bahrami conference paper

The Effect of task- based language teaching on Iranian High School Vocabulary learning.

Amirabbas GhorbaniIslamic Azad University, Qazvin Branch, Iran.

[email protected]

Masoumeh BahramiIslamic Azad University, Qazvin Branch, Iran.

[email protected]

Abstract

In this study attempts were made to investigate the effect of task- based language teaching on

Iranian high school student’s vocabulary learning. To this end, 60 female Iranian high school

students were selected via convenience sampling to participate in the study. Their age ranged

from 15 to 17. Three kinds of instruments were used in this study. The first one was

Preliminary English Test (PET), used for homogenizing the subjects regarding their level and

they were assigned randomly into two groups: experimental and control. The second one was

a vocabulary pretest in the multiple-choice format. And the third test was a vocabulary

posttest in the multiple-choice format then the control group have no treatment, the traditional

vocabulary teaching, and an experimental group are in three conditions of task-based

teaching, including communicative cross words task, matching task, and negotiation of

meaning. To analyze the data obtained from these tests, ANOVA was run and the results

showed that task based language teaching positively affected the Iranian high school students’

vocabulary learning. The pedagogical implication of this study for EFL students and teachers

is that they can shift from traditional ways of memorizing vocabularies to using task based

language teaching.

Key Words: task- based teaching, vocabulary tasks, vocabulary learning

Introduction

Task-based language teaching (TBLT) has become a significant topic in second language

acquisition that promotes process-focused syllabi in order to improve learners’ real language

via communicative tasks in the early 1980s (Jeon and Hahn, 2006). Also it is a common idea

in language teaching and is based on the concepts of task ( Birjandi&Malmir, 2010). Task-

based language teaching is a reaction to traditional methods. It helps learners to direct their

learning process and be responsible for their learning.

The problem that this study is concentrated about refers to the techniques that Iranian teachers

apply for teaching vocabulary. These techniques are confined to traditional approaches. They

just memorize the meaning of a long vocabulary list for each lesson without any activity or

tasks to help them to learn new vocabulary effectively and communicate in real situations. It

should be stated that the English language is taught two hours per week in high school in Iran,

and teachers can mostly teach through their preferred methodology as there is no specific

teacher manual available.

Because of the University Entrance Exam (Konkoor) the teachers try to prepare the students

for this exam by focusing on the items of exam. The focus of the exam is mostly on

grammatical point, memorization of new words in isolation, and reading through some

passages and answering related questions (Riazi, 2010). So task has no place in most of the

Iranian English language teaching.

Previous researches on the effect of Task-based language teaching on vocabulary learning

have focused on three kinds of reading tasks which are text- based tasks to investigate the

effect of TBLT on vocabulary learning. These tasks are blank filling, comprehension multiple

choice questions, and sentence writing. Some research works have focused on the effect of

recognition and production tasks on vocabulary learning. (Touti, 2013; Thanh&Huan, 2012;

Vosoughi & Mehdipour 2013).

However minimal research attention has been directed towards the effect of negotiation of

meaning, matching, and communicative cross words tasks on vocabulary learning and the

significant difference between these three kinds of task in terms of their effect on vocabulary

learning. Examining the effect of these three tasks on vocabulary learning, the following

research questions were posed:

1. Does task- based vocabulary teaching have a significant effect on Iranian high school

students’ vocabulary learning?

2. Do negotiation of meaning, matching, and communicative crossword tasks make a

significant difference in Iranian high school students’ vocabulary retention?

3. How do Iranian high school students perceive the effect of task- based vocabulary

teaching on their vocabulary learning?

Background of the study

Several empirical studies have investigated the effects of tasks on learners’ vocabulary

learning (e.g Vosough&Mehdipour, 2013; Sarini&Sahebi, 2012) although, most of them have

limited to Vosough and Mehdipour (2013) investigated the significant effect of recognition

and production tasks on incidental vocabulary learning. They believe that there are some

factors that influence the learning of a lexical item and make the acquisition of vocabulary

difficult.

They refer to Ellis (2001) that suggests Consciousness-raising tasks to draw learners’

attention to a particular linguistic feature through a range of inductive and deductive

procedures. The assumption here is not that a feature once raised to consciousness will be

immediately incorporated into the learner’s inter-language.

It was concluded that those who did production task through reading outperformed those who

did recognition group in vocabulary test.

Sarini and Sahebi (2012) investigate the teaching of vocabulary in ESP courses within the

paradigm of task-based language teaching, concentrating on Persian literature students at

Birjand University in Iran. Data analysis showed that the task-based approach was more

effective in teaching technical vocabularies compared to the traditional one. Furthermore, the

results showed that in the experimental group the male learners outperformed the female

learners.

Thanh and Huan (2012) have a research on task-based language learning and student

motivation in vocabulary acquisition. This article explores the impact of task-based language

learning on motivating non-English majors to acquire vocabulary at a community college in

Vietnam. The findings indicated that the participants were motivated to learn vocabulary and

their vocabulary achievement improved after the experiment.

Alsagheer .A. Hasan (2014) investigates the effect of a task – based learning program in

teaching English on the secondary school students' oral English performance. To achieve this

objective, a task based program was constructed to teach two units from the second year

secondary school textbook.

After the analyzing the data, the results revealed that there were statistically significant

differences between mean scores of the experimental and the control group subjects in both

one way monologue and two way dialogue tests favoring the experimental group. Results also

showed statistically significant differences between mean scores of the experimental group

subjects in one way monologue and two way dialogue tests favoring the one way monologue

test.

Xu (2013) has an empirical study that was undertaken to test the Involvement Load

Hypothesis by examining the impact of three tasks on vocabulary acquisition. It was designed

to test and develop the involvement load hypothesis by examining the impact of different

reading tasks; multi-choice comprehension questions (Task M), blank-filling task (Task B) as

well as sentence-making task (Task S), on the L2 vocabulary acquisition.

The results indicate that using new words in contextualized communication is an efficient

means to extend and consolidate learners’ vocabulary acquisition.

The present study is primarily designed to investigate the effect of task-based teaching of high

school bookone new vocabularies on high school Iranian EFL learners’ vocabulary learning.

It also tried to find out whether there is any significant difference between the effect tasks of

vocabulary teaching that they are negotiation of meaning, matching, and information gap, on

high school Iranian EFL learners’ vocabulary learning.

Methodology

Participants

60 Iranian high school female students were the participants for the researcher to test the

research hypotheses. The participants were selected by the result of a preliminary English test

(PET) and were assigned into two groups of 30, namely a control group and an experimental

group. The experimental group received three types of tasks namely communicative cross

words task, matching task, and negotiation of meaning.

Instruments

The instrumentation included the PET, as a standardized general proficiency test in order to

select homogeneous groups in terms of their language proficiency level. The second

instrument was a researcher-made diagnostic vocabulary test as the pre and posttest. The test

consisted 30 items. The test was validated by two experts in the field. Cronbach alpha was

used to test the reliability of the test and it turned about to be 0.83. A semi-structured focus

group discussion was also conducted to explore learners' attitudes towards learning

vocabulary through task-based approach.

Data Collection procedure

To reach the goals of this study, a preliminary English test pre and posttest and an interview

were used. PET, as a standardized general proficiency test was used in order to select

homogeneous groups in terms of their language proficiency level. The pre-test was

administered at the first session and the post test was administered at the end of the sessions

and also two weeks later. Two groups (control and experimental) were assigned into two

teaching conditions. The researcher applied two different approaches to teach vocabularies to

the participants in the study. The participants in the control group were taught vocabulary

based on the traditional method. For the experimental group, the class time was divided into

three phases: pre-task, during task and post-task. The tasks were negotiation of meaning,

communicative cross words, and matching. At the end of the sessions focus group discussion

has been done in order to know the students’ ideas about task- based language teaching

approach.

Data Analysis Procedure

To conduct an ideal analysis of the collected data and to compare the measures of the mean

scores of two groups (traditional and task-based teaching) t-test were used. At first PET was

employed for screening purpose of the participants who were selected homogeneously.

Preceding the treatment, the pre-test was used to check the participants' knowledge. The

descriptive statistics of the pre-test of the two groups were displayed in tables. The core of the

analysis is comparing control and experimental groups’ vocabulary achievement. With regard

to the nature of this investigation which is mainly concerned with the comparison of the mean

scores of the two groups, the quantifiable data from the participants was analyzed by means of

the t-test formula utilized for describing the significance difference between two groups. To

compare the effect of tree kinds of tasks in experimental group, the researcher used ANOVA.

Results

To investigate the effect of task- based language teaching on students’ vocabulary learning the

mean score of experimental group and control group in posttest were compared. With regard

to the nature of the present investigation which is mainly concerned with the comparison of

the mean scores of the two groups, the quantifiable data from the participants were gleaned by

means of the t-test formula utilized for describing the significance difference between the

groups.

Table 4.1Descriptive Statistics to show the effect of TBLT in experimental group

Leven’s Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

Std. Error Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the DifferenceLower Upper

Number

Equal variances assumed

5.143 .029 -3.775 38 .001

-7.40000

1.96040

-11.36862

-3.43138

Equal variances not assumed

-3.775 35.914 .001

-7.40000

1.96040

-11.37620

-3.42380

In this table the number, mean, normal distribution, and standard deviation are shown for each

group. Leven’s test investigates the equality of variance. In this situation, P is 0.029 that is

below 0.05 so the hypothesis of equality of variance is rejected. In this example the difference

between the scores of two groups is -7.40000 and according to Leven’s test and the statistics

related to the equal analysis P is 0.001. α is less than 0.05, In this situation the null hypothesis

is rejected, considering the 0.95 level of significance (p=.05).Therefore, the null hypothesis of

the study is rejected and we can safely claim that task- based vocabulary teaching had

significant effect on Iranian high school learners’ vocabulary learning.

To investigate the significant difference between three tasks of vocabulary teaching in

experimental group ANOVAwas used. The following table summarizes the results.

The first result of the variance analysis is shown in the above table. According to this

analysis, F is .224 and P is 0.800. In other words the equal hypothesis of the mean scores of

three teaching tasks is accepted which shows that there is no difference between at least one

teaching task with another teaching task. The descriptive result is shown below:

Table 4.3Descriptive Statistics to show the difference between teaching tasks

N MeanStd. Deviation

Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

1 12 .6458 .17769 .05129 .5329 .7587 .35 1.002 10 .6250 .18143 .05737 .4952 .7548 .20 .753 8 .6812 .17308 .06119 .5366 .8259 .40 .95Total 30 .6483 .17295 .03158 .5838 .7129 .20 1.00

According to the standard deviation and maximum and minimum amount it seems that data in

three groups (tasks) follow the equal normal distribution. So the equal mean hypothesis

between groups (tasks) or null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 4.2ANOVA test for investigation of difference between three tasks in experimental group.

Sum of Squares Df

Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups .014 2 .007 .224 .800

Within Groups .853 27 .032Total .867 29

The results show that there is no significant difference between three kinds of teaching tasks

(negotiation of meaning, matching, and communicative crosswords) in experimental group.

To investigate how Iranian high school students perceive the effect of task- based vocabulary

teaching on their vocabulary learningthe data was collected from group discussions in

experimental group. Data was analyzed through theme analysis procedures and the following

three categories emerged from the qualitative data.

1. Task- based vocabulary learning is easy for language learners.

2. Task- based vocabulary learning makes the students active in learning process.

3. Task- based vocabulary learning causes easy retention.

Fast and Easy

According to students interview ( July, 2014) It can be said that they are satisfied and happy

with TBLT class and they found task- based vocabulary learning as an easy and fast way of

vocabulary learning.

Pre-task activities provide a back ground for students about the new words which can be

helpful to learn the new words more easily. The pictures, synonyms, antonyms, use new

words in context, and….. as pre-task activities help students in TBLT class to elicit or at least

guess the new words meaning. (Observation note, July, 2014)

“We are interested in task- based vocabulary learning because it has the pre-task phase which

provides an opportunity for us to think about new words and relate the new words with their

pictures, synonyms, context, and… before having their direct meaning. But in traditional class

we are forced receive the new words and their meaning at the same time without any thinking

or mental preparation.” (Focus group discussion, July, 2014)

Students ‘Active Role

The students in TBLT class are more active. In TBLT class the students are asked to have

responsibility in their learning process and they are not forced just to be in class physically

and have no active mental participation in learning process, they do not repeat the new words

and their meaning after teacher and memorize them later ( observation note, July, 2014).

"We are not forced to listen to the teacher and just repeat after her without

any active role or sometimes any concentration."

(Focus group discussion, July, 2014).

The students’ participation is different in different tasks in TBLT class. Their role is more

active in matching task and communicative crosswords task in contrast with negotiation of

meaning task.

"We have the same question of “what is the meaning of ……….. ( new

words)” in negotiation of meaning task, so we think that this repeated

question reduces our challenging in contrast with other two tasks matching

and communicative crosswords which provide us more active role and

challenge."


In TBLT class the students’ engagement provide them a kind of motivation to learn and this

motivation will increase when they find that they do all parts or most parts of tasks correctly.

"We know that we are useful and have an important role in learning process

when we are successful in doing tasks and we can elicit the word meanings.

This helps us to continue and be satisfied with TBLT class"


Easy Retention

By comparing the oral class tests in both TBLT and traditional class, it seems that most

students in TBLT class remember the words and their meanings more easily and fast.

"We can remember the words and their meanings by referring and reviewing

the keys in vocabulary tasks through which we learn the word meanings. For

example we make a relationship between “kindergarten” as a new words and

“little children” in the task sentence as a key to be a fast way for

remembering the word meaning."


Another evidence that shows task- based vocabulary learning as an easy way in retention of

word meanings is the students ‘claim about their studying at home. According to the group

discussion (July 2014) they learn the new words in the classroom and they just have a review

at home. They believe that memorization of new words and their meanings is a difficult and

time consuming work in addition to forget them in a short time.

Therefore, it can be concluded that learning the new words and their meaning in a TBLT class

is easy and fast, motivational, effective, and it makes easy retention, and also learning

vocabulary as a homework does not take a lot of time

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to inspect the effect of task-based language teaching on Iranian

EFL learners’ vocabulary learning. In fact, this study intended to inspect which method is

better to teach vocabulary to EFL learners, task-based or traditional method. As the results of

this study showed, task-based method of vocabulary teaching outperformed traditional one in

Iranian EFL learners.

The findings of this study are similar to that of Thanh and Huan (2012). They have inspected

the task-based language learning and students’ motivation in vocabulary acquisition. The

findings of their study indicated that the participants were motivated to learn vocabulary and

their vocabulary achievement improved.

On the other hand, it can be said that the findings of this study is close to Xu’s (2013) study.

He was intended to test the Involvement Load Hypothesis by examining the impact of three

tasks on vocabulary acquisition. It was designed to test and develop the involvement load

hypothesis by examining the impact of different reading tasks; multi-choice comprehension

questions (Task M), blank-filling task (Task B) as well as sentence-making task (Task S), on

the L2 vocabulary acquisition. The results indicated that using these task-based methods is an

efficient means to extend and consolidate learners’ vocabulary acquisition.

One other study which has similar findings to the results of this study was Sarini and Sahebi’s

(2012) study. They investigate the teaching of vocabulary in ESP courses within the paradigm

of task-based language teaching. The results of their study showed that the task-based

approach was more effective in teaching technical vocabularies compared to the traditional

one.

The other issue that this thesis dealt with was how Iranian high school students perceive the

effect of task- based vocabulary teaching on their vocabulary learning. To answer this

research question, the data was analyzed based on four categories which emerged from

qualitative data.

The first category was task- based vocabulary learning is fast and easy. According to students

interview ( July, 2014), it can be said that they are satisfied and happy with TBLT class and

they found task- based vocabulary learning as an easy and fast way of vocabulary learning.

Pre-task activities provide a background for students about the new words, which can be

helpful to learn the new words more easily. The pictures, synonyms, antonyms, use new

words in context, and….. as pre-task activities help students in TBLT class to elicit or at least

guess the new words meaning(observation note, July, 2014). So it can be said that pre-task

activities activate learners to think about new words and their meanings. The researcher as the

class teacher found that this stage in TBLT is an opportunity for learners to be familiar with

the main teaching materials.

The second category was task- based vocabulary learning makes an active role for students in

TBLT class. The students in TBLT class are more active. In TBLT class the students are

asked to have responsibility in their learning process and they are not forced just to be in class

physically and have no active mental participation in learning process, they do not repeat the

new words and their meaning after teacher and memorize them later ( observation note, July,

2014).

In TBLT class the students’ engagement provides them a kind of motivation to learn and this

motivationincreases when they find that they do all parts or most parts of tasks correctly.

According to focus group discussion the students believe that they have an important role in

their learning, they are more satisfied with TBLT class.

Findings of group discussion on the shows task- based vocabulary learning causes an easy

retention of vocabulary meaning. By comparing the oral class tests in both TBLT and

traditional class, it seems that most students in TBLT class remember the words and their

meanings more easily and fast.

Another evidence that shows task- based vocabulary learning as an easy way in retention of

word meanings is the students’ claim about their studying at home. According to the group

discussion (July 2014) they learn the new words in the classroom and they just have a review

at home. They believe that memorization of new words and their meanings is a difficult and

time consuming work in addition to forget them in a short time. The researcher as the teacher

who observed the students’ motivation and interest in learning process and their learning

speed found that learning new words in TBLT class can be easy, fast, and motivational.

The forth category was relating the new words with their blanks in task sentences in TBLT.

According to the teacher’s observation (July, 2014), the students’ main problem in TBLT

class was making a relationship between the new words and their blanks in task sentences. It

seems that this problem is because of forgetting the previous words and their meaning. They

cannot have a proper comprehension of task sentences to decide which new word is correct

for the blanks. They guess the word meanings in pre-task phase but sometimes were not able

to relate them to task sentences.

According to the above information from teacher observation and group discussion (July,

2014), it seems that the students in TBLT class are happy and satisfied with this approach and

they like to learn all new words of their book by task- based vocabulary teaching. Task- based

vocabulary teaching is an easy, interesting, fast, effective, method and it provides motivation

and interest for students to do the tasks and also helps them to participate in learning process.

Conclusion

The teacher’s aim in the traditional language classroom is to assure that students learn the new

vocabulary and grammatical rules of the new language, the focus is on the language itself

rather than on the information carried out by the language or the way it is processed and used.

In contrast, TBLT environments have become a trend that involve learning goals that put the

emphasis on interaction, conversation, and language use, not learning the language itself. In

other words, TBI is an approach of language learning that involves doing a familiar task in

target language (Lightbown& Spada, 1999).

The purpose of the study was to examine whether the TBLT served the function of improving

high school student’s vocabulary learning. Students would benefit by interacting with peers

through task-based vocabulary activities—participants could have more chances to

communicate in the target language and enhance their language ability, especially developing

their oral proficiency.

On the other hand, students built up their self-confidence and self-fulfillment through task-

based activities, dared to speak, and learned to work together in class through task-based

activities—not only their language ability but also their communicative ability improved

rapidly. The results of the t-test performed to compare the mean scores of the experimental

and control group’ performances on vocabulary learning in the pre- test and post-test,

revealed a significant difference between the mean scores of the two groups.

Their performances on the posttest were considerably higher than that of their performances

on the pre-test. In response to the second research question, there was no significant

difference between three kinds of vocabulary tasks. And the result of third research question

showed that the students in experimental group (TBLT class) are satisfied with TBLT.

Totally, the results confirm that task- based vocabulary teaching had a significant effect on

learners’ vocabulary learning in contrast with traditional teaching and also the students in

TBLT were more satisfied and happy with TBLT class and they found task- based vocabulary

learning as an easy and fast way of vocabulary learning.

Reference

Alasghar.A.Hasan.A. 2014.The effect of using task- based learning in teaching English on

The oral performance of the secondary school students. Sohag University & King

Khalid University

Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Sarani, A., &Sahebi, L.(2012). The Impact of Task-Based Approach onVocabulary Learning

in ESP Courses. English Language Teaching, 5, 10, 118-128.

Thanh, L.N., &Huan, N.B. (2012). Task-based language learning and student motivation in

vocabulary acquisition. Language Education in Asia, 3(1), 106-120.

Touti.H.2013. Task-Type Based Vocabulary Instruction an Impact on Incidental Word Retention. World Applied Sciences Journal

Vosoughi, H. &Mehdipour, Z. (2013).Effects of recognition task and production task on

incidental vocabulary learning of Iranian EFL learners..International research Journal

of Applied and Basic Sciences, 4 (3), 147-159.

Xu, J. ( 2013). An experimental study on the effect of different reading tasks on L2

Vocabulary acquisition. English Language Teaching.

bahrami conference paper

Documents