The perceptions of Iranian EFL teachers towards the effect of incorporating different task types on their learners’ oral interaction
Subject Areas : Curriculum Design and Development
Shima Ghiabi
1
(Azad Malayer university)
Abbas Bayat
2
(English Language Department, Islamic Azad University, Malayer Branch, Malayer, Iran)
Hamid reza Khalaji
3
(English Language Department, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad university, Malayer, Iran)
Keywords: Task-based learning, Task types, Oral interaction, EFL learners,
Abstract :
There are different task types to improve oral production. The present study investigated the perceptions of Iranian EFL teachers towards the efficiency of incorporating different task types on their learners’ oral interaction. The research was performed through the use of qualitative content analysis by using semi-structured interview data. The interview protocol was developed following discussions with experts in the field and previous research. The first group of participants included six Iranian female English teachers selected through convenience sampling. This group was interviewed for the purpose of extracting their perceptions of different task types and the effect of task types on the oral interaction before and after the study. The second group included 120 EFL learners who were recruited using convenience sampling. The researchers transcribed the audio-recorded interview data verbatim for data analysis. Subsequently, qualitative analysis was conducted on the transcriptions of interviews using coding procedures such as open coding, axial coding, and selective coding to recognize recurring patterns, themes, categories, and sub-categories within the collected data. The findings indicated that EFL teachers held highly positive perceptions regarding various forms of form-focused and meaningful tasks, as well as their impact on the oral interaction of EFL learners. This shows that teacher’ familiarity with and practice of different types of form focused and meaningful tasks have changed their perceptions of the effectiveness of various task types. Given that oral interaction in general is considered as a big achievement and advantage for EFL learners, it can be concluded that different form focused and meaningful tasks can provide EFL learners with competitive advantages in comparison to their counterparts at homogenous conditions.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education. 8th edition, Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., Sorensen, C.K. and Walker, D. (2014). Introduction to research in education. 9th edition, Wadsworth, London.
Bagheri Masoudzde, A., Rostami Abousaeedi, A., & Afraz, S. (2020). Perceptions of English Language Learners about Teaching of Reading Comprehension Skills: A View of Task-based Language Teaching Method. Journal of Language and Translation, 10 (2), 135-151.
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2001). Introduction. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing (pp. 1-20). New York: Pearson Education Limited.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5, 161-170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/iral.1967.5.1-4.161.
Creswell, J.W. (2013) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach. 4th edition, SAGE Publications, Inc., London.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, A. K. (2004). Exemplars of curriculum theory. New York: Eye on Education, Inc.
Ellis, R. (2005) Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33, 209-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.12.006
Firouzi, J., & Khabiri, M. (2018). The comparative effect of task type and learning conditions on the achievement of specific target forms. Journal of Language and Translation, 8(1), 43 -55.
Fonseca, D. (2016). TBLT approach for language teaching and learning. Creative Education, 5(4), 22-34.
Foster, P. (1999). The Influence of Task Structure and Processing Conditions on Narrative Retellings. Language Learning, 49, 93-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00071
Hadi, A. (2013). Perceptions of task-based language teaching: A study of Iranian EFL learners. Canadian Center of Science and Education, 6(1), 103-111. Retrieved on 21 November, 2016 from doi:10.5539/elt. v6n1p103
Jasim, I. A. (2011). Investigating teachers' attitudes toward task-based language teaching in a vocational school in the UAE (Unpublished M.A. thesis). American University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE.
Jeon, I., & Hahn, J. (2006). Exploring EFL teachers' perceptions of task-based language teaching: A case study of Korean secondary school classroom practice. Asian EFL Journal, 8(4), 45-53.
Jones, M. (2020). English language teachers’ stated beliefs and practices regarding task-based language teaching and listening. Explorations in Teacher Development, 23(1), 11–16.
Khalili Sabet, M., & Tahriri, A. (2014). The Impact of Task-based Approach on Iranian EFL Learners’ Motivation in Writing Research Abstracts. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 5(4), 45-57.
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Prentice-Hall International: Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford: OUP.
Liu, Y., Mishan, F., & Chambers, A. (2018). Investigating EFL teachers’ perceptions of task-based language teaching in higher education in China. Language Learning Journal 49(24). DOI:10.1080/09571736.2018.1465110
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie, & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.
Long, M. H. (1988). Instructed Interlanguage Development. In L. Beebe (Ed.), Issues in Second Language Acquisition: Multiple Perspectives (pp. 115-141). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marashi, H., & Amirabadi, S. (2018). The impact of information-gap and opinion-gap tasks on EFL learners' lexical collocation achievement. International Journal of Educational Investigations, 4(2), 28-38.
Pohan, E., Andhin, E., Nopitasari, E., & Levana, Y. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions of task-based language teaching in English classroom. Proceedings of The Fourth International Seminar on English Language Teaching (ISELT-4) Universitas Negeri Padang (UNP), Padang, Indonesia, May 11-12, 2016 http://english.unp.ac.id/ ISBN: 978-602-74437-0-9 (pp. 256 – 265).
Rezaei, O., Mehri, M., & Shakerian, P. (2017). The effect of the implementation of Task Based language teaching on Iranian EFL learners' reading comprehension performance. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 4, 247-259.
Rezaeyan, M. (2014). On the impact of task-based teaching on academic achievement of Iranian EFL learners (case study: female high school students in Yasuj). International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW), 7 (3), 476-493.
Richards, J. C., Platt, J., & Platt, H. (1992). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (2nd ed.). London: Longman.
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (p. 204). New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667305.021
Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van-Batenburg, E., Oostdam, R., Gelderen, A., & Fukkink, R. (2019). The effects of instructional focus and task type on pre-vocational learners' ability in EFL oral interaction. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 171(5), 98-112.
Wang, H. (2019). The influence of creative task engagement on English L2 learners’ negotiation of meaning in oral communication tasks. Educational System, 3(4), 83-94.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Longman Addison Wesley.
Xiongyong, C., & Moses, S. (2011). Perceptions and implementation of task-based language teaching among secondary school EFL teachers in China. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(24), 292– 302.
Zohouri Vaghei, A., Taghipour Bazargani, D., & Pourramzan P. (2015). The effect of one-way versus two-way tasks on Iranian Intermediate EFL learners’ collocation competence (Unpublished Master Thesis). Islamic Azad University, Rasht Branch, Iran.
Curriculum Research, Volume 5, Issue 3, Sept. 2024
Curriculum Research | Volume 5, Issue 3 Sept. 20, 2024 | |
The perceptions of Iranian EFL teachers towards the effect of incorporating different task types on their learners’ oral interaction | ||
Article info | Abstract |
|
Article Type: | There are different task types to improve oral production. The present study investigated the perceptions of Iranian EFL teachers towards the efficiency of incorporating different task types on their learners’ oral interaction. The research was performed through the use of qualitative content analysis by using semi-structured interview data. The interview protocol was developed following discussions with experts in the field and previous research. The first group of participants included six Iranian female English teachers selected through convenience sampling. This group was interviewed for the purpose of extracting their perceptions of different task types and the effect of task types on the oral interaction before and after the study. The second group included 120 EFL learners who were recruited using convenience sampling. The researchers transcribed the audio-recorded interview data verbatim for data analysis. Subsequently, qualitative analysis was conducted on the transcriptions of interviews using coding procedures such as open coding, axial coding, and selective coding to recognize recurring patterns, themes, categories, and sub-categories within the collected data. The findings indicated that EFL teachers held highly positive perceptions regarding various forms of form-focused and meaningful tasks, as well as their impact on the oral interaction of EFL learners. This shows that teacher’ familiarity with and practice of different types of form focused and meaningful tasks have changed their perceptions of the effectiveness of various task types. Given that oral interaction in general is considered as a big achievement and advantage for EFL learners, it can be concluded that different form focused and meaningful tasks can provide EFL learners with competitive advantages in comparison to their counterparts at homogenous conditions. | |
Original Research | ||
Authors: | ||
Shima Ghiabi1 Abbas Bayat2 Hamid Reza Khalaji3 | ||
| ||
| ||
Article History:
Received: 2024.05.22 Accepted: 2024.09.03 Published: 2024.09.20 | ||
|
|
|
| Keywords: Task-based learning, Task types, Oral interaction, EFL learners | |
[1] 1. Ph.D. Candidate, Department of English Language, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran. Shimaghiabi67@yahoo.com
[2] . Department of English Language, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran, (Corresponding Author): Abbasbayat305@yahoo.com
[3] . Department of English Language, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran. hrkhalaji@gmail.com
1. Introduction
Language acquisition is an evolving, natural process that adheres to its unique timeline (Foster 1999, p. 69). These concepts have paved the way for the emergence of an alternative method in language instruction called Task-based learning (TBL). TBL is considered as an alternative teaching method to traditional language teaching methods since it favors a methodology that aims at functional communicative language use (Willis, 1996; Ellis, 2003). There are different types of tasks to improve interaction. In Task-based instruction (TBI), where meaning is primary, authenticity, language acquisition and, development are important issues as well (Skehan, 1998). It involves learners in completing meaning and there are overwhelming evidence to use language, as learners should be engaged in meaning. The evidence begins with Corder's (1967) research on interlanguage, followed by the contributions of Krashen (1981), Long (1988), Skehan (1998), and Ellis (2003). For instance, Krashen (1981) argues that the explicit learning of grammar does not significantly impact the development of a functional language system. Long (1988) also provides support for this concept. Skehan (1996) reports that tasks should be designed to make a relation with the real world to enhance the communicative nature and meaning-focused of tasks. The relation to real life makes it more authentic and meaningful. As Ellis (2003) mentions, authentic tasks refer to such tasks whose interactional patterns are similar to those in real life situations. Apart from definitions that focus on the relation of tasks to real life, other ones underscore the pedagogical usefulness of tasks. He also adds that pedagogic tasks are similar to authentic tasks, but they do not certainly aim to have interactional patterns which happen in the real world. According to Ellis (2005), Skehan (1998) acknowledges the previous research on grammatical structure, but he argues that language use is the cornerstone of the learning process, and he explicitly opposes an approach that focuses primarily on the presentation and practice of grammatical form.
Various frameworks have been created to analyze classroom discourse, with one of the most renowned being the Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) model introduced by Sinclair and Coulthard in 1975. This model consists of a three-step sequence or a triadic conversation where (I) signifies the teacher's initiation, (R) denotes the students' response, and (F) represents the feedback or further interaction by the teacher. The IRF model is prevalent in various classroom settings and is the primary form of classroom communication across all grade levels. This interaction pattern is considered the most frequent way in which classroom discussions unfold within particular language contexts (e.g., Celce–Murcia, 2007). Many students strive to enhance their performance by utilizing the language correctly. With the emergence of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), efforts have been made to assess students' proficiency in speaking accuracy speaking. According to Richards, Platt, and Platt (1992), accuracy is described as the skill to generate sentences that are grammatically correct.
Facing some challenges, teachers are exploring some useful methods to create a change in their classrooms. Generally, the problems are caused by language learners’ lack of motivation. Maximizing students’ motivation and involvement has always been the primary concern of language teachers. It is worth mentioning that applying more communicative methods as TBLT in EFL classes creates a variety for language learners, encourages involvement, and improves their language performance (Khalili Sabet & Tahriri, 2014). Seemingly, implementing task-based approach in teaching English skills have the potentials to shed some light on the issue at stake (Bagheri Masoudzade et al., 2020). The investigation of task-based L2 performance holds significance for L2 theorists and practitioners alike. It is evident that a definitive definition of the term "task" in SLA studies is still unclear (Bygate, Skehan, & Swain, 2001, pp. 9–12). The implementation of tasks in the classroom has sparked debates and differing opinions. Ellis (2004) presents four methods for categorizing tasks: pedagogic, rhetorical, cognitive, and psycholinguistics. These concepts have paved the way for the emergence of an alternative language teaching approach called TBL. L2 researchers have argued that interaction plays a significant role in second language acquisition (SLA) by providing L2 learners with opportunities for meaning negotiation (Long, 1996). This has naturally led to a pedagogical implication that L2 learners should be provided with ample opportunities to interact in L2. There are different task types to improve oral production, the present study investigated the perceptions of Iranian EFL teachers towards the efficiency of incorporating different task types on their learners’ oral interaction. To meet the research objective, the following research question has been raised:
· What are the perceptions of Iranian EFL teachers towards the efficiency of incorporating different task types on their learners’ oral interaction?
2. Review of the Related Literature
Van-Batenburg et al., (2019) examined the effects of three newly developed instructional programs. These programs differed in instructional focus (form-focused vs. interaction strategies-oriented) and type of task (pre-scripted language tasks vs. information gap tasks). Multilevel analyses revealed that learners' enjoyment of EFL oral interaction was not affected by instruction, that willingness to communicate (WTC) decreased over time, and that self-confidence was positively affected by combining information gap tasks with interactional strategies instruction. Besides, regression analyses showed that development in learners’ WTC and enjoyment did not have predictive value for achievement in EFL oral interaction, but that development in self-confidence did explain achievement in EFL oral interaction in trained interactional contexts. Likewise, Wang (2019) investigated whether creative L2 tasks contributed to distinct interaction patterns among English L2 adult learners. The study analyzed learners' group interactions on two creative tasks and two controlled tasks. Each of these tasks included one decision-making task and one opinion-exchange task, resulting in four distinct task conditions. Results demonstrated that the creative tasks evoked significantly more instances of meaning negotiation than the controlled tasks. Moreover, the effect of creative tasks on the participants' use of distinct negotiation strategies varied by the types of tasks the participants undertook.
Marashi and Amirabadi (2018) investigated the comparative impact of information-gap and opinion-gap tasks on EFL learners’ lexical collocation achievement”. Findings indicated that the first group (information-gap group) benefited significantly more than the second group (opinion-gap group) in terms of their collocation achievement. Therefore, it can be concluded that information-gap tasks are more beneficial for the goal of improving learners’ lexical collocation achievement. In a relevant study conducted by Rezaei et al., (2017), the effect of different types of tasks was investigated on intermediate Iranian EFL learners’ reading comprehension performance. That is to say, the performance of the experimental group in four task types was evaluated in order to find possible differences among reading sets of scores obtained on four task types. Findings of the study revealed that the second task including the activities as reading, noting, and discussing, found to be more effective in enhancing learners’ reading skill.
In another study, Fonseca (2016) tried to find which approach was better for language teaching and learning in general, because both PPP (Presentation-Practice-Production) and TBL have their strengths and drawbacks. He attempted to understand whether there was a significant difference in the amount the students talk and interaction when using each model and to determine which worked better for promoting more interaction and output among foreign language learners. The results revealed a significant difference between the amount of student discussion when applying a traditional approach (PPP) and a more communicative approach (TBL). The results also showed that TBL led students to ask questions more naturally. While working under TBL approach, students were not only more active and participated more in the progress of the lesson, but there was also a change of the learning routine which increased students’ motivation. Besides, the tasks gave students the chance to practice language that might not have been linguistically accurate but socio-linguistically appropriate, appropriate to the setting, topic, and their English level.
Finally, Zohouri Vaghei, Taghipour Bazargani, and Pourramzan (2015) investigated the degree of effectiveness of two types of tasks including one-way versus two-way tasks on Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ collocation competence (lexical collocation learning). What they reported as the main findings of this study was representative of the efficacy of two-way tasks over the one-way tasks. In other words, the findings of this study revealed that incorporating tasks, in particular, two-way task-based activities in EFL classrooms enhanced L2 learners' acquisition of lexical collocations. Rezaeyan (2014) also attempted to provide evidence for the effectiveness of TBLT method on the achievement of EFL female learners in high school. The data were collected through a quasi-experimental experiment. The results of the study indicated that implementation of task-based teaching noticeably influenced on the learners’ achievement in high school.
3. Methodology
The participants of this study consisted of two groups. The first group included 6 Iranian female English teachers. They were selected from an English Language Institute in Ilam, based on convenience sampling technique. They had English teaching experience in private institutes for more than 10 years. They possessed Bachelor's and Master's degrees in various disciplines within the field of English. They were in the 40-65 age range. This group was interviewed for the purpose of extracting their perceptions of different task types and the effect of task types and their features on the oral interaction before and after the study. The participants were made aware of the purpose of the study. In addition, they were assured that the data would be kept confidential and their responses to the interview would not affect their job status at all.
The second group of the participants included 120 Iranian female EFL learners of those teachers (i.e., one class from each teacher) in the form of six classes, each consisting of 20 learners. They were studying English at the same Institute in Ilam. The participants were chosen using convenience sampling. Their age range was 18-29. Their first language was Persian. To observe the research ethics, the consent of the learners was obtained for participation in the study. Moreover, they were ensured about anonymity and confidentiality of their personal information. Additionally, the potentials and objectives of the present study were explained to them at the beginning of the study.
3.2. Instruments
Qualitative content analysis of semi-structured interview data was utilized to enrich this study. The interview protocol was formulated in consultation with experts in the field and informed by previous research. The interview consisted of five open-ended questions on different task types and the effect of task types and their features on the oral interaction. The interviews were conducted in English, with no specific time constraints for each session. Additionally, each interview was conducted one-on-one using social networking platforms such as WhatsApp and Telegram for the participants' convenience. One of the researchers personally conducted all interviews and transcribed them verbatim for data analysis purposes. Next, the transcribed version underwent coding (open, axial, and selective) to identify the recurring patterns, themes, categories, and sub-categories among the obtained data.
In order to ensure the reliability and trustworthiness of the interview data, we utilized low-inference descriptors and conducted member checks. Low-inference descriptors involved directly quoting the interviewees, while member checking entailed verifying interpretations with the interviewees to confirm the accuracy of their statements.
The discourse of interaction in the classes was examined using the Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) Model, which was created by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975). The IRF pattern involves the teacher posing a question, the learner responding to the question, and then the teacher giving feedback on the learner's answer. This model represents a structured sequence of teacher-student-teacher turn-taking within the classroom. During the initiation phase, the teacher commonly poses questions that students answer, followed by feedback from the teacher. Initiation may not always be in the form of a question; it could also be a statement or imperative sentence. Its purpose is to initiate a conversation and encourage students to participate. The aim is for this interaction to assist learners in engaging with teachers (Mackey, 2012). Within this framework, learners are able to clarify meaning with teachers, and teachers are expected to support this interaction through confirmation checks, clarification requests, and comprehension checks (Mackey, 2012).
3.3. Procedure
Initially, the study began by selecting the sample from the target population using convenience sampling. Considering the research ethics, at first, consent of the participants was taken by the researchers. Then, the researchers explained the potential advantages as well as the purposes of the study to them. Moreover, all the participants were told that their participation was completely voluntary and there was no obligation. Additionally, anonymity and confidentiality of their personal information were ensured. After sample selection and observing the issues related to the research ethics, the interviews were conducted by one of the researchers from the teachers, utilizing social networks like WhatsApp and Telegram apps to better serve the interviewees. At this stage, this interview was conducted to extract the teachers’ perceptions of different task types and the effect of task types and their features on the oral interaction before the treatment period in order to check them with their post-treatment attitudes. As mentioned earlier, the pre and post interviews were done to compare the EFL teachers' perceptions regarding various forms of form-focused and meaningful tasks, as well as their impact on the oral interaction of EFL learners.
Each interview was taken individually in English. There was no time limit for the interviews so that the interviewees could reveal their full perceptions. All the interview sessions were recorded for transcription and subsequent analysis. The duration of each interview ranged from 20 to 45 minutes. Subsequently, the interviews were transcribed to produce verbatim written data for analysis. The transcribed material was then subjected to coding (open, axial, and selective) in order to identify recurring patterns, themes, categories, and sub-categories within the collected data. To ensure the credibility and reliability of the interview data, low-inference descriptors and member checking were employed. This involved the use of direct quotations from the interviews, enabling the reader to gain insight into the participants' perspectives by directly experiencing their words (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorensen, 2010). Utilizing member checks entails the researcher sharing their data interpretations with the participants to prevent misunderstandings, pinpoint any inaccuracies, and demonstrate respect by allowing participants to review the information written about them. Through member checks, researchers receive input from participants regarding the study's conclusions (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorensen, 2010).
Then, the treatment period started wherein all the six groups participated in 10 regular classes in the Institute. While, three classes engaged in cognitive task types (information gap task, opinion gap, and reasoning gap tasks) as part of the program tailored for this study, the other three were exposed to form focused tasks (pre-scripted role play task) within the last 30 minutes of each class session. In a more specific sense, in the first 60 minutes of class sessions, all the six classes were exposed to the mainstream routine educational materials provided in English classes, wherein Top-Notch Book was taught was used. Then in the next 30 minutes, following Ellis (2003), the first group of students were split into pairs in order to engage in an information gap task, a method commonly used in language teaching. In this task, one student was provided with a picture and had to verbally describe it to their partner, who then had to create a drawing based on the description. As an example of opinion gap task (i.e., an activity which requires students to raise questions and topics which also help students’ creative thinking), discussion was used. That is, the teacher introduced a topic. Then, the students engaged in a discussion regarding the topic, during which they shared their opinions, emotions, preferences, and so on. The teacher typically made an effort to actively listen to the students' conversations, assisted them in resolving any grammatical issues, provided them with necessary vocabulary and expressions, and supported them in carrying on with their discussions. The students were also tasked with a reasoning gap activity, where they had to derive new information from the given topic through processes of inferencing, deduction, and practical reasoning. They were expected to articulate their thoughts on the topic by providing reasons during their discussion.
To expose the students to the pre-scripted role, play task (i.e., an exercise wherein students can pretend to be someone else or act out a certain scenario), the language learners of the second group (the students of other three classes) were divided into pair groups. Then, they were provided with audio-recorded materials to which they were to listen. Next, they were asked to act out and play the role of each individual according to the tape. During the treatment period, all the six classes were observed for three consecutive sessions by the researcher as a non-participant observer. Finally, the researcher once more conducted the interviews via social media platforms such as WhatsApp and Telegram applications to extract teachers’ perceptions regarding different task types and the effect of task types and their features on the oral interaction after the treatment period. The interview questions and procedure followed for the interview were the same as that used for pre-treatment interview.
For data analysis, the audio-recorded interview data were transcribed verbatim. Subsequently, the transcriptions of interviews underwent qualitative analysis through coding techniques such as open coding, axial coding, and selective coding to pinpoint recurring patterns, themes, categories, and sub-categories within the collected data. Initially, the data was carefully read and re-read to structure it accordingly (Ary & et al., 2014). Following the organization of data, the subsequent step involved coding the raw data to reduce them into manageable codes, resulting in the emergence of a significant number of codes. After the completion of coding the transcripts, the subsequent task involved categorizing similar codes under specific categories. To validate the categorization process, two additional colleagues cross-checked the codes to confirm their alignment with the designated categories. Finally, selective coding was utilized to develop a grounded theory by analyzing the connections that arise between categories during axial coding (Creswell, 2013). These outlined procedures culminated in the identification of the primary themes.
4. Findings
The themes derived from the interviews prior to the study were as follows:
1. Ambiguity of teachers’ role in task-based language teaching
2. Difficulty of tasks implementation in low-proficiency groups
3. Challenge of using tasks for different aspects of English language
4. Difficulty of learners’ performance evaluation through tasks
5. Teachers’ unfamiliarity with different kinds of tasks
In what follows, each theme is presented along with some excerpts from the interviewees’ attitudes.
Ambiguity of teachers’ role in task-based language teaching
As stated by teacher 3:
Teachers’ role is not explicitly determined in task-based language teaching. This causes difficulties for teachers in implementing task-based language teaching.
According to T4:
The biggest problem is that teachers’ role is not well clarified. It is really vague to teachers.
Difficulty of tasks implementation in low-proficiency groups
As put by T1:
Language proficiency of some learners is very limited. This leads to lack of cooperation on their part in performing the tasks.
According to T5:
A main concern is learners’ low proficiency level. This makes implementing tasks more difficult for teachers.
Challenge of using tasks for different aspects of English language
According to T2:
One thing which is very dissatisfying is using appropriate tasks to teach some dimensions of English. I myself cannot find good jigsaw tasks to teach phrasal verbs.
As perceived by T1:
Tasks do not lend themselves well to teach some parts of language including proverbs, idioms, etc.
Difficulty of learner evaluation through tasks
T2 stated that:
Students’ learning and performance cannot be easily evaluated by tasks. It seems that tasks are more appropriate for teaching than assessment procedures.
As mentioned by T6:
Inapplicability of tasks in evaluation of students’ learning is the main challenge of using tasks. Even if it is possible to use tasks for assessment purposes, it will be very time-consuming.
Teachers’ unfamiliarity with different kinds of tasks
According to T4:
Many teachers are not familiar with tasks and how to implement it in their classes. Thus, they cannot benefit from the potentials of different types of tasks. It is recommended that authorities design consciousness-raising programs for teachers to make them aware of task-based language teaching principles.
As mentioned by T2:
A big challenge for using tasks is teachers’ unfamiliarity with them. That is why they still follow traditional teaching methods in line with transmission view of teaching.
The above themes are demonstrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Themes extracted before the study
Additionally, the interviews yielded the following themes regarding the perceptions of the interviewees post-study:
1. Using tasks makes learners more motivated.
2. Using tasks makes learners more engaged and active.
3. Using tasks increases learner communicative ability.
4. Using tasks leads to more negotiations among learners.
5. Using tasks reduces teacher dependency on textbooks.
6. Using tasks enhances learner meaning making.
7. Using tasks makes learners goal-oriented.
8. Using tasks makes classes more learner-centered.
9. Using tasks makes language teaching more authentic.
10. Using tasks enhances learner autonomy.
In what follows, each theme is presented along with some excerpts from the interviewees’ reflections.
Using tasks makes learners more motivated
As explained by T1:
Using tasks contributes to enhancement of learners’ motivation. Learners become more and more eager to learn English as a result of using tasks in English classes.
In the words of T4:
Experiences and empirical studies support the effectiveness of using tasks on learners’ motivation. This is of high importance given that motivation plays a significant role in English learning.
Using tasks makes learners more engaged and active
In the saying of T3:
In my opinion, as learners are exposed to tasks, their engagement is increased. They participate more in class activities.
As put by T5:
I believe that students’ involvement in class activities is corroborated with using tasks in classes. They become more active in classes where tasks are used. This is not the case in mainstream classes.
Using tasks increases learner communicative ability
As stated by T2:
Because using tasks necessitates communicative activities by learners, it leads to strengthening their communication skills. This has been documented by researchers in the field.
In the perception of T5:
A clear advantage of using tasks is its emphasis on communication ability. This is a big point in today’s global village in which communication talks in different areas.
Using tasks leads to more negotiations among learners
According to T3:
What is interesting about using tasks is that it involves negotiation of meaning among learners. In most of the tasks, the focus is on meaning negotiation.
As mentioned by T4:
When students are involved in various tasks, they are required to negotiate with their peers to reach the task outcome. This negotiation with group mates has positive effects on language skills of learners.
Using tasks reduces teacher dependency on textbooks
As put by T1:
I think a strong point about tasks is that teachers become less dependent on textbooks in teaching English. Textbooks, as I see them, to some extent deskill teachers. I know quite a few teachers whose creativity in teaching has been suffocated due to their sheer dependency on textbooks.
As commented by T3:
I believe hiring tasks requires less attention to the fixed principles of textbooks. By nature, utilizing tasks means putting textbooks aside. Therefore, teachers feel free to practice new principles of task-based language teaching.
Using tasks enhances learner-meaning making
According to T3:
Meaning is the main component of tasks. More specifically, searching for meaning is an inseparable aspect of almost all kinds of tasks. Therefore, learners become rich in meaning making by using tasks.
As mentioned by T5:
Tasks are more oriented towards meaning-based learning rather than form-based one. To rightly do different kinds of tasks, learners should make meaning. This causes remarkable improvements in their meaning making ability.
Using tasks makes learner goal-oriented
As perceived by T6:
Since tasks are purposeful activities which reach an end, the role of goals is dominant in them. Consequently, using tasks makes goals noticeable in the minds of learners.
As stated by T2:
Through using tasks, it is taught to learners that everything should be terminated with a goal. Ends of tasks give meaning to tasks. In this way, learners become oriented towards having a goal.
Using tasks makes classes more learner-centered
In the words of T1:
In classes where tasks are used, teachers are not at the center as is the case in traditional classes. Their role changes from class boss to guide. In contrary, the role of learners is more significant in using tasks. Language teachers transition from being the focal point of the classroom to becoming facilitators when tasks are successfully carried out.
According to T4:
There is no place for teacher-centeredness in using tasks. Tasks are here to change the fixed structure of classes in which teacher is everything. In using tasks, classes are turned around students’ involvement, cooperation, participation and engagement.
Using tasks makes language teaching more authentic
As stated by T2:
When using tasks, real-life situations are reconstructed. At least, this is sought as an aim in task-based language teaching, even if not fully achieved. This makes task-based classes more authentic.
As put by T6:
Tasks are concerned with putting students in simulations of real-life situations. This is done so that learners can cope with language use situations to which they are confronted out of classes.
Using tasks enhances learner autonomy
The following opinion was held by T1:
Thanks to using tasks, learners’ dependency on teachers is reduced. They become more independent and powerful by having negotiations with classmates. I believe that using tasks makes them more autonomous.
These themes are shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Themes extracted after the study
5. Discussion
The themes identified in the interviews reflected the perspectives of the participants prior to the commencement of the study: Ambiguity of teachers’ role in task-based language teaching; difficulty of tasks implementation in low-proficiency groups; challenge of using tasks for different aspects of English language; difficulty of learners’ performance evaluation through tasks; and teachers’ unfamiliarity with different kinds of tasks. Additionally, the interviews yielded the following themes regarding the perceptions of the interviewees post-study: Using tasks makes learners more motivated; using tasks makes learners more engaged and active; using tasks increases learner communicative ability; using tasks leads to more negotiations among learners; using tasks reduces teacher dependency on textbooks; using tasks enhances learner meaning making; using tasks makes learners goal-oriented; using tasks makes classes more learner-centered; using tasks makes language teaching more authentic; and using tasks enhances learner autonomy.
Consistent with this study, Jasim (2011) enumerated the following perceptions about TBLT as perceived by English teachers: Lack of clarity in terms of teachers’ role; inapplicability of TBLT for some English skills; difficulty of assessment with TBLT; teachers’ low knowledge of TBLT; TBLT contribution to motivation; and TBLT emphasis on communication. Also, in line with the present study, Xiongyong and Samuel (2011), and Hadi (2013) reported that English teachers perceive that TBLT has a positive effect on communication ability and motivation of EFL learners. Moreover, similar to the present study, Pohan, Andhin, Nopitasari, and Levana (2016) referred to passive roles of textbooks in TBLT, the emphasis on meaningful learning, and goal-orientedness of tasks as perceptions of teachers about TBLT. Another research that supports the findings of the current study is the investigation conducted by Jones (2020), which found that teachers perceive TBLT as empowering learners and promoting authentic language use. Additionally, in alignment with our study, Liu, Mishan, and Chambers (2018) contended that teachers believe TBLT fosters learner autonomy.
In justifying the results, it is worth noting that implementing any factor can probably lead to some changes in attitudes toward it. In fact, the process of implementation in itself, regardless of how and why it is implemented, can unravel some new features, aspects and dimensions of that factor to the administrators. This is where the differences between theoretical and practical aspects of some notion come into play. Practice and experience have the potential to add effectively to one’s knowledge base in an explicit or implicit way. Moreover, it can be argued that perceptions of the teachers are rooted in their knowledge base on TBLT. Mostly, the perceptions extracted from the interviews are in the same direction with the theoretical background of TBLT. For instance, as stated in the theoretical background of TBLT, TBLT seeks to develop communicative activities and improve learners’ authentic language utilization (Jeon & Hahn, 2006). In addition, as put by Richards and Rodgers (2001), TBLT is an approach which calls for active engagement of learners to accomplish an objective or finish a task. Moreover, the argument made for TBLT is that tasks are purposeful, and requires learners’ interaction. Tasks have a clear objective which shows that communication has been successful. To achieve the objective of tasks, learners should negotiate meaning and mention their own opinions (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011).
6. Conclusion
The study's conclusion indicates that EFL teachers held highly positive perceptions regarding various forms of form-focused and meaningful tasks, as well as their impact on the oral interaction of EFL learners post-treatment. This shows that teacher’ familiarity with and practice of different types of form focused and meaningful tasks changed their perceptions of the effectiveness of various task types. The other conclusion which can be made from the results is that different kinds of tasks have the potential to impact EFL learners’ oral interaction specifically in terms of IRF pattern. Given that oral interaction in general is considered as a big achievement and advantage for EFL learners, it can be concluded that different form focused and meaningful tasks can provide EFL learners with competitive advantages in comparison to their counterparts in similar conditions.
As the implication of the findings for EFL learners, they can take advantage of meaningful and form-focused tasks in dealing with their problems. To this end, they can actively participate in different meaningful and form-focused tasks in EFL classes to improve their oral interaction skill. Moreover, they can self-practice different types of tasks in individual, paired or group works outside EFL classes. Moreover, curriculum developers can take useful insights from the findings and apply them in planning future EFL materials and curricula. More specifically, they can develop future EFL curricula so that teachers and instructors use different types of meaningful and form-focused tasks in their EFL classes.
References
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education. 8th edition, Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., Sorensen, C.K. and Walker, D. (2014). Introduction to research in education. 9th edition, Wadsworth, London.
Bagheri Masoudzde, A., Rostami Abousaeedi, A., & Afraz, S. (2020). Perceptions of English Language Learners about Teaching of Reading Comprehension Skills: A View of Task-based Language Teaching Method. Journal of Language and Translation, 10 (2), 135-151.
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2001). Introduction. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing (pp. 1-20). New York: Pearson Education Limited.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5, 161-170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/iral.1967.5.1-4.161.
Creswell, J.W. (2013) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach. 4th edition, SAGE Publications, Inc., London.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, A. K. (2004). Exemplars of curriculum theory. New York: Eye on Education, Inc.
Ellis, R. (2005) Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33, 209-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.12.006
Firouzi, J., & Khabiri, M. (2018). The comparative effect of task type and learning conditions on the achievement of specific target forms. Journal of Language and Translation, 8(1), 43 -55.
Fonseca, D. (2016). TBLT approach for language teaching and learning. Creative Education, 5(4), 22-34.
Foster, P. (1999). The Influence of Task Structure and Processing Conditions on Narrative Retellings. Language Learning, 49, 93-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00071
Hadi, A. (2013). Perceptions of task-based language teaching: A study of Iranian EFL learners. Canadian Center of Science and Education, 6(1), 103-111. Retrieved on 21 November, 2016 from doi:10.5539/elt. v6n1p103
Jasim, I. A. (2011). Investigating teachers' attitudes toward task-based language teaching in a vocational school in the UAE (Unpublished M.A. thesis). American University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE.
Jeon, I., & Hahn, J. (2006). Exploring EFL teachers' perceptions of task-based language teaching: A case study of Korean secondary school classroom practice. Asian EFL Journal, 8(4), 45-53.
Jones, M. (2020). English language teachers’ stated beliefs and practices regarding task-based language teaching and listening. Explorations in Teacher Development, 23(1), 11–16.
Khalili Sabet, M., & Tahriri, A. (2014). The Impact of Task-based Approach on Iranian EFL Learners’ Motivation in Writing Research Abstracts. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 5(4), 45-57.
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Prentice-Hall International: Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford: OUP.
Liu, Y., Mishan, F., & Chambers, A. (2018). Investigating EFL teachers’ perceptions of task-based language teaching in higher education in China. Language Learning Journal 49(24). DOI:10.1080/09571736.2018.1465110
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie, & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.
Long, M. H. (1988). Instructed Interlanguage Development. In L. Beebe (Ed.), Issues in Second Language Acquisition: Multiple Perspectives (pp. 115-141). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marashi, H., & Amirabadi, S. (2018). The impact of information-gap and opinion-gap tasks on EFL learners' lexical collocation achievement. International Journal of Educational Investigations, 4(2), 28-38.
Pohan, E., Andhin, E., Nopitasari, E., & Levana, Y. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions of task-based language teaching in English classroom. Proceedings of The Fourth International Seminar on English Language Teaching (ISELT-4) Universitas Negeri Padang (UNP), Padang, Indonesia, May 11-12, 2016 http://english.unp.ac.id/ ISBN: 978-602-74437-0-9 (pp. 256 – 265).
Rezaei, O., Mehri, M., & Shakerian, P. (2017). The effect of the implementation of Task Based language teaching on Iranian EFL learners' reading comprehension performance. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 4, 247-259.
Rezaeyan, M. (2014). On the impact of task-based teaching on academic achievement of Iranian EFL learners (case study: female high school students in Yasuj). International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW), 7 (3), 476-493.
Richards, J. C., Platt, J., & Platt, H. (1992). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (2nd ed.). London: Longman.
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (p. 204). New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667305.021
Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van-Batenburg, E., Oostdam, R., Gelderen, A., & Fukkink, R. (2019). The effects of instructional focus and task type on pre-vocational learners' ability in EFL oral interaction. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 171(5), 98-112.
Wang, H. (2019). The influence of creative task engagement on English L2 learners’ negotiation of meaning in oral communication tasks. Educational System, 3(4), 83-94.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Longman Addison Wesley.
Xiongyong, C., & Moses, S. (2011). Perceptions and implementation of task-based language teaching among secondary school EFL teachers in China. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(24), 292– 302.
Zohouri Vaghei, A., Taghipour Bazargani, D., & Pourramzan P. (2015). The effect of one-way versus two-way tasks on Iranian Intermediate EFL learners’ collocation competence (Unpublished Master Thesis). Islamic Azad University, Rasht Branch, Iran.
