The Most Applicable Method: A Justification for Task-Based Language

Teaching in a Vocational Context

A fundamental principle in modern pedagogy is the understanding that there is no single
best teaching method, but rather, a method that is most effective and applicable to a specific
group of learners, within a particular context, and with clearly defined goals (Richards &
Rodgers, 2014). This decision is particularly critical in a rapidly changing educational
landscape, where the objective is not merely to prepare students for exams, but to equip
them with practical skills for real-world communication and employability (Long, 2015).
Within the scope of this essay, I will focus on vocational college students in Vietnam who are
studying English for practical communication. I argue that Task-Based Language Teaching
(TBLT) is the most appropriate method for this group, offering a robust and engaging
framework to develop the communicative competence required in the workplace.

My current teaching context is a vocational school situated in the Mekong Delta. The
learners, aged 18 to 25 and belonging to the Gen Z generation, are pursuing career-oriented
degrees in fields such as business, hospitality, and information technology. A key feature of
this context is the learners’ limited English proficiency. Many enter with a weak foundation in
English due to high school education that focused heavily on grammar-translation methods,
emphasizing memorization over communication (Hieu, 2018). As a result, while they may
perform adequately on grammar tests, they often lack confidence in basic speaking
situations, such as giving presentations or participating in group discussions. Instructional
practices in many classrooms continue to rely on teacher-fronted methods and grammar
drills, reinforcing passive learning habits. What these students need is a shift from learning
about the language to actively using it. They require a method that bridges the gap between
theoretical knowledge and practical application—one that empowers them with the skills and
confidence essential for professional success.

Given this context, I am convinced that TBLT is the most suitable method. As an evolution of
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), TBLT is a learner-centered approach that places
authentic tasks at the heart of instruction. A “task” is defined as a purposeful activity where
learners use the target language to achieve a specific, real-world outcome (Willis, 1996).
Unlike traditional methods that present language and then practice it in isolation, TBLT
encourages learners to draw on their existing language resources to complete a task, after
which the teacher provides feedback on emergent language (Ellis, 2003). The focus is not
on flawless grammar, but on meaningful communication—making it particularly appropriate
for vocational students whose ultimate goal is to use English in real-life situations (Richards
& Rodgers, 2014).

In my classroom, I would implement TBLT using Willis’s (1996) three-stage framework: the
Pre-task, the Task Cycle, and the Language Focus. The Pre-task stage sets the foundation
for learning by activating prior knowledge and building motivation. For example, before a
role-play on team meetings, I might show a short video or present a workplace scenario for
discussion. I would provide light scaffolding—such as useful vocabulary or sentence frames
—without turning it into a grammar lesson. During the Task Cycle, students would work in
pairs or groups to complete the assigned task. My role would be that of a facilitator,
providing support without interrupting their fluency (Long, 2015). Once the task is completed,
students would present their outcomes to the class, developing both communicative and
public speaking skills. Finally, the Language Focus stage allows us to reflect on errors and
refine language accuracy. I would draw examples from student output—e.g., sentences from
their presentations—to analyze and improve grammar or pronunciation, making learning
more personalized and relevant (Willis, 1996).
I believe TBLT fits my teaching context for several reasons. First, it directly addresses
learners’ need for practical English communication. Their prior grammar-focused education
has fostered anxiety around speaking, particularly the fear of “losing face” when making
mistakes (Tran, 2019). TBLT helps reduce this anxiety by prioritizing task completion over
perfection and encouraging fluency through active engagement. Second, it is inherently
learner-centered, pushing students to take responsibility for their own learning. This shift is
essential for developing autonomy—an important trait for success in vocational settings
(Long, 2015). Lastly, TBLT promotes authentic language use. Tasks reflect workplace
realities such as handling customer requests, leading meetings, or giving short reports.
Instead of memorizing disconnected dialogues, students negotiate meaning and solve
problems—skills directly transferable to their future jobs.

Despite my enthusiasm for TBLT, I anticipate several challenges in its implementation. The
first is institutional resistance. The current curriculum emphasizes traditional assessments
like multiple-choice grammar tests, and administrators may view TBLT as incompatible with
standardized frameworks. This skepticism is often rooted in long-standing pedagogical
norms and fear of change (Borg, 2009; Nguyen, 2011). To address this, I would begin with
small pilot lessons, aligning each task with curriculum objectives and documenting student
progress. I could record lessons or presentations (with consent), gather reflection forms, and
share results during professional development sessions to build support. Demonstrating
improved engagement and oral performance can serve as persuasive evidence for wider
adoption (Ellis, 2003).A second challenge lies in learners’ hesitation and limited proficiency.
Many students from the Mekong Delta have had little exposure to English outside the
classroom and are often reluctant to speak. Their past experience with teacher-centered
grammar instruction has conditioned them to fear making mistakes (Hieu, 2018; Tran, 2019).
To overcome this, I would create a low-stakes environment where errors are treated as
learning opportunities (Nunan, 1991). I would start with simple, relatable tasks—such as
describing a favorite food or planning a trip—and offer scaffolding through visual aids and
sentence starters. I would also delay correction to the Language Focus stage to preserve
learner fluency and build a culture of peer support and risk-taking.A third obstacle is my own
teacher readiness. While I am trained in TBLT theory, applying it in real classrooms requires
confidence, flexibility, and reflective practice. I may struggle to resist over-correcting or find it
difficult to improvise around emergent language (Long, 2015). To address this, I would
observe experienced teachers, co-plan lessons with colleagues, and keep a reflective
journal to identify areas for growth. As Nunan (1991) emphasizes, teacher development is
an ongoing process shaped by experience and self-awareness.Lastly, limited resources may
restrict the implementation of more ambitious tasks. Many vocational schools lack
technology, authentic materials, or dedicated English labs due to budgetary constraints.
However, I believe that resource scarcity can foster creativity (Willis, 1996). I would use real-
life materials available in the local environment—such as flyers, signs, menus, or online
videos—and encourage students to use their phones for recording or accessing online tools.
These low-tech, high-impact strategies keep learning relevant without depending on costly
infrastructure.

In conclusion, TBLT is a highly applicable and effective approach for vocational learners in
Vietnam, particularly in the Mekong Delta. It moves beyond rote memorization, helping
students engage in meaningful, goal-oriented communication. While the road to
implementation may be challenging, the potential rewards—increased confidence,
autonomy, and communicative competence—justify the effort. My aim is not simply to teach
English but to cultivate learners who can use it to unlock opportunities in their personal and
professional lives. In this regard, TBLT is not only a method—it is a mindset.

References
Hieu, T. (2018). English Teaching and Learning in Vietnam: A Socio-cultural Perspective.
Vietnam National University Press.

Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. John
Wiley & Sons.

Nunan, D. (1991). Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers. Prentice Hall
International.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.
Cambridge University Press.

Tran, T. (2019). Cultural Factors Affecting English Language Learning in Vietnam. University
of Social Sciences and Humanities Press.

Willis, J. (1996). A Framework for Task-Based Learning. Longman.