Speaking Tasks in the Intervention

The speaking tasks were designed based on the reviewed literature of task characteristics selected in TBLT research. The nature of the speaking tasks and how they were designed may facilitate different types of interactions and produce different linguistic outcomes. These task characteristics were identified and considered for the purpose of the study.

3.5.3.1 Unfocused versus Focused Tasks

Tasks can be employed in the form of two types, unfocused and focused tasks. The difference between the two types is based on how they are designed. Ellis (2003) explained that unfocused tasks aim to induce general usage of the language without introducing specific linguistic features (e.g. talk about a significant other which involves negotiations between students to complete the task), whereas focused tasks are communicative tasks that may predispose students to process a specific predetermined linguistic feature, receptively or productively. Ellis and Shintani (2014) described a focused task as a “situational grammar exercise” (p. 138) in which the linguistic features are not explicitly taught but the task is designed in such a way that it can only be achieved if learners use specific linguistic features. For example, a narrative task on a past event which requires students to describe and retell their experience in the past. In order to achieve the task, students may have to use past tenses. Although focused and unfocused tasks are different, Ellis (2003) further explained that they must meet the main principle for a task, in which tasks must have some kind of gap (e.g. information or opinion) and meaning-negotiation activities to allow students to draw upon their own linguistic and non- linguistic resources to complete the communicative task (Ellis & Shintani, 2014). Previous studies have shown that focused tasks elicit students to use the target structure more effectively

92 rather than unfocused tasks which resulted in positive impact on students’ retention of new L2 vocabulary (de la Fuente, 2006) and grammar achievement (Ahour & Shemshadsara, 2015). 3.5.3.2 One-way versus Two-way Tasks

Information flows among students could either be one-way or two-way interaction. Ellis and Shintani (2014) described that one-way tasks occur when one student has the information that needs to be communicated to another student. For example, making a hotel reservation which requires one student to act as the speaker (i.e. customer) and the other as the listener (i.e. hotel receptionist) (Nunan, 2004). Meanwhile, two-way tasks involve exchanging information between two interlocutors in order to achieve task completion (Ellis & Shintani, 2014). According to Doughty and Pica (1986), information tasks promote more meaning negotiation among students and facilitates second language acquisition as they allow comprehensive input during interaction. For example, a jigsaw task where students are provided with different information (e.g. two different locations) and are asked to interact with each other in order to find the exact location of a building (Mackey, 2012).

3.5.3.3 Convergent versus Divergent Tasks

Every task incorporates different goals which may be viewed as convergent or divergent (Nunan, 2004). Convergent tasks require students to agree on a single solution and come to a certain consensus before task completion, whereas divergent tasks encourage a variety of responses and students are allowed to disagree and defend opposing views (Ellis, 2003; Nunan, 2004). Mackey (2012) suggested an example of a convergent task such as an expedition to the moon. In this task, students are given a list of items and they are required to select only five items within a 20-minute time before the spaceship leaves. The task encourages students to discuss among themselves to reach a final agreement. However, for divergent tasks, tasks are open-ended and any outcome is acceptable with justification. For example, conducting a debate about whether social media among children brings more harm than good. In this task, students

93 may provide different responses whether to agree or disagree. The task promotes intellectual discussion where students defend their standpoint or refute their opponents’ position.

3.5.3.4 Complex versus Simple Tasks

The complexity of the task may influence students’ linguistic outcomes. This is because linguistically complex and demanding tasks produce more uptake of information and more attention to form compared to less complex tasks (Robinson, 2001). The complexity of the task differs according to three main aspects namely: code complexity (e.g. lexical diversity and linguistic complexity); cognitive complexity (e.g. topic familiarity and cognitive processes such as sufficiency of information and information organisation); and communicative stress (e.g. time pressure, number of participants (Skehan, 1998; Skehan & Foster, 2007). Therefore, the nature of the complex tasks can increase students’ linguistic production as it requires them to be involved in turn taking and clarification requests, hence more interaction (Robinson & Gilabert, 2007).

According to the reviewed literature on task characteristics, the eight speaking lessons were designed as the present study employed the following characteristics:

• Focused tasks – speaking tasks in the present study were designed to elicit students’ use of linguistic features.

• Two-way tasks – reciprocal two-way tasks were used to promote information exchange among students.

• Both convergent and divergent – both tasks required students to reason and make decisions. Convergent tasks encourage teamwork and group interaction, whereas divergent tasks encourage intellectual discussion among students.

• Complex tasks – as the speaking tasks employed decision-making tasks it was important that tasks were cognitively demanding.

94 3.5.4 Speaking Lessons

After careful consideration of the issues which were discussed in the previous sections, details of the eight-week speaking lessons are explained. All lessons throughout the intervention followed the same stages and procedures; although, the activities completed within a given session (in particular the grammar/vocabulary exercises, see Section 3.5.2.1) varied from lesson to lesson. Therefore, to illustrate the procedures followed in each lesson, Lesson 1 is explained in detail, and Lessons 2 to 8 are summarised as below. A detailed example of the lesson and activities are presented in Appendix A (Lesson 1).