Volume 166, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


While the available research literature appears to support the implementation of task-based language teaching (TBLT) in Western countries, few studies have been conducted to investigate its impact on classroom practice in Asia, especially in comparison with the presentation-practice-production (PPP) approach which many Asian teachers still favour. The current study explores the differential effects of the PPP approach and a task-based approach on Vietnamese students’ writing performance and self-regulation while writing descriptive and argumentative paragraphs. The study involved 138 students of English Language Studies at a university in Vietnam. Results show that both approaches are effective in enhancing students’ text quality. The students in the PPP condition had significantly higher scores on linguistic accuracy in the immediate posttest than the students in the TBLT condition. Conversely, students in the TBLT groups had significantly higher scores on lexical diversity in the immediate posttest than the students in the PPP condition. With regard to self-regulation, the students in the TBLT condition had significantly higher scores on the immediate posttest than the students in the PPP condition .


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Be, N. , & Crabbe, D
    (1999) The design and use of English language textbooks in Vietnamese secondary schools. Paper presented at theFourth International Conference on Language and Development. www.languages.ait.ac.th/hanoi_proceedings/crabbe.htm
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bereiter, C. , & Scardamalia, M
    (1987) The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bernat, E
    (2004) Investigating Vietnamese ESL learners’ beliefs about language learning. EA Journal, 21(2), 40–54.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bock, G
    (2000) Difficulties in implementing communicative theory in Vietnam. Teacher’s Edition, 2, 24–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Boekaerts, M. , & Corno, L
    (2005) Self‐regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology, 54(2), 199–231. doi: 10.1111/j.1464‑0597.2005.00205.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00205.x [Google Scholar]
  6. Braun, V. , & Clarke, V
    (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar]
  7. Brewer, J. , & Hunter, A
    (1989) Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bruton, A
    (2002) From tasking purposes to purposing tasks. ELT Journal, 56(3), 280–288. doi: 10.1093/elt/56.3.280
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/56.3.280 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2005) Task-based language teaching: For the state secondary FL classroom?Language Learning Journal, 31(1), 55–68. doi: 10.1080/09571730585200091
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571730585200091 [Google Scholar]
  10. Burnaby, B. , & Sun, Y
    (1989) Chinese teachers’ views of Western language teaching: Context informs paradigms. Tesol Quarterly, 23(2), 219–238. doi: 10.2307/3587334
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3587334 [Google Scholar]
  11. Butler, Y.G
    (2011) The implementation of communicative and task-based language teaching in the Asia-Pacific region. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31(1), 36–57. doi: 10.1017/S0267190511000122
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000122 [Google Scholar]
  12. Byrne, D
    (1976) Teaching oral english. Essex: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Canh, L
    (1999) Language and Vietnamese pedagogical contexts. Paper presented at theLanguage and Development: Partnership and Interaction (73–79). Proceedings of the fourth international conference on language and development. Hanoi, Vietnam.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (2008) Teachers’ beliefs about curricular innovation in Vietnam: A preliminary study. In Y.H. Choi & B. Spolsky (Eds.), ELT curriculum innovation and implementation in Asia (pp.191–216). Seoul, Korea: Asian TEFL.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (2011) Form - focused instruction: A case study of Vietnamese teachers’ beliefs and practices. Unpublished PhD dissertation. The University of Waikato.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Carless, D
    (2009) Revisiting the TBLT versus PPP debate: Voices from Hong Kong. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 19(1), 49–66.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Carlisle, R
    (1989) The writing of Anglo and Hispanic elementary school students in bilingual, submersion, and regular programs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(3), 257–280. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100008135
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100008135 [Google Scholar]
  18. Carrell, P.L. , & Monroe, L.B
    (1993) Learning styles and composition. The Modern Language Journal, 77(2), 148–162. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1993.tb01958.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1993.tb01958.x [Google Scholar]
  19. Chastain, K
    (1990) Characteristics of graded and ungraded compositions. The Modern Language Journal, 74(1), 10–14. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1990.tb02547.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1990.tb02547.x [Google Scholar]
  20. Chenoweth, N.A. , & Hayes, J.R
    (2001) Fluency in writing generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18(1), 80–98. doi: 10.1177/0741088301018001004
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018001004 [Google Scholar]
  21. Cohen, J
    (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Cohen, L. , Manion, L. , & Morrison, K
    (2011) Research methods in education. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Creswell, J.W
    (2009) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. De La Paz, S. , & Graham, S
    (1997) Strategy instruction in planning: Effects on the writing performance and behavior of students with learning difficulties. Exceptional Children, 63(2), 167–181. doi: 10.1177/001440299706300202
    https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299706300202 [Google Scholar]
  25. DeKeyser, R
    (1998) Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J.D. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Denzin, N.K
    (1989) Interpretive biography (Vol. 17). London: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781412984584
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984584 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2009) The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Ducker, N
    (2012) Enriching the curriculum with task-based instruction. Polyglossia, 22, 3–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Ellis, R
    (2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. (2006) The methodology of task-based teaching. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3), 19–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (2009) Task‐based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221–246. doi: 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2009.00231.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231.x [Google Scholar]
  32. Ellis, R. , Tanaka, Y. , & Yamazaki, A
    (1994) Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language learning, 44(3), 449–491. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1994.tb01114.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01114.x [Google Scholar]
  33. Ellis, R. , & Shintani, N
    (2014) Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Estaire, S. , & Zanón, J
    (1994) Planning classwork: A task based approach. Oxford: Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Fathman, A. , & Whalley, E
    (1990) Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 178–190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524551.016
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524551.016 [Google Scholar]
  36. Ferris, D
    (2011) Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. doi: 10.3998/mpub.2173290
    https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.2173290 [Google Scholar]
  37. Fischer, R.A
    (1984) Testing written communicative competence in French. The Modern Language Journal, 68(1), 13–20. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1984.tb01539.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1984.tb01539.x [Google Scholar]
  38. Flower, L. , & Hayes, J.R
    (1980) The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. Gregg & E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Frantzen, D
    (1995) The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an intermediate Spanish content course. The Modern Language Journal, 79(3), 329–344. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1995.tb01108.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb01108.x [Google Scholar]
  40. Gay, L.R. , Mills, G.E. , & Airasian, P.W
    (2006) Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Geiser, S. , & Studley, W.R
    (2002) UC and the SAT: Predictive validity and differential impact of the SAT I and SAT II at the University of California. Educational Assessment, 8(1), 1–26. doi: 10.1207/S15326977EA0801_01
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326977EA0801_01 [Google Scholar]
  42. George, D
    (2003) SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple study guide and reference, 17.0 Update, 10/e. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Graham, S. , & Harris, K.R
    (1989) Components analysis of cognitive strategy instruction: Effects on learning disabled students’ compositions and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 353. doi: 10.1037/0022‑0663.81.3.353
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.353 [Google Scholar]
  44. Graham, S. , & MacArthur, C
    (1988) Improving learning disabled students’ skills at revising essays produced on a word processor self-instructional strategy training. The Journal of Special Education, 22(2), 133–152. doi: 10.1177/002246698802200202
    https://doi.org/10.1177/002246698802200202 [Google Scholar]
  45. Graham, S. , & Harris, K.R
    (2000) The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 3–12. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3501_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3501_2 [Google Scholar]
  46. Grbich, C
    (2012) Qualitative data analysis: An introduction. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Grela, B.G
    (2002) Lexical verb diversity in children with Down syndrome. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 16(4), 251–263. doi: 10.1080/02699200210131987
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02699200210131987 [Google Scholar]
  48. Harmer, J
    (1991) The practice of English language teaching. Harlow: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Harris, K.R. , Graham, S. , & Mason, L.H
    (2006) Improving the writing, knowledge, and motivation of struggling young writers: Effects of self-regulated strategy development with and without peer support. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 295–340. doi: 10.3102/00028312043002295
    https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312043002295 [Google Scholar]
  50. Hayes, J.R
    (1996) A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C.M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp.1–27): Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Heaps, H.S
    (1978) Information retrieval: Computational and theoretical aspects. New York, NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Hiep, P.H
    (2007) Communicative language teaching: Unity within diversity. ELT Journal, 61(3), 193–201. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccm026
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccm026 [Google Scholar]
  53. Huy Thinh, D
    (2006) The role of English in Vietnam’s foreign language policy: A brief history. Paper presented at the19th Annual EA Education Conference. www.englishaustralia.com.au
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Kellogg, R.T
    (1987) Effects of topic knowledge on the allocation of processing time and cognitive effort to writing processes. Memory & Cognition, 15(3), 256–266. doi: 10.3758/BF03197724
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197724 [Google Scholar]
  55. Kim, J. , & Kim, J
    (2005) Teaching Korean university writing class. Asian EFL, 7(2), 69– 90.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Kim, M.S
    (2009) A PPP approach & IELTS writing. The English Connection, 34.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Kline, P
    (2000) The handbook of psychological testing. London: Routlegde.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Lap, T.Q
    (2005) Stimulating learner autonomy in English language education: A curriculum innovation study in a Vietnamese context. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Laufer, B. , & Nation, P
    (1995) Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307–322. doi: 10.1093/applin/16.3.307
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.307 [Google Scholar]
  60. Lewis, M
    (1995) Implications of a lexical view of language. Language Teacher19, 37–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Lewis, M. & McCook, F
    (2002) Cultures of teaching: Voices from Vietnam. ELT Journal, 56(2), 146–153. doi: 10.1093/elt/56.2.146
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/56.2.146 [Google Scholar]
  62. Li, Y
    (1998) “It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine”: Teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 677–703. doi: 10.2307/3588000
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3588000 [Google Scholar]
  63. (2000) Linguistic characteristics of ESL writing in task-based e-mail activities. System, 28(2), 229–245. doi: 10.1016/S0346‑251X(00)00009‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(00)00009-9 [Google Scholar]
  64. Liao, X
    (2004) The need for communicative language teaching in China. ELT Journal, 58(3), 270–273. doi: 10.1093/elt/58.3.270
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/58.3.270 [Google Scholar]
  65. Light, R.J
    (2001) Making the most of college: Students speak their minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Loc, N
    (2005) Tertiary education and strategies for teaching and learning foreign languages in Vietnam. Paper presented at theConference on Teaching Tertiary English and International Relations in Vietnam Universities and Colleges, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, Dai hoc Su Pham.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Loi, N.V
    (2011) Dynamic conceptions of input, output and interaction: Vietnamese EFL lecturers learning second language acquisition theory. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Waikato, New Zealand.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Long, M
    (2014) Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Lu, X
    (2012) The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of esl learners’ oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 190–208. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2011.01232_1.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01232_1.x [Google Scholar]
  70. MacWhinney, B
    (2000) The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk, Volume II: The database. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Malvern, D. , & Richards, B
    (2002) Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19(1), 85–104. doi: 10.1191/0265532202lt221oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532202lt221oa [Google Scholar]
  72. Malvern, D. , Richards, B.J. , Chipere, N. , & Duran, P
    (2004) Lexical diversity and language development: Quantification and assessment. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230511804
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511804 [Google Scholar]
  73. Many, J.E. , Fyfe, R. , Lewis, G. , & Mitchell, E
    (1996) Traversing the topical landscape: Exploring students’ self‐directed reading‐writing‐research processes. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1), 12–35. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.31.1.2
    https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.31.1.2 [Google Scholar]
  74. McCarthy, P.M. , & Jarvis, S
    (2010) MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 381–392. doi: 10.3758/BRM.42.2.381
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.2.381 [Google Scholar]
  75. McNamara, D.S. , Crossley, S.A. , & McCarthy, P.M
    (2010) Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication, 27(1), 57–86. doi: 10.1177/0741088309351547
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088309351547 [Google Scholar]
  76. Miles, M.B. , & Huberman, A.M
    (1984) Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. (1994) Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Montalvo, F.T. , & Torres, M.C.G
    (2004) Self-regulated learning: Current and future directions. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 2(1), 1–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Murphy, K. , & Myors, B
    (2004) Statistical power analysis (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Neuman, S.B. , & Roskos, K
    (1997) Literacy knowledge in practice: Contexts of participation for young writers and readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(1), 10–32. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.32.1.2
    https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.32.1.2 [Google Scholar]
  81. Nishino, T. , & Watanabe, M
    (2008) Communication-oriented policies versus classroom realities in Japan. Tesol Quarterly, 42(1), 133–138. doi: 10.1002/j.1545‑7249.2008.tb00214.x
    https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00214.x [Google Scholar]
  82. Nunan, D
    (1989) Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. (2006) Task-based language teaching in the Asia context: Defining ‘task’. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3), 12–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Ogilvie, G. , & Dunn, W
    (2010) Taking teacher education to task: Exploring the role of teacher education in promoting the utilization of task-based language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 14(2), 161–181. doi: 10.1177/1362168809353875
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168809353875 [Google Scholar]
  85. Page-Voth, V. , & Graham, S
    (1999) Effects of goal setting and strategy use on the writing performance and self-efficacy of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 230. doi: 10.1037/0022‑0663.91.2.230
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.230 [Google Scholar]
  86. Paris, S.G. , & Paris, A.H
    (2001) Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educational psychologist, 36(2), 89–101. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3602_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3602_4 [Google Scholar]
  87. Patrick, H. , & Middleton, M.J
    (2002) Turning the kaleidoscope: What we see when self-regulated learning is viewed with a qualitative lens. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 27–39. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3701_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3701_4 [Google Scholar]
  88. Perry, N.E
    (1998) Young children’s self-regulated learning and contexts that support it. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 715. doi: 10.1037/0022‑0663.90.4.715
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.4.715 [Google Scholar]
  89. (2002) Introduction: Using qualitative methods to enrich understandings of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 1–3. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3701_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3701_1 [Google Scholar]
  90. Perry, N.E. , Hutchinson, L. , & Thauberger, C
    (2007) Mentoring student teachers to design and implement literacy tasks that support self-regulated reading and writing. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(1), 27–50. doi: 10.1080/10573560600837636
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560600837636 [Google Scholar]
  91. Perry, N.E. , Phillips, L. , & Dowler, J
    (2004) Examining features of tasks and their potential to promote self-regulated learning. The Teachers College Record, 106(9), 1854–1878. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9620.2004.00408.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00408.x [Google Scholar]
  92. Pintrich, P.R
    (2000) The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts , P.R. Pintrich , & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/B978‑012109890‑2/50043‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50043-3 [Google Scholar]
  93. Polio, C
    (1997) Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language learning, 47(1), 101–143. doi: 10.1111/0023‑8333.31997003
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.31997003 [Google Scholar]
  94. Polio, C. , & Fleck, C
    (1998) “If I only had more time:” ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 43–68. doi: 10.1016/S1060‑3743(98)90005‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90005-4 [Google Scholar]
  95. Prabhu, N.S
    (1987) Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Ransdell, S. , & Levy, C.M
    (1996) Working memory constraints on writing quality and fluency. In C.M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The sciene of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp.93–106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Ransdell, S. , & Wengelin, Å
    (2003) Socioeconomic and sociolinguistic predictors of children’s L2 and L1 writing quality. Arob@ se, 1(2), 22–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Richards, J.C
    (2005) Communicative language teaching today. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Samuda, V. , & Bygate, M
    (2008) Tasks in second language learning. Houndmills, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230596429
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230596429 [Google Scholar]
  100. Sato, R
    (2010) Reconsidering the effectiveness and suitability of PPP and TBLT in the Japanese EFL classroom. JALT journal, 32(2), 189–200.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Schunk, D.H. , & Zimmerman, B.J
    (1997) Developing self-efficacious readers and writers: The role of social and self-regulatory processes. In J.T. Guthrie & A. Wigfielld (Eds.), Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated instruction (pp.34–50). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Sheen, R
    (2003) Focus on form–a myth in the making?ELT Journal, 57(3), 225–233. doi: 10.1093/elt/57.3.225
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/57.3.225 [Google Scholar]
  103. Sholihah, U
    (2013) Task-based language teaching (TBLT) can improve students’ writing ability. Magistra, 25(86), 70.
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Skehan, P
    (1996) A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied linguistics, 17(1), 38–62. doi: 10.1093/applin/17.1.38
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.1.38 [Google Scholar]
  105. (1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  106. (2003) Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36(1), 1–14. doi: 10.1017/S026144480200188X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144480200188X [Google Scholar]
  107. Sowden, S. , & Keeves, J.P
    (1988) Analysis of evidence in humanistic studies. In J.P. Keeves (Ed.), Educational research, methodology and measurement: An international handbook (pp. 513–526). Oxford: Pergarmon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Swan, M
    (2005) Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 376–401. doi: 10.1093/applin/ami013
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami013 [Google Scholar]
  109. Takimoto, M
    (2009) The effects of input-based tasks on the development of learners’ pragmatic proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 1–25. doi: 10.1093/applin/amm049
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm049 [Google Scholar]
  110. Tesch, R
    (1990) Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New York, NY: Falmer Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Thornbury, S. , & Harmer, J
    (1999) How to teach grammar. Harlow: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Tomlinson, B. , & Dat, B
    (2004) The contributions of Vietnamese learners of English to ELT methodology. Language Teaching Research, 8(2), 199–222. doi: 10.1191/1362168804lr140oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr140oa [Google Scholar]
  113. Tran, L
    (2001) Using pair work and group work in teaching writing. Teacher’s Edition, 5, 22–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  114. (2007) Learners’ motivation and identity in the Vietnamese EFL writing classroom. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 6(1), 151–163.
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Van den Branden, K. , Bygate, M. , & Norris, J.M
    (2009) Task-based language teaching: A reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tblt.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.1 [Google Scholar]
  116. Verheyden, L. , Van den Branden, K. , Rijlaarsdam, G. , Van den Bergh, H. , & De Maeyer, S
    (2010) Written narrations by 8‐to 10‐year‐old Turkish pupils in Flemish primary education: A follow‐up of seven text features. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(1), 20–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9817.2009.01430.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01430.x [Google Scholar]
  117. Warden, C.A. , & Lin, H.J
    (2000) Existence of integrative motivation in an Asian EFL setting. Foreign Language Annals, 33(5), 535–545. doi: 10.1111/j.1944‑9720.2000.tb01997.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2000.tb01997.x [Google Scholar]
  118. Willis, D. , & Willis, J
    (2008) Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  119. (2011) Task-based learning and learner motivation. On Task, 1(1), 7.
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Willis, J
    (1996) A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Willis, J. , & Willis, D
    (1996) Challenge and change in language teaching. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Wilson, V
    (1997) Focus groups: A useful qualitative method for educational research?British Educational Research Journal, 23(2), 209–224. doi: 10.1080/0141192970230207
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192970230207 [Google Scholar]
  123. Winne, P. , & Perry, N.E
    (2000) Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts (Ed.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.531–566). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/B978‑012109890‑2/50045‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50045-7 [Google Scholar]
  124. Yu, G
    (2010) Lexical diversity in writing and speaking task performances. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 236–259. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp024
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp024 [Google Scholar]
  125. Zimmerman, B.J
    (2008) Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183. doi: 10.3102/0002831207312909
    https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312909 [Google Scholar]
  126. Zimmerman, B.J. , & Kitsantas, A
    (1999) Acquiring writing revision skill: Shifting from process to outcome self-regulatory goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 1–10. doi: 10.1037/0022‑0663.91.2.241
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.241 [Google Scholar]
  127. Zimmerman, B.J. , & Risemberg, R
    (1997) Research for the Future. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73–101. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1997.0919
    https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1997.0919 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Asia; PPP; self-regulation; TBLT; writing
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error