Article Category: Research Papers
Published Online: Sep 22, 2025
Received: Jan 09, 2025
Accepted: May 09, 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/amns-2025-0945
Keywords
© 2025 Jing Yan, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Task-based teaching is a learner-centered approach that emphasizes the development of learners’ language competence through authentic and meaningful language use tasks [1–2]. At the core of this approach are “tasks”, i.e., a series of activities that require students to use the target language to achieve specific goals [3]. These tasks can be problem solving, sharing information, expressing opinions, etc. The connotations of the task-based approach include an emphasis on learner autonomy, the development of communicative competence, and the natural acquisition of language forms through task completion [4–6].
The theoretical foundation of task-based teaching method is rooted in multiple language learning theories, mainly including communicative language teaching, second language acquisition theory and constructivist learning theory [7–8]. Communicative language teaching emphasizes the communicative function of language, second language acquisition theory focuses on the importance of language input and the natural process of language acquisition, and constructivist learning theory emphasizes that knowledge is constructed as a result of the learner’s active participation and accumulation of experience [9–11]. In teaching practice, this means that teachers need to design communicative tasks that can stimulate students’ active participation, as well as provide students with rich and appropriate language input and guide them to construct and apply their knowledge in real contexts [12–14].
With the acceleration of global economic integration, the teaching of spoken English has attracted the attention of the educational community. More and more colleges and universities regard oral English teaching as the main content of English teaching work [15–17]. However, influenced by the concept of exam-oriented education, it still takes some time to improve the status of spoken English. Traditional English teaching methods for higher vocational education have problems such as poor relevance and low student participation, and the fundamental reason is the lack of mobilization in the English classroom. Task-based teaching method utilizes clear objectives to drive students to actively implement English learning tasks, so that students can apply English knowledge in a planned, directed and in-depth manner, thus achieving the purpose of strengthening the teaching effect [18–21]. Higher vocational colleges and universities should actively explore the implementation framework, steps and points of implementation of the relevant teaching methods, on the basis of which to make up for the shortcomings of English teaching, especially oral training, in order to cultivate students’ learning ability, improve students’ oral skills, so that students can flexibly use English to communicate with others [22–24].
This paper analyzes the basic theoretical concepts of task-based language teaching method on the basis of the selected research object, class type and teaching materials, and practically applies the teaching theory to the teaching of speaking class. A series of task activities are designed to guide students to successfully complete the acquisition of language points, and the teaching tasks, teaching language, teaching methods and students’ classroom performance presented in the task-based teaching mode are studied. Finally, the effectiveness of task-based speaking instruction was verified by using questionnaires, interviews, and speaking tests before and after the instruction in both the experimental and control classes. In the data analysis section, the questionnaire, interview and oral pre and post-test data were analyzed using percentages and SPSS software respectively.
A task is an activity with a specific purpose in the process of teaching or working, asserting that a task is an activity that requires the learner to accomplish something through the process of thinking, based on the information given. The task of teaching, on the other hand, should be a series of organized and purposeful teaching activities. These activities should have specific objectives, contents, steps and final results.
Four guidelines for task definition [25]:
The task is centered on information, and its purpose is to draw attention to meaning rather than simply learning the language itself. There is some kind of information gap in the task. The student (i.e., the participant) needs to utilize prior linguistic and non-linguistic knowledge to complete the task. The task must have a clear communicative outcome.
Tasks can be categorized into a variety of types by looking at their applicability and operational processes from different perspectives. Based on the object and content of this paper, this section proposes five classifications of task types [26]:
According to language context, tasks can be categorized into authentic and pedagogical tasks. According to language skills, they can be categorized into, input-type tasks and output-type tasks. According to language training, they can be categorized into, focal and non-focal tasks. According to the way of solving the tasks, they can be divided into, closed tasks and open tasks. According to the objectives of the development of each language skill, they can be categorized into here-and-now type and there-and-now type tasks.
Like most pedagogies, the theoretical basis of task-based language teaching can be roughly divided into linguistic theoretical basis and psychological theoretical basis, task-based language teaching method has gone through many years of research and development, and its theoretical basis integrates many aspects, including psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, language acquisition research, curriculum theory and so on [27]. In this paper, we will explore the theoretical basis of task-based language teaching from three aspects: language acquisition research, psycholinguistics and social constructivist theory.
People’s acquisition of a second language has basically the same sequence as that of their mother tongue, and the “Built-in syllabus” in people’s minds makes the acquisition sequence unaffected by external teaching in the process of acquiring a language [28]. In other words, there is a fixed developmental sequence for people to acquire a second language. Therefore, teachers should design the task syllabus according to the task objectives, and the designed activities need to be centered on the tasks that students need to accomplish in the future.
In a task-based language classroom, students are able to focus on linguistic meaning rather than linguistic form, and they are able to use the language structures and vocabulary they have learned to express and exchange opinions. Four essential conditions for language learning:
First, learners need to be immersed in an authentic language environment and exposed to a large amount of linguistic input.
Secondly, learners need to have the opportunity to use the language, to communicate practically and to exchange information.
Third, learners need to be motivated to use the language.
Fourth, learners need to be guided by instruction, i.e., have the opportunity to focus on the form of the language.
Therefore, in task-based language teaching activities, language input is provided in a planned and step-by-step manner for the learners’ minds, and communicative tasks are provided to guide the learners to use their existing knowledge to accomplish the communicative tasks effectively. And to achieve the desired goal in the process and seek new knowledge at the same time is the ideal effect that the task-based teaching method needs to achieve under the guidance of language acquisition theory.
The Interaction Hypothesis and the Cognitive Pathway are the two main theoretical models of task-based language teaching in terms of psycholinguistics.
The interaction hypothesis suggests that comprehensible input is an important component of second language acquisition, and that a lack of comprehensible input leads to little or no progress in language acquisition. In the pre-initiation task-based instruction stage, learners need to be exposed to a large amount of comprehensible input to accomplish communicative tasks through procedures such as comprehension, imitation, communication, and interaction.
The “cognitive pathway” suggests that learners can understand the role of tasks in terms of remembering and using language. This theory opens up new areas for task-based language teaching, namely the relationship between tasks and language acquisition. Different types of tasks affect learners’ ability to acquire different aspects of language, such as accuracy, fluency and complexity, to varying degrees.
According to the theory of social constructivism, learning is an energizing process in which students need to explore solutions to problems through their efforts. Language learning should take place in natural environments and in peer interaction and cooperation. Therefore, teachers need to enrich teaching tools and scenarios according to the actual situation and design diversified and content-specific teaching activities. Authentic activity scenes can stimulate students’ interest and increase their participation. The higher the students’ participation, the stronger their sense of autonomy and self-control, thus promoting the benign development of students’ language ability.
Under the guidance of the theory of social constructivism, teachers should act as guides and supporters of learners, create meaningful learning situations, and promote interaction and cooperation among students. They should take the initiative to pay attention to students’ individual differences, design individualized teaching plans according to students’ characteristics and needs, and help them give full play to their potential to improve language learning. The design of teaching activities should focus on students’ participation and cooperation, so that students can work together in teamwork and practice their language communication skills. This way of learning can cultivate students’ teamwork and communication skills, and improve their language expression and communication skills.
Based on the research of language acquisition, psycholinguistic and social constructivist theories and the theory of task-based language teaching, this section proposes a specific research design on the task-based teaching model in English speaking teaching, including two aspects of the design principles of the task-based teaching model and the teaching model, which is intended to be investigated and researched through the research methods of questionnaire survey method, observation method and testing method, with a view to examining whether the task-based teaching can achieve the goal of helping students to improve their speaking level, stimulate their interest in oral learning, and cultivate their ability of cooperation and communication.
The task-based teaching methodology has been developed over the years and the steps for its implementation have been defined. The process of task-based teaching is divided into stages of pre-task, task cycle and language focus, one of which is divided into different processes.
Pre-task activities The main pre-task activity is to introduce the topic and content of the task, which the teacher can do in the following ways: Introducing the topic, the teacher explains what the main topic and content of the lesson is. Activation of the target language, using mini-games to activate the target language of the lesson. Language preparation, where the teacher actively helps students learn vocabulary or expressions related to the topic of the task in order to prepare them for the task. This can be done by asking students to look up the meanings of words in advance or by reading sentences aloud in groups 5 minutes before the lesson. For the preparation activity, students can discuss freely and organize the language for the activities that follow, or students can play freely according to the theme. Task-ring activities Students must be provided with clear, authentic language information so that they can recognize the language in a natural, authentic context and then learn and apply it. Teachers should design the language and modeling according to the learners in the class so that each learner can understand and learn quickly. During the performance of the task, the teacher should monitor the activities in the classroom and give timely guidance and adjustments. Task carrying out can be divided into the following three specific activities: Carrying out the task Students communicate and cooperate in small groups, gathering information and initiating communication and interaction according to their roles in the task. The focus at this stage is on language skills rather than accuracy. The teacher sets up a task chain consisting of several subtasks and students work in groups to complete each task. If students have questions, they can discuss them among themselves and then ask the teacher. Each group chooses a student representative to present to the class. Report Preparation After completing the task and gathering information, students should prepare a summary. Teachers should guide students to focus on accuracy rather than fluency when planning the report. Task Reporting. After the plan is completed, each group reports to the class on the completion of the task. Each group can compare the different approaches of other groups to the same problem and find out how other groups used different forms of language to express the same meaning. Language Focus The main activities in the language focus stage are analyzing language knowledge and practicing activities: Analyzing language knowledge The analysis of language knowledge can be carried out in the following way, firstly, group discussion, then the teacher guides them to summarize and draw conclusions, and finally the group presents to the class. Practicing activities Task assessment focuses on the outcome of the task, the process of completing the task and verbalization. Assessment can take the form of self-assessment, mutual assessment and overall teacher assessment. Finally, an assessment form is to be completed. Assigning homework tasks is hierarchical so that they can be targeted.
Analyzing the teaching object
In this study, the teaching concept and method were changed according to the current situation of oral language teaching in schools, and the task-based teaching method was used for 1 semester.
Analyzing the teaching content
Each teaching unit lists clear language objectives, main functions, grammatical structures, basic vocabulary to be mastered, and is divided into two parts Section A and Section B. Section A provides step-by-step examples and guided practice, while in Section B, students can use sentence patterns they have already learned. Each unit has a self-test section that allows students to check their current level of English, i.e. to get a clear idea of the language objectives of the unit.
Determination of teaching objectives
Students are to be able to read, write and understand the most commonly used vocabulary words and phrases in the textbook and to be able to use them in oral and written tasks. Students are expected to be able to read aloud the text they are studying coherently and to have a basic understanding of the words they are learning and the variations in word forms. Use the past progressive tense, the present perfect tense, and comparatives of adjectives and adverbs. Be able to talk about the grammar covered in the lesson using correct sentence patterns and to communicate in a simple way.
Promoting the “group work” model, strengthening the guidance for students to cooperate and help each other, allowing good students to guide the more difficult students, mobilizing their enthusiasm, guiding their learning methods and helping them to solve their difficulties. At the same time, we increase the time for students to practice and emphasize on cultivating students’ oral expression and communication skills.
Teaching practice
When designing “task-based” teaching activities, teachers should pay attention to the following points:
The activities should have a clear purpose and be operable.
The activities should be based on students’ life experiences and interests, and the contents and methods should be as authentic as possible.
The activities should be conducive to students’ learning of English and development of language skills, so as to improve their ability to use the language in practice.
The activities should actively promote the interpenetration and connection between the English language and other subjects, so as to enable students to develop comprehensive qualities such as thinking and imagination, aesthetic interest and artistic feeling, collaboration and creativity.
Activities should enable students to acquire, process and use information, communicate with others in English and develop the ability to solve practical problems in English.
Activities should not be limited to classroom teaching, but should be extended to learning and life outside the classroom.
The following experimental hypotheses are proposed in this study:
The task-based teaching method is more likely to improve students’ performance in spoken English than the traditional teaching method. The task-based teaching method will improve students’ spoken English lexical complexity more than the traditional teaching method. The task-based teaching method will improve students’ spoken English syntactic complexity more than the traditional teaching method.
The subjects of this study were selected from two parallel classes in the first year of a high school in X city, totaling 104 students. Among them, senior one (3) class is the control class, which adopts the traditional oral English teaching mode. The senior one (11) class was the experimental class and adopted the task-based teaching method. The teachers were the same, and the textbook used was the Compulsory English Book I of the General High School Textbook of the People’s Education Publishing House (hereinafter referred to as the People’s Education Version).
In this study, two parallel classes of senior high school were selected to carry out the experimental study, the students’ oral English performance was recorded and counted, the collected recording materials were transcribed, and all the data came from the front line of teaching. SPSS software was used to analyze the collected data to obtain accurate and objective data for the qualitative analysis of the experiment.
This study explores the effect of task-based teaching method on the linguistic complexity of high school students’ spoken English by comparing the differences in the effects of task-based teaching method and traditional teaching method in high school oral English teaching, so as to provide a reference for high school oral English teaching.
This study organizes two pre and post-tests, the pre-test questions are selected from the 2023 F provincial high school oral English test questions, and the post-test questions are selected from the 2024 F provincial high school oral English test questions. The difficulty of the two tests was basically equal, and both tests required students to answer three questions within 2 minutes, with a full score of 60 points. After the tests were completed, they were graded by two teachers in strict accordance with the Scoring Criteria for English Oral Tests of the College Entrance Examination.
In this study, students’ spoken texts were analyzed using the Lexical Complexity Analyzer, which contains 25 measures related to lexical density, lexical rarity, and lexical diversity. The lexical complexity measurement dimensions, metrics, and calculation formulas are shown in Table 1. In order to analyze students’ vocabulary complexity, 2 dimensions and 7 measures of vocabulary density and vocabulary diversity were selected, namely, the lexical density (LD) metric for vocabulary density and the number of words (NDW), the ratio of special words to the total number of words (TTR), the verb diversity (VV2), the noun diversity (NV), the adjective diversity (Adj.V), and the adverbial diversity (Adv.V).
Measurement dimensions, indicators and calculation formulas of lexical complexity
| Measurement dimension | Index | Calculation formula |
|---|---|---|
| Lexical density | Lexical density (LD) | Number of words/total number of words or symbols |
| Number of words (NDW) | Number of different words or class characters | |
| Ratio of special words to total words (TTR) | Number of different words or class characters/total number of words or shape characters | |
| Lexical diversity | Verb Diversity (VV2) | Number of different verbs/words |
| Noun Diversity (NV) | Number of different nouns/words | |
| Adjective diversity (Adj.V) | Number of different adjectives/words | |
| Adverb Diversity (Adv.V) | Number of different adverbs/words |
In this study, students’ spoken texts were analyzed using the Two-Statement Approach Complexity Analyzer. The bilingual syntactic complexity analyzer contains 14 measures related to five dimensions: unit length, sentence complexity, specific phrase structure, subordinate clause usage, and parallel structure usage. The table of measurement dimensions, metrics and formulae for syntactic complexity is shown in Table 2. In order to comprehensively and objectively analyze students’ syntactic complexity, this paper selected 8 measures from the 5 dimensions, namely, the mean sentence length (MLS), the mean T-unit length (MLT), the mean clause length (MLC), the number of clauses per T-unit (C/T), the number of parallel phrases per T-unit (CP/T), the ratio of the number of T-units to the number of sentences (T/S), and the number of number of verb phrases (VP/T) and overall sentence complexity (C/S).
Measurement dimensions, indicators and calculation formulas of syntactic complexity
| Measurement dimension | Index | Calculation formula |
|---|---|---|
| Unit length | Average sentence Length (MLS) | Total number of words/sentences |
| Average T unit Length (MLT) | Total number of words/T unit number | |
| Average Clause Length (MLC) | Total number of words/clauses | |
| Dependent clause usage | Number of clauses per T unit (C/T) | Number of clauses/T Number of units |
| Structure usage | Number of parallel phrases in T units (CP/T) | Number of parallel phrases/T units |
| T Ratio of number of units to number of sentences (T/S) | T Number of units/sentences | |
| Specific phrase structure | Number of phrasal verbs per T unit (VP/T) | Number of phrasal verbs/T number of units |
| Sentence complexity | Overall sentence complexity (C/S) | Number of clauses/sentences |
The pre-test was administered to both classes on February 21, 2024. The pre-test questions were selected from the 2023 English oral test of the F provincial high school entrance examination, and the students answered three questions in monologue in 2 minutes, the answer process was recorded by the author throughout the whole process, and was scored by the two teachers in strict accordance with the “Scoring Standards for the English Oral Examination of the F Provincial High School Entrance Examination”, and the average score was taken as the students’ score of the pre-test of spoken English.
After the pre-test was completed, the author transcribed all the pre-test recordings into text, proofread them repeatedly, and then analyzed the spoken English text using a bilingual complexity analyzer. Thereafter, the pre-test scores of the two classes were entered into SPSS software to analyze whether the spoken English scores of the two classes conformed to normal distribution and whether there was any significant difference.
In this paper, the task-based teaching method is used throughout the teaching of listening and speaking lessons in the experimental class, firstly, students are taught to learn to recognize word chunks and extract them according to the classification. Then, the drilling and output of word chunks are carried out in conjunction with the unit theme, such as table conversations and topic discussions, and finally the class is summarized and reviewed. The oral English program in the control class adopts the traditional teaching method of teaching vocabulary and grammar based on the unit theme and does not involve task-based teaching.
A post-test was administered to both classes on July 16, 2024.The post-test questions were selected from the 2024 F provincial high school English speaking test.The students answered three questions in monologue style in 2 minutes. The students answered the three questions in monologue in 2 minutes. 2 teachers scored the questions strictly according to the scoring criteria, and the average of the two scores was taken as the students’ post-test English speaking score. A bilingual complexity analyzer was used to analyze the posttest spoken English texts of the two classes, SPSS software was used to analyze the students’ spoken English scores and complexity data, and independent samples t-tests were used to determine whether there was a significant difference between the posttest spoken English scores and complexity data of the two classes.
In this chapter, the questionnaire, interview, and oral pre and post-test data will be counted and analyzed. The results of the questionnaire will be tallied in the form of percentages. The oral pre and post-test data will be analyzed using SPSS, an independent samples t-test for both classes, and the interviews will be analyzed in the form of conversations.
The survey was based on a questionnaire, utilizing both qualitative and quantitative analysis methods to compile questions on the basic situation of current students’ oral English learning, the basic situation of oral English teaching, and students’ expectations of oral teaching. The questionnaire contains 10 objective questions, which are mainly related to the students’ interest, purpose, anxiety, and participation shown in the process of classroom teaching, and students are asked to answer the questions truthfully.
On February 22, 2024, this study distributed questionnaires to 104 students in parallel classes, the total number of distribution was 104, the total number of recovery was 104, and all the recovered questionnaires were true and valid, with a recovery rate of 100%. The results of the pre-experimental questionnaire are summarized in Table 3. According to the answers to questions 1 and 2, the proportion of students who self-assessed their English speaking level as poor (A) was 72.12%, and the proportion of students who self-assessed their English speaking level as average (B) was 22.12%. Only 1.92% of the respondents expressed interest in participating in spoken English learning. It can be seen that the first condition for the improvement of students’ English speaking level is to stimulate and mobilize students’ interest and initiative in learning English.
Summary of questionnaire survey results before the experiment
| Established problem | A | B | C | D |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1. How do you evaluate your current oral English level? | 72.12% | 22.12% | 3.85% | 1.92% |
| Q2. Are you interested in learning spoken English? | 75.00% | 22.12% | 1.92% | 0.96% |
| Q3. What is your purpose of learning spoken English? | 20.19% | 75.00% | 3.85% | 0.96% |
| Q4. Do you take part in the oral class? | 50.00% | 25.00% | 20.19% | 4.81% |
| Q5. How do you react to the oral English teacher’s questions in class? | 75.00% | 15.38% | 5.77% | 3.85% |
| Q6. What teaching methods do oral English teachers usually use? | 15.38% | 70.19% | 9.62% | 4.81% |
| Q7. How do you like the current oral English classroom teaching? | 59.62% | 22.12% | 10.58% | 7.69% |
| Q8. How cooperative are you in oral English teaching activities? | 62.50% | 17.31% | 15.38% | 4.81% |
| Q9. What tasks do you think teachers should assign in oral English class? | 34.62% | 47.12% | 15.38% | 2.88% |
| Q10. How do you practice speaking? | 34.62% | 50.00% | 10.58% | 4.80% |
The comprehensive results of the students’ self-assessment in this high school show that their English speaking level is poor, they lack strong intrinsic motivation to learn, face learning, lack of interest, low motivation, and passive state is more obvious. Moreover, at the present stage, the teaching of spoken English is still based on the teacher’s lecture, with little student participation, and the teaching method is boring, backward, and the atmosphere in the classroom is not high. Therefore, students hope that oral courses can provide real and interesting communication situations, improve oral communication skills and realize the concept of “student-centered”.
The questionnaire consisted of 10 objective questions, which were set to cover students’ interest in learning, attitude in learning, class participation, recognition of teaching methods and learning effectiveness. The questionnaires were distributed in the experimental class (senior 11) and control class (senior 3) respectively. During this semester’s teaching process, the experimental class used the task-based teaching method, and the control class followed the traditional teaching method, the total number of questionnaires distributed and the total number of returned questionnaires this time were 104, with a recovery rate of 100%. The exact same questionnaire was used in the pre- and post-experimental surveys, in order to compare and verify the effectiveness of the task-based teaching method in the teaching of spoken English using the pre- and post-experimental data.
The results of the pre-test and post-test of the questionnaire for the experimental class are shown in Figure 1, and it can be seen that the results of the two questionnaires for the experimental class are significantly different. In terms of students’ learning interest degree (Q2), before the experiment started, only 33% of the students expressed their liking for the English class, and the remaining 67% expressed their dislike or ambiguity for the English class. After the experiment, the percentage of students who expressed a liking for English classes increased significantly to 76%, and the percentage of students who either disliked or were not sure whether they liked it or not both decreased more significantly to 6% and 18% respectively. Taken together, all the other dimensions were improved to varying degrees, except for the drop in the percentage of students who were positive about the purpose of learning spoken English.
Pre-test and post-test results of the experimental class
The effectiveness of task-based teaching method in the teaching of spoken English can be summarized as follows
The task-based teaching method effectively enhances the interest of the spoken English classroom, which makes students’ interest in learning spoken English significantly improved. The task-based teaching method can effectively stimulate and mobilize the students’ subjective initiative, and it has a significant effect on relieving students’ learning anxiety and improving their learning confidence. The task-based teaching method provides students with more opportunities for communication and cooperation, promotes the development of students’ overall awareness and sense of cooperation, enhances the satisfaction and sense of achievement brought by communication and cooperation, and enables students to obtain a better interpersonal communication environment and learning atmosphere. The task-based teaching method has obvious results in improving the speed of students’ knowledge mastery, mainly because the set tasks can effectively draw the distance between the classroom and life, and effectively improve the probability of students’ learning to use. In this way, students’ intrinsic learning motivation can be stimulated, and students’ learning initiative is significantly improved.
The statistics of the results of the questionnaire before and after the experiment in the control class are shown in Figure 2, which shows that the control class did not undergo significant changes before and after the beginning of the experiment. But careful observation can still find that some subtle changes were produced. In Q3, for example, before the experiment, 54% of the students would feel nervous because of the spoken English class. After the experiment, this figure increased to 60%. This shows that students’ learning anxiety is more serious. According to the data of Q4, the active participation rate of students in the classroom was 23% before the experiment, and it dropped to 20% after the experiment, which shows that the students’ initiative was further reduced. Observing the data of Q6, it can be seen that the degree of students’ dislike of the traditional teaching mode increased from 44% before the experiment to 48% after the experiment, which shows that the traditional teaching mode is more and more disliked by students. Combining the above data changes, before and after the experiment, the positive factors such as classroom initiative and motivation of students in the control class were frustrated, the negative factors such as learning anxiety were further expanded, and the students disapproved of the traditional teaching mode more and more. In other words, the overall trend of the teaching effect produced by following the traditional teaching mode in the control class is declining.
Compare the results of the questionnaire before and after the class experiment
4.2.1 Comparative analysis of the speaking scores of the pre-test and post-test of the experimental class Table 4 and Table 5 show the results of the analysis of the test of variance of the speaking scores of the pre-test and post-test of the experimental class, and the results found that the two-sided sig value is 0.000, which is less than 0.01, which proves that there is an extremely significant variability in the speaking scores of the pre-test and the post-test. The mean value of speaking in the pre-test of the experimental class was 37.612 and the mean value of the post-test was 50.384, and the speaking performance in the post-test was significantly much higher than that in the pre-test. It proves that the task-based teaching method, has a very significant effect on improving the oral performance of junior high school English.
Group statistics
| Test time | N | Mean value | Standard deviation | Standard error of mean | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oral English scores | Pre-test | 52 | 37.612 | 7.506 | 1.515 |
| After-test | 52 | 50.384 | 7.837 | 1.603 | |
Independent sample test
| Levene test of variance equation | T-test for mean equation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | Sig. | t | DF | Sig. (bilateral) | Mean difference | ||
| Oral English scores | Assume equal varianceF | 0.003 | 0.972 | -3.837 | 51 | 0.000 | -8.3239 |
| Suppose the variances are not equal | -3.837 | 50.784 | 0.000 | -8.3239 | |||
The test of significance of difference between the pre-test spoken English scores of the experimental class and the control class was conducted, and the results are shown in Tables 6 and 7. The results show that the test value of significant difference, sig, is 0.887, which is greater than 0.05. It proves that there is no significant difference between the pre-test spoken English scores of the experimental class and the control class, and the scores of the two classes are basically the same before the experiment.
Group statistics of pre-test oral performance
| Test time | N | Mean value | Standard deviation | Standard error of mean | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oral English scores | Experimental class | 52 | 37.612 | 7.506 | 1.515 |
| Control class | 52 | 37.941 | 8.038 | 1.771 | |
Independent sample test of pre-test scores
| Levene test of variance equation | T-test for mean equation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | Sig. | t | DF | Sig. (bilateral) | Mean difference | ||
| Oral English scores | Assume equal varianceF | 1.025 | 0.237 | -0.138 | 52 | 0.887 | -0.3334 |
| Suppose the variances are not equal | -0.139 | 51.005 | 0.887 | -0.3334 | |||
The results of the test of significance of difference between the experimental and control classes’ posttest speaking scores are shown in Tables 8 and 9. The results show that the test value of significant difference sig is 0.002, which is much less than 0.05. It proves that there is a significant difference between the pre-test speaking scores of the experimental and control classes. The mean value shows that the experimental class (50.384) scores are much higher than the control class (40.081) students. It shows that the task-based teaching method has a greater effect on speaking achievement than the traditional way of teaching speaking, and the task-based teaching method can improve students’ speaking level more effectively.
Group statistics of post-test oral performance
| Test time | N | Mean value | Standard deviation | Standard error of mean | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oral English scores | Experimental class | 52 | 50.384 | 7.837 | 1.603 |
| Control class | 52 | 40.081 | 7.504 | 1.529 | |
Independent sample test of post-test scores
| Levene test of variance equation | T-test for mean equation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | Sig. | t | DF | Sig. (bilateral) | Mean difference | ||
| Oral English scores | Assume equal varianceF | 0.351 | 0.505 | 3.387 | 52 | 0.002 | 7.638 |
| Suppose the variances are not equal | 0.392 | 51.572 | 0.002 | 7.638 | |||
Through the comparative analysis of the pre-test and post-test English speaking scores of the experimental and control classes, it can be found that the pre-test speaking scores of the experimental and control classes are basically the same, but after the experimental class adopts the task-based teaching method for teaching, the speaking scores of the post-test have a very obvious gap. The post-test scores of the experimental class are much higher than those of the control class. This proves that compared with the traditional teaching methods, the task-based teaching method is more effective in improving speaking scores. The task-based teaching method is effective in improving junior high school students’ oral English.
In the course of the experiment, the author observed and recorded the students’ learning motivation and speaking ability in the classroom. The specific results are analyzed as follows.
In terms of oral learning motivation During the classroom observation, the author found that 1/3 of the students at the beginning of the experiment were able to finish the pre-study and actively participate in the group discussion and presentation. The rest of the students were less motivated and did not prepare well before class. In the middle and late stages of the experiment, 80% of the students were able to adequately preview and had enough language preparation to join in the teaching activities. The group activity aspect gradually went from being a formality to becoming more real and efficient as the teaching experiment progressed. The scores between the groups were neck-and-neck and competitive. The division of labor within the group is clear and tacit. In terms of classroom atmosphere, the early stage of the experiment was rather silent, students were afraid to speak and could not let go in the classroom. In the middle and late stages, each student can play to his or her strengths, speak and discuss confidently, and the classroom atmosphere is warm. Oral expression ability At the beginning of the experiment, by observing the students’ speeches and conversations in the classroom, the author found that the students could hardly speak complete sentences fluently. Most of the sentences spoken had grammatical and phonological errors. Only very few students were fluent and accurate in their oral expressions. As the experiment went on, in the second half of the experiment, half of the students were able to communicate freely in English on the topic of the lesson. One-third of the students could retell and expand on the discourse and conversation content completely and accurately. In terms of language preparation, most of the students had full language preparation by actively speaking and discussing in the introduction part. When the teacher set out the content and rules of the task in English, the vast majority of the students were able to understand and implement them immediately. Individual students who did not quite understand were also quick to join in the discussion with the help of their group members. students’ oral expression gradually became more fluent as the experiment progressed. Most of the students were able to express their opinions completely in their speeches. The language is fluent, logical and grammatically accurate. From the results of the above two classroom observations, it can be seen that after the implementation of the task-based teaching method, the students actively participated in group cooperation, and the group members became more in tune with each other because of their joint discussion of the topic, exploration of knowledge and completion of the task. The summarization and debriefing of the tasks also went well. The students became bold and happy to speak English. This shows that the task-based teaching method effectively improves students’ motivation to learn speaking and their ability to express themselves orally. Students accept and recognize the task-based teaching method, and the application of task-based teaching method in junior high school English speaking classroom is successful and effective.
After a semester of experimental research on task-based teaching method, the author has compiled and analyzed the research data, and the results of the research show that the task-based teaching method is more capable of improving students’ oral English scores than the traditional teaching method. The pre-test oral English scores of the students in the experimental class were comparable to the pre-test oral scores of the students in the control class and there was no significant difference. However, after one semester of the teaching experiment, the post-test English speaking scores of the students in the experimental class were significantly higher than the post-test speaking scores of the students in the control class, and there was a significant difference. This suggests that task-based is more capable of improving students’ oral English scores than traditional oral teaching. Specifically:
In the task-based teaching method, teachers design teaching activities around students’ “learning”, and provide students with detailed operational requirements and clear task objectives for their classroom activities. The students’ thinking is always in a fast running state in the classroom activities, so that the students can improve their language application skills while learning the language knowledge. Tasks with purpose are closely related to students’ daily life, social practice and learning experience, which can make students have emotional resonance, thus mobilizing students’ learning initiative and enthusiasm to the greatest extent possible, and making students feel more involved in classroom activities. Compared with the traditional teaching method, the task-based teaching method highlights the student’s main position and effectively plays the leading role of the teacher. Thus, it improves classroom efficiency, stimulates students’ potential, and improves students’ oral English performance and level.
This paper carries out a comprehensive research on the “task-based” teaching mode and makes a teaching design, and the researcher has achieved certain results after teaching. However, limited by the objective conditions, this study still has deficiencies.