Task Based Oral Communication by Using Differentiation Instruction

Task Based Oral Communication by Using Differentiation Instruction to Students Year Three A at Luangnamtha Teacher Training College Advisors: AJ. Master: Sihnnakohn Srimuang Researcher: Ajan: Onnith Sithilarth Academic Year: 2017-2018



Abstract The research investigated students’ learning in task based oral communication by using differentiation instruction, this use quality and quantity research method and employed three kinds of research tools: pre-

test and post-test, observation and questionnaire there were 22 students were included for studying as target group. Those of them were separated in the groups: pre-intermediate, intermediate and upper- intermediate. In each group were assigned different task based oral communication by using differentiation instruction theories. The result pre-test task based 1 average 3.33, pre-test task based 2 average 4.60 and another task based 3 average 4.50 and the result of post-test were the average of post-test task based 1 was 6.83, task based 2 was 8.30 and task based 3 was 9.17. according to data analysis on pre-test and post-test revealed that three different group of English year three at Luangnamtha teacher Training College have progressed on the their learning result because of the result of learning after the research used task based oral communication by differentiation instruction groups were better as the average of each group was higher. However students in three group still have a bit different knowledge as the standard deviation showed that the value of standard deviation task based 1 was 0.69, the value of standard deviation task based 2 was 0.90 and standard deviation task based 3 was 0,69. All of the students passed the test but they are still different. However each different group: pre-intermediate, intermediate and upper-intermediate are able present their oral communication in the class better, as the result of the analysis showed the average sore post-test went up. Chapter I

Introduction 1.1. Rationale and Background In Laos, English is an important foreign language, According to the ten years education strategy, English is being included national curriculum in teaching and learning foreign language. The government of Laos expects students to learn a foreign language continuously from primary school to secondary school, vocational school, college and university in order to get students have good attitude towards foreign language and be able to apply English language to communicate in various situation, knowledge searching, occupation and study higher education. As defined the importance of the English language is shown in many cases. So that English text books in the nationwide were also developed such as English for Lao primary schools book 1 – 3 which is being taught in the third year of primary school as well as English for secondary text books has recently edited from students ‘ book one to seven. On the other hand the ministry of education and sports is strict to the quality of teaching and learning outcome of teacher students especially in teacher training college, therefore there are many academic areas of teaching methodologies are being improved about English teaching, for example teaching students center method, lesson study and understanding by designed and differentiated instruction. Those teaching methodology were taught to senior students in order to apply in teaching primary school or secondary school. However the effort to improve the quality of education require more, but there still some problem buried in teaching and learning English for years as can be seen in real teaching in demonstration school, we went to observe teaching at the school three times, made a lesson plan and practiced teaching and then wrote the report to the college. We found many problem in teaching and learning English for example teachers at the school didn’t prepare the lesson well enough as we could see they only use the text book in teaching they didn’t provide any teaching aids, students didn’t have much chance to practice and use English they didn’t involve teaching and they didn’t pay attention in learning and make noise. when teacher checked the activities which was given, it showed that many students wasn’t able to give the correct answer. There were a few students could give the right answer, it was poor result. So what was the exactly problem should be solved, Nowadays English language is an important language in Laos, the use of English is not common it is business language among Laos with foreign country, all of ASEAN country use English for trading and ASEAN submit within the region or worldwide or another international conference, the important of English couldn’t be unknown and it is widespread and significant language in the world today. It is used for all every communication from international conference news report from the abroad and communication between nations to nation, therefore English is being taught and learned around the world. According to the ten years education strategy of Ministry of Education and sports, English is being included national curriculum in teaching and learning foreign language. It is one of the most popular foreign language in Laos. The government of Laos provide opportunity for students to study English from primary school to secondary school, vocational school, college and university in order to upgrade students’ English to be able to apply English language to communicate in various situation and more proficiency, As defined the importance of the English language is shown in many cases. So that English text books in the nationwide were also developed such as English for Lao primary schools book 1 – 3

which is being taught in the third year of primary school as well as English for secondary text books has published from students ‘ book one to seven. On the other hand the ministry of education and sports especially Teacher Education Department is now strict to the quality of teaching and teacher students in Teacher Training Institute as the 21st education administrator conference in Luannamtha TTC is to upgrade teacher Train Institute to be an excellent center of teacher Training. English teachers today are responsible for finding the both practical and effictive teaching methodology and techniques for students, including media or tools that can be used in the language classroom to help student learn the language. If the students are provided with all this things, they will gain the knowledge and develop their English skills much better than they would do without any help from the teachers. Therefore Luangnamtha teacher training college English teacher should find the best teaching approach to support students study English better. Studying English has been compulsory for vocational school students since the 1980s (Kantelinen 2000:95). As early as in the 80s it was recommended that the main focus of the studies should be on oral skills, so that students would have the necessary skills to understand and speak the language in different work-related situations and also in their free time. Since then Finland has joined the EU and the number of immigrants has grown tremendously. Nowadays it is not only the academically educated people who need to know languages but all citizens in all professions: hairdressers, mechanics, salespersons, nurses etc. One may need to communicate in a foreign language even in simple tasks at work. Therefore it was considered relevant to study what the state of teaching and learning oral communication in English is in vocational school at the moment. A couple of studies regarding the matter has been conducted concerning upper secondary school level but none in vocational schools. Teaching and learning of oral communication will be examined. The focus is not so much on different theories, or mechanics, of teaching and learning. Instead the approach is more practical, concentrating on how oral communication can be taught and learned. There are quite a few frameworks, methodologies and manuals to choose from. Probably one reason for this is that there is no description of spoken English similar to the grammars of written English. Although the various frameworks and approaches differ from each other, similarities can also be found. In this section the works of Little wood (1992), Folse (2006) and Nation and Newton (2009) will be discussed. Little wood’s framework is quite general and therefore a good starting point. Folse’s point of view is very practical since he is a very experienced teacher of oral communication. Nation and Newton’s approach is based on four ‘strands’ as they call them that can be applied to teaching different aspects of oral communication, and also language in general. Foreign language is a whole new signal-system that needs to be learned to process by learners (Little wood 1992: 11). Learners will need to learn to connect the signals with the variety of meanings they may have in any given situation and, furthermore, develop an ability to use their background knowledge to narrow down the possible meanings and recognize the specific meaning that is appropriate on a particular occasion. Now that teaching focuses on communicative competence some teachers may pay less attention to the teaching of grammar. However, according to Little wood (1992: 14-15), the ability to make choices within the grammatical system is an integral condition to using language for communication because it allows communication to become more independent from its setting. When people think of learning a language and words, also spoken language, they often concentrate on the literal

meanings of words, i.e. the conventional meanings that can be found in dictionaries (Little wood 1992: 24-28). Words have, however, also two other kinds of meanings that are as important, and probably a lot more difficult, to learn and teach than the literal meanings. First there is functional meaning which means the communicative purpose words have, e.g. asking/suggesting/hinting. The second one is social meaning, which means that words can mirror the relationship between people, for example what they feel for each other or what they want from each other. These relations usually show in the formality and directness of communication between people, and probably even more in spoken than written language. Teaching Speaking is to assist students to speak and interaction social with others. According to Hammer (2007:114) teaching speaking is one of the reasons make the students to speak in classroom is speaking task in which students try to use any or all of the language that they know and provide feedback between teacher with students. It means that, the teacher should ask the students to speak English and give respond to the teacher’s interaction. Avinda Kusuma Wardhani (2016) mentioned that it is important to develop speaking skills during the English learning process because through the acquisition of this ability students can cope in a society that every day requires professionals who can speak in English because of the need to maintain international relations which promote the development of our economy and additionally to be able to speak another language provides the opportunity to get in touch with other countries, learn their customs and thus enrich our cultural level. Rahman (2010) stated that speaking is the way of communication that humans most frequently used to express their opinions, make arguments and in general to transmit information. This shows that students need to speak well in their daily lives, in order to get successful social interactions but also to learners achieve a better development when they have to express in oral manner in meetings to attend, in discussions to participate arguing their own thoughts in class, or make oral presentations about a particular topic. Giving opportunities to students can practice the target language becoming in competent speakers in English-speaking contexts. Therefore, it is necessary to develop speaking skills through the correct use of the micro- skills such as fluency (being able to use the language in real time), pronunciation (being able to pronounce the language enough correctly to enable communication to take place) and accuracy (being able to use a range of vocabulary and grammatical structures according to students level). It is acceptable that teaching speaking is important to be able interact and convey the information the others, but in fact, in classroom situation in secondary school, according from interviewing and observation English teacher at Luangnamtha teacher training college , students were shy to make conversation with their partner, didn’t know how to interact and didn’t show up their ability, teachers didn’t manage the class equally, when the teacher asked students to be volunteer to speaking in front of the class. there were only strong students, the weaker students said nothing, this traditional teaching style always happened in class which created bad habit to students from year to year, the weaker students didn’t have chance participate in speaking further more students are very different English background it is really difficult to teaching the same lesson. As result problem found at Luangnamtha teacher training college in English teaching situation to solve the problem the researcher decided Task Based Oral Communication by Using Differentiation Instruction for Students speaking activities to encourage students involving teaching and learning, get them time to speak English in circle in order to build up confidence and fluency

1.2. Research Question What are teaching techniques will improve students oral communication in different level in teaching speaking? 1.3. Aims of the study - To improve the quality of teaching and learning English oral communication in teaching speaking - To use differentiation instruction in oral communication for students year three A at Luangnamtha teacher training college 1.4. Study Areas 1.4.1. Target group The target group of the study is according to the area of teaching in academic year 2017-2018 there is a major English class at Luangnamtha teacher training college, the researcher was appointed to teach in English major students, therefore the target group are major English students, there are 22 students 1.4.2. Focal points The studied apply conceptual frame work of oral communication based on task and separate students English proficiency by using differentiation instruction to students year three A, the English for Lao government official unit 7 attending school . 1.5. The hypothesis of the study 1.5.1. Independent variable There are two independent variable: Oral communication in teaching based on task Differentiation instruction in oral communication 1.5.2. Dependent variable Major English student years three A are able to use oral communication with their friend in the class in different level 1.6. Study expectation The expectation of the study, methodology for teaching oral communication based on task and differentiation instruction in different level of English proficiency will be improved teaching oral communication of English major students have been upgraded, the quality of teaching and learning oral communication based on task are going to getting better. Student abilities to use oral communication to speaking with there are better than previous.

1.7. Term definition Differentiation instruction means a methodology of teaching that separate students in different English level Oral communication means student communication to each other in the classroom Task based mean assignment that are given by teacher student follow the instruction to do the task Speaking abilities means students’ abilities in speaking English which base on the lesson they have studied Chapter II Literature Review 2.1. Theoretical Perspectives The role of teacher in task based Goossens (2007) emphasized that teachers should not only pro-vide interactional support of a cognitive nature, but also provide socio emotional support to the students (care in the 7 C’s). For instance, teachers should try to create a safe climate in which students do not feel overly anxious or inhibited to speak out and practice their productive skills, should treat all learners with respect, keep students motivated, give them positive feedback to enhance their well-being and self-confidence, and encourage them persist even if the task is difficult. While doing so, teachers should try to differentiate between the individual learners

in their classrooms (VanAvermaet et al.,2006). Since learning is a process that differs between individual learners (in viewof the fact that individual students bring different prior knowledge, learning motivation, language learning needs, and interests to the activity), much of the teacher’s role during task performance consists of monitoring the different students’ task performance and tailoring input,feedback, and support to the immediate needs of specific learners on a second-to-second basis. However, teachers have also raised a wide range of critical concerns with a task-based approach to language teaching. A task-based approach with its primary focus on meaning-making may clash with (a)official, standardized, and form-focused tests that students are supposed to prepare for; (b) the crucial importance that teachers assign to the development of explicit(grammatical) knowledge and a primary concern for accuracy of output; and (c)teachers’ beliefs that the development of communicative language skills is based on the preceding development of explicit knowledge. Task-based work, with its strong emphasis on learner initiative, may decrease the degree of control the teacher wants to maintain over what happens in the classroom. Peer interaction during task-based work may lead to increased levels of noise in theclassroom and to an increased use of the students’ mother tongue.It is very difficult to implement a task-based approach in large classes. The emphasis on learner initiative, autonomy, and independence conflicts withmorehierarchical views of the student–teacher relationship andwith the role of the teacheras expert and superior. Breen (cited inNunan 2004) contributes to the definition of tasks in language classrooms, pointing out that a task is a structured plan to provide opportunities for the refinement of knowledge and capabilities entailed in a new language, which are subsequently used during communication. According to Willis in Nunan (2004: 3), tasks are activities in which the target language is used for a communicative purpose to achieve an outcome. Nunan (2004: 4) uses the word ‘task’ instead of ‘activity.’ He defines a communicative task as a piece of classroom work that involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language while their attention is principally focused on meaning rather than form. The task should also provide a sense of completeness, able to stand alone as a communicative act in its own right. Ellis in Nunan (2004: 3) defines “tasks” as a wor kplan that requires learners to process language pragmatically in order to achieve an outcome that can be evaluated in terms of whether the correct or appropria te propositional contend has been conveyed. In contrast, exercises are activities that are primarily focused on form. According to Bygate, Skehan and Swain in Nunan (2004: 3), a “task” is an activity that requires learners to use language, with emphasis on meaning, to attain an objective. While these definitions may vary, they all emphasize the fact that a task is an activity that requires language learners to use language through a communicative purpose to achieve an outcome where meaning is the major focus rather than form. Task Components Tasks contain some form of input that may be verbal or nonverbal, followed by an activity which is derived from the input. This activity requires learners to engage in activities in relation to the input. Tasks have goals and roles for both teachers and learners. Nunan (2004: 41) points out those course designers

should take the following elements into consideration when designing a task: goals, input, procedures, teacher role, learner role and setting. Definition of Task-based Approach The Task-based approach is a foreign language method that has evolved since the 1980s. The Task-based emphasized the fact that teaching should be conducted with real life tasks (Lin: 2009). Task-based approach consists of an integrated set of processes that involves the specification of both what and how. In other words the methodology is highly emphasized in the task-based pedagogy. Designing a task-based approach involves making decisions about what tasks learners will do and then the order in which they will perform the tasks. In Task-based approach learners have to participate, communicate, and cooperate when carrying the task. In order for the students to work cooperatively they have to learn the skills of how to learn cooperatively. Larsen (2000: 144) states that a task-based approach aims to provide learners with a natural context for language use. As learners work to complete task, they have abundant opportunity to interact. In a task- based lesson, the teacher sets a task for students to do that involves the use of language not yet studied in class or language studied previously that the teacher wishes to revise. The language point chosen is known as target language. The task might be an activity from the course book that was intended as practice of a language point or an activity from a supplementary source. The teacher sets up the task and observes students as they get on with it. The teacher pays particular attention to the students’ performance with the target language. The teacher should note down errors but not correct them during the activity (Pollard, 2008: 22). Components of the Task-based Approach Framework. The components of the task-based learning framework lead teachers to follow teaching steps effectively because task-based learning employs sequences that differ from other teaching methods. 1) Pre-task (including topic and task) prepares learners to perform tasks in ways that promote acquisition. Lee in Sae-ong (2010: 12) describes the importance of 'framing' the task to be performed and suggests that one way of doing this is to provide an advance overview of what the learners will be required to do and the nature of the outcome they will achieve. Dornyei in Sae-ong (2010: 12) emphasizes the importance of presenting a task in a way that motivates learners. Moreover, he suggests that task preparation should involve strategies for inspiring learners' to perform the task. In this stage, the teacher introduces and defines the topic, uses activities to help learners recall/learn useful words and phrases to ensure that they understand the task instructions. Learners also have roles includingnoting down useful words and phrases from the pre-task activities and/or preparing for the task individually. 2) Task cycle refers to the ‘methodological options’ or 'task performance options' available to the teacher in theduring-task stage. Various options are available relating to how the task is to be undertaken. The task stage is a vital opportunity for learners to use language by working simultaneously, in pairs or small groups to achieve the goal of the task. In this step, learners practice using language skills while the teacher monitors and encourages them. The planning stage comes after the task and before the report, forming the central part of the task cycle. It describes how to help learners plan their report effectively and maximize their learning opportunities. The learners prepare to report to the class how they

accomplished the task and what they discovered or decided. Moreover, they rehearse what they will say or draft a written version for the class to read. The teacher ensures the purpose of the report is clear, acts as language adviser and helps learners rehearse oral reports ororganize written ones. The reporting stage concludes the task cycle. During this stage, learners take full notes on language use plus responses and reactions to the language. Positive reactions increase motivation, self-esteem and spur them on to greater efforts in the future. The learners present their oral reports to the class or display their written reports. The teacher acts as chairperson, selecting who will speak and read the written reports. They also give brief feedback on content and form. 3) Language focus in the post-task stage affords a number of options. Language focus has three major pedagogic goals: a) To provide an opportunity for repeated performance of the task. b) To encourage reflection on how the task was performed. c) To encourage attention to form, in particular to problematic forms which demonstrate when learners have accomplished the task Nation and Newton’s (2009) claim that the teacher’s most essential task is to plan so that learners are taught useful things, are provided with the best possible learning conditions and offered a balance of learning opportunities. This sounds very logical and even simple but toput this into practice is easier said than done. Employing what they call ‘the four strands’ will bring the teacher a lot closer to his/her goal. The four strands are: 1. Learning through meaning-focused input; that is, learning through listening and reading where the learner’s attention is on the ideas and messages conveyed by the language. 2. Learning through meaning-focused output; that is, learning through speaking and writing where the learner’s attention is on conveying ideas and messages to another person. 3. Learning through deliberate attention to language items and features; that is, learning through direct vocabulary study, through grammar exercises and explanation, through attention to the sounds and spelling of the language, through attention to discourse features, and through the deliberate learning and practice of language learning and language use strategies. 4. Developing fluent use of known language items and features over the four skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing; that is, becoming fluent with what is already known. In meaning focused input learners’ attention and interest should be mainly on understanding, and gaining knowledge or enjoyment or both from what they listen to and read (Nation and Newton, 2009: 3-5). This only happens if the following conditions are met: 1. Most of what the learners are listening or reading is already familiar to them. 2. The learners are interested in the input and want to understand it.

3. Only a small proportion of the language features are unknown to the learners. In terms of vocabulary, 95 % to 98 % of the running words should be within the learners’ previous knowledge and so only five, or preferably only one or two words, per hundred words should be unknown to them. 4. The learners can gain some knowledge of the unknown language items through context clues and background knowledge. 5. There are large quantities of input. Typical activities in meaning-focused output include having a conversation, giving a speech or a lecture, writing a letter, writing a note to someone, keeping a diary, telling a story and telling someone how to do something (Nation and Newton, 2009: 3-5). Again there are some conditions that should be present: 1. The learners write and talk about things that are largely familiar to them. 2. The learners’ main goal is to convey their message to someone else. 3. Only a small proportion of the language they need to use is not familiar to them. 4. The learners can use communication strategies, dictionaries, or previous input to make up for gaps in their productive knowledge. 5. There are plenty of opportunities to produce. Mala Alfiana (2014) Notion of Speaking Speaking is derived from word “speak” means talk to somebody about something; be able to use a language; make a speech to an audience; say or state something (Oxford Learner‟s Pocket Dictionary, 2008: 426). So, speaking is an ability to convey something orally. Brown (2000: 267) cites that when someone can speak a language it means that he can carry on a conversation reasonably competently. In addition, he states that the benchmark of successful acquisition of language is almost always the demonstration of an ability to accomplish pragmatic goals through an interactive discourse with other language speakers. From the explanation above, the researcher concludes that speaking is what we say to what we see, feel and think. When we feel something, we want someone can hear us. So, in this process we can call it is an interaction between two sides. According to Brown, (2004: 141-142) there are five basic types of speaking activity, they are: Function of Speaking Numerous attempts have been made to classify the functions of speaking in human interaction. Brown and Yule (1983) in Richard (2008: 21) made a useful distinction between the interactional functions of speaking, in which it serves to establish and maintain social relations, and the transactional functions, which focus on the exchange of information. In workshops with teachers and in designing my own materials, I use an expanded three-part version of Brown and Yule‟s framework (after Jones, 1996, and Burns, 1998) in Richard (2008: 21 28): talk as interaction; talk as transaction; talk as performance. Each of these speech activities is quite distinct in terms of form and function and requires different teaching approaches. a. Talk as interaction Talk as interaction refers to what we normally mean by “conversation” and describes interaction that serves a primarily social function. When people meet, they exchange greetings, engage in small talk,

recount recent experiences, and so, on because they wish to be friendly and to establish a comfortable zone of interaction with others. The focus is more on the speakers and how they wish to present themselves to each other than on the message. Such exchanges may be either casual or more formal, depending on the circumstances, and their nature has been well described by Brown and Yule (1983). The main features of talk as interaction can be summarized as follows: 1) Has a primarily social function 2) Reflects role relationships 3) Reflects speakers’ identity 4) May be formal or casual 5) Uses conversational conventions 6) Reflects degrees of politeness 7) Employs many generic words 8) Uses conversational register 9) Is jointly constructed b. Talk as transaction Talk as transaction refers to situations where the focus is on what is said or done. The message and making oneself understood clearly and accurately is the central focus, rather than the participants and how they interact socially with each other. In such transactions, Jones (1996:14) in Richard (2008: 24) states talk is associated with other activities. For example, students may be engaged in hands-on activities (e.g., in a science lesson) to explore concepts associated with floating and sinking. In this type of spoken language students and teachers usually focus on meaning or on talking their way to understanding. Examples of talk as transaction are: 1) Classroom group discussions and problem-solving activities 2) A class activity during which students design a poster 3) Discussing needed computer repairs with a technician 4) Discussing sightseeing plans with a hotel clerk or tour guide 5) Making a telephone call to obtain flight information 6) Asking someone for directions on the street 7) Buying something in a shop 8) Ordering food from a menu in a restaurant

Many spoken activities will include a mixture of meaning-focused input and meaning-focused output. It is good to remember that one person’s output can be another person’s input. The functions of output that are based on Swain’s work are presented by Nation and Newton (2009: 5-7). The first function is called the noticing/triggering function. It happens when learners try to produce text in the second language but actively realize that they do not know how to say what they want to say. The second function is hypothesis testing. It means that learner first produces something and then, based on feedback and his/her perception of success, either confirm or modify what he/she has produced. This function is of utmost importance in interaction when learners negotiate with each other or the teacher to clarify meaning. The feedback received in negotiation can lead to improvement in both the comprehensibility of input and learners’ output. The third and final function is the metalinguistic, or reflective, function. This usually occurs with more advanced learners since it is about using spoken output to solve language problems together with others. This function has a few classroom applications, such as the strip story or dictogloss where learners co-work to construct or reconstruct a text. Also explicit structure-based tasks fall in to this category, since in these activities learners solve grammar problems through meaning-focused output. Burns (1998) in Richard (2008: 26) distinguishes between two different types of talk as transaction. The first type involves situations where the focus is on giving and receiving information and where the participants focus primarily on what is said or achieved (e.g., asking someone for directions). Accuracy may not be a priority, as long as information is successfully communicated or understood. The second type is transactions that focus on obtaining goods or services, such as checking into a hotel or ordering food in a restaurant. c. Talk as performance Talk as performance is the third type of talk that can usefully be distinguished has been called talk as performance. This refers to public talk, that is, talk that transmits information before an audience, such as classroom presentations, public announcements, and speeches. Talk as performance tends to be in the form of monolog rather than dialog, often follows a recognizable format (e.g., a speech of welcome), and is closer to written language than conversational language. Similarly, it is often evalu- ated according to its effectiveness or impact on the listener, something that is unlikely to happen with talk as interaction or transaction (Richard, 2008:27) Mala Alfian(2014) Notion of Teaching Speaking Brown (1980: 8) states that teaching cannot be defined a part from learning because it is guiding and facilities of learning, enabling the learner to learn and setting the condition for learning. Speaking is a skill requiring the simultaneous use of member of different abbilities. There are five components in speaking skill, they are: Pronunciation It is the way in which a language is spoken. b. Grammar It is rule for forming words and making sentences. c. Vocabulary It is total number of word that make up a language.

d. Fluency It is quality or condition of person to speak a language easily and well. e. Comprehension For oral communication certainly requires a subject to respond to speech as well as to initiate it. (Harris, 1969: 81). The mastery of speaking skills in English is a priority for many second-language or foreign- language learners. Consequently, learners often evaluate their success in language learning as well as the effectiveness of their English course on the basis of how much they feel they have improved in their spoken language profi- ciency. Oral skills have hardly been neglected in EFL/ESL courses (witness the hugenumber of conversation and other speaking course books in the market), though how best to approach the teaching of oral skills has long been the focus of methodological debate. Teachers and textbooks make use of a variety of approaches, ranging from direct approaches focusing on specific features of oral interaction (e.g., turn-taking, topic management, and questioning strategies) to indirect approaches that create conditions for oral interaction through group work, task work, and other strategies (Richards, 1990: 19). Speaking is an interactive process of constructing meaning that involves producing and receiving and processing information (Brown, 1994; Burns & Joyce, 1997). Its form and meaning are dependent on the context in which it occurs, including the participants themselves, their collective experiences, the physical environment, and the purposes for speaking. It is often spontaneous, open-ended, and evolving. However, speech is not always unpredictable. Language functions (or patterns) that tend to recur in certain discourse situations (e.g., declining an invitation or requesting time off from work), can be identified and charted (Burns & Joyce, 1997). For example, when a salesperson asks “May I help you?” the expected discourse sequence includes a statement of need, response to the need, offer of appreciation, acknowledgement of the appreciation, and a leave-taking exchange. Speaking requires that learners not only know how to produce specific points of language such as grammar, pronunciation, or vocabulary (linguistic competence), but also that they understand when, why, and in what ways to produce language (sociolinguistic competence). Finally, speech has its own skills, structures, and conventions different from written language (Burns & Joyce, 1997; Carter & McCarthy, 1995; Cohen, 1996). A good speaker synthesizes this array of skills and knowledge to succeed in a given speech act. Components of Speaking In this components of speaking, the writer wants to explain what are the components of speaking it self. Brown (2004:177) defines that the components of speaking there are five categories of speaking, they are : The first grammar, it can be used by students to know the structure of the sentences and also can make students to arrange a correct sentence in conversation. Then Vocabulary can be used by students in speaking. Because, less vocabulary can make students confused and don’t understand with what it say. So, communicative effectively and express their ideas both oral and written cannot perfoming well. The second comprehension, the students must be comprehend about what they say to others and a subject to respond to speech as well as to initiate it. The third fluency, it is speech langguage term that means the smoothness or flow with sounds, syllables, words and pharases are joined together when speaking quickly. And the lastly pronunciation, it can be gives effect when someone spell words in conversation. Principle 1. Know ELLs’ strengths and weaknesses in English. ELLs’ level of proficiency might be determined via local or state tests, in-class diagnostics, and one-on-one conferencing. Teachers are often

misled by students’ oral proficiency, assuming a corresponding level of reading and writing proficiency; so, when teachers assess ELLs they must include listening, speaking, reading, and writing diagnostics. Principle 2. Set a common content objective and differentiate the language objective.Determine what content or conceptual understanding is desired by the end of the lesson and then identify the language demands presented by the materials (linguistic input) and the language opportunities presented by what the students will need to produce, either orally or in writing (linguistic output). Differentiation will then be based on something the teacher will do to adjust the linguistic input by sheltering the content or by making a processor product adaptation. See Figure 2 for an example of a content and differentiated language objective to develop speaking skills. Principle 3. Make differentiation manageable for the teacher. Notice that Figure 2 presents a possible content, process, or product differentiation based on language proficiency and does not involve students in radically different activities or the teacher in creating many different tasks. Differentiation should be achieved through small variations to a base activity, or the process may become too daunting and time consuming for teachers. Differentiation can then become part of everyday practice rather than an occasional event. A teacher might begin by thinking about the “base” activity they would design for their native-speaking students who require little scaffolding. Once the learning objective and activity are established for this group, content, process, and product adaptations can be designed. Usually, one modification in one of these areas is preferable to multiple changes in all three. Principle 4. Make learning manageable for the students through differentiation.Often, teachers believe the content is being “watered” or “dumbed” down when differentiated materials, tasks, or products are introduced. However, if the original task or material is well beyond the student’s language ability, this portion of the lesson is likely to be completely wasted. If, on the other hand, the material or task has been restructured, reconceived, or simplified in linguistic demands in a way that the learner can be actively involved in the learning, the lesson then becomes productive. Principle 5. Identify a base activity for higher-level students and tier downward.For an English language arts teacher with ELL students, planning may begin with the majority group of native English-speaking students independently reading an unadapted text, with certain scaffolds in place to give lower- proficiency students access to the text. There is a danger in over-scaffolding when teachers begin with lower-proficiency students in mind first, thus risking that higher-level students will find the task too easy. Whenever possible, the learning goal should be the same for all the students; differentiated instruction for ELLs should not mean different learning goals. For instance, if the base activity is to learn about speaker’s tone, the ELL activity should not be about drawing a picture, putting things in order, copying text, or looking up words in the dictionary. These are common lower-order activities often assigned to ELLs, with the last one especially over-used and counter-productive. Selecting the correct definition of an unknown word from a dictionary requires great understanding of the context in which the word is being used, knowledge of its grammatical form, and an ability to interpret the language of the definition itself. Principle 6. Use yourself rather than a higher-level student to serve as the differentiation in the lesson. When teachers consistently pair higher-proficiency with lower-proficiency ELLs, neither truly gains. The higher-level student is often working below his or her capabilities, and the lower-level student merely copies or imitates without really developing needed language skills. Think about opportunities to set the class to work on a task and bring a leveled group in a circle around you to reteach objectives, modify

content, or offer support for lower-proficiency students, or to offer additional challenge questions, encourage oral interaction, or clarify understandings for higher-proficiency students. Principle 7. Use flexible rather than fixed grouping.Students do not have to know you are differentiating, and it can be stigmatizing if teachers consistently place the same students together for instruction. Purposefully vary (as opposed to letting students choose) the group configurations regularly so that ELLs have the opportunity to interact with native-speaking students on appropriate tasks. At the same time, do not be afraid to use homogeneous groups when a differentiated task has been prepared at each group’s level of proficiency. Principle 8. Offer a choice of activities to let students do the differentiating. Teachers can offer a simple option on a lesson activity, providing anopportunity for students to select an activity they believe is at the right level of challenge for them. Principle 9. Recognize that cognitive complexity is intertwined with language proficiency. A low level of language proficiency will prevent ELLs from expressing conceptual understandings in English. Teachers should use Bloom’s Taxonomy and other planning tools to intentionally differentiate prompts and questions at different levels of cognitive complexity. Principle 10. Allot the same number of minutes for a differentiated task.If the teacher provides some students 20 minutes to complete a reading and only 10 minutes to others, students will likely finish at different points in time. This may cause some difficulties in terms of classroom management. Teachers should consider allowing students to share thoughts and ideas at the closure of a lesson to support community building in the room and to enable all members of the class to have something of value to contribute from their activity. Differentiation instruction Ways to Differentiate InstructionConsidering the knowledge of the students’ cognitive abilities, learning profile, socioeconomic and family factors, readiness, learning pace, gender influences, cultural/ethnic influences, teachers can differentiate either the content- what will be taught, the process- how the content will be taught, or product- how the students will demonstrate their learning. Accordingly, they can differentiate just one or more of those componentsof their instruction (Heacox, 2012). In addition to these areas, Tomlinson (2005) also considered the learning environment, which involves the routines, procedures, physical arrangament of the classroom, as wellas the overall tone or mood that exists among the students and between the students and teacher, as an important factor to differentiate within the teaching instruction. Content Differentiation As stated by Heacox (2012), the content refers to the topics and concepts students are to learn. Content differentiation can be developed by looking at the students’ readiness through pre-assessment, by providing students’ choices to explore topics more deeply, and by providing students with resources and materials that are in accordance with their’ knowledge level. Another way of differentiating the content could be by creating study units. As pointed out by Walqui & Lier (2010), teachers usually create study units that aim at accomplishing standards goals as well as to target the needs of especific students. Considering the several ways to differentiate content specified above, in order to differentiate the content

for Ecuadorian students’ development of speaking skills in English, first, teachers should pre-assess their students’ spoken production so that they can know their fluency and accuracy level as well as their lexica l knowledge regarding daily and academic vocabulary. In order to do that, by the beginning of the school year, EFL teachers can have their students work in pairs so that they can produce spoken language by interacting around topics that would model different scenarios such as the exchange of information within the personal, educational, public, and vocational domains. Teachers should usechecklists as an assessment tool to find out about their students’ English spoken skills level. Checklist should b e provided to their students while they are working in pairs so that they can evaluate each other. Likewise, they should also use checklists to assess their students’ work and confirm the informationprovided by them in their peer assessment checklists. Once the students’ speaking production level has been determined, spoken production models should be provided according to the students’ fluency levels. Students with low speaking level skills shall be provided with simple and short speaking conversational models whereas students with more advanced fluency will be provided with longer speaking models. Those models will include more complex structures and vocabulary aimed at their level accordingly. Similarly, spoken models for production in certain topics will be determined by the students’ lexical knowledge. For instance, students who struggle to transmit information about personal situations should be provided with spoken models to manage that area. Once they have mastered that domain, they should be provided with more advanced materials to scaffold their knowledge to other domains such as educational or public topics. On the other hand, students who already have a good command in communication about personal matters should be given the choice to explore the use of the spoken language (vocabulary, phrases, structures, etc.) that is being taught in other domains or situations. Process Differentiation The way we teach the content to the students refers to the process. When differentiating the process teachers should take into consideration the students learning profiles and preferences (Heacox, 2012). In addition, Tomlinson (2005) in Santangelo & Tomlinson (2012) stated that the “Process can be thought of as the “sense-making” activities that allow students to begin thinking about, working with, and personalizing the content—either in class or at home” (313). The same authors mentioned that different forms of grouping are also necessary to differentiate the process. For instance, students may be grouped according to their readiness level, interests, profiles, by their own choice, or heterogeneously. Likewise, Walqui & Lier (2010) noted that within a lesson, teachers should consider three moments and different strategies to approach those less on moments. Those moments refer to the students preparation to approach the content, the students’ interaction with the text and the students’ application or extention of the knowledge acquiered within the lesson. Bearing in mind the information previously stated, EFL instructors shall use different grouping configurations to have their students work in their speaking production. They should be asked to work individualy, in pairs, and small groups according to their level of readiness, interests, or heterogenously. Some of the activities teachers should use are having my students work within their grouping configurations in spoken activities such as illustration of procedures, verbal explanations (of a poster, photo, chart, graph, etc.), discussions, reading-speaking responses, interviews, classes presentations, debates, speaking models, investigations, dialogues or songs creations analysis, etc. Students should be allowed to use pictures, word cards, graphic organizers, music, etc., to support their spoken practice. All the activities should be grounded on the utilization of the same

vocabulary, expressions, structures, but considering the students’ speaking level, they should be conducted in different spoken situations or at different difficulties levels. Product Differentiation The product of the students’ learning involves the presentation of what the students have learned after certain amount of instruction (Heacox, 2012). Tomlinson (2005) in Santangelo & Tomlinson (2012) refered to the product as a mean to assess the students summatively. Likewise, the same authors stated that products should “facilitate students’ ability to critically think about, apply, and demonstrate what they have learned […] provid[e] meaningful opportunities for cooperative learning; focusing on real-world relevance and application; promoting creative, critical, and higher level thinking; […]; allowing choices, such as varied modes of expression; offering appropriate scaffolding and support; and utilizing peer and self-evaluation” (p.313-314). In order to differentiate the product within their class, they should have their students demonstrate their spoken skills through a menu of different activities which should be based on what they have learned within a content unit. Students should have the choice to present their learning results individually, pairs, or in small groups regarding theirinterests and speaking levels. The menu of activities can include the performance of role plays, sketches, conduct ing debates or discussions, interviews or dialogue modeling, using songs to demonstrate their learning, explanation of situations based on visual representations, story-telling accompanied by pictures, etc. Learning Environment Differentiation of the learning environment promotes the respect to the individuals, the materials, space, and time. It also promotes the students support, cooperation, and collaboration among one another. The availability of resources for class work considering the different factors that make each student different is another factor to consider within the differentiation of the environment. When differentiating the learning environment teachers and students share their responsibility for teaching and learning and teachers provide individual attention to the students as they need it (Tomlinson (2005) in Santangelo & Tomlinson, 2012). Taking into consideration the factors that promote a differentiated learning environment previously stated, EFL teachers may differentiate their classroom environment by encouraging my students to create an environment of respect among one another. They should have them work within different grouping configurations so that they can support each other to scaffold their learning. Another point EFL teachers should consider is the elaboration or search of materials that will allow them to provide them with content materials that go according to their readiness level or interests. Also, they should monitor their students while they are working so that they can provide them individual or group support when needed as well as more time to develop their tasks if necessary. Similarly, they should give their students the opportunity to become responsible for their own learning as they will be able to decide the types of materials they will use for their own learning as well as the tasks they will perform to demonstrate their progress. Finally, teachers should manage to elaborate or get visual (pictures, posters, videos, etc.) and audio (audiotapes, music, etc.) representations of the content being studied in order to support the student learning and provide an interactive environment. Differentiation requires educators to conduct modifications in their elements that make up their lesson plans; these elements respond to the content, process, and product (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010). Heacox (2010) also identified the classroom environment as an element to consider in differentiated instruction.

The content answers to the what of the teaching plan; what is expected from the students to achieve and demonstrate as aproduct of the learning process; the content is framed by the existing standards of the educational system (Thousand, et al., (2007). Teachers differentiate the content in their instruction when they pre-assess their students to get information about what they know in relation to the content that will be taught and group the students according to their knowledge level; Also, when teachers consider the students interests and providen them with materials to work on according to those interests and when their students’ potential is taken into account by having themto work with materials that would reinforce their level of knowledge (Heacox, 2010). The ways students prefer to learn –refering to the types of intelligences students have: linguistic, logical/mathematical, visual/spatial, kinesthetic, musical, naturalistic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal- are also important aspects to provide students with appropiate instruction when dealing with the form we approach content to them (Thousand, et al., 2007). The process refers to the how in the teaching plans; it deals with the activities the students are to work on to understand the content they are learning (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010). During the instruction process students are demonstrate the knowledge and skills they have acquiered by applying it on meaninful tasks (Thousand, et al., 2007). It is important to bear in mind that the activities performed by the students in this part of their instruction should be aligned to the lesson objectives so that they can demonstrate what they have truly grasped from the content. Heacox (2012) suggested that some forms of differentiating the process is by presenting different alternatives to the activities the students will work with; these alternatives should be directed tostudents learning styles such as having them to draw, prepare role play, oral presentations, etc., according to their learning preferences. Finally, the product also refers to how, but in this case to how the students demonstrate the acquired knowledge through assessment after certain period of time (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010). Thousand, et al., (2007) stated that by differentiating their instruction, teachers give students the opportunity to demonstrate their learning in a variety of forms and continously as the resulting information provides a base for the elaboration of lesson plans for future lessons. The utilization of authentic assessments is an assest to measure the students knowledge everyday (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010). To add, Heacox (2012) claimed that it is the teachers’ role to provide students with a variety of authentic project-based tasks choices to demonstrate and evaluate their knowledge, always targeting to have them show what they have learned by working on tasks that would support their areas of strength or learning preferences. Teisen. T (1995) identified that differentiated instruction is effective instruction to respond to students’ readiness, interest and Learning preferences. All three characteristics of the learners-readiness, interest and preferences allow students to build new learning through connection to existing knowledge and preferred ways of working. The process of differentiating instruction for students depend on the ongoing use of assessment to gather the information about where student are in their learning and about their readiness, interest and learning preference, teacher use this information to vary the learning environment, instruction and assessment and evaluation. To reach every student through differentiation by identifying and addressing the different needs, interests and abilities of all learners to give them the best possible chance of achieving their learning goals.” In ELT, differentiation is more often referred to as ‘teaching mixed ability’ or ‘mixed levels’. But, whatever, we call it, the fact is that no class is ever completely homogeneous, and we all need to be thinking as much as we can about how to meet the individual needs of the students, they can be reached and meet their needs by differentiation by outcome, Differentiation by teaching method and differentiation by task.

1. Differentiation by outcome It is a reminder that what you are teaching is not what is being learnt. However, it is basically a deficit model, it is more effective and encouraging to help students to assess themselves against their personal standard. One way of achieving this is to move away where possible from summative assessment towards more formative assessment. This challenges the idea that the best way to test students by comparing them with each other. This sets up an atmosphere of competition and leads lower achieving students to conclude that they are failing. It also encourages stronger students to rigidly produce only what will get them the highest mark. Surely to encourage students to self-assessment and to set their own targets 2. Differentiation by teaching method The activities we choose to use can also differentiate well. An activity which involves active learning and group or pair work is likely to differentiate more effectively because students can work at their own level and students can support each other and learn from each other. 3. Differentiation by task. The Most tasks which given to students can be designed to provide either extra support, or extension to challenge more able students. This doesn’t have to mean completely new activities, just a tweak here and there. Alberta (2005) said mention that the learning environment includes the overall layout of the classroom, the way you use that space, and elements such as lighting. Although some aspects of the learning environment will be beyond the individual teacher’s control, it is possible to make alterations to help ensure the classroom is supportive and comfortable for all students. Consider the following sample strategies. - Vary the places in which learning can occur; for instance, some concepts may be better learned in a laboratory or an outdoor setting rather than a classroom. - Permit a student to work in a quiet, uncrowded corner of the room, or even in the hall outside the room (but do not isolate a student against his or her will). - Make use of headphones, carrels or screens, modified lighting, alternative desks, or other items to promote learning for individual students; for example, some students may be better able to concentrate with a light on their desk - Use alternative seating, or stand close to students who need extra help. - Identify classroom management procedures that would make the learning environment more safe or supportive.

Varying learning activities is an important way to provide appropriate opportunities for all students to explore concepts. This may involve adapting how students participate, providing adapted equipment or materials, or varying the degree of structure or open-endedness of the tasks. Collaborative learning activities, tiered assignments, learning centers, learning logs, individual goal-setting, changing the pace or delivery of instruction, and using visual and verbal cueing are examples of differentiating process so that all students can be active participants in the classroom. Supporting differentiated instruction also involves using time flexibly by building in opportunities to address individual interests and needs, and allowing different students to work at different speeds. Consider the following sample strategies. - Use a combination of individual, paired, small group and whole class activities, and a variety of methods for determining pairings and groupings. - Provide opportunities for a range of skills such as discussion, writing, drawing and viewing. - Alternate quiet and active times. - Plan transitions to ensure a smooth flow from one activity to the next. - Allow some students to work at an assignment for only a short period of time and then move on to another; allow other students to stick with an assignment until they feel satisfied. - Allow some students more time to complete written assignments. - Identify which students require structure, and provide them with detailed schedules and advanced warning of major changes to routine. - Build in time to respond to student needs, to opportunities in the community and to events happening in the world, province, city or town. - Use an interdisciplinary emphasis and timetable around major school events to create greater student and staff involvement. - Consider ways to activate, clarify and extend prior knowledge, and to help students make connections between what they know and what they will be learning. - Consider extension activities that allow students to reinforce, extend and apply their learning in a variety of contexts. - Identify in advance alternative activities to use if students need a change in pace or a refocusing of attention. 2.2. Theories used

2.2.1. Task based theories Nunan (2004: 41) points out those course designers should take the following elements into consideration when designing a task: goals, input, procedures, teacher role, learner role and setting. a) Goals refer to the general intentions behind any learning task. Nunan provides a link between task and curriculum. Goals relate to general outcomes or may directly describe the teacher or learners’ behavior. Clark in Nunan (2004: 42) notes that communicative goals in a curriculum suggest that language is used for establishing and maintaining interpersonal relationships and for the exchange of information, ideas, opinions, attitudes and feelings to get things done. This includes listening to, reading and responding to imaginative use of target language such as stories, poems, songs, dramas or learners’ own creations b) Input refers to the spoken, written and visual data that learners work with in the course of completing a task. Data can be provided by a teacher, a textbook or some other source. Alternatively, it can be generated by the learners themselves. Input can come from a wide range of sources, including letters, menus, postcards, bus timetables, picture stories or hotel entertainment programs. c) Procedures specify what learners actually do with the input. Regarding criteria for the task, teachers consider the authority of the learning procedures and input. Another point of criteria for task selection involves activation rather than a rehearsal rationale. In addition, analyzing procedures should be based on the focus or skills required to achieve the goal. Learners integrate phonological, lexical and grammatical forms through memorization and manipulation. Eventually, they apply these skills in communicative interaction. d) The Teacher’s role refers to the part that teachers are expected to play in carrying out learning tasks as well as the social and interpersonal relationships between participants. According to Breen and Candlin in Nunan (2004: 62), the teacher has three main roles in the communicative process: facilitator participant, observer and learner. e) Learner’s role refers to the part that learners are expected to play in carrying out learning tasks as well as the social and interpersonal relationships between participants. Therefore, the learner interacts with outside stimuli as an integrator and negotiator who listens and performs for personal growth. The interpersonal roles of learners cannot be divorced from the psychological learning process. Learners take responsibility for their own learning to develop autonomy and skills in learning how-to learn. f) Setting refers to the classroom arrangement specified or implied in the task. It requires consideration of whether a task is to be carried out wholly or partly outside of the classroom. It is useful to distinguish between mode and environment when setting tasks. Mode refers to whether the learner is operating on an individual, pair or group basis. Environment refers to where the learning actually takes place. It might be in a conventional classroom in a school, a language center, a community class, a workplace setting, a self-access center or a multi-media language center. The core task elements have six components: goals, inputs and procedures along with the supporting elements of teacher and learner roles plus setting. These elements play important constructs within task-based learning, including the relationship between real- world and pedagogic tasks, text and task authenticity and the place of learning strategies within the task- based classroom.

In conclusion, the task based provide focus on goals, input, procedures, teacher role, learner role and setting. Firstly, all of students were designed which task will be given, there would be separated students to group of task based that accordance with formative assessment and the different group and different lesson that given to students was the input of the task based, the procedure of task based were designed by using the both inputs group of student and lesson that will be implement during teaching process. Students would talked orally in pairs and individual, learner role would carry out the procedure and interact with teacher and classmate by asking their classmate about what was presented, and setting the task was specified the way students will present their task, lesson, question. 2.2.2. Oral speaking theories According to Harmer (2001: 269-271), there are two elements of speaking, they are: 1. Language features Among the elements necessary for spoken production (as opposed to the production of practice examples in language drills, for example), are the following: (Harmer, 2001:269) a. Connected speech Effective speakers of English need to be able not only to produce the individual phonemes of English (as in saying I would have gone) but also to use fluent „connected speech‟ (as in I‟d‟ve gone). In connected speech sounds are modified (assimilation), omitted (elision), added (linking r), or weakened (through contractions and stress patterning). It is for this reason that we should involve students in activities designed specifically to improve their connected speech. b. Expressive devices Native speakers of English change the pitch and stress of particular parts of utterances, vary volume and speed, and show by other physical and non-verbal (paralinguistic) means how they are feeling (especially in face-to-face interaction). The use of these devices contributes to the ability to convey meanings. They allow the extra expression of emotion and intensity. Students should be able to deploy at least some of such suprasegmental features and devices in the same way if they are to be fully effective communicators. c. Lexis and grammar Spontaneous speech is marked by the use of a number of common lexical phrases, especially in the performance of certain language function. Teachers should therefore supply a variety of phrases for different functions such as agreeing or disagreeing, expressing surprise, shock, or approval. Where students are involved in speaking context such as a job interview, we can prime them, in the same way, with certain useful phrases which they can produce at various stage of an interaction. d. Negotiation language Effective speaking benefits from the negotiatory language we use to seek clarification and to show the structure of what we are saying. Differentiation instruction can be varied by the context, tasks and sources Have students complete the same task with different information sources. Have students use the same information source to complete different tasks or apply different processes. Have students use the same information source and process to complete different projects or products.

Use flexible groupings Provide different contexts in which students respond to questions or explore information, including whole class, small group and partner discussions, and individual student reflection. Have individual students pool research and information from different sources to share with the class. For example, provide each student with recipe cards, post-it notes or strips of paper. Have student’s record one fact per card. Post the recorded facts on a bulletin board or other common space so that other students can access their peers’ research. Monitor the postings for accuracy, and discuss any misconceptions or inaccuracies with students so that they can be corrected together. Have students explore sources of information using “carousel” or “gallery walk” strategies. Organize different sources in stations or displays around the classroom and invite students to visit different stations to select, summarize, organize and analyze content. Establish learning centers using classroom areas, pizza box or other containers to hold different types of sources of information. Provide opportunities for students to chunk content, share understandings and apply knowledge and understandings by teaching others. For example, use acooperative learning to divide responsibilities among groups of students and provide them with the opportunity teach others what they have learned. Expert groups can be based on differing predictions or hypotheses, sources of information or experiments. Vary questioning strategies to provide opportunities for students to contribute meaningfully to discussions. In conclusion, there are many cases for dialing with differentiation instruction this study applies differentiation by task. The Most tasks which given to students can be designed to provide either extra support, or extension to challenge more. This doesn’t mean completely new activities. However those tasks were designed to teach by student’s center group discussions based English level. Different tasks were given to them based on their English proficiency. In additional extension tasks were given to students who finished the task earlier. The process of differentiation instruction for teaching be going to. 1. Firstly, the researchers let students share idea about what are they going to do tomorrow. Elicit from the whole class, asked both strong and weak students by using task based. 2. Secondly, they were grouped in the same level strong students were grouped together and weak students were grouped together to present their task and answer questions, individual students was asked among the groups, however strong and weak students have different task, each group were allowed to discuss about the activities. 3. Finally, Strong students were extended one more activity, whereas weak students were checked by the teacher and let them explained what they have done about the activity 2.3. Related research

Aquilino Sanche(2004) investigated the Task-Based Approach (TBA) has gained popularity in the field of language teaching since the last decade of the 20fh Century and significant scholars have joined the discussion and increased the amount of analytical studies on the issue. Nevertheless experimental research is poor, and the tendency of some of the scholars is nowadays shifting towards a more tempered and moderate stand on their claims. Reasons for that are various: the difficulty in the implementation of the method in the classroom, the difficulty in elaborating materials following the TBA and the scarcity of task-based manuals count as important and perhaps decisive arguments. But there are also theoretical implications in the TBA which do not seem to be fully convincing or may lack sound foundations. In this paper 1 will attempt to describe the TBA criticaIly, pointing out what 1 consider positive in this approach, and underlining the inadequacy of some assumptions and conclusions. The design of a new TBA model is not the goal of this study. But the conclusions suggest that tasks may contribute to the production of a more refined and complete foreign language syllabus, helping to motivate the students and focus the attention of teachers and learners on meaning and communicative language use. Elbie Adendorff (2014) conducted first-year Afrikaans Language Acquisition students in the Department of Afrikaans and Dutch of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at Stellenbosch University, South Africa. The aim of the study was to determine how task-based activities contribute to the teaching and learning of communication skills in Afrikaans as an additional language. The aim therefore was not to present quantitative data, but to look at the attitudes and perceptions of the students and the lecturer through questionnaires and interviews. This study was explorative in nature and made use of task-based activities for the teaching of Afrikaans as an additional language to university students by using authentic material in pedagogic tasks. A secondary aim was to prove the acquisition of Afrikaans by way of spontaneous communication and interaction with the target language. The study was undertaken specifically on the teaching and learning of Afrikaans as an additional language in the context of the language acquisition classroom. The framework which was used and implemented in this study was a combination of qualitative research and the task-based approach to language teaching. A brief review is provided of the implementation of a task-based syllabus after a needs-analysis was conducted with students registered for the Afrikaans Language Acquisition module at the university. In addition, a brief review will be given of the criteria used in the design of the syllabus, the teaching materials and the teaching programme. The outcome of the tasks was formulated according to what students needed to do with Afrikaans in the university context and is therefore focused on the students’ needs. The focus was not on the formal linguistic aspects of the language but rather the functions thereof. The students were encouraged to participate and they learned Afrikaans by completing the tasks. The communicative potential of the task-based activities in the teaching programme is evaluated. This study showed that task- based activities contributed to the communication skills of students in the Afrikaans Language Acquisition class. Qutbi Alam (2013) studied improvement of Oral Communication Skills (OCSs) of Pakistan's Public school's Grade-6 students who have a lack of opportunities and are seldom exposed to the English language generally and OCSs particularly. Since more importance is given to reading and writing skills of English in which results overlook the importance of OCSs and due to which students are found to be silent, shy or have a profound fear of being wrong. It further highlights self-developed strategies of students in improving accuracy and fluency in which the National Curriculum for English Language (NCEL) was taken as a guiding tool and action planner through which systematic lessons were delivered in classrooms. Findings of Pre and post intervention phases of four participants revealed that children’s

OCSs had shown a marked improvement by giving opportunities to practice oral languages, providing conducive learning environment and using new teaching strategies. This study also claims that code switching, Peer and self-error correction, short pauses and speech fillers are inevitable to improve speaking skills in the process of second language learning. It shows new ways in order to improve students' speaking skills and has implications for second language learners and teachers. David Allen Bruner, Kemtong Sinwongsuwat & Biljana Radić-Bojanić (2015) reexamine current EFL oral communication teaching practices from the perspectives of teachers and A2 students at two universities, namelyPrince of Songkla University (PSU), Thailand and University of Novi Sad (UNS), Serbia. The main objectives were: (1) to analyze current practices from the perspectives of teachers and students, (2) to identify real problems encountered by teachers and students attempting to embrace Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) to improve oral English communication, and (3) propose practical solutions for classroom practices to improve the majority of students’ oral proficiency from the elementary level. The findings were that oral English communication classes at PSU continue to embrace CLT and that the majority of Thai A2 students were frequently engaged in group activities rather than in individual and teacher-centered tasks. There was reliance on unrealistic, scripted role plays. Unlike the Serbian students, Thai students apparently needed to acquire more independent skills, become less passive learners, and interact more spontaneously in the target language. Other problems at PSU included mixed ability classes. Recommendations are placement tests, choices of more advanced elective courses, rigorous enforcement of upper enrollment limit, a balance between group and individual communicative tasks,and replacement of scriptedwith non-scripted role plays. Fernández Dobao (2001), for example, investigated the lexical CSs (achievement & reduction/avoidance) used by different level learners of English as L2 by following early CS taxonomies, those of Corder (1978, as cited in Færch & Kasper, 1983) and Tarone (1977). The data elicitation was conducted by the carrying out of three different tasks, a description and a picture story performed by the learners individually, and a conversation activity carried out with the researcher as the interlocutor. The main finding of this study, in relation to the proficiency factor, corresponded with most evidence in that the lower level learners relied more often on avoidance/reduction CSs while the more advanced learners favoured the use of achievement CSs. She also analysed the influence of other factors (task and L1), but no substantial results were observed, although the researcher acknowledged a possible influence of the task type on the learners’ use of CSs. One aspect which was found beneficial for the confirmation of the CS usage was the retrospective interview conducted after the learners’ performance of the different tasks. García Núñez (2006) also analysed the lexical CSs used by English learners belonging to elementary and intermediate levels by drawing on Færch and Kasper’s framework (1983). The tasks used for the data collection consisted of an object description task and a semi-structured interview in a learner-interviewer setting. As opposed to the above study, there was no post interview to confirm the learners’ use of CSs. Overall results did not show marked differences between levels, but the more in-depth qualitative analysis demonstrated some differences which were also concurrent with other studies. Elementary levels tended to use reduction and L1-based mechanisms whereas intermediate levels were more inclined to use achievement devices (paraphrase and restructure). He also concluded that the task type seemed to have an effect on the learners’ behaviour. Munirah & Muh (2015) found the improvement of the students’ speaking Accuracy and Fluency by using Task-based Approach at SMA Negeri 2 Sungguminasa Kab. Gowa in the 2013/2014 Academic Year.

Task-based Approach was used in a Classroom Action Research (CAR). The research had been conducted in two cycles, each cycle consist of four meetings. It employed speaking test as instrument. A number of research subjects were 37 students in class XI. The instruments were speaking test and observation. The research findings showed that Task-based Approach could improve the students’ speaking skill from cycle I to cycle II. The students’ achievement from D-Test to cycle I was 12.50%, and after finishing cycle II the students’ achievement became 16.27%. Based of the research findings, the researcher concludes that Task-based Approach gave a significant contribution in learning process of speaking accuracy and fluency. P. Santhosh and K. Meenakshi (2017) used effectiveness of Task Based Approach in teaching oral communication skills to polytechnic college students. Based on the prescribed text book task based platform was constructed to teach for the first year students. Methods: An oral performance test attended by an assessment heading was administered. Fifty students were taken for the study and they were divided into two groups. Twenty five students representing the experimental group planned two units exploiting the task based program while twenty five students signifying the control group studied the same units following the Teacher’s instruction. Findings: Data were analyzed and Results exposed that there were statistically substantial differences found between the control and the experimental group. These results supports to utilizes task based learning in teaching English as a second language Improvements: This study is focused only in the field of polytechnic institutions further study should concentrate on the other fields Prebianca (2009) examined the effects of the proficiency level by looking at pre-intermediate, intermediate and advanced learners’ use of CSs. The data was collected through the realisation of three description type of tasks carried out individually by the learners. In contrast to previous studies, Prebianca’s (2009) research drew on 74 Maritza rosasMaldonado a broader analytical framework, that of Dörnyei and Kormos (1998). Her results, however, differed from these studies since there were no substantial differences in the learners’ CS usage across levels, an outcome which she concluded may have been due to the monologic nature of the tasks used, which seemed to produce fewer demands. Balharry’s study (2006) focused on the proficiency and task effects on the learners’ use of lexical CSs by drawing on Poulisse’s taxonomy (1990). She examined the use of CSs in different times by means of a longitudinal part of the study composed by two EFL college students, and a cross sectional part formed by four students. The tasks used for the data elicitation were a story retelling activity and an interview, both tasks carried out between the learner and the researcher acting as interviewer. The results did not show a clear pattern of CS usage, the only constant figure being, as concluded by Balharry (2006), the use of transfer CSs by the less proficient learners, a finding which partly corresponds with most studies. She acknowledged the inconsistencies in the results as due to the small sample, especially for the longitudinal part of the study, in addition to the use of a less comprehensive taxonomy and the lack of a retrospective interview to confirm the learners’ strategic behaviour. Finally, in a more recent study, Yang and Gai (2010) also examined the proficiency effects on the use of CSs by Chinese learners of English by following Færch and Kasper’s taxonomy (1983). In contrast to most research, they were also interested in investigating the learners’ perception on their use of CSs so as to determine the role of the learners’ awareness of their strategic L2 communication. In order to examine the learners’ attitude towards the CSs and the frequency of CS usage, a questionnaire was administered to 89 students from different levels, data which was complemented with an interview conducted to 10 of these students. The main

finding showed a more frequent use of reduction CSs in general, but the learners’ perception on the use of reduction and achievement CSs varied according to level. Low level learners showed a neutral attitude towards reduction mechanisms, while higher levels tended to hold a negative attitude. This study moved away from the more qualitative analyses so far carried out which focused on the learners’ oral communication, thus on the way they try to get their message across by means of CSs. Focusing on the learners’ perception only does not provide further data on the proficiency effects, but mostly on the learners’ knowledge of the CSs. Yang and Gai (2010) acknowledged the study limitations regarding the narrow scope of CSs examined by means of the framework used in addition to a lack of retrospective methods of enquiry. According to Richards and Renandya (2002) in (Febryanti & Rossana, 2011), speaking is one of the central aspects of communication, without which people cannot interact and socialize with other people. By interacting and socializing with other people, speaking has the function to express and deliver our feelings and ideas directly to other people (Irsyad & Narius, 2013). For that reason, speaking can convey the message where a speaker put their ideas into sentences and produce it in a proper speech in order to affect a listener (Asus, Mahrum, & Hastini, 2014). Hence, in the four skills to acquire English, speaking takes an important role since it is categorized as a productive skill, which requires a special treatment (Huq, 2014). Speaking as a productive skill means that a process of constructing meaning through language that involves producing, receiving and processing information, Nunan (1999) in (Febryanti & Rossana, 2011). Then, aspecial treatment means that to acquire the speaking skill one should pay attention to the several components, such as; grammar, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension Brown (2004) in (Ramadhanti, 2013) in order that the message can be conveyed effectively. Wahyuni, Mukhaiyar, and Kusni (2013) had done the research study about improving students‟ speaking skill by using Inside-Otside Circle Technique. Their research was conducted at LPBB LIA, Pekanbaru with 15 students of English for teen level 5 as the participants. This research was aimed to investigate how far the students‟ speaking ability increased after being treated using IOC strategy, and also what factors influenced the students‟ speaking ability. For the result, this research showed that the average of students‟ speaking score increased becomes 3.0 from 2.7 after they learnt using IOC strategy which was also influenced with some factors: low affective filter, students‟ enthusiasm, and peer pressure. Desi Febryanti (2016) Speaking is the action of passing on information or expressing your thoughts and feelings in spoken language so, that it can be understood by others. According to Brown (2004:140) says that speaking is the produces of lexicon, structure, and discourse. Thus, speaking is a product from the linguistic skill of human. Whereas in speaking, they have to consider about the lexicon, the structure, and the discourse. It can be stated that speaking is constructed from all of the linguistic aspects. All of them functions each other to construct speaking. From the definition of speaking above, the writer concludes that speaking is a good way for communication because by doing it people can talk directly so that the listener can understand our meaning P. Santhoshand K. Meenakshi (2017) experimented study effectiveness of Task Based Approach in teaching oral communication skills to polytechnic college students. Based on the prescribed text book task based platform was constructed to teach for the first year students. Methods: An oral performance

test attended by an assessment heading was administered. Fifty students were taken for the study and they were divided into two groups. Twenty five students representing the experimental group planned two units exploiting the task based program while twenty five students signifying the control group studied the same units following the Teacher’s instruction. Findings: Data were analyzed and Results exposed that there were statistically substantial differences found between the control and the experimental group. These results supports to utilizes task based learning in teaching English as a second language Improvements: This study is focused only in the field of polytechnic institutions further study should concentrate on the other fields According to the study of many researchers mentioned above the study focus on language acquisition would be able to designed in the different approach, however that approach that would applied teaching and learning approach would base on teachers and learners’ goals, what teachers would like students achieved in learning and the teachers should know how good that students would learn therefore task based in oral communication was teaching and learning approach that students were assigned to do the task in individual, in pair or in groups then the students would be allowed to present their task orally, in addition, students also were separated in different English proficiency in order to get them able to perform the task given, the approach of teaching mentioned were likely successful in teaching and learning foreign language.

Chapter III Methodology of the Study 3.1. target group According the real teaching the target group is major English class at Luangnamtha teacher training college, the researcher was appointed to teach in English major students, therefore the target group are major English students, there are 22 students 3.2. Study tools There were three different tools were used in the research, observation form and questionnaire and test. Before collecting the data the researchers designed the tools and hand in the tools to the advisor for editing then the tools are used while conducting the research. Pretest and post test The pretest and posttest were designed to test students before conducting the research and after conducting the research there were three level of English proficiency Task based 1, task based 2 and task based 3, the different task is base on students’ English proficiency, student students will be asked, answer and present their in orally Observation form The observation form was used to observed both teacher at secondary school and the researcher there are three parts of the observation form: Part 1 personal detail name of the person who was observed Part 2 indicating the explanation how to use the observation form Part 3 the contents of the observation form there are 15 sub contents Questionnaire Part 1 the name of the subject Part 2 indicating how to answer the questions Part 3 the table of the contents consist of 15 sub questions

3.3. Data Collection According to the plan of conducting the research of teacher and leader development office, when research were allowed to conduct the research. the researchers designed teaching methodology focusing Oral communication in teaching based on task and Differentiation instruction in oral communication to teach students year three at Luangnamtha techer training college ,one researcher taught and another researcher observed during organizing teaching, by using the same observation form. After finishing teaching, the week the test were used and questionnaire asking students in the groups each group about their own idea in teaching and learning between the teacher their and the researchers 3.4. Data Analysis According to the data collection which three different tools, the data were analyzed three different way. First The observation form were calculated based on the criteria had been set, calculated in percentage compare between three groups and the later one and questionnaire also was defined along with another result, explain how the students thought about teaching.. the statistical analysis was used to calculate the score of students in both, the result of the test of test was sought the mean of the score, the percentage higher score and lower score ( the percentage of students who passed the test and failed) and seek the standard deviation, then compare both test whether there would be the differences in those value. After that estimate the value in words and explanation Finally all of the data gained from the research were concluded the good point and the week point and suggestion for the further research. Data analysis was used statistical analysis to calculate the score 1. Mean of the score ̅= ∑ ̅ is a mean of the score ∑ the sum of score N number of students who participated the test 2. Percentage of students who passed or failed the test P1 = x 100 P2 = x 100 P1 was the percentage of students who failed the test P2 was the percentage of students who passed the test F1 number of students who got score under five

F2 number of students who got score five up N number of all students who attended the test 3. Standard deviation √∑ ∑ ∑ the sum of score f frequency of target group N the number of target group SD Standard deviation Standard deviation provides some idea about the distribution of scores around the mean (average). The smaller the standard deviation, the more narrow the range between the lowest and highest scores or, more generally, that the scores cluster closely to the average score. The scale for analyzing the score of the test Scale Very weak Weak Average good Very good 8,1-10 0,1-2 2,1-4 4,1-6 6,1-8 The scale of score for describing observation form and questionnaire Scale Weak Average good Very good Very weak 1.1-2.0 2.1-3.0 3.1-4.0 4.1-5.0 0.1-1.0

Chapter IV Study Result This chapter will present the result of data analysis in three different tools: the result of pre-test and post- test, result of observation and result questionnaire, then all analysis data will be describe in words. 4.1. The result of pre-test the following result will present three kind of task, task based 1 this group students were given to do oral communication in pre-intermediate level, task based 2 the students were given to do oral communication intermediate level, and the other task based 3 were upper intermediate level. Table 1 pre-test task based 1 Result of pre-test task based 1 distance of score Score frequency Total score percentage Fail and pass 1 1-2 2 6 34 12 66.67 33.33 3-4 42 8 5 5-6 6 7 7-8 8 9-10 9

10 Total 6 20 Mean 3.33 SD 0.47 Table 1 shows the result of pre-test task 1 there were 6 students did task 1, all of the students in group 1 was not able to use oral communication with their friends and teacher, the average of score was 3.33. the value of average was under the average sore 5. According to the definition of standard deviation defined that the value of standard deviation, there is a small different among score cluster and close to average, however in this case standard deviation was 0.47 there was very few differences of students’ score, the distribution between the lowest core and highest were every high. Therefore students’ knowledge very different because of teaching methodology was not suitable to the students. Table 2 pre-test task based 2 Result of pre-test task based 2 Distance of score Score frequency Total percentage Fail and pass 1 1-2 2 4 3 3-4 4 4 16 40.00 30 60.00 56 5-6 6 7 6 7-8 8 9 9-10 10 Total 10 46 Mean 4.60 SD 0.49

Table 2 shows the result of pre-test task based 2. Intermediate level , there were 10 students did task 2, the result revealed that 4 were not able to use oral communication with their friends and teacher when they were allow to do oral speaking in front of the class, and the other 6 people were able to do oral communication but they were not very good as the the average of score was 4.60 the value of average was under the average sore 5. The standard deviation value was 0.47 there was very few differences of students’ score, the distribution between the lowest core and highest were every high. Therefore students’ knowledge very different because of teaching methodology was not suitable to the students. Table 3 pre-test task based 3 Result of pre-test task based 3 distance of score Score frequency Total percentage Fail and pass 1 1-2 2 3 3 3-4 4 3 12 50.00 53 15 50.00 5-6 6 7 3 7-8 8 9 9-10 10 Total 6 27 Mean 4.50 SD 0.50 Table 3 revealed the result of pre-test task based 3. Upper intermediate level , there were 6 students , the result revealed that 3 were not able to use oral communication with their friends and teacher when they were allow to do oral speaking in front of the class, and the other 3 people were able to do oral communication but they were not very good as the average of score was 4.50. In this group students’ knowledge were not very few differences of score, the distribution between the lowest core and highest were every high The standard deviation value was 0.50.

4.2. The result of post-test Table 4 post-test task based 1 Result of Post-test task based 1 distance of Score frequency Total score percentage Fail and pass score 1 1-2 2 3 3-4 4 5 5-6 62 12 33.33 73 21 50.00 16.67 6 7-8 81 8 9 9-10 10 Total 6 41 Mean 6.83 SD 0.69 Table 4 shows the result of task based 1 pre-intermediate level in oral communication there were six students all of them were able to do oral speaking in the class depend on the task based 1, the lowest score 6 and the highest score was eight. The average score 6.83. there were no students failed the test. The differences knowledge in the group was a bit difference as the contribution of score was 0.69. even though the value of standard deviation was high but all of them got high score. Table 5 post-test task based 2 Result of post-test task based 2 distance of score Score frequency Total percentage Fail and pass 1-2 1

2 3 3-4 4 5 5-6 6 73 21 30.00 10 7-8 81 8 10.00 96 54 60.00 9-10 10 Total 10 83 Mean 8.30 SD 0.90 Table 5 shows the result of pre-test task 2 , there were 10 students did oral communication with their friends and teacher in task based 2 , the average of score was 8.30. all of students in this intermediate group were good at doing oral communication on task based 2 as the result showed that the lowest score was 7 and the highest score was 9. According to the definition of standard deviation defined that the value of standard deviation, there is a small different among score cluster and close to average, however in this case standard deviation was 0.90 there was very few differences of students’ score, the distribution between the lowest core and highest were every high. Therefore students’ knowledge very different. Table 6 post-test task based 3 Result of post-test task based 3 distance of score Score frequency Total percentage Fail and pass 1 6 1-2 2 3 3-4 4 5-6 5

6 7 7-8 81 8 93 27 9-10 10 2 20 Total 6 55 Mean 9.17 SD 0.69 Table 6 revealed the result of post-test task based 3. Upper intermediate level , there were 6 students , the result revealed that 6 were able to use oral communication with their friends and teacher as the average 9.17 but they were a bit difference as the contribution of score was 0.69. 4.3. The result of Observation Table 7 the result of observation No Content Criteria Meaning N SD 54321 Teacher gives clear Very good 1 explanation on 2 2 5.00 presenting new language Teacher uses drilling 1 2 Very 2 techniques new 1 4.50 good language clearly Teacher provides good 3 material and using them 2 2 appropriately 5.00 Teacher differentiation 2 2 Very 4 and task based 5.00 good appropriately Teacher explains oral 2 Very 5 communication activity 1 4.50 good clearly 1

Students are motivated good 6 and involved teaching 11 2 and learning 3.50 Teacher provides chance good 7 for student to practice 2 2 orally 4.00 Teacher monitors and 1 2 Very 8 help students during 1 4.50 good practice the language 9 All of students are equip 2 2 5.00 Very to do their equally good Teacher organizes 11 2 4.50 good 10 activities suitably Teacher equips strong Very good 11 and weak students by 1 2 4.50 doing different task 1 Teacher asks question to Very good whole class and 2 2 12 5.00 individual depend on different group and task Student are 2 2 Very 13 differentiation by task, 5.00 good and extend activities Teacher asks question to 14 whole class and 2 2 5.00 individual Teacher assesses and 2 2 5.00 Very 15 concludes good average 4.66 Table 7 show the result of observation when the research was teaching oral communication task based by using differentiation instruction, there were two observers participating observation, the result of the observation showed that two observers agree in each teaching description were very good however the lost core was 3.50 was good and the highest score was 5.00 very good and the average of score was 4.66 very good result of the observation. As mentioned above the mean of the score was middle value of the result to the whole class, in this group 1,2 and 3 was very good according to task based 1, 2 and 3 both of the observers agree that task based

oral communication by using differentiation was able to assist the students who have different English proficiency in the same class. 4.4. The result of questionnaire Table 8 result of questionnaire No Content Criteria Meanin N SD g 54321 Teacher gives clear good 22 4.45 1 explanation on 10 12 presenting new 0.50 language Teacher uses drilling good 22 4.41 2 techniques new 9 13 0.49 language clearly Teacher provides 12 10 Very 3 material and using 22 4.55 them appropriately 0.50 good Teacher differentiation Very 4 and task based 16 6 22 4.73 good appropriately 0.45 Teacher explains oral good 22 4.45 5 communication 10 12 0.50 activity clearly Students are motivated Very 6 and involved teaching 18 4 22 4.82 good and learning 0.39 Teacher provides Very 7 chance for student to 11 11 22 4.50 good practice orally 0.50 Teacher monitors and Very 8 help students during 19 3 22 4.86 good practice the language 0.34 All of students are Very 9 equip to do their 18 4 22 4.82 good equally 0.39

Teacher organizes 15 7 22 4.68 0.47 good 10 activities suitably Teacher equips strong Very 11 and weak students by 15 7 22 4.68 good doing different task 0.47 Teacher asks question Very to whole class and good 12 individual depend on 16 6 different group and 22 4.73 task 0.45 Student are Very 13 differentiation by task, 14 8 22 4.64 good and extend activities 0.48 Teacher asks question Very 14 to whole class and 18 4 22 4.82 good individual 0.39 15 Teacher assesses and 12 10 22 4.55 0.50 Very concludes good average 4.65 0.45 The questionnaire was used after the experimental teaching had been conducted. The questions in questionnaire, according to the table 8 result of questionnaire This result showed that students thought toward teaching and learning task based 1, 2 and 3 by using differentiation instruction. The content of questionnaire were asked about how good the teacher conducted teaching, did the student understand the lesson taught or not. The average of the question was 4.65 was very good of teaching techniques, the average of students were but their thought from individually are still different as SD showed 0,45 In this chapter presented the result the research which had been conducted at Luangnamtha Teacher Training College by three research tools: pre-test and post-test observation and questionnaire.

Chapter V Conclusion, Discussion and Recommendation 5.1. Conclusion The research had been conducted for three months at Luangnamtha Teacher Training College in English major, the research employed three kinds of research tools: pre-test and post-test, observation and questionnaire there were 22 students were included for studying as target group. Those of them were separated in the groups: pre-intermediate, intermediate and upper-intermediate. In each group were assigned different task based by using differentiation instruction theories 5.2. Discussion According to the research result from three research tools as mentioned students year three A at Luangnamtha Teacher Training College have different English proficiency they were divided in three different groups which were assigned task based in the three different tasks based depend on their English proficiency. The result pre-test task based 1 average 3.33, pre-test task based 2 average 4.60 and another task based 3 average 4.50 and the result of post-test were the average of post-test task based 1 was 6.83, task based 2 was 8.30 and task based 3 was 9.17. according to data analysis on pre-test and post-test revealed that three different group of English year three at Luangnamtha teacher Training College have progressed on the their learning result because of the result of learning after the research used task based oral communication by differentiation instruction groups were better as the average of each group was higher. However students in three group still have a bit different knowledge as the standard deviation showed that the value of standard deviation task based 1 was 0.69, the value of standard deviation task based 2 was 0.90 and standard deviation task based 3 was 0,69. All of the students passed the test but they are still different.

However there is not only the result of students’ learning out come get better as well as the agreement of teachers’ observation in real teaching showed that two of observers satisfied with teaching technique of researcher the average score was 4.66, besides that the result questionnaire, the students all satisfied with teaching and learning because they agreement that presentation, research was able to explain the lesson and activities clearly and students had got the chance to involve teaching and learning and practice using the language as the average of questionnaire 4.65 very good teaching and standard deviation was 0.45 As many results of study tools showed the effective task based approach in oral communication get students chance used the language through practicing individual Task-based instruction provided learner with opportunities to implement English language contextu-ally, to explore it with situational activities. As task based learning is student centered, students were stimulated to use language inventively through the tasks they were asked to complete. Errors and mistakes while practic-ing the language were measured natural as the emphasis was on fluency and message assigning. Hence, students were allowed to prompt their ideas without anxiety of being reproached for making faults. Similarly, task-based learning exploited with the experimental group learn-ers offered them chances to learn while doing. Language learning should create a happy environment P. Santhosh and K. Meenakshi (2017) and Ying Ying Chuang (2008) explained that oral proficiency in motivating learning the language real- life by applying through task based environment student would benefit the language frm interacting with friend trough task based activities, students have more chance to communicate the target language and enhance their language abilities The research result was able to obtain the objective researches, students were improve their oral speaking abilities through improving teaching and learning English oral communication and using differentiation instruction in oral communication for students year three A at Luangnamtha teacher training college and the variation of research using task based oral communication and differentiation instruction was able to achieve teaching oral speaking to student English major at Luangnamtha teacher training college 5.3. Recommendation 1. The further research shouldn’t use many theories of teaching approach 2. Task based should focus on a particular language learning skills

Reference AQUILINO ( 2004) SANCHEepartamento de Filología Inglesa, Facultad de Letras, Campus de Lu ,I,lerced, 30071 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1072205.pdf Kris Van den Branden (2016) The Role of Teachers in Task-Based Language Education retrieve from https://www.unitus.it/public/platforms/18/cke_contents/3716/role_of_teachers_in_taskbased_languag e_education.pdf Célia Elisa Alves de Magalhães (2016) Developing communication skills:a task based learning approach retrieve from https://www.maxwell.vrac.puc-rio.br/28413/28413.PDFXXvmi= Alavinia,p (2012) using differentiatin instruction to teach vocabulary in mixed ability classes a focus on multiple intelligent and learning style, faculty of humanity and leter Urmia University,Iran.Retrievefrom:http://www.google.la/url? sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=103&ved=0ahUKEwio4a_Mz8fMAhULUI4KHVrSAqA4ZB AWCCUwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ijastnet.com%2Fjournals%2FVol_2_No_4_April_2012%2F1 1.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHQYtkHHmHIanurm2tCO_nwsHk1IQ&sig2=e6CYCDcwHie-YxQoVdVrqw Alverta (2005)http://www.learnalberta.ca/content/kes/pdf/or_ws_tea_elem_02_ diffinst.pdf Ellis, R. 2003. Task-based Language Teaching and Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Freeman,I.M,( 2015)journal of education and human development, differentiated instruction and its impact on diverse learners, American reseach on human development,retrievedfromhttps://education.alberta.ca/media/384968/makingadifference_2010.pdf Heacox, D. (2012). Differentiating instruction in the regular classroom: How to reach and teach all learners. Minneapolis: Free Spirit Publishing Inc Lao Education Strategy Plan ( 2016-2020) Laura A. Borja.(2015), differentiation instruction for EFL learners, international journal Humanities and social, Universidad tecnica de Machala Ecuador http://www.google.la/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=77&ved=0ahUKEwiavNfUzcfMAh XTGI4KHcfcD2U4RhAWCEgwBg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ijhssnet.com%2Fjournals%2FVol_5_N o_8_1_August_2015%2F5.pdf&usg=AFQjCNF_6DiRZcgs3UkZSrIHLoatDj34cQ&sig2=lH- ZqH4peRxrcW6gNVRrmg Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2000. Technique and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nation, I. and Newton, J. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking. New York: Routledge. P. Santhosh and K. Meenakshi(2017) Enhancing Oral Communication through Task Based Language Teaching among Polytechnic Students- An Experimental Study retrieved from:https://www.google.com/search?q=task+based+approach+in+teaching+speaking&ei=qc- SW7DNNMz-vgS4-6PIAg&start=30&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=664 Harmer,J.(2007). How to teach English (2nd ed.) England : Pearson Education Limited Nunan,D. (2004). Task based language teaching. Cambrigde: Cambridge University Press Nunnan,D. (2006) task-based language teaching in the Asia context: Defining ‘ task’ Asian EFL Journal, 8(3),12-18 Munirah & Muh (2015) Using Task-Based Approach in Improving the Students’ Speaking Accuracy and Fluency. Published by American Research Institute for Policy DevelopmentDOI:10.15640/jehd.v4n3a19URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.15640/jehd.v4n3a19 Qutbi Alam(2013) International Journal of English Language Teaching Vol.1, No 2, pp. 17-36, December 2013 Ruso, Nazenin. 2007. The Influence of Task Based Learning on EFL Classrooms. http://www.asian- efljournal.com/profession_teaching_articles.php. Sae-ong, U. 2010. The Used of Task-based Learning and Group Work Incorporating to Develop English Speaking Ability.Thailand: Shrinakhrinwirot University.

Teisen. T (1995) https://www.sedl.org/loteced/communique/n06.pdf Thousand, J. S., Villa, R. A., & Nevin, A. I. (2007). Differentiating instruction collaborative planning and teaching for universakky designed learning . Thousand Oaks. CA: Corwin Press. Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to differentiate instrcution in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Littlewood, W. (1992). Teaching oral communication: a methodological framework. Oxford: Blackwell. Brown, G. and Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the spoken language: an approach based on the analysis of conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Appendix Oral question 1. What is the name of this meeting? 2. When is it being held? 3. Where is it being held? 4. What are they going to talk about in the first item on the agenda? 5. What are they going to talk about in the second item on the agenda? 6. What are they going to talk about in the next item on the agenda? 7. What are they going to talk about in the fourth item on the agenda? 8. What is the last item on the agenda? Oral question about Sayaboury province 1. Where is Sayaboury Province? North, south, east, or west? 2. How far is it from your province? 3. What is its area? / How big is it? / What size is it? 4. What is its capital city?

5. What is its population? 6. What is the name of the river? 7. What country does it share border with? 8. Is it mountainous? 9. Does it have forests? 10. How prosperous is the province? Oral question about based task for differentiation Task 1 for (higher level) Report the graph about Lao education register between urban and rural area Use presentation techniques Check the content of presenting Ask open question and close depend on the content they prepare The reason differences between urban and rural Task based 2 for intermediate level Report the graph about students at Luangnamtha Teacher training college like to study English, math, primary school and kindergarten school and information technology Use presentation techniques Check the content of presenting Ask open question and close depend on the content they prepare Task based 3 for lower intermediate level Introduce yourselves where are you from, name, responsibilities and what they have learned from meeting Report the the name of meeting, time , location, participant and other regulation What are the topic of presented in the meeting Ask open question and close depend on the content they prepare Observation Name of teacher …………………………………class…………………time ……… Subject ………………………….. number of students……………………………..

Indicators observe the teacher and thick in the appropriate column 5 very good 4 good 3 average 2 weak 1 very weak No Content Criteria Meanin N SD g 54321 Teacher gives clear explanation on 1 presenting new language Teacher uses drilling 2 techniques new language clearly Teacher provides 3 material and using them appropriately Teacher differentiation 4 and task based appropriately Teacher explains oral 5 communication activity clearly Students are motivated 6 and involved teaching and learning Teacher provides 7 chance for student to practice orally Teacher monitors and 8 help students during practice the language All of students are 9 equip to do their equally 10 Teacher organizes activities suitably