EFL situation because they are directly related with conveying the
message, communicating and receiving the content. Though students can use
different skills and techniques to develop their oral skill with accuracy and fluency, to
express their personal feelings and emotions but what has been realized that
students still feel difficulty to express their ideas through speaking in the target
language. Therefore the teachers in EFL classes apply various alternative techniques
to develop their speaking skill, bringing the authentic teaching materials and real life
conversation and encouraging them to involve actively in the classroom discussion,
and other various activities.
Hasan (2014, p.252) Speaking is the most important language skill because from
which skills such as dialogues, lecturing, presentation, radio talks, TV programs
erupt. The speaking skill is concerned with all these purposes such as expressing
feelings, sensations, ideas, and beliefs. It is true that most language activities are
done orally. The speaking skill, when it is mastered, helps individuals promote their
feelings of self esteem and realization. Students pay more attention to reading and
writing. They disregard the oral skills. It is not an exaggeration if we say that students
do not even pay attention to the correct pronunciation of the vocabulary they learn
with the excuse that they can spell and write it correctly. On the other hand,
teachers neither have the aptitude nor the readiness to conduct or administer such
18
oral tests. They either find them difficult to conduct or administer or they are in the
dark about the various techniques of oral testing. Because of lack of concentration
on the speaking skill in the teaching /learning program, it has become natural to
note the inability of students to express themselves orally. In spite of the fact that
they have had a high level of education, they find difficulty to express themselves in
their own language. Thus, they disappoint their audience and sometimes they do not
gain their appreciation. Why are students suffered from expressing themselves
orally? In addition to the disregard of this skill in the teaching/learning program of
teaching English as a foreign language, there are many other reasons. Poor self
confidence, lack of ideas, inability to arrange ideas, poor vocabulary, poor structure,
lack of oral practice, shyness, are some of the hindrances of communicating orally.
To help both teachers and students to practice the speaking skill in their
teaching/learning program, they need to be convinced with the importance of the
speaking skill as well as to practice this skill in a way far from the traditional methods
that compel students to practice the language they do not like in the way they do
not like either. In other words, both teachers and students need to teach and learn,
respectively, out of the pattern. In spite of the importance of this skill, the teaching
/learning programs in schools stress reading and writing at the expense of listening
and speaking. Even, the assessment and evaluation techniques in schools do not
have listening or speaking tests. Students, in turn, pay more attention to reading and
writing. They disregard the oral skills.
1.1.1 Task Based Language Teaching:
19
Prabhu (1987) used a task based approach with secondary school classes in
Bengalore, India, in his communicational teaching project, beginning in 1979. The
term task can mean different things to different people (Leaver and Willis, 2004).
There are different definitions of the word task. Most of the definitions include
achieving and arriving at an outcome or attaining an objective. The definitions also
show that tasks are meaning focused. Prabhu (1987:2) defines a task as “an activity
which requires learners to arrive to an outcome from given information through
some processes of thought and which allowed teachers to control and regulate that
process was regarded as a task.” Nunan (1999:10) defines 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.”
Willis (1996:53) asserts that task is a goal-oriented activity with real outcome; this
implies that a task is “a goal-oriented activity which learners use language to achieve
a real outcome. In other words, learners use whatever target language resources
they have in order to solve a problem, do a puzzle, play a game or share and
compare experiences.” Skehan (1998:95) says that task is “an activity in which:
meaning is primary; there is some communication problem to solve; there is some
sort of relationship to comparable real world activities; task completion has some
priority; and assessment of task performance is in terms of task outcome.”
TBLT is also discussed from a psycholinguistic perspective. Ellis (2000, p. 197) says, “A
task is a device that guides learners to engage in certain types of information-
processing that are believed to be important for effective language use and/or for
20
language acquisition from some theoretical standpoint.” It assumes that while
performing the tasks, learners engage in certain types of language use and mental
processing that are useful for acquisition. Ellis (2006, p. 23) asserts that “tasks
reduce the cognitive or linguistic demands placed on the learner.”
Task based language teaching is based on a theory of language rather than a theory
of language structure. Richards and Rodgers (2001:228) suggest that reason because
“tasks are believed to foster processes of negotiation, modification, rephrasing, and
experimentation that are at the heart of second language learning.”
Feez (1998: 17) summarizes the following basic assumptions of TBLT;
-The focus of instruction is on process rather than product.
- Basic elements are purposeful activities and tasks that emphasize communication
and meaning.
- Learners learn language by interacting communicatively and purposefully while
engaged in meaningful activities and tasks.
- Activities and tasks can be either those that learners might need to achieve in real
life, or those that have a pedagogical purpose specific to the classroom.
- Activities and tasks of a task based syllabus can be sequenced according to
difficulty.
- The difficulty of a task depends on a range of factors including the previous
experience of the learner, the complexity of the tasks, and the degree of support
available. (Richards and Rodgers, 2001: 224)
1.1.2 Task Features
21
Ellis (2003:16) mentioned six criterial features of a task:
- A task is a work plan. A task constitutes a plan for learning activity. This work plan
takes the form of teaching materials. The actual activity that results may or may not
match that intended by the plan.
- A task involves a primary focus on meaning. A task seeks to engage learners in
using language pragmatically rather than displaying language. It seeks to develop L2
proficiency through communicating. Thus, it requires a primary focus on meaning.
- A task involves real-world processes of language use. The work plan may require
learners to engage in language activity such as that found in the real-world, for
example, completing a form, or it may involve them in language activity that is
artificial, for example, determining whether two pictures are the same or different.
- A task can involve any of the four language skills. The work plan may require
learners to (1) listen or read a text and display their understanding, (2) produce an
oral or written text, or (3) employ a combination of receptive and productive skills.
- A task engages cognitive processes. The work plan requires learners to employ
cognitive processes such as selecting, classifying, ordering, reasoning and evaluating
information in order to carry out the task.
- A task has a clearly defined communicative outcome. The work plan stipulates the
non-linguistic outcome of the task, which serves as the goal of the activity for the
learners. The stated outcome of a task serves as the means of determining when
participants have completed a task.
22
1.1.3 Types of Tasks
Ellis (2003) classified tasks into the following types:
a. Unfocused Tasks: An unfocused task is one that encourages learners to use
English freely without concentrating on just one or two specific forms (i.e., a
replication activity).
b. Pedagogic (rehearsal, activation): Pedagogical tasks have a psycholinguistic basis
in SLA theory and research but do not necessarily reflect real-world tasks. For
example, four students are given pictures and must describe them to the rest of the
class. The other students ask the four students questions about their pictures, and a
student then tries to tell a story.
c. Rehearsal tasks: The following tasks of pair-work and role play are examples of
rehearsal tasks.
A: You are a passenger calling to reconfirm a reservation. Use the ticket (provided
separately) to check the details of your flight.
B: You are an airline employee. Use the information sheet (provided separately) to
answer your partner's questions.
d. Activation tasks: The teacher gives pairs of students two different pictures, and
then asks each one to talk to their partner about the differences between the
pictures.
23
e. Real-world tasks: Tasks are everywhere in everyday life. Washing our face is a
task, as is preparing breakfast, going to work by car, etc. Tasks are a part of our lives
to such an extent that there is hardly any activity that cannot be called a task.
f. Focused Tasks: A focused task (Ellis, 2003) is either a consciousness-raising activity
that focuses on examining samples of language to explore particular features. These
are sometimes called "meta-cognitive" activities. Examples of this are classifying the
uses of a verb plus – "ing" forms that appear in a reading text or identifying phrases
from a spoken transcript containing the preposition in and categorizing them into
time, location, or other, or a task used because it is likely to encourage the
comprehension of, and/or the use of, particular language forms (i.e., a citation or
simulation activity).
Long and Crooks (1991) provided an example by using a split information quiz with
facts derived from a written report about company sales over the last half year. This
report on company sales contained a large number of noun and verb expressions of
increase and decrease, including the use of past simple and present perfect verb
forms. Learners had to obtain information from each other in order to complete the
graph representing sales trends. The follow-up exercise entailed reading the full
report in detail in order to check the figures in their graph. Most of this work plan
involved receptive skills of listening to others reading out their information and
reading the text to check results. In doing so, students were obliged to focus on the
meaning of the expressions of quantity and increase and decrease.
Willis (1996: 149) listed the following types of tasks of TBLT:
24
1. Listing: Including a brainstorming and fact-finding, the outcome is a completed list
or draft mind map. This type of task can help train students' comprehension and
induction ability.
2. Ordering, sorting: Including sequencing, ranking and classifying, the outcome is a
set of information ordered and sorted according to specific criteria. These types
might foster comprehension, logic and reasoning ability.
3. Comparing: This type of task includes matching, finding similarities, or differences.
The outcome can be appropriately matched or assembled items. This type of task
enhances students' ability of differentiation.
4. Problem solving: This type of task includes analyzing real situations, reasoning,
and decision-making. The outcome involves solutions to the problem, which can
then be evaluated. These tasks help promote students' reasoning and decision-
making abilities.
5. Sharing experience: This type of task includes narrating, describing, exploring and
explaining attitudes, opinions, and reactions. The outcome is usually social. These
tasks help students to share and exchange their knowledge and experience.
6. Creative tasks: These include brainstorming, fact finding, ordering and sorting,
comparing and many other activities. The outcome is an end product that can be
appreciated by a wider audience. Students cultivate their comprehensive problem-
solving abilities as well as their reasoning and analyzing abilities.
25
These tasks are listed from easy to difficult, and all of them reveal the recognition
process of students. The tasks in TBLT should be applicable to real life to help
students accomplish the tasks and show their communicative competence in
classroom teaching and real life situations (Willis, 1996: 149).
A somewhat different categorization of tasks is Nunan’s (2001) description of task
types as pedagogic and real-world tasks. Pedagogic tasks are communicative tasks
that facilitate the use of language in the classroom towards achievement of some
instrumental or instructional goal, whereas real-world tasks involve “borrowing” the
target language used outside the classroom in the real world.
1.1.4 Principles of Task Based Language Teaching
David Nunan (Net) presents eight principles of TBLT via slide share.
a. Scaffolding: Lessons and materials should provide supporting frameworks within
which the learning takes place. At the beginning of the learning process, learners
should not be expected to produce that has not been explicitly taught.
b. Task Dependency: Within a lesson, one task should grow out of, and build upon
the ones that have gone before.
c. Recycling: Recycling language maximizes opportunities for learners and activities
for learning and activates organic learning principle.
d. Active Learning: Learners acquire the language by activating and using it.
26
e. Integration of Form and Function: Learners are taught in ways that make clear the
relationships between grammatical form, communicative function and semantic
meaning.
f. Reproduction and Creation: In reproductive tasks, learners reproduce language
models provided by the teacher, the text book or the CD. These tasks are designed to
give learners mastery of form, meaning and function and provide a base for creative
tasks. In creative tasks, learners are recombining familiar elements in novel ways.
g. Learning Strategies: Learners focus on learning process as well as language
content.
h. Reflection: Learners should be given opportunities to reflect on what they have
learned and how well they are doing.
1.1.5 Frameworks of Task-based Language Teaching
For task-based instruction, there have been different sequencing frameworks
proposed by researchers (Ellis, 2003; Lee, 2000; Prabhu, 1987; Skehan, 1996; Willis,
1996).They assume three phases in common for task-based instruction. Ellis (2003)
names these as ‘pre-task’, ‘during task’, and ‘post-task’, while Willis (1996) divides
these into ‘pre-task’, ‘task cycle’ and ‘language focus’.
The task-based framework differs from the traditional teaching (PPP) methods in
terms of different sequencing of the instructional phases. In a traditional classroom,
the first step is to present the target language function and forms, and then to
practice them, band finally to produce examples of these language function/forms
27
(PPP) without teacher support. In a task-based framework, however, learners first
perform a communicative task (with the help of any previously learned language
structures) after they are introduced to the topic and the task itself. Learners then
write or talk about necessary planning to perform the task they have just attempted.
At this stage, they might listen to a recording of learners working on the same or a
similar task or read something related to the task topic. After they have some sense
of the task production, they apply this knowledge to re-try the task. During this
stage, they have access to requested linguistic forms. In short, a holistic approach is
used in task-based framework since learners are first involved in the task, and they
try to negotiate for meaning using existing resources.
Then, they focus on the target language forms they find they need. They have been
familiarized with the specific language functions and language forms useful in task
completion. Therefore, these functions and forms are contextualized and have
become more meaningful for the learners within the focused task (Ellis, 2003;
Skehan, 1996; Willis, 1996).
The pre-task phase
The aim of this phase is first to introduce task and task topic to learners. According
to
Ellis (2003) and Lee (2000), framing of the task plays an important role before
implementing the task since it informs learners about the outcome of the task and
what they are supposed to do to fulfill the task. Revealing the purpose of the task in
advance also serves as a motivator (Dörnyei, 2001).
28
After introducing the topic, teachers may need to explain the task theme if learners
are unfamiliar with it. In order to do this, they can provide learners with vital
vocabulary items and phrases or help them remember relevant words or phrases
(Willis, 1996). If the topic is a familiar one, teachers can elicit the known phrases and
language related to the topic. In the process, teachers can have an opportunity to
observe what learners actually know and what they need to know. However, there is
no explicit teaching of vocabulary or language in this model.
The third step is to perform a similar task to the main task. Prabhu’s (1987) study
was conducted in a whole class context. The teacher asked similar questions that
would be directed to the students in the main task. This demonstration in the pre-
task should be counted as an activity that enhances learners’ competence in
undertaking the real task.
Having learners experience “ideal” performance of the task either by listening to a
recording of a fluent speaker or reading a related text to the task, fosters learners’
optimal performance in the task (Ellis, 2003, p. 246). Although some researchers find
it effective to “prep” learners on the type of task they are going to perform (Ellis,
2003; Willis, 1996), others urge learners to find their own way through discussion
and negotiation with fellow learners in the pre-task phase (Lam & Wong, cited in
Ellis, 2003).
The last step in the pre-task phase is to allocate learners time for task planning.
Giving time to learners to prepare themselves for the tasks enhances the use of
various vocabulary items, complex linguistic forms, fluency and naturalness with
29
which the tasks are carried out (Skehan, 1996; Willis, 1996). Ellis (2003) calls this
session the strategic planning phase. In strategic planning, either the learners decide
by themselves what to do in the task or teachers lead them in focusing on accuracy,
fluency or complexity. Although teacher guidance is important at this point in order
to explicitly inform learners what to focus on during preparation (Skehan, 1996),
Willis (1996) argues that learners tend to perform the task less enthusiastically when
they are guided by the teacher than when they plan the task on their own.
Foster and Skehan (1999) offer three options for strategic planning, ‘no planning’,
‘language-focused guided planning’ and ‘form focused guided planning’. There is
another essential issue related to allowing preparation time for students in this
phase. For Willis (1996) and Ellis (2003), the amount of preparation time may change
according to the learners’ familiarity with the task theme, difficulty level and
cognitive demand of the task. The more complex and unfamiliar the task is, the more
preparation time students need.
The during-task phase
In this phase, learners do the main task in pairs or groups, prepare an oral or written
plan of how and what they have done in task completion, and then present it to the
whole class (Willis, 1996).
The task performance session enables learners to choose whatever language they
want to use to reach the previously defined outcome of the task. Ellis (2003)
proposes two dimensions of task performance: giving students planning time and
30
giving them the opportunity to use input data which will help them present what
they produce easily.
The first dimension concerns the effect of time limitation on task completion. Lee
(2000) finds that giving limited time to students to complete the task determines
students’ language use. Yuan and Ellis (2003) argue that learners given unlimited
time to complete a task use more complex and accurate structures than the ones in
the control group given limited time. On the other hand, time limitation in the
control group encouraged fluency. When they are given the chance to use their own
time, learners tend to revise and find well-suited words to express themselves
precisely. However, Willis (1996) claims that if learners have limited time to finish
the task, their oral production becomes more fluent and natural because of
unplanned language use.
For the second dimension, the use of input data during task-performance is
discussed. Getting help from the input data means that learners use, for instance,
the picture about which they are talking or the text they have read as background
(Ellis, 2003; Prabhu, 1987). In the last part of the ‘‘during-task phase’’, some groups
or pairs present their oral or written reports. Teachers’ giving feedback only on the
strengths of the report and not publicly correcting errors increases the effectiveness
of the reporting session (Willis, 1996).
The post-task phase
This phase enables learners to focus on the language they used to complete the task,
repeat the performed task, and make comments on the task (Ellis, 2003). The
31
teacher can present some form-focused tasks based on the texts or listening tasks
that have been examined. This stage is seen as adding accuracy to fluency since it
also involves explicit language teaching (Willis, 1996a; Ellis, 2003). The teacher
selects the language forms to present, monitors learners while they are performing
the “re-task” and notes of learners’ errors and gaps in the particular language forms
they use.
Learners are also given the opportunity to repeat the task. Task repetition helps
them improve their fluency, use more complex and accurate language forms and so
express themselves more clearly (Bygate, 1996; Ellis, 2003).
Finally, learners are given the opportunity to reflect on the task they have finished.
Willis (1996) describes this part as the conclusion of the task cycle, which is ‘‘during-
task’’ in Ellis’s (2003) description of the task-based framework. In Willis’s (1996)
description, reflecting on the task means summarizing the outcome of the task.
Ellis (2003) states that it is also possible for students to report on their own
performance and how they can advance their performance, which are all related to
developing their metacognitive skills, such as self-monitoring, evaluating and
planning. In addition to self-criticism, learners are asked to evaluate the task as well,
which will, in turn, influence their teacher’s future task selection (Ellis, 2003).
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Tasks as organized sets of activities play essential roles in classroom learning
processes. Task-based Language Teaching is an approach that emphasizes the
32
significance of the role of tasks in these processes. As learners in EFL contexts have
fewer opportunities to practice language outside school, classroom activities become
more important (Nunan, 1989). Teachers and syllabus designers turn to the role of
tasks and task-based instruction in order to have a more effective teaching-learning
environment. There are some important studies examining the use of task-based
instruction and its focus on communicative competence, such as the
Bangalore/Madras Communicational Teaching Project and the Malaysian
Communicational Syllabus (1975, Beretta & Davies, Beretta, cited in Richards &
Rodgers, 2001; Prabhu 1987). However, there are few research studies on the use of
task-based instruction in teaching a specific skill, such as speaking.
So far as speaking is concerned that communication does not take place just by
composing sentences, but by using sentences to make statements of different kinds
viz. to describe, to classify, to give and ask for information, to ask questions, to make
requests and so on. Therefore students acquire the language by using it in practical
situations not by mastering the structures.
1.3 Rationale of the Research
Learning to speak a foreign language is not an easy process. Both foreign language
teachers and learners find speaking the most difficult language skills; therefore this
skill is frequently neglected or poorly practiced in the English language classroom.
Teachers of English tend to stress drilling patterns, reading texts and writing tasks
but rarely have their students involved in speaking activities. Learning to speak
English is more effectively achieved by speaking than by listening or reading. Of the
33
four skills, listening and speaking skills are obligatory. Speaking comes first before
writing and reading but most students at public schools feel anxiety to speak English.
Although many teaching approaches, techniques and methods are discovered to
teach all the skills of language, the students in government schools still feel
hesitation and nervous to speak English. On the contrary, the students of boarding
school feel free to speak it. If we ask the students of class ten at public schools about
their SLC exams of English tests, they will definitely answer that they are prepared
for writing and reading activities but scared of listening and speaking tests. They
seem much worried about having listening and speaking tests. Their lips tremble to
speak. They are able to write and read but they cannot speak, why? What are the
problems they are facing? Why do pupils in boarding schools feel free? It is true that
the students cannot speak like native speakers but we can improve the speaking
level of students at public schools if we try properly. The problems that the students
are facing give birth of many questions. What are the causes? Are teachers able to
provide the students with opportunities to practice the target language in EFL classes
or not? There must be some weaknesses. If some weaknesses exist there, what can
we do? How can we develop their competence and confidence of speaking? How can
we avoid their English speaking anxiety?
1.4 Objectives of the Research
The research had the following objectives:
a. To find out the roles of Task Based Language Teaching to develop students’
speaking ability at secondary level.
34
b. To find out effective tasks and the ways to develop speaking skill at secondary
level.
c. To suggest some pedagogical implications of this study.
1.5 Research Questions
To make the study more specific for the required information related to the
problem, the following research questions were concluded:
1. Do students improve their speaking ability after learning through TBLT?
2. What are the effective tasks for developing speaking skill?
3. How do students develop speaking skill?
4. What are the pedagogical implications of TBLT in teaching speaking?
1.6 Significance of the Study
In the recent years, English has been used as the global language as lingua franca
among the people of the different languages. As Verghese (1990, p. 1) points out, “of
all the languages in the world today. English deserves to be regarded as a world
language. It is the world’s most widely spoken language.” Similarly, English as an
international language is learnt and used all over the world. Moreover, it is also used
as a medium of instruction in the classroom teaching as well as the language of
administration in a number of countries of Asia and Africa today. In this regards,
Verghese (1990) further says, “English is being learnt and used all over the world not
out of any imposition but through the realization that it has certain inherent
advantages. Today the compulsions of learning English are no longer merely political
but scientific and technological” (p.3). Teaching and learning in EFL situation is
35
sometimes frustrating among the EFL learners because of the various problems
existing in the field of English language learning. Since this research deals with the
teaching learning strategies for developing speaking skills, problems with teaching
speaking, ways of solutions that I have developed from my own teaching learning
experience as well as pedagogical aspects of teaching speaking in EFL context.
Similarly, research is important for the study of problems or issues that help to
identify the problems related to out improvement in the existing system. Therefore,
through this research it has been expected that it can help to improve the
researchers’ teaching learning practices “by embracing the notion of researcher as
reflective practitioner” (Luitel, 2010, p. 6). Therefore the significance of this study is
to improve my own educative practices as an English teacher. This research is also
significant from various points of views but mainly to reflect myself critically so that I
can improve my teaching learning activities in the days to come avoiding my own
weaknesses. The next thing, I hope from this research is to develop my own living
educational theories on the basis of my experiences and studies. This study can be
also helpful for many students, fellow teachers, educators, policy makers to apply
suitable pedagogy that can address the needs and interests of the learners.
Moreover, it provides necessary feedback to curriculum designers to design the
suitable curriculum to address the learners’ needs.
1.7 Delimitations of the Research
The study had the following limitations:
1. The research was limited to speaking skill.
36
2. The study was limited to 25 days teaching only.
3. The study was limited to task based language teaching.
4. The data was collected from secondary/primary sources.
5. The data was confined to the Shree Public Higher Secondary School, Dharan.
6. The study was limited to 40 EFL students and a teacher i.e. a researcher
himself.
7. The study was limited to six language functions only viz. asking for and
giving directions, describing people, ordering a meal, making a phone call,
making an appointment and asking for a hotel room.
8. The study was limited to four tasks and activities only viz. role play, group
work, information gap and communication games.
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE RLATED LITERATURE AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 Review of Related Literature
A number of works have been conducted in different areas of language skills in the
department of English Education. For the purpose of my literature review, I visited
Central Library TU and studied various books and dissertations, browsed different
websites and went through different articles, journals and books, dissertations and
research papers by different scholars related to my topic. I reviewed some books
related to my research questions. Similarly, I visited Nepal English Language
Teachers’ Association (NELTA) and explored various related books and journal
articles. Before selecting this topic for the research work, the researcher went
through different researches available to him. After that he reached the final
37
conclusion to choose the topic. Different researchers have found out different things
in their different respective research work. Their findings are cited below:
Kafle (2009) carried out one research entitled “A Study on the Effectiveness of Pair
Work Technique for Developing Speaking Skill.” The major objective of this research
was to find out the effectiveness of pair work technique for developing speaking
skill. The researcher took the primary data administering a pre – test and post – test.
He collected data from related books such as Cross (1992), Ur (1996), Journal
(NELTA, 13th Volume) and many other researches. He used non random, judgmental
sampling procedure in his research. He divided the class into control and
experimental groups using systematic random sampling procedure. He used test
papers and interviews for data collection. The researcher found out that pair work
technique for developing speaking skills was better, more effective and significant
than conventional techniques.
Joshi (2010) did a research on “The Effectiveness of Task Based Approach in Teaching
Reading.” The main purpose of her study was to find out the effectiveness of Task
Based Language Teaching in teaching reading. The researcher took twenty students
of class nine as the primary source of data and many books related tasks based
teaching and reading such as Prabu (1987), Harmer (1991) and many more
resources. She selected students using purposive sampling. She conducted pre-test,
time on task test progressive test and post-test. She found that TBLT was effective as
the students were highly motivated. They had active participation. TBLT was found
to be more effective in subjective test than objective test.
38
Bam (2010) conducted his research entitled “Role of Task Based Technique in
Teaching Reading Comprehension.” His objectives for his research were to find out
the effectiveness of TBLT in teaching reading comprehension and to suggest some
pedagogical implications. He collected primary data from 60 students of grade ten.
He also adopted secondary data from related books, journals, articles, textbooks,
websites and many other theses. He used non random sampling judgemental
procedure. He selected the students using random sampling procedure. He divided
the students into control and experimental group. He took pre-test and post-test. On
the basis of the pre-test and post-test analysis and interpretation, task based
technique was found to be more effective than the traditional way of teaching as
experimental group performed better than control group.
Bhandari (2011) conducted an experimental research on “Effectiveness of Task
Based Language Teaching in Teaching Writing” to find out the effectiveness of task
based language teaching in teaching writing skills. The researcher adopted both
primary sources and secondary sources. He collected data from Ghanghasya
Secondary School Khateda, Dadeldhura. Similarly he went through many articles,
books, journals and many more theses. He selected 30 students of class 10 using
purposive non random sampling procedure. He administered pretest and posttest
containing same test items. He prepared test items on the basis of controlled, guided
and free composition writing. After comparing and contrasting the analyzed data he
concluded that the students remarkably progressed since 24% increment was seen
when the tests were compared. TBLT was found to be effective to teach writing
skills.
39
Thanghun (2012) carried out a research on “Using of Task Based Learning to Develop
English Speakers Ability.” His main purposes of the research were to investigate the
effectiveness of the students’ English speaking ability through task based learning
and to investigate about students’ opinion towards task based learning after
experiment is positive. He selected 30 students. Those participations were selected
through random sampling procedure. He used lesson plans, English speaking
assessment charts as the research tools. He investigated that TBLT improved in
students speaking ability.
Lamichhane (2012) conducted research on “Use of Task Based Language Teaching in
Nepalese Context” to find out challenges faced by the English language teachers in
the use of task based language teaching. He used survey research design. He used
primary and secondary sources of data for his study. He selected 40 English teachers
of higher secondary level working in Kaski district. He selected 20 teachers from
government aided school and 20 from private school using random sampling. He
collected information from different books, journals and theses. He adopted
objective and subjective questionnaire. He found that the majority of teachers
considered TBLT and Communicative Language Teaching as same. 80% teachers
were interested in practicing TBLT in the ELT classes. But, lack of the training, large
number of students, fixed class management, present examination system, learners’
low level of language profiency were found more serious problems for applying TBLT
in Nepalese context. He also found that those traditional syllabi were major
challenges for the implementation of TBLT.
40
Dhami (2014) did a research on “Strategies Used for Developing Speaking Skill: A
Case of M. Ed. Students.” His research was oriented to find out the strategies used
by M. Ed. Students for developing speaking skill, problems faced in developing skill
and solving the problems. The researcher adopted survey research design. He
selected 45 students of M. Ed. second year studying in three different campuses. He
selected 15 students from each campus. Along with sampling quota procedure, he
collected data through survey questionnaire. He concluded that 80% of students
used English in daily communication thinking in mother tongue and translating in
English strategies to develop speaking skill. Many students emphasized both
accuracy and fluency to develop speaking skills. Students were found to apply
different techniques such as presentation on the topics, group work, pair work, using
English inside and outside the class, pronunciation activities and so on to develop
speaking skills. Finally he concluded that getting an ample exposure was found one
of the better ways to develop speaking skill.
2.2 Implications of Related Literature
All the researches reviewed were related to developing speaking skill in EFL
situation. These researches were immensely resourceful to my study. After
reviewing these works, I gathered many ideas regarding skills of language. The
researchers mentioned above used survey design and I also followed the same. My
research was concerned with Task Based Language Teaching, tasks and activities for
41
developing speaking skill among the Nepali learners of EFL classrooms. I used pre-
test and post-tests, experiment and questionnaires as tools of data collection.
2.3 Theoretical Framework
Speaking is a productive skill like writing. It is very complex and complicated skill in
the sense that it is difficult to describe how utterances are processed and how they come
out while speaking. It involves thinking of what is to be said. We can define speaking as
the ability to express oneself fluently in a foreign Language. But it is especially difficult
in foreign language because effective oral communication requires the ability to use the
language appropriately in social interaction. It requires more than its grammatical and
semantic rules. Harmer (2001) calls „it is a store' and argues that to achieve
communicative purpose the speakers, both native and non-native, select the language
from the store they think appropriate for the purpose. It is also difficult to describe how
an utterance is followed by another one, and how they are processed. Speaking takes
place in a situation where the speaker is under pressure to produce his/her utterances
without having much time to organize what and how he/she wants to say.
Ur (1996, p.120) says, “Speaking seems intuitively the most important: People who
know a language are referred to as 'speakers' of that language, as if speaking included
all other kinds of knowing, and many if not most foreign language learners are
primarily interested in learning to speak.”
John Munby (1979, p.58) has identified the following sub skills of speaking:
a) Articulating sounds in isolate forms.
b) Articulating sounds in connected speech.
c) Manipulating variation in stress in connected speech.
42
d) Manipulating the use of stress in connected speech.
e) Producing intonation patterns and expressing attitudinal meaning through
variation in pitch, height, pitch range and pause.
Referring to Bygate (1996), and Hughes (2003) presents a list of speaking sub-skills
which are presented below:
a. Information Skills
Candidates should be able to:
a) Provide personal, non-personal and required information
b) Describe sequence of events
c) Give instructions and explanations
d) Make comparisons
e) Present arguments
f) Express need, requirements and performances
g) Seek help and permission
h) Ask for apology and make excuses
i) Express and justify opinions and attitude
j) Complain
k) Speculate
l) Comment, summarize, conclude and make suggestions (what they have said)
b. Interactional Skills
a) Express one's purpose and recognize other's
b) Express agreement and disagreement
43
c) Elicit opinions and information
d) Modify statements and comments made by other speakers
e) Justify statements and comments made by other speakers
f) Justify or support statements made by other speakers
g) Persuade others
h) Repair breakdowns in interactions
i) Elicit clarification
j) Indicate understanding or uncertainty
c. Skills in Managing Interactions
a) Initiate interactions
b) Change the topic of an interaction
c) Share the responsibility for the development of an interaction
d) Take and give turn in an interaction
e) Come to a decision
f) End an interaction
(As cited in Khaniya 2005, pp.136-137), Ur (1996, p.120) identifies four
characteristics of a successful speaking activity.
1. Learners talk a lot: As much as possible of the period of time allotted to the
activity is in fact occupied by learner talk. This may seem obvious, but often most
time is taken up with teacher talk or pauses.
44
2. Participation is even: Classroom discussion is not dominated by a minority of
talkative participants: all get a chance to speak, and contributions are fairly evenly
distributed.
3. Motivation is high: Learners are eager to speak: because they are interested in
the topic and have something new to say about it, or because they want to
contribute to achieving a task objective.
4. Language is of an acceptable level: Learners express themselves in utterances
that are relevant, easily comprehensible to each other, and of an acceptable level of
language accuracy.
2.3.1 Problems with Speaking
Speaking is a complex skill, that is to say, it is a network of skills, and therefore
teaching speaking is not an easy task. Native speakers of a language possess all the
sub-skills of their language: they can understand and use innumerable types of
sentences. Not only that but they can also understand and use entirely new
sentences which they have never been used before. But there may be a lot of
problems with the students who are studying English as a foreign language. The
problems may lie with the teaching process or with the students or with the
materials itself.
The problems according to Ur (1996, p.121) are as follows:
I) Inhibition: Unlike reading, writing and listening activities, speaking requires some
degree of real-time exposure to an audience. Learners are often inhibited about
45
trying to say things in a foreign language in the classroom. They are worried about
making mistakes, fearful of criticism or losing face or simply shy of the attention that
their speech attracts.
ii) Nothing to say: Even if they are not inhibited, we often hear learners complain
that they can't think of anything to say: they have no motive to express themselves
beyond the guilty feeling that they should be speaking.
iii) Low or uneven participation: Only one participant can talk at a time if he/she is
to be heard; and in a large group this means that each one will have only very little
talking time. This problem is compounded by the tendency of some learners to
dominate, while others speak very little or not at all.
IV) Mother- tongue use: In classes where all, or a number of, the learners share the
same mother-tongue, they may tend to use it: because it is easier, because it feels
unnatural to speak to one another in a foreign language, and because they feel less
‘exposed’ if they are speaking their mother-tongue. If they are talking in small groups
it can be quite difficult to get some classes- particularly the less disciplined or
motivated ones-to keep to the target language.
In addition to the above mentioned problems, Phyak & Sharma (2006, pp.216-217)
have mentioned the following problems:
v) Classroom size: We cannot allocate time to each individual to speak if the student
number is large. Unmanageable classroom size prevents students from speaking
practice.
46
VI) Time of exposure: Merely emphasizing structure and vocabulary practice doesn’t
automatically develop speaking ability of the students. Few numbers of hours
available for speaking is not enough to develop speaking habit of the learners.
VII) Syllabus/examination system: Our syllabus and examination system
underestimate the importance of speaking skill reflecting students' communicative
ability through paper-pencil work is not a genuine way of testing. In the Nepalese
context, testing speaking is just for formality, not for reality.
VIII) Pronunciation problems: Pronunciation problems are real problems regarding
the spoken language pronunciation problems will of course vary greatly from one
country to another. Common problems that are likely to occur are:
a) difficulty in pronouncing sounds which do not exist in the students' own
language e.g. for many Nepalese students, the consonants /ð/, /Ø/, /f/, /v/ are
difficult.
b) confusion of similar sounds e.g. /i:/, /i/, or /l/ and /r/ or /s/ and /š/
c) use of simple vowels instead of dipthongs, e.g. /i:/ instead of /iə/
d) difficulty in pronouncing consonant clusters, e.g. 'desks' /desks/, twelfths
/twelfØs/
e) tendency to give all syllables equal stress and flat intonation.
Ur (1996, pp.121-122) has given some suggestions to solve the above mentioned
problems. They are:
i) Use group work: This increases the sheer amount of learner talk going on in a
limited period of time and also lowers the inhibitions of learners who are unwillingly
47
to speak in front of the full class. It is true that group work means the teacher cannot
supervise all learner speech, so that not all utterances will be correct, and learners
may occasionally slip into their native language; nevertheless, even taking into
consideration occasional mistakes and mother-tongue use, the amount of time
remaining for positive, useful oral practice is still likely to be far more than in the full-
class set-up.
ii) Base the activity on easy language: In general, the level of language needed for a
discussion should be lower than that used in intensive language-learning activities in
the same class: it should be easily recalled and produced by the participants, so that
they can speak fluently with the minimum of hesitation. It is a good idea to teach or
review essential vocabulary before the activity starts.
iii) Make a careful choice of topic and task to stimulate interest: On the whole, the
clearer the purpose of the discussion the more motivated participants will be.
iv) Give some instruction or training in discussion skills: If the task is best on group
discussion then include instructions about participation when introducing it. For
example, tell learners to make sure that everyone in the group contributes to the
discussion; appoint a chairperson to each group who will regulate participation.
v) Keep students speaking in the target language: The best way to keep students
speaking the target language is simply to be there as much as possible. The teacher
has to work as a monitor or facilitator to ensure that all the students speak the
target language.
48
In addition to the above mentioned suggestions, Phyak & Sharma (2006,p.218) has
mentioned two more ones.
vi) Provide appropriate feedback: Based on the students’ performance the teacher
should provide appropriate feedback. The teacher can give verbal feedback like
‘Yeah’, ‘Well done’, ‘Good’, ‘Keep on the job’, which encourages the learners.
vii) Avoid immediate correction: Immediate correction should avoid as far as
possible. Immediate correction inhibits the learners to speak in front of his/her
fellow students. Some common and serious errors can be noted down and later
discussed in the classroom.
2.3.2 Components of Speaking Skill
According to M.Ed. English Curriculum (1999), the ability to speak in a foreign
language consists of the following components which are very important from
pedagogical point of view.
i) Articulation and production of sounds and sound sequences.
ii) Production of stress and intonation patterns
iii) Connected speech.
iv) Communicative skills.
v) Phatic communion
According to Harmer (2001, pp.269-270), the necessary elements for speaking
production are the following:
49
I) Connected speech: Effective speakers of English need to be able not only to
produce the individual phonemes of English (as in saying I would have gone) but also
to use fluent ‘connected speech’ (as in I’d’ve gone). In connected speech sounds are
modified (assimilation), omitted (elision), added (linking r) or weakened (through
contractions and stress patterning). It is for this reason that we should involve
students in activities designed specially to improve their connected speech.
II) Expressive devices: Native speakers of English change the pitch and stress of
particular parts of utterances, vary volume and speed and slow by other physical and
non verbal (paralinguistic) means how they are feeling(especially in face-to-face
interaction). The use of these devices contributes to the ability to convey meanings.
They allow the extra expression of emotion and intensity. Students should be able to
deploy at least some of such supra segmental features and devices in the same way
if they are to be fully effective communicators.
III) Lexis and Grammar: Spontaneous speech is marked by the use of a number of
common lexical phrases, especially in the performance of certain language functions.
Teachers should therefore supply a variety of phrases for different function such as
agreeing or disagreeing, expressing surprise, shock or approval. Where students are
involved in specific speaking contexts such as a job interview, we can prime them, in
the same way, with certain useful phrases which they can produce at various stage
of an interaction.
IV) Negotiation language: effective speaking benefits from a negotiatory language
we use to seek clarification and to show the structure of what we are saying.
50
2.3.3 Activities for Teaching Oral Skill
Littlewood (1981) proposes two sets of activities, pre-communicative and
communicative. Pre-communicative activities are actually the early stage of teaching
speaking in which the teacher guides the students in controlled conversation
practice. Later, they are gently pushed into the free conversation which is
communicative activities. The pre-communicative activities are as follows:
1. Sharing information with restricted co-operation
I) Identifying one picture from the set: Students are divided into two pairs and given
pictures. A gets the whole set, B gets just one of the pictures from the set. A has to
discover which one B is holding.
II) Discovering sequences or locations: Both A and B are given pictures. A has a
particular sequence of pictures, and B has to arrange his in the same sequence.
III) Discovering missing information: Two learners have incomplete tables and each
has to get missing information from the other.
2. Sharing information with unrestricted co-operation
I) Discovering differences: A and B have pictures which have several very slight
differences. They find out the differences by talking to each other.
II) Following direction: A and B use identical maps, but only A knows the destination.
3. Sharing and processing information:
51
Reconstructing story sequence: This activity is done in groups. Each member of the
group has picture from a story. They cannot see each other's picture. They have to
talk about the pictures to construct the story.
4. Processing information: Placing items in order of importance, deciding use of
money for presents creating story from random pictures are some of the activities
that come under this heading. The communicative activities are as follows:
1. The classroom as a social context: Using the foreign language for classroom
management, using the foreign language as a teaching medium, conversation or
discussion sessions, basing dialogues and role plays on school experience etc. in
which a lot of interaction is done can be included in this activity.
2. Simulation and role-playing: Role playing controlled through cued dialogues, role-
playing controlled through cues and information, role-playing controlled through
situation and goals, large-scale simulation activities, and improvisation /unscripted
dramatization etc. are some of the activities that can be simulated and/or role-
played.
Bygate (1987 as cited in Rai, 2005, p.82) includes four major kinds of activities for
developing interactional skills in the learners. They, with some examples, are given
below:
1. Information-gap activities: Different learners are given different bits of
information, and by sharing this information, they complete a task. For example, A
and B have the same list of items but specific information about those items are
different. They talk together and complete the information.

52
2. Communication games: A lot of games such as describe and draw, describe and
arrange, find the difference, ask the right question etc. can be played to enhance
communication.
3. Simulation: The term simulation refers to "an activity which involves decision-
making, in which the participants may act as themselves or in social roles. It is not
performed for an audience, and the participants work together within the constrains
of the imaginary setting."
4. Project-based interaction activities: Project activities take longer time and are
used with advanced learners. For example, having read and studied the differences
between five different newspapers reports about a terrorist attack on the airport,
students are invited to say what they have discovered about the difference. In
groups, students think up a story about a robbery, or decide on a current news story
that they would like to report. They are invited to consider their circle of social
contacts and evaluate what they speak about to each of them, and they compare
their contacts and conversations with other people's etc.
Harmer (2001, pp.271-275) includes some of the most widely classroom activities for
developing speaking ability. They are given below:
a) Acting from a script: We can ask our students to act out scenes from plays and/ or
their course books, sometimes filming the results. Students will often act out
dialogues they have written themselves. This frequently involves them in coming out
to the front of the class.
53
b) Communication games: Games which are designed to provoke communication
between students frequently depend on and information gap so that one student
has to talk to a partner in order to solve a puzzle, draw a picture (describe and draw),
put things in the right order(describe and arrange), or to find similarities and
differences between pictures.
c) Discussion: One of the reasons that discussions fail (when they do) is that students
are reluctant to give an opinion in front of the whole class, particularly if they cannot
think of anything to say and are not, anyway confident of the language they might
use to say it. Many students feel extremely exposed in discussion situations.
d) Prepared talks: A popular kind of activity is the prepared talk where a student
makes a presentation on a topic of their own choice. Such talks are not designed for
informal spontaneous conversation; because they are prepared, they are more
‘writing-like’ than like this. However, if possible, students should speak from notes
rather than from a script.
e) Questionnaires: Questionnaires are useful because, by being pre-planned, they
ensure that both the questioner and respondent have something to say to each
other. Students can design questionnaires on any topic that is appropriate. As they
do so, the teacher can act as a resource, helping them in the design process. The
results obtained from questionnaires can then form the bases for written work,
discussions or prepared talks.
f) Simulation and role-play: Many students derive great benefit from simulation and
role-play. Students ‘simulate’ a real- life encounter (such as a business meeting, an
54
encounter in an aero-plane cabin, or an interview) as if they were doing so in the real
world, either as themselves in that meeting or aero plane, or talking on the role of a
character different from themselves or with thoughts and feelings they do not
necessarily share. Simulation and role-play can be used to encourage general oral
fluency. Role-play is used to refer to those types of activities where learners imagine
themselves in a situation outside the classroom and use language appropriate to this
new context.
In simulation the individual participants speak and react as themselves but the group
role, situation and task are imaginary ones. For a simulation to work it must,
according to Jones (1982, pp.4-7) have the following characteristics.
 Reality of functions: The students must not think of themselves as
students, but as real participants in the situation.
 A simulated environment: The teacher says that the classroom is an
airport check- in area, for example.
 Structure: Students must see how the activity is constructed and they
must be given the necessary imagination to carry out the situation
effectively.
Heaton (1988, pp.88-103) lists the following activities for oral production test.
a. Reading aloud
b. Conversational exchange
c. Oral interview
d. Short talk
e. Group discussion
55
f. Role playing
g. Retelling a short story
Cross (1992, pp.282-294) presents a range of communicative activities for developing
oral skills, they are as follows:
a. Discussion and debate
 Organizing discussion groups
 Using discussion cues
 Project presentation
 Topic talks
b. Drama activities
 Role adoption
 Prescribed role play
 Free role play
 Free role play from a text
c. Information gaps activities
 Which face?
 Who is who?
 Describe and draw
 Loss of memory
 Which place?
 Jumbled pictures
 Shared information
Some Activities for Teaching Speaking
56
The small group or pair work is always helpful to teach speaking. Learners are
exposed to different kinds of language through different activities. Some of the widely
used speaking activities are listed below:
i. Drill
ii. Pair work
iii. Group work
iv. Role play
v. Simulation
vi. Dramatization
vii. Recitation
viii. Discussion/debate/Speeches/prepared talks/ oral interview
ix. Communication games
x. Information gap activities.
2.4 Conceptual Framework
The study was based on the following conceptual framework.
Developing Speaking Skill
Role of TBLT, Activities and Ways

Objectives to develop speaking & Implications
Research questions
Significance of the study Do students improve?

What activities & ways?
What implications?
Delimitations
Related Literature Speaking Problems

Components of Speaking
Activities for Teaching
Theoretical Framework
Design of the study 57

Pretest Group Division Teaching Posttes
t
Sources of Data
Primary& Secondary Sources
Population Sample
Sampling Procedure
Data Collection Tools Observation & Test Items
Data Collection Procedure

Comparison of Mean Score
Comparison of Standard Deviation
Analysis and Interpretation Procedure
Finding Difference
Comparison of Paired T-test
Results and Discussions
Holistic Comparison
Summary, Conclusions & Implications Inter-test Comparison
Intra-test Comparison
CHAPTER THREE
METHODS AND PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY
3.1 Design of the Study
The following methodology was applied to fulfill the above mentioned objectives:
The researcher chose one experimental group and one control group. These groups
were chosen randomly from nine – class from Shree Public Higher Secondary School.
The students of section A were experimental group while the students of section B
were control group. The experimental group was taught using the TBLT designed by
the researcher and control group was taught using the conventional method used by
teachers of EFL at school. Both the experimental and control group were pre-tested
and post-tested in their speaking skill.
Both the experimental group and control group were taught by the researcher at the
school. Teaching learning activities for experimental group were designed by the
58
researcher. The researcher designed 25 lesson plans (see appendix B) for teaching
experimental group.
The average marks in all items in pre-test and post-test were tabulated and
calculated to find out the role of TBLT to develop speaking ability. The pre-test and
post-test average score of the students was calculated. Their difference and T-test
was calculated to find out the significance difference between the pre-test and post-
test scores (see appendix G).
Similarly, the researcher taught the students with four main tasks and activities. He
prepared questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed to the experimental
group during the treatment after each four tasks. The aim was to compare effective
responses to the tasks. In the questionnaire there were 16 statement items. Items
were designed on a four-point Likert-scale and were assessed with values ranging
from 1 to 4. The scoring for the positive statements were as follows: Strongly agree =
4, Agree = 3, Disagree = 2 and Strongly Disagree = 1. He collected the raw data and
then analyzed by calculating the mean values and standard deviations. He listed
effective activities to develop speaking skill. While teaching, he found some
problems with speaking faced by the students and found some ways to solve those
problems.
3.2 Sources of Data
The researcher used both primary and secondary sources of data. The sources are as
follows:
59
3.2.1 Primary Sources
This study was based mostly on the primary sources of data. The primary sources of
data for this study were 40 students at grade – nine of Shree Public Higher
Seccondary School Dharan, Sunsari district and data was collected by administering a
pre-test and post-test on six language functions viz. asking for and giving directions,
describing people, ordering a meal, making a phone call, making and appointment
and making a reservation for a hotel room (see appendix A).
3.2.2 Secondary Sources
The secondary sources of data will be the related books Prabhu (1987), Nunan
(1989),
Willis (1996), Richards and Rodgers (2002), Ellis (2003), the theses approved in the
department of English Language Education T.U. and many other types of researches.
3.3 Population Sample
40 students from Shree Public Higher Secondary School were the sample population
of the study. The population consisted of 25 boys and 15 girls who studied together
in the same class.
3.4 Sampling Procedure
The researcher used non participant judgmental sampling procedure to select the
students of Shree Public Higher Secondary School, Dharan. The following table shows
sample population.
60
Table 1: Sample Population
S.N. Group Public Higher Secondary School

Boys Girls Total
1. Experimental 13 07 20
2. Control 12 08 20
Total 40
3.5 Data Collection Tools
In order to collect the data, the researcher used questionnaire (see appendix E),
observation and test items such as English speaking items for pretests and posttests
(see appendix A) and lesson plans (see appendix B).
3.6 Data Collection Procedure
I adopted the following processes of data collection:
At first, I prepared the test items (see appendix A) and scoring sheet for the pre-test
(see appendix D). Then, I visited the selected school to collect the data for the
present research. I established the rapport with the head teacher of the school and
inform about the purpose of the study and ask for the permission to conduct the
research in his school. Then, I consulted the class teacher and subject teacher of
English of grade 9 and ask for their help and support during research. I took
necessary suggestions from them. I administered the oral pre-test to the ninth
graders with the help of English teachers in order to find out the proficiency and
performance level of the students and examine their answers. I made the score
61
sheet (see appendix F) and arrange them vertically from high to low and provided
ranking number to each student. Then divided the students into two groups, namely
experimental and control group on the basis of their ranking. They were grouped on
the basis of their respective sections in the pre-test. Section A was assigned to
experimental group and Section B was assigned to control group. I taught
experimental group using task based language teaching technique while the control
group was taught using traditional method or teacher centered method. I prepared
lesson plans (see appendix B) and teaching materials (see appendix C) and taught 25
lesson plans for a month, six periods in a week for a period of 45 minutes. There
were six language functions. After the experimentation was over, I took post-test of
the students. The test items used in the pre-test were used in the post-test as well.
Similarly, I distributed questionnaire to the students to respond them and At last, I
analyzed and interpreted the collected data and the findings were derived and
recommendations were made.
3.7 Data Analysis and Interpretation Procedure
To answer the research questions, the speaking skill tests were administered as pre-
test and post-test on six language functions such as asking for and giving directions,
describing people, ordering a meal, making a phone call, making an appointment and
making a reservation for a hotel room. The scores from both the pretest and posttest
on speaking skill were converted into mean scores and standard deviations. Then,
the mean scores and standard deviations from the pretest and posttest were
calculated to determine the significance of the mean scores using a paired t-test to
62
compare the students’ speaking ability before and after learning with task based
language teaching.
Permission to conduct the study was obtained from the school principal. The
relevant literature was reviewed to establish the theoretical background of the
study. The TBLT program was prepared and validated. The speaking skill tests were
prepared and validated. A teaching session was held by the researcher implementing
TBLT. He identified some problems with speaking faced by the students. He used
four main tasks and activities while teaching. He found out some effective activities
and ways to develop speaking skill. He tested and evaluated the participants. This
was to ensure the reliability of the instrument. The speaking test was administered
before and after the study. The results of the tools were statistically analyzed. The
designed program was applied for a period of three months. The findings of the
study were analyzed and discussed. The researcher wrote and produced the
dissertation according to the guidelines presented in the guide for writing theses and
dissertations at Janta Multiple College, TU.
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
In this section of the thesis, I have made analysis and interpretation of the data
received from test items and questionnaires. The data collection tools were test
items and questionnaires. The raw score (see appendix F) which was obtained by the
students in test items has been calculated and tabulated to find out the role of the
63
task based language teaching to develop students’ speaking ability. The pretest and
post test score were taken into consideration while analyzing the raw data.
Similarly, the raw responses of students to the questionnaires (see appendix E) has
been calculated and tabulated to find out the effective tasks and ways to develop
speaking ability. The data have been interpreted under the following headings. They
are:
a) Interpretation of pretest and posttest.
b) Interpretation of students’ responses & ways to develop speaking.
4.1 Interpretation of pretest and posttest
The raw data obtained from pretests and posttests have been interpreted under
three main headings:
a) Holistic Comparison
b) Item Wise Inter Test Comparison (Intra Group)
c) Item Wise Intra Test Comparison (Inter Group)
While analyzing the data, the individual scores of both tests (pretests and posttests)
on all language functions viz. asking for and giving directions, describing people,
ordering a meal, making a phone call, making an appointment and making a
reservation for a hotel room have been taken and tabulated group wise (appendix F).
For the purpose of comparison and finding the comparative effectiveness of both the
groups, the average mean scores (M) of the two tests were computed out of the
individual scores, the difference between the mean scores (D), their standard
deviation (SD) and paired t-test (t) have been calculated and determined (appendix
64
G). The results of the two groups have been compared on the basis of the average
marks; difference calculated by subtracting pretest from post test, standard
deviation and paired t-test.
4.1.1 Holistic Comparison
For holistic comparison, two dimensions have been adopted i.e. Overall Inter test
Comparison and Overall Intra test Comparison as below:
a. Overall Inter Test Comparison (Intra Group)
In this comparison, the mean score obtained by control group in pretest has been
tabulated and compared with the mean score obtained by control group in posttest.
Similarly the mean score obtained by experimental group in pretest has been
tabulated with the mean score obtained by experimental group in posttest. Their
difference in mean scores, standard deviation and paired t-test of pretest and
posttest of the same group have been calculated (appendix G) and tabulated below.
Table 2 Overall Comparison of Pretest and Posttest
Speaking ability n M D S.D. t

Pretest Control Group 20 73.8 12.437
Posttest Control Group 20 80.3 6.5 12.496 1.649
Pretest Experimental Group 20 75 9.93
Posttest Experimental Group 20 99.55 24.55 19.423 5.033
The table no. 2 shows that control group got 73.8 and 80.3 average score in the pre
test and post test respectively. This group has increased its average score by 6.5.
However, the average marks obtained by experimental group in the pretest and post
test are 75 and 99.55 respectively. This group has increased its average marks by
65
24.55. This indicates that experimental group made better progress than control
group.
The mean scores of the posttest are found higher than the mean scores of the
pretest in all functions. Similarly, critical value of ‘t’ for 38 degrees of freedom at 5%
level of significance for two tailed test is 2.021. Since calculated ‘t’ (1.649) is less
than tabulated ‘t’ in control group, null hypothesis is accepted. Thus, there is no
significant difference between pretest and post test. But, calculated ‘t’ (5.033) is
higher than tabulated ‘t’ in experimental group, null hypothesis is rejected. Thus,
there is significant difference between pretest and post test. Comparing both,
experimental and control group have significance difference heavily.
b. Overall Intra Test Comparison (Inter Group)
In this comparison, mean score obtained by control group in pretest has been
tabulated and compared with the mean score obtained by experimental group in
pretest. Similarly, the mean score obtained by control group in posttest has been
tabulated and compared with the mean score obtained by experimental group in
posttest. Their difference in mean scores, standard deviation and paired t-test of
control group and experimental group have been calculated (appendix G) and
compared.
Table 3 Overall Comparison of Control and Experimental Group
66
Speaking ability N M D S.D. t
Pretest Control Group 20 73.8 1.2 12.437 0.337
Posttest Experimental Group 20 99.55 19.423
As shown in table 3, control and experimental group have got 73.8 and 75 average
score in the pretest respectively. The average difference between two groups in
pretest is 1.2, whereas, the average marks obtained by control and experimental
group in the post test are 80.3 and 99.55 respectively. The average difference
between the two groups is 19.25. This indicates that experimental group made
better progress than control group.
The mean scores of both groups in the pretest in this function are almost equal but
in the post test they have significant difference by 19.25. The critical value of ‘t’ for
38 degrees of freedom at 5% level of significance for two tailed test is 2.021. Since
calculated ‘t’ (0.337) is lower than tabulated ‘t’ in pretest, null hypothesis is
accepted. Thus, there is no significant difference between two groups in pretest. But,
calculated ‘t’ (4.043) is higher than tabulated ‘t’ in post test, null hypothesis is
rejected. Thus, there is significant difference between two groups.
4.1.2 Item Wise Inter Test Comparison (Intra Group)
In this comparison, the mean score obtained by control group in pretest has been
tabulated and compared with the mean score obtained by control group in posttest
with reference to an individual item. Similarly the mean score obtained by
experimental group in pretest has been tabulated with the mean score obtained by
experimental group in posttest. Their difference in mean scores, standard deviation
67
and paired t-test of pretest and posttest of the same group have been calculated
(appendix H) and tabulated below.
a. Asking for and Giving Directions
Table 4 Comparison of the mean scores of pretest and posttest item 1

Pretest Experimental Group 20 13.5 1.813
From the given table, it is depicted that control group got 12.65 and 14.2 average
score in the pre test and post test respectively. This group has increased its average
score by 1.55. However, the average marks obtained by experimental group in the
pretest and post test are 13.5 and 16.85 respectively. This group has increased its
average marks by 3.35. This shows that experimental group made better progress
than control group.
The mean scores of the posttest are higher than the mean scores of the pretest in
this function. Similarly, critical value of t for 38 degrees of freedom at 5% level of
significance for two tailed test is 2.021. Since calculated ‘t’ (1.78) is lower than
tabulated ‘t’ in control group, null hypothesis is accepted. Thus, there is no
significant difference between pretest and post test. But, calculated ‘t’ (4.515)is
there is significant difference between pretest and post test.
68
b. Describing People

The given table shows that control group got 13.05 and 14.8 average score in the pre
test are 13.15 and 17.1 respectively. This group has increased its average marks by
group.
this function. Similarly, critical value of ‘t’ for 38 degrees of freedom at 5% level of
significance difference between pretest and post test. But, calculated ‘t’ (5.887) is
c. Ordering a Meal
69
Posttest Control Group
20 12.9 0.85 2.119 1.302
Posttest Experimental Group
20 15.5 3.5 3.599 3.653
As shown in table, control group got 12.05 and 12.9 average score in the pre test and
post test respectively. This group has increased its average score by 0.85. Similarly
the average marks obtained by experimental group in the pretest and post test are
12 and 15.5 respectively. This group has increased its average marks by 3.5. This
indicates that experimental group made better progress than control group. The
mean scores of the posttest are higher than the mean scores of the pretest in this
function.
Similarly, critical value of ‘t’ for 38 degrees of freedom at 5% level of significance for
two tailed test is 2.021. Since calculated ‘t’ (1.302) is less than tabulated ‘t’ in control
group, null hypothesis is accepted. Thus, there is no significant difference between
pretest and post test. While, calculated ‘t’ (3.653) is higher than tabulated ‘t’ in
experimental group, null hypothesis is rejected. Thus, there is significant difference
between pretest and post test.
d. Making a Phone Call

Posttest Control Group
20 13.5 1.25 2.335 1.682
Posttest Experimental Group
20 17.3 4.4 3.809 4.949
70
group. The mean scores of the posttest are higher than the mean scores of the
pretest in this function.
Similarly, critical value of ‘t’ for 38 degrees of freedom at 5% level of significance for
two tailed test is 2.021. Since calculated ‘t’ (1.682) is lower than tabulated ‘t’ in
control group, null hypothesis is accepted. Thus, there is no significant difference
between pretest and post test. But, calculated ‘t’ (4.949) is higher than tabulated ‘t’
in experimental group, null hypothesis is rejected. Thus, there is significant
difference between pretest and post test.
e. Making an Appointment

Posttest Experimental Group 20 15.55 5 3.84 5.593
71
5. This indicates that experimental group made better progress than control group.
significance for two tailed test is 2.021. Since calculated ‘t’ (1.882) is less than
f. Making a Reservation for a Hotel Room

group.
72
4.1.3 Item Wise Intra Test Comparison (Inter Group)
The mean scores of both pretest and posttest with respect to both experimental and
control group were calculated (appendix F) using descriptive statistics for the means
and standard deviations and then the mean scores of the experimental and control
group with regard to pretest and posttest were compared using a paired t-test
respectively. The analysis of the paired t-test calculated on mean scores of both
groups showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the
mean scores of those groups in pretest while there was statistically significant
difference between the mean scores of those groups in posttest.
a. Asking for and Giving Directions
Table 10 Comparison of control and experimental group item 1

As shown in table 10, control and experimental group have got 12.65 and 13.25
average score in the pretest respectively. The average difference between two
groups in pretest is 0.6, whereas, the average marks obtained by control and
experimental group in the post test are 14.2 and 16.85 respectively. The average
73
difference between the two groups is 2.65. This indicates that experimental group
made better progress than control group.
in the post they have significant difference by 2.65. The critical value of ‘t’ for 38
degrees of freedom at 5% level of significance for two tailed test is 2.021. Since
b. Describing People

in the post test they have significant difference by 3.2. The critical value of ‘t’ for 38
74
c. Ordering a Meal
Speaking ability N M S.D. t

Pretest Control Group 20 12.05 0.05 2.012 -0.073
As shown in table 12, control and experimental group have got 12.05 and 12 average
score in the pretest respectively. The average difference between two groups in
pretest is 0.05, whereas, the average marks obtained by control and experimental
group in the post test are 12.9 and 15.5 respectively. The average difference
between the two groups is 2.6. This indicates that experimental group made better
progress than control group.
The mean scores of both groups in the pretest and post in this function are almost
equal. The critical value of ‘t’ for 38 degrees of freedom at 5% level of significance
for two tailed test is 2.021. Since calculated ‘t’ (-0.073) is lower than tabulated ‘t’ in
pretest, null hypothesis is accepted. Thus, there is no significant difference between
two groups in pretest. While, calculated ‘t’ (2.784) is higher than tabulated ‘t’ in post
test, null hypothesis is rejected. Thus, there is significant difference between two
groups.
75
d. Making a Phone Call

in the post test they have significant difference by 3.8 average score. The critical
value of ‘t’ for 38 degrees of freedom at 5% level of significance for two tailed test is
2.021. Since calculated ‘t’ (1.161) is lower than tabulated ‘t’ in pretest, null
hypothesis is accepted. Thus, there is no significant difference between two groups
in pretest. But, calculated ‘t’ (3.804) is higher than tabulated ‘t’ in post test, null
hypothesis is rejected. Thus, there is significant difference between two groups.
e. Making an Appointment

Pretest Control Group
76
20 10.9 0.35 1.67 -0.776
in the post test they have significant difference by 3.6 average score. The critical
value of ‘t’ for 38 degrees of freedom at 5% level of significance for two tailed test is
2.021. Since calculated ‘t’ (-0.776) is lower than tabulated ‘t’ in pretest, null
hypothesis is accepted. Thus, there is no significant difference between two groups
in pretest. But, calculated ‘t’ (3.774) is higher than tabulated ‘t’ in post test, null
hypothesis is rejected. Thus, there is significant difference between two groups.
f. Making a Reservation for Hotel Room

77
in the post test they have significant difference by 3.35. The critical value of ‘t’ for 38
accepted. Thus, there is no significance difference between two groups in pretest.
But, calculated ‘t’(3.571) is higher than tabulated ‘t’ in post test, null hypothesis is
4.2 Interpretation of students’ responses
In this section, I have made analysis and interpretation of the data received from
questionnaires. The data collection tool was questionnaire. The researcher used four
activities i.e. role play, pair work, information gap and communication game to teach
each language function. From the responses of the experimental group, mean score
and standard deviation were calculated to find out whether those tasks were
effective. The data have been interpreted under the following headings:
a. Holistic Comparison
b. Item-wise Comparison
c. Ways to develop speaking
4.2.1 Holistic Comparison
78
In this comparison, the mean score and standard deviation of control group with
regards to four activities have been compared.
Table 16: Comparison of mean scores of tasks
Tasks and activities n M S.D.

Role play 20 60.07 1.286
Pair work 20 54.13 2.428
Information gap
Communication game 20 54.97 2.22
20 57.33 3.085
Table 16 shows that when examining questionnaire responses to all tasks, students
responded to role play more positively than to any other tasks. It has the highest
mean score 60.07. This overall comparison shows that role play is effective for
teaching speaking skill.
4.2.2 Item wise comparison
In this comparison, the mean score of all tasks has been calculated and compared
with one another.
a. Asking for and giving directions
Table 17 Comparison of tasks for asking for and giving directions
Tasks and Activities n M S.D.

Role play 20 61.4 0.5
Pair work 20 58.6 0.5
Information gap
20 50.8 0.4
79
Table 17 shows that students preferred role play the most while teaching speaking
skill as it has the highest mean score 61.4 amongst all. Hence, role play is the best
task to teach asking for and giving directions.
b. Describing people
Table 18 Comparison of tasks for describing people

Role play 20 57.6 0.8
Pair work 20 54 0.18
Information gap
20 60.6 0.1
Table 18 shows that students preferred communication game the most while
teaching speaking skill as it has the highest mean score 60.6 amongst all. Hence,
communication game is the best task to teach describing people.
c. Ordering a meal
Table 19 Comparison of tasks for ordering a meal

Role play 20 60.6 1.367
Pair work 20 54.8 4.26
Information gap
Communication game 20 56 3.85
20 58.8 2.23
task to teach ordering a meal.
80
d. Making a phone call
Table 20 Comparison of tasks for making a phone call

Role play 20 61.2 0.4
Pair work 20 54.4 4.67
sInformation gap
Communication game 20 58 2.68
20 58.4 1.35
task to teach making a phone call.
e. Making an appointment
Table 21 Comparison of tasks for making an appointment
Activities n M S.D.
Role play 20 60.2 0.748
Pair work 20 50.8 0.4
Information gap
Communication game 20 55 0
20 57.4 0.48
task to teach making an appointment.
f. Making a reservation for hotel room
Table 22 Comparison of tasks for making a reservation for hotel room
Activities n M S.D.
Role play 20 59.4 1.743
Pair work
20 52.2 1.6
Information gap
81
20 58 0.63
task to teach making a reservation for hotel room.
4.2.3 Ways to Develop Speaking Ability
While teaching in the beginning, the researcher found many problems viz. inhibition,
nothing to say, uneven participation, mother-tongue use and pronunciation
problem. He taught control group in traditional way, whereas, experimental group
was taught with four activities viz. role play, information gap, pair work and
communication games. Each language function was taught consisting of four lesson
plans. Each lesson plan included an individual activity. Then the researcher used
different ways to develop speaking ability to overcome the problems faced by the
learners. He provided students with maximum opportunity to speak and authentic
materials. All students were involved in every speaking activity. He reduced teacher
speaking time. He provided written feedback and positive signs. He did not correct
students’ mispronunciation immediately. He encouraged the students to speak out
of the class as well. He provided the vocabularies beforehand.
Eventually, the researcher found out some activities more effective although Nepal
government has enlisted a plenty of activities viz. demonstration, dramatization,
question answer, simulation, role play, group and pair work, information gap, inquiry
and discovery, brainstorming, mind mapping, guessing meaning from context and
82
quick write. The effective activities are role play, information gap, pair work,
question answer, drill, communication game and interview.
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Finally, the summary of the study was written on the basis of results. The conclusion
of the study was encapsulated point wise. After that the implications of the study
were recommended for the following level: policy level, practical level further
research.
83
5.1 Summary
To find out the role of task based language teaching, six language functions were
given. There were six items altogether in the pre-test and post-test. These pretest
and posttest items were analyzed and interpreted. In this research study, two groups
were formed, namely control and experimental group. They were taught using the
same material and objectives. But the difference was on the use of technique used in
the classroom teaching. The control group was taught using the traditional way of
teaching or teacher centered technique whereas the experimental group was taught
using task based technique. Before teaching, a pretest was administered to the
students and when the research period was over, a post test was taken. The results
of both the test were interpreted and tabulated for data analysis. The result of those
test showed that experimental group was far more ahead than the control group. It
means experimental group showed better performance than control group in
speaking.
To find out effective tasks and activities, students were engaged in four activities
such as role play, information gap, pair work and communication game. To find out
the ways to develop speaking skill, problems with speaking skill were found out. On
the basis of the problems, different techniques and methods were adopted by the
researcher. And then useful ways were listed.
5.2 Conclusions
On the basis of analysis and interpretation of primary data, the findings are
represented as follows:
84
a. Objective I:
1. As a whole, the role of TBLT for developing speaking skills was found better
since experimental group had better performance with 19.25 more average
scores. It is relatively better more effective and significant than the
conventional technique since calculated value of „t‟ (5.055) which is greater
than tabulated value of „t‟ (2.021).
2. In the language function asking for and giving directions, control group scored
14.2 average marks and increased its marks by 1.55 in post test. In comparison
to this, experimental group improved its marks scoring 16.5 in post test and
added 3.35. This shows that teaching speaking through task based language
has been more effective than usual way of teaching since calculated value of
„t‟ (4.515) is greater than tabulated value of „t‟ (2.021).
3. In the language function describing people, control group scored 13.9 average
marks and increased its marks by 0.85 in post test. In comparison to this,
experimental group improved its marks scoring 17.1 in post test and added
3.95. This shows that teaching speaking through task based language has been
more effective than usual way of teaching since calculated value of „t‟ (5.887)
is greater than tabulated value of „t‟ (2.021).
4. In ordering meal, control group added 0.85 more marks in its pretest score
12.05. Experimental group added 3.5 more marks in the post test. Though both
groups improved their marks but the improvement of experimental group was
more observable because this group obtained more marks. Since calculated „t‟
value (3.653) is greater than tabulated value of „t‟ (2.021), teaching speaking
through task based language teaching is more effective than traditional way of
teaching.
85
5. In the language function making a phone call, control group scored 13.5
average marks and increased its marks by 1.25 in post test. In comparison to
this, experimental group improved its marks scoring 17.3 in post test and
added 4.4. This shows that teaching speaking through task based language has
been more effective than usual way of teaching since calculated value of „t‟
(4.949) is greater than tabulated value of „t‟ (2.021).
6. In the language function making an appointment, control group scored 11.95
average marks and increased its marks by 1.05 in post test. In comparison to
this, experimental group improved its marks scoring 15.55 in post test and
added 5. This shows that teaching speaking through task based language has
been more effective than usual way of teaching since calculated value of „t‟
(5.593) is greater than tabulated value of „t‟ (2.021).
7. In the language function making a reservation for hotel room, control group
scored 13.85 average marks and increased its marks by 0.25 in post test. In
comparison to this, experimental group improved its marks scoring 17.2 in
post test and added 3.35. This shows that teaching speaking through task based
language has been more effective than usual way of teaching since calculated
value of „t‟ (4.65) is greater than tabulated value of „t‟ (2.021).
8. In intra test comparison, mean score differences between control group and
experimental group were 0.6, 0.1, 0.05, 0.65, 0.35 and 0.25 in pretest while the
differences were observed as 2.65, 3.2, 2.6, 3.8, 3.6 and 3.35 in post test. The
overall difference of in pretest was 1.2 while the difference increased to 19.25
in the post test. Similarly, calculated „t‟ with respect to pretest (0.857, 0.146, -
0.073, 1.161, -0.776 and 0.318) in all language function is lower than
tabulated „t‟ (2.021). So, no significant difference was observed in pretest
86
between control group and experimental group in all language functions.
Whereas, calculated „t‟ with respect to post test (2.928, 3.567, 2.784, 3.804,
3.774, 3.571) is higher than tabulated „t‟ (2.021) in all language functions. So,
there is significant difference between control group and experimental group.
Overall paired t-test shows that there was no significant difference between
control group and experimental group in pretest since calculated „t‟ (0.337) is
lower than tabulated „t‟ (2.021) of control group while the calculated „t‟
(4.043) is higher than tabulated „t‟ (2.021) of experimental group. It shows
that teaching speaking ability through task based language teaching is more
effective than usual way of teaching.
b. Objective II:
The government of Nepal listed many activities viz. demonstration, dramatization,
question answer, simulation, role play, group and pair work, information gap, inquiry
and discovery, brainstorming, mind mapping, guessing meaning from context and
quick write. Some of them are quite effective to develop speaking ability with
reference to these six language functions. The effective tasks are role play,
information gap and communication game.
The following ways are effective to develop speaking skill:
1. Provide maximum opportunity to students to speak the target language by
providing a rich environment that contains collaborative work, authentic
materials and tasks, and shared knowledge.
2. Try to involve each student in every speaking activity; for this aim, practice
different ways of student participation.

87
3. Reduce teacher speaking time in class while increasing student speaking time.
Step back and observe students.
4. Indicate positive signs when commenting on a student's response.
5. Ask eliciting questions such as "What do you mean? How did you reach that
conclusion?" in order to prompt students to speak more.
6. Provide written feedback like "Your presentation was really great. It was a
good job. I really appreciated your efforts in preparing the materials and
efficient use of your voice…"
7. Do not correct students' pronunciation mistakes very often while they are
speaking. Correction should not distract student from his or her speech.
8. Involve speaking activities not only in class but also out of class; contact
parents and other people who can help.
9. Circulate around classroom to ensure that students are on the right track and
see whether they need your help while they work in groups or pairs.
10. Provide the vocabulary beforehand that students need in speaking activities.
11. Diagnose problems faced by students who have difficulty in expressing
themselves in the target language and provide more opportunities to practice
the spoken language.
5.3 Implications
On the basis of the findings of the study, the following recommendations have been
made.
5.3.1 Policy Level
88
1. Policy makers and curriculum designers should analyze the needs and interests
of the learners.
2. Curriculum development center should develop and design syllabus, textbooks
and materials to support the task based language teaching inside the class
room.
3. The concerned authority should conduct trainings and seminars on task based
language teaching so that the teacher can understand TBLT and apply this in
the class room teaching.
4. A text book writer should write the books addressing various activities and
tasks and prepare the materials to overcome common speaking problems faced
by the learners.
5.3.2 Practice Level
1. Experimental group showed better performance in all language functions in
comparison to the control group. So task based language teaching proved to be
effective in teaching speaking ability.
2. Task based language teaching provided freedom to the students while
completing the task. So it is fruitful for the students.
3. The teacher should be constructive and careful while designing and
introducing the tasks in the classroom.
4. Students become active in the class. They work in pairs or group. This
enhances their communicative ability and fluency can be achieved. So this
technique is effective in this matter.
5. Even the shy students can take the benefit of this type of teaching. They can
improve their communication skills.
89
6. TBLT creates a feeling of cooperation among the students since they involve
in pairs or group work to solve a particular task in the class.
7. The language teacher should bear in mind that whether the tasks and the
materials are functioning with respect to their goals and objectives of
programs as a whole or not.
8. The teacher should develop his/her language lesson using TTT approach
(Test-teach-test) not PPP (Presentation, Practice and Production).
9. The teacher should analyze the level of students‟ linguistic competence and
then only he/she should design communicative tasks with spirit of task based
language teaching.
10. The traditional materials are to be designed to fit the task based language
teaching because they may not fit in the framework and methodology of
TBLT.
11. TBLT leads from fluency to accuracy plus fluency. Therefore it is to be
adapted to develop the communicative ability of students.
12. While using TBLT, the tasks become more engaging for the students and the
usage of the language becomes more meaningful when the task is the center of
attention.
13. Task-based language approach creates more favorable conditions for the
development of second language acquisition.
14. It is necessary for the teacher, as a practical control and facilitator of learners‟
activities in the classroom, to have a positive attitude towards TBLT in order
to implement it.
5.3.3 Further Research
90
In order to provide a clear picture of the Task Based Language Teaching used for
learning English, the researchers could apply TBLT in order to develop workers’
speaking ability in the workplace such as in a hotel, restaurant or factory. They could
apply TBLT to develop other speaking skills including listening, reading and writing.
They could compare the effectiveness of task based language teaching with other
approaches such as Communicative Activities (CA), Total Physical Response (TPR)
and so on. Researchers could apply the TBLT to develop students’ language skills in
English for specific courses such as in business and tourism.
91
REFERENCES
Bhandari, M. (2011). Effectiveness of task-Based language teaching in teaching
writing. A Dessertation Submitted to the Department of English Education,
Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur Kathmandu, Nepal.
Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising the development of second
language learners. In J. Willis and D. Willis (eds.). Challenge and change in
language teaching. Oxford: Macmillian.
Cross, D. (1992). A practical handbook of language teaching. UK: Blackwell
Publishing.
Dhami, B. (2014). Strategies used for developing speaking skill. A Case of M.Ed.
Students, A Thesis Submitted to the Central Department of English Education,
Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur Kathmandu, Nepal.
Dornyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. London: Pearson
Education Limited.
Ellis, R. (1994). Understanding second language acquisition. English Teaching
Forum. 46 (4), 10-19.
Ellis, R. (2000). Task based language research and language pedagogy. Language
Teaching Research, 4, 193-220.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R. (2006). The methodology of task based teaching. Paper presented at the 2006
Asian EFL Journal Conference, Pusan, Korea.
Feez, S. (1998). Text based syllabus design. Sydney: National Center for English
Teaching and Research.
92
Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1999). The influence of planning and task type on the second
language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 18, 299 -
323.
Hasan, Ali Alsagheer (2011). The Effect of Incorporating Task-Based Language
Learning Techniques in Teaching the Methodology Course on the English
Oral Performance and Speaking Confidence Perception of the General
Diploma Students at the College of Education. College of Education Journal,
Beni Sweif University, Oct., 2011. (3). Egypt.
Harmer, J. (2001). How to teach English. England: Longman.
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. London Pearson
Longman.
Heaton, J.B. (1988). Writing English language tests. Harlow: Longman.
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: CUP.
John M. (1979, p.58). Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge: CUP.
Jones, K. (1982). Simulations in language teaching. Cambridge: CUP.
Joshi, G. (2010). The effectiveness of task-based approach in teaching reading. A
Dessertation Submitted to the Department of English Education, Tribhuvan
University, Kirtipur Kathmandu, Nepal.
Kafle, N. (2009). A study on the effectiveness of pair work technique for developing
speaking skill. A Dessertation Submitted to the Department of English
Education, Saptagandaki Multiple Campus, Bharatpur Chitawan, Nepal.
Khaniya, T.R. (2005). Examination for enhanced learning. Kathmandu, Nepal:
Author
93
Lamichhane , N. (2012). Using of task-based language teaching in Nepalese context.
A Thesis Submitted to the Department of English Education, Tribhuvan
University, Kirtipur Kathmandu, Nepal.
Larsen- freeman, D. (2008). Techniques and principles in language teaching. New
Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Lee, J. F. (2000). Tasks and communicating in language classrooms. United States of
America: McGraw Hill.
Leaver, B.L. and Willis, J. (2004). Task based instructions in foreign language
education: practices and programs. Washington: Georgetown University
Press.
Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching: an introduction.
Cambridge: CUP.
Long, M. H. and Crooks, G.(1991). Three approaches to task based syllabus design.
TESOL Quarterly, 26(1), 27-56.
Luitel, B.L. (2010). Classroom handouts.
Nunan, D. (2010). Research methods in language learning. New Delhi: Cambridge
University Press.
Nunan, D. Task based language teaching: from theory to practice. http: //
www.nunan.info/
Nunan, D. (2001). Aspect of task based language design. [Available on the net].
http://www.telus.net/linguisticissues/syllabusdesign.html
Nunan, D. (1998). Language teaching methodology. New York: Prentice Hall.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Thomson/Heinle.
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rai, V.S. (2003). English language teaching. Kathmandu: Bhundipuran Prakashan.
94
Richards, J. and Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching.
(2nd, ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sharma, B.K. & Phyak, P.B. (2006). Teaching English language. Kirtipur,
Kathamadu: Sunlight Publication.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task based instruction.
Applied Linguistics. 17, 38-62.
Thanghun K. (2012). Using of task-based learning to develop English speaking
ability. A Thesis Submitted to Srinkharinwirot University, Bangkok.
Ur, P. (2005). A Course in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: practice and theory. Cambridge: CUP.
Verghese, C.P. (1990). Teaching English as a second language, New Delhi: Sterling
Pvt. Ltd.
Vilimec, E. (2006). Developing speaking skill. An unpublished Doctoral thesis:
University of Pardubice Faculty of Arts and Philosophy department of English
and American Studies.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: U.K. Longman
Addison-Wesley.
Yunan, F. & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and online planning for
fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics.
24, 1-27.
95
Appendix A
Speaking Test
1. Asking for and giving directions

Student A
Instruction: Ask your partner for directions to the following places in order to
complete the map.
1. Hollywood Theatre
2. Chinese Restaurant
3. Star Video
4. Beauty Shoes
Hospital High School Future Computer
 Start Here First Avenue

Coffee Shop Pub Aquarium
Oak Street
Blue Street
Post Office Car Park Police Station
Bus Station Mark‟s Supermarket
Second Street
Library Art Gallery Museum
Pine Avenue
Peter‟s Pharmacy Department Store Post Office
96
1. Asking for and giving directions
Student B
Instruction: Ask your partner for directions to the following places in order to
complete the map.
1. The Bus Station
2. The Pub
3. The Police Station
4. Peter‟s Pharmacy
Hospital High School Beauty Shoes Future Computer
 Start Here First Avenue

Hollywood Theatre Coffee Shop Aquarium
Oak Street
Blue Street
Post Office Star Video Car Park
Mark‟s Supermarket
Second Street
Library Art Gallery Museum Chinese
Restaurant
Pine Avenue
Department Store Cyber Cafe
97
2. Describing People
Student A
Imagine you are a police officer in Dharan. Student B‟s brother is missing. His name
is Bobby. Try to find out his information by asking the appropriate questions.
Name Bobby
Hair
The length of his hair is
Short medium long
The color of his hair is
His age is
Young middle elderly
His height is
Very short Fairly short Medium height Pretty tall
Very tall
What is he wearing today? (Clothes)
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
98
2. Describing People
Student B
You are travelling in Dharan but your brother Bobby is missing. He is 15 years old.
You have to describe your brother to the police officer so that he can find him for you.
99
3. Ordering a Meal
Student A
Imagine you are a waiter/waitress at Yammy restaurant.
1. Give a menu to your customer.
2. Take an order.
3. Give the bill to the customer.
Student B
Imagine you are a customer
1. Order food from the menu.
2. Order three main courses, two desserts and one drink.
3. Ask for the bill.
100
Menu
Main Courses
Spicy soup Rs 90
Spaghetti meatballs Rs 79
Roasted dusk Rs 200
Grilled fish Rs 250
Wonton soup Rs 50
Grilled steak Rs 69
Steak teriyaki Rs 59
Seafood spaghetti Rs 99
Chicken Fried rice Rs 49
Desserts
Yoghurt Rs 20
Cheese cake Rs 45
Fresh fruit Rs 40
Pineapple pie Rs 59
Pudding Rs 19
Strawberry Ice cream Rs 29
Chocolate Ice cream Rs 29
Drinks
Milk Rs 29
Mineral water Rs 30
Apple juice Rs 20
Orange juice Rs 20
Coffee Rs 25
Coke Rs 20
Beer Rs 35
101
4. Making a phone call
You are the caller.
Your name is ____________________
Your telephone number is 9842027206.
You want to speak to Mr. Nirodha Chandra Dahal.
Your message is
“There is a meeting tomorrow. Please call me back at 4 P. M.”
You are the operator.
Your name is __________________________
The caller wants to speak to Mr. Neerodha chadra Dahal who is not in the office
You offer to take a message.
Find out his/her name and telephone number.
Take the message.
102
5. Making an appointment
Student A
Task: Invite your partner to go and watch a movie. Try to find available hour for it.
The theater opens from 11:00 a.m. – 9:00 p.m.
Sunday Go to a dance class from 9:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.
Play tennis from 5:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.
Monday Go to school from 8:00 a.m. – 4 p.m.
See movie from 7:00 – 9:00 p.m.
Tuesday Go to school from 10:00 a.m. – 2p.m.
Wednesday Go to the mall with mom from 9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
Have dinner with friends from 6:00 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.
Thursday Have lunch with my brother from 11:00 a.m. – 1:00

p.m.
Go to a party from 7:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.
Friday Go to school from 8:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.
Go to O2 Bar with your sister from 3:00 p.m. – 7:00

p.m.
Saturday Go swimming from 3:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.
Have family dinner from 8:00 p.m. – 10:p.m.
103
5. Making an appointment
Student B
Task: Invite your partner to go and watch a movie. Try to find available hour for it.
The theater opens from 11:00 a.m. – 9:00 p.m.
Sunday Go jogging from 9:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.
Go to work from 11:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Monday Go to school from 8:00 a.m. – 4 p.m.
Have a family dinner from 6:00 p.m.– 8:00 p.m.
Tuesday Play tennis from 10:00 a.m. – 3p.m.
Go to Korean class from 5:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.
Wednesday Go to school from 10:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.
Have dinner with friends from 5:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.
Thursday Have lunch with from 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
Play soccer from 2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Friday Go shopping from 4:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.
Saturday Play badminton from 9:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.
Go swimming from 3:00 p.m. – 7:p.m.
104
6. Making a reservation for a hotel room
Student A
Imagine you work as a receptionist at the Dreamland Hotel. You have to ask the guest
for the following information.
Name …………………………………..
Last Name …………………………….
Telephone number ……………………………………………….
Room size ……………………………………………………
Number of people …………………………………………
Number of nights ……………………………………………
Method of payment …………………………………….
105
Appendix B
LESSON PLAN
ASKING FOR AND GIVING DIRECTIONS
A. Specific Objectives: At the end of this lesson, students will be able to:
1. Introduce the topic giving and asking for directions.

2. Complete the given tasks of guiding questions.
B. Teaching Materials:
1. Table of sentences related to asking for and giving directions.
2. A map of places.
C. Teaching Learning Activities:
a. Pre-task
Teacher will introduce and define the topic.
He will teach new vocabulary, useful words and phrases along with
prepositions.
He shows a map about places and students pronounce them such as avenue,
aquarium, etc.
He will divide the students into group of four, brainstorming of place how they
get the particular place.
b. During task
The teacher sets situation and assigns time for doing the following activity
where is department store? How do I get to museum? And so on.
Showing the table, he will tell two groups to stand up.
He will order one group to ask for directions and another to give directions.
He will encourage and monitors the students. If the students need some help,
he will help them.
Students share their ideas in the class and the teacher will give feedback to
them.
c. Post-task
The teacher will present the chart of the expressions and map of places.
He will order one student to ask for directions using the expressions of the
chart and another to give the directions. All students will have chance to
practice.
He will provide the students with sufficient time to practice.
106
Appendix C
Expressions for asking for and giving directions
Asking for directions Giving directions
How do I get to ………? Go straight on (until you come to ……)
What‟s the best way to ………? Turn back/ go back.
Where is ……….? Turn left/ turn right (into …..street)
Do you know how to get to ……..? Go along …..
How do I get to …………? Cross ….
I‟m looking for ……….. Take the first/ second road on the
left/right
I‟m trying to find ……….
It‟s on the left/ right
Opposite
Near
Next to
Between
At the end of
On/ at the corner
(just) around the corner
Traffic lights
Crossroads, junctions, etc.
107
Appendix D
English Speaking Ability Evaluation
Pre-test
Student ___________________ Assessor: _________________Date: _____________
Score
Content 1 2 3 4 5
Fluency
Pronunciation
Vocabulary
Grammar
Strategy
Total Score _____________
Post-test
Student _________________ Assessor: ________________ Date: _______________
Score
Content 1 2 3 4 5
Fluency
Pronunciation
Vocabulary
Grammar
Strategy
Total Score _____________
108
Appendix E
Questionnaire
Name: ………………………….. Task: ………………….. Date: ………………
Language Function: …………………………………………………………………
Please consider the task that you have just completed. Please indicate your answer by
circling the appropriate number and give only one answer for each statement. Please
do not leave any unanswered questions.
(1) Strongly disagree (2) Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly agree
S.N. Items Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly

disagree agree
1 This task excited my curiosity. (1) (2) (3) (4)
2 This task was interesting in (1) (2) (3) (4)
itself.
3 I felt that I had no control over (1) (2) (3) (4)
what was happening during this
task.
4 While doing this task, I was (1) (2) (3) (4)
aware of distractions.
5 This task made me curious. (1) (2) (3) (4)
6 This task was fun for me. (1) (2) (3) (4)
7 I would do this task again. (1) (2) (3) (4)
8 This task helped me extend (1) (2) (3) (4)
myself.
9 This task allowed me to control (1) (2) (3) (4)
what I was doing.
10 When doing this task, I was (1) (2) (3) (4)
totally absorbed in what I was
doing.
11 This task bored me. (1) (2) (3) (4)
12 During this task, I could make a (1) (2) (3) (4)
decision about how to study to
complete the task.
13 This task was too long. (1) (2) (3) (4)
14 This task aroused my (1) (2) (3) (4)
imagination.
15 I would do this task even if it (1) (2) (3) (4)
were not required.
16 I would prefer dong the tasks in (1) (2) (3) (4)
the book as they are.
109
Appendix F
Speaking Pretest Score of Experimental Group
ITEMS
S.N. STUDENTS I II III IV V VI TOTAL
1 SHRISTY SHARMA 16 17 16 15 11 17 92
2 SAROJ BANIYA 16 16 15 15 12 16 90
3 TEKRAJ RAI 15 14 13 14 11 15 82
4 SHRISTI RAI 12 11 11 11 9 11 65
5 KAMAL TIMSINA 13 13 10 13 10 12 71
6 SAMIP SHRESTHA 13 14 12 13 11 13 76
7 SUMNIMA SHRESTHA 15 14 11 14 10 13 77
8 SUSMITA RAJBANSI 13 14 12 12 11 12 74
9 SUSHANT DHAKAL 14 13 10 12 11 14 74
10 KRISHA KAFLE 11 12 11 11 9 10 64
11 ANKIT CHAUDHARY 11 10 11 12 11 11 66
12 ANUSKA KARKI 12 11 9 13 10 13 68
13 RIKESH RAI 11 11 9 11 9 11 62
14 ANISH TAMANG 12 13 11 12 10 13 71
15 BIDHAYAK POKHREL 14 15 14 16 12 15 86
16 SISHER KHADKA 12 13 11 12 10 13 71
17 ROSHAN THAKUR 11 10 11 9 9 11 61
18 NIRAJ TAMANG 12 13 10 12 10 12 69
19 ROJESH CHUDAL 16 15 16 15 13 15 90
20 ROSHANI THAPA 16 14 17 16 12 16 91
TOTAL 265 263 240 258 211 263 1500
110
Speaking Pretest of Control Group
S.N. STUDENTS ITEMS TOTAL

I II III IV V VI
1 AYUSH AACHARYA 17 16 14 16 12 17 92
2 KSHITEEZ K.C. 15 17 15 15 11 15 88
3 SASHI YADAV 12 15 12 14 12 11 76
4 BINITA TAMANG 11 11 12 10 10 10 64
5 KRISHNA SHAH 9 12 11 10 9 10 61
6 PRATIKSHA RAI 14 12 11 12 10 12 71
7 ROHAN LIMBU 16 16 13 14 14 17 90
8 BINAYAK SUBEDI 17 18 11 16 14 18 94
9 ABINASH SHAH 13 13 13 12 11 11 73
10 SUBASH SHRETHA 15 14 10 13 12 16 80
11 KHAGENDRA KARKI 11 13 11 12 10 12 69
12 RIYA ADHIKARI 9 10 10 10 9 10 58
13 NITESH YADAV 9 10 11 9 9 9 57
14 DIKSHYA LIMBU 11 11 10 9 9 10 60
15 DANIEL TAMANG 13 11 14 12 10 14 74
16 DIKSHYA BHANDARI 11 12 11 13 11 12 70
17 RUBINA ADHIKARI 11 11 9 11 10 10 62
18 AYUSH CHAUDHARY 10 10 11 9 9 11 60
19 REJINA TAMANG 14 13 15 13 12 16 83
20 KARUNA GAJAMER 15 16 17 15 14 17 94
TOTAL 253 261 241 245 218 258 1476
111
Speaking Post Test of Experimental Group

I II III IV V VI
1 SHRISTY SHARMA 21 22 23 23 21 23 133
2 SAROJ BANIYA 21 23 23 22 22 22 133
3 TEKRAJ RAI 17 18 17 19 19 19 109
4 SHRISTI RAI 14 15 12 11 10 14 76
5 KAMAL TIMSINA 16 17 17 18 13 18 99
6 SAMIP STHA. 17 18 15 19 15 18 102
7 SUMNIMA STHA. 19 19 18 21 17 21 115
8 SUSMITA RAJBANSI 16 18 12 17 13 17 93
9 SUSHANT DHAKAL 18 16 15 19 14 16 98
10 KRISHA KAFLE 13 14 10 12 12 11 72
11 ANKIT CHAUDHARY 13 12 15 14 11 13 78
12 ANUSKA KARKI 14 13 13 13 16 14 83
13 RIKESH RAI 15 14 14 16 11 15 85
14 ANISH TAMANG 15 16 13 14 14 15 87
15 BIDHAYAK POKHREL 19 20 19 22 18 22 120
16 SISHER KHADKA 17 18 14 17 20 17 103
17 ROSHAN THAKUR 14 13 11 11 11 14 74
18 NIRAJ TAMANG 15 14 12 15 13 14 83
19 ROJESH CHUDAL 22 21 18 22 22 20 125
20 ROSHANI THAPA 21 21 19 21 19 21 122
TOTAL 337 342 310 346 311 344 1990
112
Speaking Post-test of Control Group

I II III IV V VI
1 AYUSH AACHARYA 19 17 17 17 14 18 102
2 KSHITEEZ K.C. 17 18 15 15 12 15 92
3 SASHI YADAV 12 16 13 14 11 12 78
4 BINITA TAMANG 10 12 12 12 10 11 67
5 KRISHNA SHAH 16 12 12 10 10 12 72
6 PRATIKSHA RAI 14 13 13 14 12 15 81
7 ROHAN LIMBU 17 17 14 16 14 16 94
8 BINAYAK SUBEDI 19 19 12 18 15 18 101
9 ABINASH SHAH 13 13 13 13 12 13 77
10 SUBASH SHRETHA 16 14 11 17 14 16 88
11 KHAGENDRA KARKI 14 14 12 12 11 14 77
12 RIYA ADHIKARI 10 11 11 11 10 11 64
13 NITESH YADAV 9 11 11 10 9 10 60
14 DIKSHYA LIMBU 12 12 10 12 11 12 69
15 DANIEL TAMANG 15 12 14 14 12 15 82
16 DIKSHYA BHANDARI 13 13 12 12 11 14 75
17 RUBINA ADHIKARI 13 12 11 12 13 12 73
18 AYUSH CHAUDHARY 11 11 11 11 9 10 63
19 REJINA TAMANG 16 14 16 14 14 17 91
20 KARUNA GAJAMER 18 17 18 16 15 16 100
TOTAL 284 278 258 270 239 277 1606
113
Appendix G
Testing Statistical Significance
𝑋 −𝑌
Paired test (t) = 1 1
𝑆2 +
𝑛1 𝑛2
Where, 𝑋 = Mean of the posttest and mean of experimental group
𝑌 = Mean of the pretest and mean of control group
𝑛1 = Number of classes in posttest and experimental group
𝑛2 = Number of classes in pretest and control group
𝜎 = Standard Deviation
𝑠 2 = Sample variance
Procedure of Testing Hypothesis
Claim Ho: 𝑢𝑥 = 𝑢𝑦 (there is no significant difference)
H1: 𝑢𝑥 ≠ 𝑢𝑦 (there is significant difference)
Level of significance (α) = 0.05 or 5%
Degree of Freedom (ʋ) = 𝑛1 + 𝑛2 - 2 = 20+20-2 = 38
𝑡0.05 𝑣 = 38 for two tailed test is 2.021
Decision: If calculated value of‘t’ is greater than tabulated value, reject the null
hypothesis.
If calculated value of‘t’ is less than tabulated value, accept the null hypothesis.
114
1 Intra Test Comparison (Inter Group) – Pretest
1.1 Asking for and Giving Directions
Experimental Group Control Group ∑𝑋 265

:∙ Mean (𝑋) = = = 13.25
2 2 𝑁 20
X X Y Y
∑𝑌 253
16 256 17 289 :∙ Mean (𝑌) = = = 12.65
𝑁 20
16 256 15 225
∑ 𝑋2 ∑𝑋 2
15 225 12 144 :∙ SD (S1) = −
𝑁 𝑁
12 144 11 121
13 169 9 81 3577 265 2
= −
20 20
13 169 14 196
15 225 16 256 = 178.85 − 175.563
13 169 17 289
= 1.813
14 196 13 169
11 121 15 225 ∑ 𝑌2 ∑𝑌 2
:∙ SD (S2) = −
𝑁 𝑁
11 121 11 121
12 144 9 81 3331 253 2
= −
11 121 9 81 20 20
12 144 11 121
= 166.55 − 160.023
14 196 13 169
= 2.555
12 144 11 121
11 121 11 121 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠1 2 + 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠2 2
:∙ (S2) =
𝑛 1 +𝑛 2 −2
12 144 10 100
16 256 14 196 19𝑋(1.813)2 +19𝑋(2.555)2
=
20+20−2
16 256 15 225
∑ 𝑋 = 265 ∑ 𝑋 2 = 3577 ∑ 𝑌= 253 ∑ 𝑌 2 = 3331 186.484
= = 4.907
38
𝑋 −𝑌 13.25−12.65 0.6
Hence, t = = = = 0.857
𝑆2
1
+
1 1 1 0.7
𝑛1 𝑛2
4.907 +
20 20
Since calculated ‘t’ (0.851) is less than tabulated ‘t’ (2.021), there is no significant
difference between control and experimental group.
115
1.2 Describing People

:∙ Mean (𝑋) = = = 13.15
2 2
𝑁 20
X X Y Y
∑𝑌 261
17 289 16 256 :∙ Mean (𝑌) = = = 13.05
𝑁 20
16 256 17 289
∑ 𝑋2 ∑𝑋 2
14 196 15 225 :∙ SD (S1) = −
𝑁 𝑁
11 121 11 121
13 169 12 144 3527 263 2
= −
20 20
14 196 12 144
14 196 16 256 = 176.35 − 172.923
14 196 18 324
= 1.851
13 169 13 169
12 144 14 196 ∑ 𝑌2 ∑𝑌 2
:∙ SD (S2) = −
𝑁 𝑁
10 100 13 1679
11 121 10 100 3525 261 2
= −
11 121 10 100 20 20
13 169 11 121
= 176.25 − 170.030
15 225 11 121
= 2.439
13 169 12 144
10 100 11 121 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠1 2 + 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠2 2
:∙ (S2) =
𝑛 1 +𝑛 2 −2
13 169 10 100
15 225 13 169 19𝑋(1.851)2 +19𝑋(2.439)2
=
20+20−2
14 196 16 256
∑ 𝑋 = 263 ∑ 𝑋 2 = 3527 ∑ 𝑌= 261 ∑ 𝑌 2 = 3525 178.124
= = 4.687
38
𝑋 −𝑌 13.15−13.05 0.1
Hence, t = = = = 0.146
𝑆2
1
+
1 1 1 0.685
𝑛1 𝑛2
4.687 +
20 20
Since calculated ‘t’ (0.146) is less than tabulated ‘t’ (2.021), there is no significant
116
1.3 Ordering a Meal

:∙ Mean (𝑋) = = = 12
2 2
𝑁 20
X X Y Y
∑𝑌 241
16 256 14 196 :∙ Mean (𝑌) = = =12.05
𝑁 20
15 225 15 225
∑ 𝑋2 ∑𝑋 2
13 169 12 144 :∙ SD (S1) = −
𝑁 𝑁
11 121 12 144
10 100 11 121 2988 240 2
= −
20 20
12 144 11 121
11 121 13 169 = 149.4 − 144
12 144 11 121
= 2.324
10 100 13 169
11 121 10 100 ∑ 𝑌2 ∑𝑌 2
:∙ SD (S2) = −
𝑁 𝑁
11 121 11 121
9 81 10 100 2985 241 2
= −
9 81 11 121 20 20
11 121 10 100
= 149.25 − 145.203
14 196 14 196
= 2.012
11 121 11 121
11 121 9 81 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠1 2 + 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠2 2
:∙ (S2) =
𝑛 1 +𝑛 2 −2
10 100 11 121
16 256 15 225 19𝑋(2.324)2 +19𝑋(2.012)2
=
20+20−2
17 289 17 289
∑ 𝑋 = 240 ∑ 𝑋 2 = 2988 ∑ 𝑌= 241 ∑ 𝑌 2 = 2985 179.533
= = 4.726
38
𝑋 −𝑌 12−12.05 0.05
Hence, t = = =− = -0.073
𝑆2
1
+
1 1 1 0.687
𝑛1 𝑛2
4.726 +
20 20
Since calculated ‘t’ (-0.073) is less than tabulated ‘t’ (2.021), there is no significant
117
1.4 Making a Phone Call

:∙ Mean (𝑋) = = = 12.9
2 2 𝑁 20
X X Y Y
∑𝑌 245
15 225 16 256 :∙ Mean (𝑌) = = = 12.25
𝑁 20
15 225 15 225
∑ 𝑋2 ∑𝑋 2
14 196 14 196 :∙ SD (S1) = −
𝑁 𝑁
11 121 10 100
13 169 10 100 3394 258 2
= −
20 20
13 169 12 144
14 196 14 196 = 167.7 − 166.41
12 144 16 256
= 1.136
12 144 12 144
11 121 13 169 ∑ 𝑌2 ∑𝑌 2
:∙ SD (S2) = −
𝑁 𝑁
12 144 12 144
13 169 10 100 3101 245 2
= −
11 121 9 81 20 20
12 144 9 81
= 155.05 − 150.063
16 256 12 144
= 2.233
12 144 13 169
9 81 11 121 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠1 2 + 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠2 2
:∙ (S2) =
𝑛 1 +𝑛 2 −2
12 144 9 81
15 225 13 169 19𝑋(1.136)2 +19𝑋(2.233)2
=
20+20−2
16 256 15 225
∑ 𝑋 = 258 ∑ 𝑋 2 = 3394 ∑ 𝑌= 245 ∑ 𝑌 2 = 3101 119.259
= = 3.138
38
𝑋 −𝑌 12.9 −12.25 0.65

Hence, t = = = = 1.161
𝑆2
1
+
1 1 1 0.56
𝑛1 𝑛2
3.138 +
20 20
Since calculated ‘t’ (1.161) is less than tabulated ‘t’(2.021), there is no significant
118
1.5 Making an Appointment

:∙ Mean (𝑋) = = = 10.55
2 2
𝑁 20
X X Y Y
11 121 12 144 ∑𝑌 218
:∙ Mean (𝑌) = = = 10.9
12 144 11 121
𝑁 20
11 121 12 144 ∑ 𝑋2 ∑𝑋 2
:∙ SD (S1) = −
𝑁 𝑁
9 81 10 100
10 100 9 81 2251 211 2
= −
11 121 10 100 20 20
10 100 14 196
= 112.55 − 111.303
11 121 14 196
11 121 11 121 = 1.117
9 81 12 144 ∑ 𝑌2 ∑𝑌 2
:∙ SD (S2) = −
11 121 10 100 𝑁 𝑁
10 100 9 81
2432 218 2
9 81 9 81 = −
20 20
10 100 9 81
= 121.6 − 118.81
12 144 10 100
10 100 11 121 = 1.67
9 81 10 100 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠1 2 + 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠2 2
:∙ (S2) =
10 100 9 81 𝑛 1 +𝑛 2 −2
13 169 12 144 19𝑋(1.117)2 +19𝑋(1.67)2

=
12 144 14 196 20+20−2
∑ 𝑋 = 211 ∑ 𝑋 2 = 2251 ∑ 𝑌= 218 ∑ 𝑌 2 = 2432 76.695
= = 2.018
38
𝑋 −𝑌 10.55−10.9 0.35
Hence, t = = =− = - 0.776
𝑆2
1
+
1 1 1 0.451
𝑛1 𝑛2
2.018 +
20 20
Since calculated ‘t’ (-0.776) is less than tabulated ‘t’(2.021), there is no significant
119
1.6 Making a Reservation for Hotel Room

:∙ Mean (𝑋) = = = 13.15
2 2
𝑁 20
X X Y Y
∑𝑌 258
17 289 17 289 :∙ Mean (𝑌) = = = 12.9
𝑁 20
16 256 15 225
∑ 𝑋2 ∑𝑋 2
15 225 11 121 :∙ SD (S1) = −
𝑁 𝑁
11 121 10 100
12 144 10 100 2533 263 2
= −
20 20
13 169 12 144
13 169 17 289 = 176.65 − 172.923
12 144 18 324
= 1.931
14 196 11 121
10 100 16 256 ∑ 𝑌2 ∑𝑌 2
:∙ SD (S2) = −
𝑁 𝑁
11 121 12 144
13 169 10 100 3500 258 2
= −
11 121 9 81 20 20
13 169 10 100
= 175 − 166.41
15 225 14 196
= 2.931
13 169 12 144
11 121 10 100 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠1 2 + 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠2 2
:∙ (S2) =
𝑛 1 +𝑛 2 −2
12 144 11 121
15 225 16 256 19𝑋(1.931)2 +19𝑋(2.931)2
=
20+20−2
16 256 17 289
∑ 𝑋 = 263 ∑ 𝑋 2 = 3533 ∑ 𝑌= 258 ∑ 𝑌 2 = 3500 234.07
= = 6.16
38
𝑋 −𝑌 13.15−12.9 0.25
Hence, t = = = = 0.318
𝑆2
1
+
1 1 1 0.785
𝑛1 𝑛2
6.16 +
20 20
120
1.7 Overall comparison of pretest

:∙ Mean (𝑋) = = =75
2 2 𝑁 20
X X Y Y
∑𝑌 1476
92 8464 92 8464 :∙ Mean (𝑌) = = = 73.8
𝑁 20
90 8100 88 7744
∑ 𝑋2 ∑𝑋 2
82 6724 76 5776 :∙ SD (S1) = −
𝑁 𝑁
65 4225 64 4096
71 5041 61 3721 114472 1500 2
= −
20 20
76 5776 71 5041
77 5929 90 8100 = 5723.6 − 5625
74 5476 94 8836
= 9.93
74 5476 73 5329
64 4096 80 6400 ∑ 𝑌2 ∑𝑌 2
:∙ SD (S2) = −
𝑁 𝑁
66 4356 69 4761
68 4624 58 3364 112026 1476 2
= −
62 3844 57 3249 20 20
71 5041 60 3600 =
5601.13 − 5446.44
86 7396 74 5476
= 12.437
71 5041 70 4900
61 3721 62 3844 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠1 2 + 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠2 2
:∙ (S2) =
𝑛 1 +𝑛 2 −2
69 4761 60 3600
90 8100 83 6889 19𝑋(9.93)2 +19𝑋(12.437)2

=
20+20−2
91 8281 94 8836
∑ 𝑋 = 1500 ∑ 𝑋 2 = 114472 ∑ 𝑌= 1476 ∑ 𝑌 2 = 112026 4812 .394
= = 126.642
38
𝑋 −𝑌 75−73.8 1.2
Hence, t = = = = 0.337
𝑆2
1
+
1 1 1 3.559
𝑛1 𝑛2
126.642 +
20 20
121
2 Intra Test Comparison (Inter Group) – Posttest

:∙ Mean (𝑋) = = = 16.85
2 2
𝑁 20
X X Y Y
∑𝑌 284
21 441 19 361 :∙ Mean (𝑌) = = = 14.2
𝑁 20
21 441 17 289
∑ 𝑋2 ∑𝑋 2
17 289 12 144 :∙ SD (S1) = −
𝑁 𝑁
14 196 10 100
16 256 16 256 5833 337 2
= −
20 20
17 289 14 196
19 361 17 289 = 291.65 − 283.923
16 256 19 361
= 2.78
18 324 13 169
13 169 16 256 ∑ 𝑌2 ∑𝑌 2
:∙ SD (S2) = −
𝑁 𝑁
13 169 14 196
14 196 10 100 4206 284 2
= −
15 225 9 81 20 20
15 225 12 144 = 210.3 − 201.64

19 361 15 225
= 2.943
17 289 13 169
14 156 13 169 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠1 2 + 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠2 2
:∙ (S2) =
𝑛 1 +𝑛 2 −2
15 225 11 121
22 484 16 256 19𝑋(2.78)2 +19𝑋(2.943)2
=
20+20−2
21 441 18 324
311.403
∑ 𝑋 = 337 ∑ 𝑋 2 = 5833 ∑ 𝑌= 284 ∑ 𝑌 2 = 4206 = = 8.195
38
𝑋 −𝑌 16.85−14.2 2.65
Hence, t = = = = 2.928
𝑆2
1
+
1 1 1 0.905
𝑛1 𝑛2
8.195 +
20 20
Since calculated ‘t’ (2.928) is greater than tabulated ‘t’(2.021), there is significant
122

:∙ Mean (𝑋) = = = 17.1
2 2
𝑁 20
X X Y Y
∑𝑌 278
22 484 17 289 :∙ Mean (𝑌) = = = 13.9
𝑁 20
23 529 18 324
18 324 16 256 ∑ 𝑋2 ∑𝑋 2
:∙ SD (S1) = −
𝑁 𝑁
15 225 12 144
17 289 12 144 6048 342 2
= −
18 324 13 169 20 20
19 361 17 289
= 302.4 − 292.41
18 324 19 361
= 3.16
16 256 13 169
14 196 14 196 ∑ 𝑌2 ∑𝑌 2
:∙ SD (S2) = −
𝑁 𝑁
12 144 14 196
13 169 11 121
3986 278 2
14 196 11 121
= −
20 20
16 256 12 144
= 199.3 − 193.21
20 400 12 144
18 324 13 169 = 2.468
13 169 12 144 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠1 2 + 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠2 2
:∙ (S2) =
14 196 11 121 𝑛 1 +𝑛 2 −2
21 441 14 196 19𝑋(3.16)2 +19𝑋(2.468)2

=
21 441 17 289 20+20−2
∑ 𝑋= 342 ∑ 𝑋 2 = 6048 ∑ 𝑌= 278 ∑ 𝑌 2 = 3986 305.456

= = 8.038
38
𝑋 −𝑌 17.1−13.9 3.2
Hence, t = = = = 3.567
1
𝑆 2 𝑛 +𝑛
1 1 1 0.897
8.038 +
20 20
1 2
123
2.3 Ordering a Meal

:∙ Mean (𝑋) = = = 15.5
2 2
𝑁 20
X X Y Y
∑𝑌 258
23 529 17 289 :∙ Mean (𝑌) = = = 12.9
𝑁 20
23 529 15 225
∑ 𝑋2 ∑𝑋 2
17 289 13 169 :∙ SD (S1) = −
𝑁 𝑁
12 144 12 144
17 289 12 144 5064 310 2
= −
20 20
15 225 13 169
18 324 14 196 = 253.2 − 240.25
12 144 12 144
= 3.599
15 225 13 169
10 100 11 121 ∑ 𝑌2 ∑𝑌 2
:∙ SD (S2) = −
𝑁 𝑁
15 225 12 144
13 169 11 121 3418 258 2
= −
14 196 11 121 20 20
13 169 10 100
= 170.9 − 166.41
19 361 14 196
= 2.119
14 196 12 144
11 121 11 121 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠1 2 + 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠2 2
:∙ (S2) =
𝑛 1 +𝑛 2 −2
12 144 11 121
18 324 16 256 19𝑋(3.599)2 +19𝑋(2.119)2
=
20+20−2
19 361 18 324
∑ 𝑋= 310 ∑ 𝑋 2 = 5064 ∑ 𝑌= 258 ∑ 𝑌 2 = 3418 331.416
= = 8.721
38
𝑋 −𝑌 15.5−12.9 2.6
Hence, t = = = = 2.784
𝑆2
1
+
1 1 1 0.934
𝑛1 𝑛2
8.721 +
20 20
Since calculated ‘t’ (2.784) is less than tabulated ‘t’(2.021), there is significant
124

:∙ Mean (𝑋) = = = 17.3
2 2
𝑁 20
X X Y Y
∑𝑌 270
23 529 17 289 :∙ Mean (𝑌) = = = 13.5
𝑁 20
22 484 15 225
∑ 𝑋2 ∑𝑋 2
19 361 14 196 :∙ SD (S1) = −
𝑁 𝑁
11 121 12 144
18 324 10 100 6276 346 2
= −
20 20
19 361 14 196
21 441 16 256 = 313.8 − 299.29
17 289 18 324
= 3.809
19 361 13 169
12 144 17 289 ∑ 𝑌2 ∑𝑌 2
:∙ SD (S2) = −
𝑁 𝑁
14 196 12 144
13 169 11 121 3754 270 2
= −
16 256 10 100 20 20
14 196 12 144
= 187.7 − 182.25
22 484 14 196
= 2.335
17 289 12 144
11 121 12 144 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠1 2 + 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠2 2
:∙ (S2) =
𝑛 1 +𝑛 2 −2
15 225 11 121
22 484 14 196 19𝑋(3.809)2 +19𝑋(2.335)2
=
20+20−2
21 441 16 258
∑ 𝑋= 346 ∑ 𝑋 2 = 6276 ∑ 𝑌= 270 ∑ 𝑌 2 = 3754 379.253
= = 9.98
38
𝑋 −𝑌 17.3−13.5 3.8
Hence, t = = = = 3.804
𝑆2
1
+
1 1 1 0.99
𝑛1 𝑛2
9.98 +
20 20
125

:∙ Mean (𝑋) = = = 15.55
2 2
𝑁 20
X X Y Y
∑𝑌 239
21 441 14 196 :∙ Mean (𝑌) = = = 11.95
𝑁 20
22 484 12 144
∑ 𝑋2 ∑𝑋 2
19 361 11 121 :∙ SD (S1) = −
𝑁 𝑁
10 100 10 100
13 169 10 100 5231 311 2
= −
20 20
15 225 12 144
17 289 14 196 = 256.55 − 241.803
13 169 15 225
= 3.84
14 196 12 144
12 144 14 196 ∑ 𝑌2 ∑𝑌 2
:∙ SD (S2) = −
𝑁 𝑁
11 121 11 121
16 256 10 100 2925 239 2
= −
11 121 9 81 20 20
14 196 11 121
= 146.25 − 142.803
18 324 12 144
= 1.857
20 400 11 121
11 121 13 169 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠1 2 + 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠2 2
:∙ (S2) = 𝑛 1 +𝑛 2 −2
13 484 9 81
19𝑋(3.84)2 +19𝑋(1.857)2
22 361 14 196 =
20+20−2
19 15 225
345.687
∑ 𝑋= 311 ∑ 𝑋 2 = 5131 ∑ 𝑌= 239 ∑ 𝑌 2 = 2925 = = 9.097
38
𝑋 −𝑌 15.55−11.95 3.6
Hence, t = = = = 3.774
𝑆2
1
+
1 1 1 0.954
𝑛1 𝑛2 9.097 +
20 20
126
2.6 Making a Reservation for a Hotel Room

:∙ Mean (𝑋) = = = 17.2
2 2
𝑁 20
X X Y Y
∑𝑌 277
23 529 18 324 :∙ Mean (𝑌) = = = 13.85
𝑁 20
22 484 15 225
∑ 𝑋2 ∑𝑋 2
19 361 12 144 :∙ SD (S1) = −
𝑁 𝑁
14 196 11 121
18 324 12 144 6146 344 2
= −
20 20
18 324 15 225
21 441 16 256 = 307.3 − 295.84
17 289 18 324
= 3.385
16 256 13 169
11 121 16 256 ∑ 𝑌2 ∑𝑌 2
:∙ SD (S2) = −
𝑁 𝑁
13 169 14 196
14 196 11 121 3959 277 2
= −
15 225 10 100 20 20
15 225 12 144
= 197.95 − 191.823
22 484 15 225
= 2.475
17 289 14 196
14 196 12 144 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠1 2 + 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠2 2
:∙ (S2) =
𝑛 1 +𝑛 2 −2
14 196 10 100
20 400 17 289 19𝑋(3.385)2 +19𝑋(2.475)2
=
20+20−2
21 441 16 256
∑ 𝑋= 344 ∑ 𝑋 2 = 6146 ∑ 𝑌= 277 ∑ 𝑌 2 = 3959 334.093
= = 8.792
38
𝑋 −𝑌 17.2−13.85 3.35
Hence, t = = = = 3.571
𝑆2
1
+
1 1 1 0.938
𝑛1 𝑛2
8.792 +
20 20
127
2.7 Overall Comparison Posttest

:∙ Mean (𝑋) = = = 99.55
2 2 𝑁 20
X X Y Y
∑𝑌 1606
133 17689 102 10404 :∙ Mean (𝑌) = = = 80.3
𝑁 20
133 17689 92 8464
∑ 𝑋2 ∑𝑋 2
109 11881 78 6084 :∙ SD (S1) = −
𝑁 𝑁
76 5776 67 4489
99 9801 72 5184 205552 1990 2
= −
20 20
102 10404 81 6561
115 13225 94 8836 = 10277.6 − 9900.25
93 8649 101 10201
= 19.423
98 9604 77 5929
72 5184 88 7744 ∑ 𝑌2 ∑𝑌 2
:∙ SD (S2) = −
78 6084 77 5929 𝑁 𝑁
83 6889 64 4096
132085 1606 2
85 7225 60 3600 = −
20 20
87 7569 69 4761
= 6604.25 − 6448.09
120 14400 82 6724
103 10609 75 5625 = 12.496
74 5476 73 5329 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠1 2 + 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠2 2
:∙ (S2) =
83 6889 62 3844 𝑛 1 +𝑛 2 −2
125 15625 91 8281 19𝑋(19.423)2 +19𝑋(12.496)2

=
122 14884 100 10000 20+20−2
∑ 𝑋= 1990 ∑ 𝑋 2 =205552 ∑ 𝑌= 1606 ∑ 𝑌 2 = 136085 10134 .656

= = 266.701
38
𝑋 −𝑌 99.55−80.3 19.25
Hence, t = = = = 4.043
𝑆2
1
+
1 1 1 4.761
𝑛1 𝑛2
266.701 +
20 20
128
3 Inter Test Comparison (Intra Group Comparison) - Control Group
Posttest Pretest ∑𝑋 284

:∙ Mean (𝑋) = = = 14.2
2 2
𝑁 20
X X Y Y
∑𝑌 253
19 361 17 289 :∙ Mean (𝑌) = = = 12.65
𝑁 20
17 289 15 225
∑ 𝑋2 ∑𝑋 2
12 144 12 144 :∙ SD (S1) = −
𝑁 𝑁
10 100 11 121
16 256 9 81 4206 284 2
= −
20 20
14 196 14 196
17 289 16 256 = 210.3 − 201.64
19 361 17 289
= 2.943
13 169 13 169
16 256 15 225 ∑ 𝑌2 ∑𝑌 2
:∙ SD (S2) = −
𝑁 𝑁
14 196 11 121
10 100 9 81 3331 253 2
= −
9 81 9 81 20 20
12 144 11 121
= 166.55 − 160.023
15 225 13 169
= 2.555
13 169 11 121
13 169 11 121 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠1 2 + 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠2 2
:∙ (S2) =
𝑛 1 +𝑛 2 −2
11 121 10 100
16 256 14 196 19𝑋(2.943)2 +19𝑋(2.555)2
=
20+20−2
18 324 15 225
∑ 𝑋= 284 ∑ 𝑋 2 = 4206 ∑ 𝑌= 253 ∑ 𝑌 2 = 3331 288.596
= = 7.595
38
𝑋 −𝑌 14.2−12.65 1.55
Hence, t = = = = 1.78
𝑆2
1
+
1 1 1 0.871
𝑛1 𝑛2
7.595 +
20 20
difference between pretest and posttest.
129

:∙ Mean (𝑋) = = = 13.9
2 2
𝑁 20
X X Y Y
∑𝑌 261
17 289 16 256 :∙ Mean (𝑌) = = = 13.05
𝑁 20
18 324 17 289
∑ 𝑋2 ∑𝑋 2
16 256 15 225 :∙ SD (S1) = −
𝑁 𝑁
12 144 11 121
12 144 12 144 3986 278 2
= −
20 20
13 169 12 144
17 289 16 256 = 199.3 − 193.21
19 361 18 324
= 2.468
13 169 13 169
14 196 14 196 ∑ 𝑌2 ∑𝑌 2
:∙ SD (S2) = −
𝑁 𝑁
14 196 13 1679
11 121 10 100 3525 261 2
= −
11 121 10 100 20 20
12 144 11 121
= 176.25 − 170.03
12 144 11 121
= 2.439
13 169 12 144
12 144 11 121 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠1 2 + 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠2 2
:∙ (S2) =
𝑛 1 +𝑛 2 −2
11 121 10 100
14 196 13 169 19𝑋(2.468)2 +19𝑋(2.439)2
=
20+20−2
17 289 16 256
∑ 𝑋= 278 ∑ 𝑋 2 = 3986 ∑ 𝑌= 261 ∑ 𝑌 2 = 3525 228.755
= = 6.02
38
𝑋 −𝑌 13.9−13.05 0.85
Hence, t = = = = 1.095
𝑆2
1
+
1 1 1 0.776
𝑛1 𝑛2
6.02 +
20 20
130
3.3 Ordering a Meal

:∙ Mean (𝑋) = = = 12.9
2 2 𝑁 20
X X Y Y
∑𝑌 241
17 289 14 196 :∙ Mean (𝑌) = = = 12.05
𝑁 20
15 225 15 225
∑ 𝑋2 ∑𝑋 2
13 169 12 144 :∙ SD (S1) = −
𝑁 𝑁
12 144 12 144
12 144 11 121 3418 258 2
= −
20 20
13 169 11 121
14 196 13 169 = 170.9 − 166.41
12 144 11 121
= 2.119
13 169 13 169
11 121 10 100 ∑ 𝑌2 ∑𝑌 2
:∙ SD (S2) = −
𝑁 𝑁
12 144 11 121
11 121 10 100 2985 241 2
= −
11 121 11 121 20 20
10 100 10 100
= 149.25 − 145.203
14 196 14 196
= 2.012
12 144 11 121
11 121 9 81 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠1 2 + 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠2 2
:∙ (S2) =
𝑛 1 +𝑛 2 −2
11 121 11 121
16 256 15 225 19𝑋(2.119)2 +19𝑋(2.012)2
=
20+20−2
18 324 17 289
∑ 𝑋= 258 ∑ 𝑋 2 = 3418 ∑ 𝑌= 241 ∑ 𝑌 2 = 2985 162.228
= = 4.269
38
𝑋 −𝑌 12.9−12.05 0.85
Hence, t = = = = 1.302
𝑆2
1
+
1 1 1 0.653
𝑛1 𝑛2
4.269 +
20 20
131

:∙ Mean (𝑋) = = = 13.5
2 2
𝑁 20
X X Y Y
∑𝑌 245
17 289 16 256 :∙ Mean (𝑌) = = = 12.25
𝑁 20
15 225 15 225
∑ 𝑋2 ∑𝑋 2
14 196 14 196 :∙ SD (S1) = −
𝑁 𝑁
12 144 10 100
10 100 10 100 3754 270 2
= −
20 20
14 196 12 144
16 256 14 196 = 187.7 − 182.25
18 324 16 256
= 2.335
13 169 12 144
17 289 13 169 ∑ 𝑌2 ∑𝑌 2
:∙ SD (S2) = −
𝑁 𝑁
12 144 12 144
11 121 10 100 3101 245 2
= −
10 100 9 81 20 20
12 144 9 81
= 155.05 − 150.063
14 196 12 144
= 2.233
12 144 13 169
12 144 11 121 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠1 2 + 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠2 2
:∙ (S2) =
𝑛 1 +𝑛 2 −2
11 121 9 81
14 196 13 169 19𝑋(2.335)2 +19𝑋(2.233)2
=
20+20−2
16 258 15 225
∑ 𝑋= 270 ∑ 𝑋 2 = 3754 ∑ 𝑌= 245 ∑ 𝑌 2 = 3101 198.332
= = 5.519
38
𝑋 −𝑌 13.5−12.25 1.25
Hence, t = = = = 1.682
𝑆2
1
+
1 1 1 0.743
𝑛1 𝑛2
5.519 +
20 20
132

:∙ Mean (𝑋) = = = 11.95
2 2
𝑁 20
X X Y Y
∑𝑌 218
14 196 12 144 :∙ Mean (𝑌) = = = 10.9
𝑁 20
12 144 11 121
∑ 𝑋2 ∑𝑋 2
11 121 12 144 :∙ SD (S1) = −
𝑁 𝑁
10 100 10 100
10 100 9 81 2925 239 2
= −
20 20
12 144 10 100
14 196 14 196 = 146.25 − 142.803
15 225 14 196
= 1.857
12 144 11 121
14 196 12 144 ∑ 𝑌2 ∑𝑌 2
:∙ SD (S2) = −
𝑁 𝑁
11 121 10 100
10 100 9 81 2432 218 2
= −
9 81 9 81 20 20
11 121 9 81 = 121.6 − 118.81

12 144 10 100
= 1.67
11 121 11 121
13 169 10 100 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠1 2 + 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠2 2
:∙ (S2) =
𝑛 1 +𝑛 2 −2
9 81 9 81
14 196 12 144 19𝑋(1.857)2 +19𝑋(1.67)2
=
20+20−2
15 225 14 196
∑ 𝑋= 239 ∑ 𝑋 2 = 2925 ∑ 𝑌= 218 ∑ 𝑌 2 = 2432 118.51
= = 3.119
38
𝑋 −𝑌 11.95−10.9 1.05
Hence, t = = = = 1.882
𝑆2
1
+
1 1 1 0.558
𝑛1 𝑛2
3.119 +
20 20
133
3.6 Making a Reservation for a Hotel Room

:∙ Mean (𝑋) = = = 13.85
2 2
𝑁 20
X X Y Y
∑𝑌 258
18 324 17 289 :∙ Mean (𝑌) = = = 12.9
𝑁 20
15 225 15 225
∑ 𝑋2 ∑𝑋 2
12 144 11 121 :∙ SD (S1) = −
𝑁 𝑁
11 121 10 100
12 144 10 100 3959 277 2
= −
20 20
15 225 12 144
16 256 17 289 = 197.95 − 191.823
18 324 18 324
= 2.475
13 169 11 121
16 256 16 256 ∑ 𝑌2 ∑𝑌 2
:∙ SD (S2) = −
𝑁 𝑁
14 196 12 144
11 121 10 100 3500 258 2
= −
10 100 9 81 20 20
12 144 10 100
= 175 − 166.41
15 225 14 196
= 2.931
14 196 12 144
12 144 10 100 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠1 2 + 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠2 2
:∙ (S2) =
𝑛 1 +𝑛 2 −2
10 100 11 121
17 289 16 256 19𝑋(2.475)2 +19𝑋(2.931)2
=
20+20−2
16 256 17 289
∑ 𝑋= 277 ∑ 𝑋 2 = 3959 ∑ 𝑌= 258 ∑ 𝑌 2 = 3500 163.224
= = 4.295
38
𝑋 −𝑌 13.85−12.9 0.95
Hence, t = = = = 1.45
𝑆2
1
+
1 1 1 0.655
𝑛1 𝑛2
4.295 +
20 20
134
3.7 Overall Comparison

:∙ Mean (𝑋) = = = 80.3
2 2 𝑁 20
X X Y Y
∑𝑌 1476
102 10404 92 8464 :∙ Mean (𝑌) = = = 73.8
𝑁 20
92 8464 88 7744
∑ 𝑋2 ∑𝑋 2
78 6084 76 5776 :∙ SD (S1) = −
𝑁 𝑁
67 4489 64 4096
72 5184 61 3721 132085 1606 2
= −
20 20
81 6561 71 5041
94 8836 90 8100 = 6604.25 − 6448.09
101 10201 94 8836
= 12.496
77 5929 73 5329
88 7744 80 6400 ∑ 𝑌2 ∑𝑌 2
:∙ SD (S2) = −
𝑁 𝑁
77 5929 69 4761
64 4096 58 3364 112026 1476 2
= −
60 3600 57 3249 20 20
69 4761 60 3600
= 5601.13 − 5446.44
82 6724 74 5476
= 12.437
75 5625 70 4900
73 5329 62 3844 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠1 2 + 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠2 2
:∙ (S2) =
𝑛 1 +𝑛 2 −2
62 3844 60 3600
19𝑋(12.496)2 +19𝑋(12.437)2
91 8281 83 6889 =
20+20−2
100 10000 94 8836
5905.751
∑ 𝑋= 1606 2
∑ 𝑋 = 136085 ∑ 𝑌= 1476 2
∑ 𝑌 = 112026
= = 155.415
38
𝑋 −𝑌 80.3−73.8 6.5
Hence, t = = = = 1.649
𝑆2
1
+
1 1 1 3.942
𝑛1 𝑛2
155.415 +
20 20
135
4 Inter Test Comparison (Intra Group Comparison) – Experimental Group

:∙ Mean (𝑋) = = = 16.85
2 2
𝑁 20
X X Y Y
∑𝑌 265
21 441 16 256 :∙ Mean (𝑌) = = = 13.5
𝑁 20
21 441 16 256
∑ 𝑋2 ∑𝑋 2
17 289 15 225 :∙ SD (S1) = −
𝑁 𝑁
14 196 12 144
16 256 13 169 5833 337 2
= −
20 20
17 289 13 169
19 361 15 225 = 291.65 − 283.923
16 256 13 169
= 2.78
18 324 14 196
13 169 11 121 ∑ 𝑌2 ∑𝑌 2
:∙ SD (S2) = −
𝑁 𝑁
13 169 11 121
14 196 12 144 3577 265 2
= −
15 225 11 121 20 20
15 225 12 144
= 178.85 − 175.563
19 361 14 196
= 1.813
17 289 12 144
14 156 11 121 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠1 2 + 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠2 2
:∙ (S2) =
𝑛 1 +𝑛 2 −2
15 225 12 144
22 484 16 256 19𝑋(2.78)2 +19𝑋(1.813)2
=
20+20−2
21 441 16 256
∑ 𝑋 = 337 ∑ 𝑋 2 = 5833 ∑ 𝑌 = 265 ∑ 𝑌 2 = 3577 209.292
= = 5.508
38
𝑋 −𝑌 16.85−13.5 3.35
Hence, t = = = = 4.515
𝑆2
1
+
1 1 1 0.742
𝑛1 𝑛2
5.508 +
20 20
136

:∙ Mean (𝑋) = = = 17.1
2 2
𝑁 20
X X Y Y
∑𝑌 263
22 484 17 289 :∙ Mean (𝑌) = = = 13.15
𝑁 20
23 529 16 256
∑ 𝑋2 ∑𝑋 2
18 324 14 196 :∙ SD (S1) = −
𝑁 𝑁
15 225 11 121
17 289 13 169 6048 342 2
= −
20 20
18 324 14 196
19 361 14 196 = 302.4 − 292.41
18 324 14 196
= 3.16
16 256 13 169
14 196 12 144 ∑ 𝑌2 ∑𝑌 2
:∙ SD (S2) = −
𝑁 𝑁
12 144 10 100
13 169 11 121 3527 263 2
= −
14 196 11 121 20 20
16 256 13 169
= 176.35 − 172.923
20 400 15 225
= 1.851
18 324 13 169
13 169 10 100 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠1 2 + 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠2 2
:∙ (S2) =
𝑛 1 +𝑛 2 −2
14 196 13 169
21 441 15 225 19𝑋(3.16)2 +19𝑋(1.851)2
=
20+20−2
21 441 14 196
∑ 𝑋= 342 ∑ 𝑋 2 = 6048 ∑ 𝑌 = 263 ∑ 𝑌 2 = 3527 254.824
= = 6.706
38
𝑋 −𝑌 17.1−13.15 3.94
Hence, t = = = = 5.887
𝑆2
1
+
1 1 1 0.671
𝑛1 𝑛2
6.706 +
20 20
137
4.3 Ordering a Meal

:∙ Mean (𝑋) = = = 15.5
2 2
𝑁 20
X X Y Y
∑𝑌 240
23 529 16 256 :∙ Mean (𝑌) = = = 12
𝑁 20
23 529 15 225
∑ 𝑋2 ∑𝑋 2
17 289 13 169 :∙ SD (S1) = −
𝑁 𝑁
12 144 11 121
17 289 10 100 5064 310 2
= −
20 20
15 225 12 144
18 324 11 121 = 253.2 − 240.25
12 144 12 144
= 3.599
15 225 10 100
10 100 11 121 ∑ 𝑌2 ∑𝑌 2
:∙ SD (S2) = −
𝑁 𝑁
15 225 11 121
13 169 9 81 2988 240 2
= −
14 196 9 81 20 20
13 169 11 121 = 149.4 − 144

19 361 14 196
= 2.324
14 196 11 121
11 121 11 121 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠1 2 + 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠2 2
:∙ (S2) =
𝑛 1 +𝑛 2 −2
12 144 10 100
18 324 16 256 19𝑋(3.599)2 +19𝑋(2.324)2
=
20+20−2
19 361 17 289
∑ 𝑋= 310 ∑ 𝑋 2 = 5064 ∑ 𝑌 = 240 ∑ 𝑌 2 = 2988 348.722
= = 9.177
38
𝑋 −𝑌 15.5−12 3.5
Hence, t = = = = 3.653
𝑆2
1
+
1 1 1 0.958
𝑛1 𝑛2
9.177 +
20 20
138

:∙ Mean (𝑋) = = = 17.3
2 2
𝑁 20
X X Y Y
∑𝑌 258
23 529 15 225 :∙ Mean (𝑌) = = = 12.9
𝑁 20
22 484 15 225
∑ 𝑋2 ∑𝑋 2
19 361 14 196 :∙ SD (S1) = −
𝑁 𝑁
11 121 11 121
18 324 13 169 6276 346 2
= −
20 20
19 361 13 169
21 441 14 196 = 313.8 − 299.29
17 289 12 144
= 3.809
19 361 12 144
12 144 11 121 ∑ 𝑌2 ∑𝑌 2
:∙ SD (S2) = −
𝑁 𝑁
14 196 12 144
13 169 13 169 3394 258 2
= −
16 256 11 121 20 20
14 196 12 144
= 167.7 − 166.41
22 484 16 256
= 1.136
17 289 12 144
11 121 9 81 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠1 2 + 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠2 2
:∙ (S2) =
𝑛 1 +𝑛 2 −2
15 225 12 144
22 484 15 225 19𝑋(3.809)2 +19𝑋(1.136)2
=
20+20−2
21 441 16 256
∑ 𝑋= 346 ∑ 𝑋 2 = 6276 ∑ 𝑌 = 258 ∑ 𝑌 2 = 3394 300.18
= = 7.899
38
𝑋 −𝑌 17.3−12.9 4.4
Hence, t = = = = 4.949
𝑆2
1
+
1 1 1 0.889
𝑛1 𝑛2
7.899 +
20 20
139

:∙ Mean (𝑋) = = = 15.55
2 2
𝑁 20
X X Y Y
∑𝑌 211
21 441 11 121 :∙ Mean (𝑌) = = = 10.55
𝑁 20
22 484 12 144
∑ 𝑋2 ∑𝑋 2
19 361 11 121 :∙ SD (S1) = −
𝑁 𝑁
10 100 9 81
13 169 10 100 5231 311 2
= −
20 20
15 225 11 121
17 289 10 100 = 256.55 − 241.803
13 169 11 121
= 3.84
14 196 11 121
12 144 9 81 ∑ 𝑌2 ∑𝑌 2
:∙ SD (S2) = −
𝑁 𝑁
11 121 11 121
16 256 10 100 2251 211 2
= −
11 121 9 81 20 20
14 196 10 100
= 112.55 − 111.303
18 324 12 144
= 1.117
20 400 10 100
11 121 9 81 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠1 2 + 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠2 2
:∙ (S2) =
𝑛 1 +𝑛 2 −2
13 484 10 100
22 361 13 169 19𝑋(3.84)2 +19𝑋(1.117)2
=
20+20−2
19 12 144
∑ 𝑋= 311 ∑ 𝑋 2 = 5131 ∑ 𝑌 = 211 ∑ 𝑌 2 = 2251 303.387
= = 7.997
38
𝑋 −𝑌 15.55−10.55 5
Hence, t = = = = 5.593
𝑆2
1
+
1 1 1 0.894
𝑛1 𝑛2
7.997 +
20 20
140
4.6 Making a Reservation for Hotel Room

:∙ Mean (𝑋) = = = 17.2
2 2
𝑁 20
X X Y Y
∑𝑌 263
23 529 17 289 :∙ Mean (𝑌) = = = 13.15
𝑁 20
22 484 16 256
∑ 𝑋2 ∑𝑋 2
19 361 15 225 :∙ SD (S1) = −
𝑁 𝑁
14 196 11 121
18 324 12 144 6146 344 2
= −
20 20
18 324 13 169
21 441 13 169 = 307.3 − 295.84
17 289 12 144
= 3.385
16 256 14 196
11 121 10 100 ∑ 𝑌2 ∑𝑌 2
:∙ SD (S2) = −
𝑁 𝑁
13 169 11 121
14 196 13 169 2533 263 2
= −
15 225 11 121 20 20
15 225 13 169
= 176.65 − 172.923
22 484 15 225
= 1.931
17 289 13 169
14 196 11 121 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠1 2 + 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠2 2
:∙ (S2) =
𝑛 1 +𝑛 2 −2
14 196 12 144
20 400 15 225 19𝑋(3.385)2 +19𝑋(1.931)2
=
20+20−2
21 441 16 256
∑ 𝑋= 344 ∑ 𝑋 2 = 6146 ∑ 𝑌 = 263 ∑ 𝑌 2 = 3533 288.553
= = 7.593
38
𝑋 −𝑌 17.2−13.15 4.05
Hence, t = = = = 4.65
𝑆2
1
+
1 1 1 0.871
𝑛1 𝑛2
7.593 +
20 20
141
4.7 Overall Comparison

:∙ Mean (𝑋) = = = 99.55
2 2 𝑁 20
X X Y Y
∑𝑌 1500
133 17689 92 8464 :∙ Mean (𝑌) = = = 75
𝑁 20
133 17689 90 8100
∑ 𝑋2 ∑𝑋 2
109 11881 82 6724 :∙ SD (S1) = −
𝑁 𝑁
76 5776 65 4225
99 9801 71 5041 205552 1990 2
= −
20 20
102 10404 76 5776
115 13225 77 5929 = 10277.6 − 9900.25
93 8649 74 5476
= 19.423
98 9604 74 5476
72 5184 64 4096 ∑ 𝑌2 ∑𝑌 2
:∙ SD (S2) = −
𝑁 𝑁
78 6084 66 4356
83 6889 68 4624 114472 1500 2
= −
85 7225 62 3844 20 20
87 7569 71 5041
= 5723.6 − 5625
120 14400 86 7396
= 9.93
103 10609 71 5041
74 5476 61 3721 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠1 2 + 𝑛 1− 1 𝑠2 2
:∙ (S2) =
𝑛 1 +𝑛 2 −2
83 6889 69 4761
125 15625 90 8100 19𝑋(19.423)2 +19𝑋(9.93)2

=
20+20−2
122 14884 91 8281
∑ 𝑋= 1990 ∑ 𝑋 2 =205552 ∑ 𝑌 = 1500 ∑ 𝑌 2 = 114472 9041.299
= = 237.929
38
𝑋 −𝑌 99.55−75 24.55
Hence, t = = = = 5.033
𝑆2
1
+
1 1 1 4.878
𝑛1 𝑛2
237.929 +
20 20
Since calculated ‘t’ (5.033) is greater than tabulated ‘t’ (2.021), there is significant
142
Appendix H
Rubric of Speaking Test
Score
Content 5 4 3 2 1
Fluency Speaks Speaks with Speaks with Often unable Unable to

consistently minimal some pauses to speak with speak or give
without pauses or and frequent only one
pauses or hesitation; hesitation; is pauses and word or very
hesitation; has slight able to hesitation; short
consistently difficulty in communicate unable to utterance with
communicat communicati some ideas communicate a long pause;
es all ideas ng all ideas with some most ideas unable to
without difficulties communicate
difficulty ideas
Pronunciati Pronounces Pronounces Sometimes Often Pronounces
clearly and almost pronounces pronounces unclearly
on correctly clearly unclearly: with errors; interfering
without errors difficult to with
interfering interfere with understand; communicatio
comprehensi communicati have to n; unable to
on on repeat communicate
frequently ideas
Vocabulary Uses varied Uses varied Has adequate Has limited Has
and correct and almost vocabulary; vocabulary; insufficient
vocabulary; correct minor errors has difficulty vocabulary
able to vocabulary; do not in resulting in
communicat often interfere with communicati comprehensio
e properly communicate communicati ng n breakdown
properly on
Grammar Consistently Rarely uses Uses some Often uses Unable to use
uses correct incorrect incorrect incorrect grammatical
grammatical grammatical grammatical grammatical structure to
structures structure; structure. structure; communicate
minor error Some error errors correctly
do not interfere with interfere with
interfere with communicati communicati
communicati on on
on
Strategy Uses Tries to use Tries to use Speaks rarely Never uses
gestures gestures to gestures but using gestures when
appropriatel help in they are gestures speaking
y speaking inappropriate
when having
difficulty in
using
vocabulary
Adapted from Phuphapet (2004), Scanlon and Zemach (2009) and Domesrifa (2008)
143

Developing Speaking Skill Through Task Based Language Teaching

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Developing Speaking Skill Through Task Based Language Teaching

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Developing Speaking Skill Through Task Based Language Teaching

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEVELOPING SPEAKING SKILL THROUGH TASK

BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING

A Thesis Submitted to the Department of English Education

In Partial Fulfillment for the Masters of Education in

Janta Multiple Campus,

Itahari, Sunsari, Nepal

BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING

A Thesis Submitted to the Department of English Education

In Partial Fulfillment for the Masters of Education in English

Janta Multiple Campus,

Itahari, Sunsari, Nepal

T.U. Regd. 9-1-9-112-99 Date of Approval of the Thesis

Second Year Examination Proposal: 2072-10-15/29-01-2016

Roll No.: 2180006 (2068/2011) Date of Submission: 2072-12-30

Campus Roll No.: 3 (2067/2010) (12-04-2016)

was earlier submitted for the candidature of research to any university.

Date: 2072-12-25/07-04-2016 Dikendra Raya

Developing Speaking Skill Through Task Based Language Teaching under my

guidance and supervision.

I recommended this thesis for approval and acceptance.

Date: 2072-12-26/08-04-2016 Tirtha Raj Acharya (Guide)

Department of English Education

following Research Guidance Committee.

Mr. Kamal Raj Dahal ________________

Mr. Tirtha Raj Acharya (Guide) ________________

Mr. Chet Nath Niroula ________________

following thesis Evaluation Committee.

Mr. Kamal Raj Dahal ________________

Mr. Govindaraj Bhattarai ________________

Mr. Tirtha Raj Acharya (Guide) ________________

situations and for her encouragement; and to my son, Dikson.

I would like to extend my deep sense of profound gratitude to my thesis guide

research guidance committee of the Department of English Education, for making

constant supervision and guiding me with regular inspiration, encouragement and

insightful suggestion throughout the thesis. I would like to acknowledge his

invaluable instructions, suggestions, guidance and strong cooperation in completing

fruitful and praiseworthy.

and valued suggestions.

Lecturer at Janta Multiple Campus for their contribution of continuous guidance,

regular inspiration and enthusiastic encouragement to complete this thesis. At the

at Public Higher Secondary School for their irreplaceable support.

Photocopy center for neat computer setting.

Date: 2072-12-24 Dikendra Raya

teaching English as a foreign language at the secondary level students‟ oral

chapters. The first chapter is an introductory chapter. It includes general background,

statement of the problem, rationale of the research, objectives of the research,

It includes design of the study, sources of data, sample population, sampling

includes interpretation of pretest and posttest, interpretation of students‟ responses

conclusions and implications.

Recommendation for Acceptance ii

Recommendation for Evaluation iii

Evaluation and Approval iv

Table of Contents viii

List of Abbreviations and symbols x

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Page

1.1 General Background 1

1.1.1 Task Based Language Teaching 3

1.1.2 Task Features 5