Developing Students’ Speaking Skillsthrough Task-based Learning

Hilma Safitri, Zainal Rafli, Ratna Dewanti

Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Jakarta, Indonesia

Keywords: Speaking skills, Task-based learning, Learning

Abstract: This study aims to develop the students’ speaking skills. The initial data showed the students’ problems in

speaking due to inadequate knowledge of languaeg: grammar, vocabulaey, pronuncation, fluency, and

comprehension. They were not familiar with different communicative tasks.This concern led to a study

design as an action research through three cycles conducted in one semester course employing task-based

learning. The participants were 15 students of an English Department. The data were taken from the results

of pre-test to post test, interview and observation. Quantitative data were analized using SPSS into

descriptivestatistics. Qualitative data were elaborated in term of words. The findings indicated that the use

of task-based leaning can develop students’ speaking skills. The pre-test score shows the value of learning

completness was only 20%. The post-test score reveals that the students’ speaking skills develop with

satisfactory results as 86.6% of 15 students have completed the lesson. The students manage to complete

different tasks and to evaluate their learning in pair and group works. This learning experience will enable

the students develop their speaking skills significantly in the future.

1 INTRODUCTION

Speaking as one of the four skills is perceived as the

most prominent. It has been an ultimate goal of

language learning. People who know a language are

referred to as ‘speaker’ of that language, as if

speaking included all other kinds of knowing (Ur:

2012). These people employ their linguistics

knowledge and non-linguistics knowledge at ease

when speaking.They negotiate meaning, convey

objection, negate arguments, and explore ideas in an

interaction. However, in the case of students

learning another language, the situation might be in

the contrary since they do not have sufficient

knowledge of language to convey the ideas.

To be able to speak fluently postulates not only

knowledge of language feature, but also ability to

process information and language at the time the

speakers are demonstrating the skill (Harmer:

2001). The features of language such as grammar

and vocabulary support meaning. The use of

appropriate sentence structure helps the students

understand and respond the message transferred. The

communication will keep on going if the students

use their sufficient knowledge of vocabulary and

their background knowledge of the topic being said.

They can develop the topic into many different

fields. The students will produce proper

pronunciation if they can notice the rules of how to

sound the language, for instance, an English word

has two syllables, the stress is usually on the first

syllable for nouns and adjectives, and the second

syllables for verbs. In other words, to be able to

speak fluently is not easy.

The difficulty to learn to speak puts the students

into an unpleasant learning. The students will have a

feeling of frustrated and unconfident when speaking,

and eventually they refuse to speak. A study

conducted by Arafat Hamouda from Qassim

University Saudi Arabia (2013) found that a number

of students in EFL classroom felt reluctant to

respond to the teacher and remain silent in speaking

class because of many causes such as low English

proficiency, fear of speaking in front of others,

negative evaluation, shyness, lack of confidence and

preparation, and fear of making mistakes.

In line with the above concern, EFL students

feeling reluctance to speak English in Indonesia

share similar causes and are influenced by cultural

matter. Indonesian students’ speaking skill tends to

be inadequate.Although they have graduated from

university, most of them do not acquire good

210

Saﬁtri, H., Raﬂi, Z. and Dewanti, R.

Developing Students’ Speaking Skills through Task-based Learning.

DOI: 10.5220/0008996602100217

In Proceedings of the International Conference on Education, Language and Society (ICELS 2019), pages 210-217

ISBN: 978-989-758-405-3

command of English (Lie: 2004 and Thala: 2010 in

Suryanto: 2014).Sirisrimangkorn says that some

EFL students lack their confidence to use English in

and outside of the classroom though they have

studied Englsh for many years (2018). The students

always face problems when conveying their ideas

both in written and spoken. They prefer to use

bahasa Indonesia for interaction in speaking class.

The students become “unquestioning mind” during

the interaction and they believe that a teacher can do

no wrong (Marcelino: 2008). Cultural aspect of

Indonesian in which people tend to avoid conflict

and enjoy to live in harmony shapes the students’

mind and behavior in learning (Suryanto:2014).They

are not challenged, for example, to find something

new or just to confirm what the teacher has already

said and believed are true. They are not eager to take

part in an activity without being told by their

teacher. Being shy and silent is considered good

manner for some people living in outside towns.

This condition becomes worse when the students are

not much exposed to various oral practices in an

interaction. In an interview to gather initial data of

the students’ speaking skills for this study, the

students reported that they rarely experienced

speaking class activities in which they can learn to

communicate to each other in fun ways. The

students themselves confessed that they had

problems with grammar, vocabulary, and

pronunciation when speaking. They memorized

dialogues as they were not sure how to start and

what to say in a conversation. They conveyed ideas

by reading texts unless other people would

misunderstand their ideas. The students had no

chances to process information and language

through real-life spoken exchanges facilitating them

todevelop the language.They were not familiar with

different tasks that challenge them to be actively

involved in an interaction. Hence, to overcome their

problems, the students need to undergo various

communication tasks.

Task is an activity that requires the students to

arrive at an outcome from given information through

some process of though and which allows teachers

to control and regulate that process (Prabu: 2004;

47). One of the characteristics of a task is something

that students do or carry using their existing

language resources (Richards; 2006; 31).

Communication tasks facilitate the students for

interaction using the language. Communicative

interaction can have a positive affecton L2

acquisition, therefore it is important to bring

communicative tasks into the classroom to allow for

the oral exchange and negotiated meaning (Lowen

2015 in Michael Lessard-Clouston 2018).To

optimize the interaction a lecturer is suggested to

adopt task-based learning in teaching since this

approach activates communicative environment for

the students. Ellis (2003a) elaborates that TBL is

suitable to fit into different curricula and different

teaching context, and it can also be used to different

degrees.

A number of researches relating to the task-based

implementation to improve the students speaking

skills have shown the benefits. The findings of a

study conducted by Jenefer Philp, Susan Walter and

Basturkmen reveals that the task and social

consideration effect the students’ motivation to cope

with the difficulties of language form during peer

task-based interaction (2010). This could occur since

the students have a chance to do negotiation of form

during the interaction. Negotiation in interaction

promotes comprehension. Negotiation of form is

oriented toward resolving linguistic problem in

which the students and their interlocutors attempt to

improve linguistic accuracy in students’ speech even

when there is no communication breakdown

between them, while negotiation of meaning is

oriented toward resolving communication problems

(Suzuki: 2018). Palma carried out a research on

negotiation of meaning to seek the interactional

adjustment produced by English students and found

participants conducting significant amount of

meaning and negotiation and producing modified

output. The findings of two researches above

indicate that assigning students to participate in

different tasks challenges them to maintain and to

evaluate their learning process. The more frequent

the students participate in different tasks, the better

they evaluate their own performance (Meng and

Cheng: 2010).

Bearing in mind all aspects which make speaking

is not easy for the students and some suggestions

mentioned by the experts above, the researcher is

interested to conduct a study to develop students’

speaking skills of English at Pamulang University.

The difference of this study compared to the

previous studies mentioned above is that this study

aims to develop students’ speaking skills of the fifth

aspects: grammar, vocabulary, fluency,

comprehension, and pronunciation. The students

were provided with tasks that require them to

negotiate in both form and meaning since they have

problems with the language aspects. The researcher

adopts action research method (CAR) through three

cycles conducted in one semester course employing

task-based learning. It is hoped that the students

experience various communicative tasks and they

Developing Students’ Speaking Skills through Task-based Learning

211

can evaluate their learning, therefore they can

develop their speaking skills. This study tries to

answer a question, Do EFL students of English

Department at Pamulang University develop their

speaking skills through task-based learning?

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Developing Speaking Skill

The students need to have adequate linguistic

knowledge and non-linguistic knowledge or

background knowledge in order to be able to speak.

Linguistic knowledge embraces structure, meaning,

and use through four types of knowledge:

phonological, grammatical, lexical, and discourse

organization skill (Burn: 2007). Goh mentions other

skills that one need to be competent in speaking such

as phonological skill, speech function skill,

interaction management skill, and extended

discourse organization skill (2007). However, all

knowledge cannot be utilized during communication

interaction if the students are not involved in

different types of speaking performance.

Brown suggests five types of speaking

performance to facilitate students learning to speak

in the classroom (2007) The fifth types performance

are (1) imitation, the students learn language by

imitating vowel sound and intonation contours, (2)

responsive, the students need to replay to the teacher

or initiate question, (3) transactional dialog, the

students try to exchange information, (4)

interpersonal dialog, the students learn to maintain

social relationship, (5) extensive, the students try to

provide extensive monologues such as oral reports,

summaries, and short speech. In the case of students

in tertiary education, they need to expand their

speaking skill by undergoing more various

communicative tasks in pair and group works. These

tasks can be effectively carried out through task-

based learning.

2.2 Employing Task-Based Learning

Tasks are activities which require the students to

arrive at an outcome from given information through

process of thought, and which allow teacher to

control and to regulate that process (Van den and

others: 2006). Task is crucial for performance

(Harmer: 2007). The students will have no idea

whether they have problems with their language

performance without completing the tasks. To solve

the problems, lecturers teaching students in higher

education level can adopt task-based learning since

this approach relies heavily on a sequence of tasks

during the a lesson.

In TBL or Task-Based Learning perspective, task

provides focus and context for learning, and the

students are motivated to use language while

completing the tasks (Ellis: 2003a). As the progress

of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), TBL

extends its focus on both form and communication

(Larsen-Freeman & Anderson; 20011). The students

are stimulated to prioritize a focus on meaning more

than on form of language and it is not necessarily to

be well-formed in order to be meaningful (Nunan:

2006). Specific vocabulary and grammar can be

reviewed as target language for raising students’

consciousness of their linguistic knowledge (Willis

and Willis: 2007). The complete task-based

implementation follows certain phases which are

pre-task, during the task, and post-task (Ellis; 2006;

19-20).

The first phase is pre-task in which the lecturer

introduces the topic and gives the students

instructions for completing the tasks. The lecturer

reviews some language that will be used during

completing the tasks (Frost: 2004). This phase is

followed by ‘during the task’ in which the students

increase their part in learning. The role of the

lecturer shifts from an instructor to a facilitator. The

students sit in pairs or groups and helps them in

negotiating the words or phrase, grammar, and

pronunciation. The students may practice small

dialogs or short role play using the language (Frost:

2004). The third phase is ‘post-task’ in which the

students report to the whole class in the form of

discussion. The lecturer as the advisor gives

feedback on form or word meaning from context.

The lecturer may ask the students to repeat or

develop the previous task.

As task-based learning is suitable to fit into

different curricula and different teaching contexts

and used to different degrees, the task types

performance completed during the task and post task

are likely to be varied. For the students at

intermediate to advanced level, communicative tasks

are appropriate to be carried out in the classroom.

Communicative tasks facilitate the students to allow

for the exchange and negotiated meaning (Lowen:

2005 in Michel Lessard-Clouston; 2008).

Negotiation contributes comprehension and

promotes L2 acquisition. The most important

properties of task that will work best for acquisition

are those that stimulate negotiation and through this

provide comprehensible input and feedback and

ICELS 2019 - International Conference on Education, Language, and Society

212

push the students to reformulate their own

utterances.

There are various tasks that the students can

complete during the pair and group work

interactions. Brown suggests that the students can

overcome their difficulties in language form by

doing activities such as practicing dialogues with

partner, simple question and answer exercises,

performing certain meaningful substitute, and

checking written work with each other (Brown;

2001; 163). Other speaking activities which are

suitable for advanced language learners such as

conversation, interview, a class survey, discussion,

academic presentation, storytelling, jokes, drama,

role play and simulation can be conducted in the

pattern of student-studentinteraction as pair work

and group activities (Magdalena Alexsandrzak:

2011).

3 METHOD

The participants involvedin this study were the

researcher who also acts as the lecturer teaching

Speking III, a colaborator and 15 students of English

Department of their third semester of 2018/2019

academic year at Pamulang University, South

Tangerang, Indonesia. Being a lecture-reseracher

gives opportunities for the researcher to actively

engage in reflection and examination into facts

particularly problems occured in class and look for

the solution (Coborouglu: 2014). The observer was

the researcher’s colleaguewho has been a lecturer of

English for more than 15 years. She helped the

researcher planning, observing, and volunteering

ideas during the classroon action research

implementation. The fifteen students taking

Speaking III class were redomly choosen. The

course they were taking was available at the time the

researcher conducting the reseach.

The students’ speaking skills was not

satisfactory. Based on the results of an interview and

observation to get initial data of students’ speaking

skills, it indicated that the students had problems in

speaking due to lack of four English aspects:

grammar, vocabulary, comprehension, fluency, and

pronunciation.To solve the problems, the reshearcer

conducted a classroom action research (CAR)

through three cycles. It focuses on the common issue

or the existence problems in the classroom

(Fraenkel&Wallen: 2009). Each cycle consists of

four steps namely planning, action, observation, and

reflection (Kemmis and Mc Taggart; 1988 in Anne

Burn; 2010). Plan for the first cycle is made based

on the results of observation, pre-test score, and an

interview. The second cycle is based on students’

test scores and reflection at the first cycle. The third

cycle is carried out with similar proceduresdone at

second cycle.

The data consist of two: quantitative and

qualitative data. The quantitative data in number

were taken from the results of pre-test, test in each

cycle, and post-test. The pre-test is conducted to

measure the students’ present achievement and post-

test is to compare students’ progress after being

taught. The test at the end of each cycle is to see

whether there is improvement after taking the action.

The variable measured for each test are the fifth of

speaking components: grammar, vocabulary,

comprehension, fluency, and pronunciation. The

rubric or assessment criteria for each speaking

component is adopted from Brown and Priyanvada

(2010). The qualitative data written in the form of

words are (1) the result of initial interview and

observation conducted before planning the first

action, (2) observation carried out during classroom

interaction in each cycle, and (3) semi-structure

interview to obtain students’ comments on the

implementation of task-based learning at the end of

learning.

To optimize the students’ speaking development,

the researcher adopted task-based learning. The

students were provided with various tasks that

demand negotiation in both form and meaning. They

experienced speaking performance such as

information gap, short role play, conversation,

interview, brainstorming, discussion, problem

solving, storytelling, drama, and simulation. The

students were given feedback and chance to report to

the whole class or comment on each the task used,

therefore they learned to manage and evaluate their

learning process.

4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

In the planning section, the researcher together with

the lecturer planned and decided various

communication tasks to facilitate the students

develop their speaking skill, particularly the fifth

elements of language. Lesson plans, teaching

materials, and teaching aids were prepared. The

tasks provided were practicing dialogues with

partner, simple question and answer exercises,

performing certain meaningful substitute,

conversation, interview, discussion, information gap

activities, storytelling, drama, role play and

simulation. These tasks were carried out at the action

Developing Students’ Speaking Skills through Task-based Learning

213

Category Score Range Total %

Very good 81-100 6 40.00%

Good 71-80 2 13.33%

Adequate 61-70 5 33.33%

Poor 50-60 2 13.33%

Fail 0-49

section in which the lecturer started employing the

task-based learning that consists of three phases of

learning. Certain language form or expressions,

vocabularies, and topic introduced were reviewed by

the lecturer at the pre-task phase to activate students’

background knowledge.

The students did the tasks in fun ways. They

mingled to find partner in order to get paired correct

expressions and meaning of vocabularies at the pre-

task. They checked for the structure and meaning

with each other and by the lecturer’s assistance.

Those grammar expressions and vocabularies would

be used in dialogs, role play and others activities

requiring the students to speak at the next phase.

The students started planning and completing the

tasks at ‘during the task’. They practiced small

dialogs, short role play or other activities using the

language.The students reported, performed, and

evaluated their learning process at the post-task. The

students also used pictures to guide themto speak

and they listened to music to compete in completing

simple question and answer exercises. The test

results and all activities carried out during the action

section were observed and noted as data to be used

as reflection for planning and deciding teaching

activities for the next cycles until the expected

results was achieved and conclusion was made.

4.1 Students’ Speaking Skills

Development

Fifteen samples or students participated in this

study. The students were given pre-test to post-test.

The students were also evaluated at the end of cycle

one, two, and three in order to identify their

speaking development on accuracy, fluency,

pronunciation, vocabulary and comprehension. The

students’ pre-test score on their speaking skillscan

be seen in figure 1.

4.1.1 Pre-test

Figure 1: Students’ pre-test score

Figure 1 is the students’ pre-test score. It shows

the value of students’ learning completeness is only

20%. It means 80% of the learners have not

completed the lesson since the score was in poor

category. One student is categorized as good while 8

students out of 15 are in poor category and 4

students are fail.

4.1.2 Cycle 1

Figure 2: Students’ score in cycle 1

Figure 2 is the students’ score after conducting

action in cycle 1. It shows that the score of students

learning completeness in cycle 1 is 40% with the

range of speaking score is 61-80, meanwhile the

students who cannot complete the lesson is 60 %

with the lowest score 37.6. The figure reveals the

development of students’ speaking skills compared

to figure 1.

4.1.3 Cycle 2

Figure 3: Students’ score in cycle 2

Figure 3 shows that although there is an

improvement of students’ speaking score compared

to figure 2, but there are only 12 students (13.33%)

are categorized in very good level while 6 students

(40.00%) are in adequate level. Since 26.66% of the

students couldn’t complete the lesson, thus the

research was taken into cycle 3.

4.1.4 Cycle 3

Figure 4: Students’ score in cycle 3

Category Score Range Total %

Very good 81-100

Good 71-80 1 6.67

Adequate 61-70 2 13.33

Poor 50-60 8 53.33

Fail 0-49 4 26.67

Category Score Range Total %

Very good 81-100 2 13.33%

Good 71-80 3 20.00%

Adequate 61-70 6 40.00%

Poor 50-60 2 13.33%

Fail 0-49 2 13.33%

Category Score Range Total %

Very good 81-100

Good 71-80 2 13.33%

Adequate 61-70 4 26.67%

Poor 50-60 6 40%

Fail 0-49 3 20%

ICELS 2019 - International Conference on Education, Language, and Society

214

Figure 4 shows that students’ speaking ability

has improved with satisfactory results as 86.67% of

15 students have completed the lesson. Six students

are very good (40%), two students (13.33%) are

good and five students (33.33%) are classified as

adequate.The score in cycle 3 is considered as the

post-test score since it shows the development of

students’ speaking skills satisfactorily.

4.2 Students’ Comments on The

Implementation of Task-Based

Learning

In general all students agree that various

communication tasks facilitate them to develop their

speaking skills. They used to read what they were

going to say and they conveyed ideas by reading the

texts. However, the students realize that they need to

practices more different tasks in order to be fluent in

speaking. The three phases of task-based learning

help the students to undergo the speaking process.

They also have chances to maintain and evaluate

their learning.

“I was shy to say in English because my English

was not good. If my friends said something in

English sometimes I could understand. If the lecturer

spoke in English sometime I asked my friends the

meaning. After I joined my friends to do the tasks in

three phases of learning.I am not shy to speak

because I know what I say.” [ Eka]

“I hated to do presentation all the time when

learning to speak in class. I did not like to talk in

front of class because my English was not good, but

when I do role paly with my friends I can say my

opinion because I say it not in long sentences. I like

task-based learning” [ M Irfani]

“I was confused to start speaking if the lecturer

did not give me time to write down what I was going

to say. I was not sure whether I used appropriate

grammar. I forgot the vocabularies. By doing short

dialogs using grammar expression that I learned

before speaking helps me to speak better English.”

[Saskia].

“I was very afraid if I had to say in English

without seeing my notes because I made mistakes in

using vocabulary and grammar. I sometimes made

mistakes when pronouncing the words so I had to

write how people pronounce the words.” I like

studying in pair and group works because my friends

help me to use the vocabulary and grammar in

sentences before I speak. They give me feedback. I

like drama and simulation. I feel happy to do that

activities.” [M Anwar]

“I was afraid if my friends asked me questions

because I had to memorize the answer first, if not, I

could not say my answer. I like filling gap activities

because I only need to give short answer.”[Alfath]

Based on the students’comments above, it can be

said that the students are motivated to speak because

they know they use appropriate grammar and

vocabulary when speaking. As Philip, Waltern and

Basturkmen say that the students can cope with the

difficulties of language form during peer interaction

(2010).They don’t need to read their sentences as

they negotiate the formand meaning of sentences in

pair and group works before speaking.Negotiation

of form is oriented toward resolving linguistic

problemin students’ speech. (Suzuki: 2018). They

students develop their speech as they do role play

and simulation. They also try to use better

pronunciation when performimg drama.The students

can repeat the speech to work and practice on

pronunciation, stress, rhythm, and intonation during

drama rehersal(Maley & Duff; 2006: p229). Drama

activities help the type of language behaviour that

lead to fluency(Zyoud: 2010).The learning process

facilitates the students develop their speaking skills

as they are given feedback by their peer, therefore

evaluation for a better learning takes place.

5 CONCLUSION

This study tries to develop students’ speaking skills

by employing task-based learning. The result of pre-

test to post-test shows improvement on students’

score. The score of learning completeness in cycle 1

is 40% with the range of speaking score is 61-80,

meanwhile the students who cannot complete the

lesson is 60 % with the lowest score 37.6. In cycle

2, there is an improvement of students’ speaking

score but only 2 students (13.33%) are categorized

in very good level while 6 students (40.00%) are in

adequate level, and 26.66% of the students couldn’t

complete the lesson. In cycle 3, the students’

speaking skills has developed with satisfactory

results as 86.67% of 15 students have completed the

lesson. Six students (40%) are cotagorized very

good, two students (13.33%) are good, and five

students (33.33%) are classified as adequate.

The result of the improvement is supported by

the students’ comments on the implementation of

task-based which creates relax communicative

environment for the students to practice conveying

ideas, negotiating form and meaning, and the most

Developing Students’ Speaking Skills through Task-based Learning

215

important is to evaluate their learning process.

Exposure to communicative tasks with the

assisstance of lecturer challenges them to perform

better. The students understand that undergoing

various tasks give benefits for their learning

particularly for developing their speaking skills in

the future.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The study for this paper was financially supported

by Lemabaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan (Indonesia

Endowment Fund for Education), the ministry of

finance, Indonesia.

REFERENCES

Aleksandrzak, M. 2011. Problems and Challenges in

Teaching and Learning Speaking at Advanced Level.

DOI: http://doi.org/10.14746//gl .

Arafat, Hamouda 2013. An Exploration of Cause of Saudi

Students’ Reluctance to participate in the English

Language Classroom. International Jurnal of English

Language Education. ISSN 2325-0887. Vol. 1, no. 1.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ijele.v`

Burn, Anne. 2017. Research and the Teaching of Speaking

in the Second Language Classroom. Teaching in

Second Language Classroom. Routldege. pp 243.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314544679

Brown, H. D. 2007. Principle of Language Learning and

Teaching. White Plains, NY: Pearson Longman

Brown, H. D. 2001. Teaching by principles: An interactive

approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). White

Plains, NY: Longman.

Brown, H. and Priyanvada, A. 2010. Language

Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices (New

York: Pearson Education), pp. 212-213.

Cabaroglu, Nese. Professional Development through

Action Research: Impact on Self-efficacy.

System44(2014): 79-88

Ellis, R. 2003a. Designing a task-based syllabus. RELC

Journal, 34(1), 64–81

Ellis, R. 2006. The methodology of task-based teaching.

Asian EFL Journal, 8(3)

Fraenkel, J.R. &Wallen, N.E. 2009. How to design and

evaluate research in education (7th ed.). New York:

McGraw-Hill

Frost, R., 2004. A task-based approach. Turkey: British

Council.

Goh, C.C.M. 2007. Teaching Speaking in Language

Classroom. Singapore: SAMEO Regional Language

Centre. (pp.50).

Harmer, Jeremy. 2001. The Practice of English Language

Teaching. Speaking, (Pearson Education ESL, 3rd

edition)pp. 269

Harmer, J. 2007. The Practice of English Language

Teaching (4th ed). Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

https://doi.org./10.1093/elt//ccn029

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. 2011. Techniques

and principles in language teaching (3rd ed.). Oxford,

UK: Oxford University Press.

Lessard-Cloustom,M. 2018.Second Language Acquisition

Applied to English Language Teaching. SLA Essential

by TESOL International Association. pp. 20

Maley.A.& Duff,A (2006). Drama Techniques.

Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Marcelino, M. 2008. English Language Teaching in

Indonesia: A Continuous Challenge in Education and

Culture Diversity. TEFLIN Journal, 19(1), 57-69

Meng, Y andCheng, B. 2010. College Students’

Perception on the Issue of Task-Based Langauge

Teaching in Mainland China. Journal of Language

Teaching and Research, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 434-442.

Academy Publisher Manufactured in Finland.

Nunan, D. 2006. Task-based language teaching in the

Asia context: Defining ‘task’. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3):

12-18

Palma, G.2014. A Classroom View of Negotiation of

Meaning of EFL Adult Mexican Pupil. Sage Journals.

https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014535941

Prabhu, N.S., 2004. in International Journal of English

Studies. The Task-based Approach in language

Teaching. University of Murcia

Philp, J., Walter, S., &Basturkmen, H. 2010. Peer

interaction in the foreign language classroom: what

factors foster a focus on form? Language Awareness

Richards, C.J.2006. Communicative Language Teaching

Today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sirisrimangkorn, Lawarn. 2018. The use of Project-based

Learning Focusing on Drama to Promote Speaking

Skills of EFL Learners. Journal of Advances in

language and Literary Studies. ISSN: 2203-4714.

www.alls.aiac.org.au

SNicoli Mendel de. 2009. Communicative Tasks and

Interaction Can Contribute to Langugage Acquisition.

http://pirhua.udep.edu.

Suryanto. 2014. Issue in Teaching English in a Cultural

Context: A case of Indonesia. Journal of English

Literary Education, 1(2), 72-84

Ur, Penny.2012.A Course in English Language Teaching,

Teaching Speaking, (Cambridge University Press) pp.

117

Van den Branden, K. 2012. Task-based language

education. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The

Cambridge guide to pedagogy and practice in second

language teaching (pp. 132–139). Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

Willis, D & Willis, J.2007. Doing task-based teaching.

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Y, Yuyun. 2013. Teaching Challenges in Indonesia:

Motivating Student and Teacher’s Classroom

Language. Indonesia Journal of Applied Linguistics,

3(1), 1:16

ICELS 2019 - International Conference on Education, Language, and Society

216

Zusuki, W. 2018. Negotiation of Meaning versus

Negotiaton of Form. The TESOL Encyclopedia of

English Language Teaching

Zyoud, M.(2010). Using drama activities and techniques

to foster English as foreign language: a theoretical

perspective. Al Quds Open University.

Developing Students’ Speaking Skills through Task-based Learning

217