Abstract 

The Present Study Aimed At Investigating The Effectiveness Of Task-Based Instructions On Developing Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners’ Speaking Ability, Learner Autonomy And Creativity. A Group Of 52 Intermediate EFL Learners Were Selected Based On Cluster Sampling. They Were Divided Into Two Experimental Groups (Cue Card Timed Task Vs. Linguistic Summarizing Task). In Order To Test The Major Research Hypothesis, A Two-Way ANOVA Was Run To Compare The Two Groups’ Means On The Posttests Of Oral Proficiency, Creativity And Autonomy. According To The Results Of This Study, It Can Be Concluded That There Is A Significant Difference Between The LS And CCT Groups’ Grand Means On The Three Tests. Moreover, The CCT Group Outperformed The LS Group On The Grand Mean For The Posttests Of Oral Proficiency, Autonomy And Creativity.   Additionally, It Can Be Concluded That There Were Significant Differences Between The Iranian EFL Learners’ Means On Posttests Of Oral Proficiency, Autonomy And Creativity Irrespective Of Group Membership. Overall, It Can Be Concluded That Task- Based Instruction Can Affect EFL Learners’ Speaking Ability, Learner Autonomy, And Creativity. So, Both Learners’ Academic Achievements And Their Cognitive Factors Are Functions Of The Type Of Instruction, Though The Extent Of Functioning Might Vary Depending On The Dependent Variable Type.

Key Words:

Task- Creativity- Autonomy- Cue Card Timed- Linguistic Summarizing

Abstract 

The Present Study Aimed At Investigating The Effectiveness Of Task-Based Instructions On Developing Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners’ Speaking Ability, Learner Autonomy And Creativity. A Group Of 52 Intermediate EFL Learners Were Selected Based On Cluster Sampling. They Were Divided Into Two Experimental Groups (Cue Card Timed Task Vs. Linguistic Summarizing Task). In Order To Test The Major Research Hypothesis, A Two-Way ANOVA Was Run To Compare The Two Groups’ Means On The Posttests Of Oral Proficiency, Creativity And Autonomy. According To The Results Of This Study, It Can Be Concluded That There Is A

Significant Difference Between The LS And CCT Groups’ Grand Means On The Three Tests. Moreover, The CCT Group Outperformed The LS Group On The Grand Mean For The Posttests Of Oral Proficiency, Autonomy And Creativity.   Additionally, It Can Be Concluded That There Were Significant Differences Between The Iranian EFL Learners’ Means On Posttests Of Oral Proficiency, Autonomy And Creativity Irrespective Of Group Membership. Overall, It Can Be Concluded That Task- Based Instruction Can Affect EFL Learners’ Speaking Ability, Learner Autonomy, And Creativity. So, Both Learners’ Academic Achievements And Their Cognitive Factors Are Functions Of The Type Of Instruction, Though The Extent Of Functioning Might Vary Depending On The Dependent Variable Type.

Key Words:

Task- Creativity- Autonomy- Cue Card Timed- Linguistic Summarizing

 

 

 

 

Acknowledgements

 

This Thesis Would Not Have Been Completed Were It Not For The Help Rendered By The Following Organizations And Individuals.

Firstly, The Researcher Is Deeply Grateful To Her Supervisor Dr. Gholam-Reza Abbasian For His Great Effort, Without Which This Work Would Have Never Been Completed. His Overly Enthusiasm And Integral View On Research And His Mission For Providing Only High Quality Work And Not Less, Has Made A Deep Impression On The Researcher. I Owe Him Lot Of Gratitude For Having Shown Me This Way Of Research. He Could Not Even Realize How Much I Have Learned From Him. I Am Glad I Have Come To Get To Know Him In My Academic Life. He Always Monitored My Work And Took Effort In Reading And Providing Me With Valuable Comments. He Really Has A Sharp Eye For Minute Details And Possesses Super-Analytical Skills. I Have To Acknowledge His Important Inputs In All Chapters Of The Thesis.

The Researcher Would Also Like To Thank Her Colleagues For The Effort They Exerted In Helping The Researcher Scored The Speaking Test. Special Thanks To My Dear Best Friends Nasrin Nabavi Ekhlas , Zahra Naderi Farjad And Kosar Ghasemi Who Motivated Me To Work Energetically And Gave Me Some Constructive Comments On This Thesis.

My Thanks And Appreciations Also Go To Those Informants From Islamic Azad University South Tehran Branch Who Provided Me Opportunity To Have A Wonderful Learning Experience During My Study.

I Would Like To Thank All The Students Who Kindly Participated In This Study. And Last But Not The Least, My Heartfelt Appreciations Are Due To My Loving Parents Who Understood And Supported Me While I Was Studying.

Dedications

 

This Thesis Is Dedicated To All Of Them: My Parents Who Were Very Enthusiastic, Proud, And Supporting Me With Their Love, Knowledge, Wisdom, And Guidance. To My Siblings Whose Love Was Always The Light Of My Life And From Whom I Have Learned Patience And Endurance In All Difficult And Unbearable Situations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table Of Contents

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………….. IV

Table Of Contents……………………………………………………………….. VII

List Of Tables……………………………………………………………………… XII

List Of Figures……………………………………………………………………. XIV

List Of Abbreviation……………………………………………………………. XV

Chapter, I Introduction

1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………………. 1

1.1 Theoretical Background ………………………………………………. 1

1.1.2 Task- Based Language Teaching (TBLT)…………………. 2

1.1.3 Task………………………………………………………………….. 3

1.1.4 Creativity…………………………………………………………… 3

1.1.5 Autonomy …………………………………………………………. 5

1.1.6 Language Skills…………………………………………………… 5

1.1.6.1 Listening …………………………………………………. 6

1.1.6.2 Speaking …………………………………………………. 6

1.1.6.3 Reading …………………………………………………… 6

1.1.6.4 Writing…………………………………………………….. 6

1.2 Statement Of Problem ………………………………………………….. 7

1.3 Purpose And Significant Of The Study……………………………… 8

1.4 Research Questions …………………………………………………….. 9

1.5 Research Hypotheses………………………………………………….. 10

1.6 Definition Of Key Terms……………………………………………… 10

1.6.1Autonomy………………………………………………………….. 10

1.6.2 Creativity …………………………………………………………. 11

1.6.3 Cue Card……………………………………………………………. 11

1.6.4 Speaking Ability…………………………………………………. 11

1.6.5 Task…………………………………………………………………. 11

1.6.6 TBLT……………………………………………………………….. 12

1.7 Limitations And Delimitations Of The Study ………………….. 12

1.7.1 Limitations ………………………………………………………… 12

1.7.2 Delimitations ……………………………………………………… 13

Chapter II- Review Of Related Literature

2.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………….. 14

2.2 Language Teaching Methods …………………………………………… 14

2.2.1 A Historical Perspective …………………………………………. 14

2.3 Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT)…………………………….. 18

2.3.1 What Is A Task?…………………………………………………….. 22

2.3.2 Task Types………………………………………………………….. 28

2.4 Research In Task-Based Teaching…………………………………….. 30

2.5 Task- Based Teaching And Language Skills………………………… 32

2.5.1 What Are Language Skills ………………………………………. 32

2.5.1.1 The Nature Of Listening Comprehension …………. 32

2.5.1.1.1 Tasks For Listening Comprehension …….. 33

2.5.1.2 The Nature Of Reading Skill ……………………………. 34

2.5.1.2.1 Tasks For Reading Comprehension……….. 35

2.5.1.3 The Nature Of Reading Skill……………………………… 36

2.5.1.3.1 Tasks For Writing Skill …………………………. 36

2.5.1.4 The Nature Of Speaking Skill …………………………… 37

2.5.1.4.1 Aspects Of Speaking ……………………………. 39

2.5.1.4.2 Speaking Genres………………………………….. 40

2.5.1.4.3 Speaking Instructions ………………………….. 41

2.5.1.4.4 Tasks For Speaking Skill ………………………. 41

2.6 Research In Speaking Skill ……………………………………………… 42

2.7 Learning Characteristics …………………………………………………. 43

2.7.1 Personality…………………………………………………………… 43

2.7.2 Aptitude………………………………………………………………. 44

2.7.3 Motivation ………………………………………………………….. 45

2.7.4 Language Styles And Learning Strategies………………….. 45

2.7.4.1 Learning Styles ……………………………………………….. 45

2.7.4.1.1 Kolb’s And Riding’s Model Of Learning Styles 46

2.7.4.2 Cognitive Styles …………………………………………. 47

2.7.5 Learning Strategies…………………………………………………….. 48

2.7.5.1 Cognitive Strategies …………………………………………….. 48

2.7.5.2 Metacognitive Strategies……………………………………….. 48

2.7.5.3 Social Strategies…………………………………………………… 48

2.7.5.4 Affective Strategies………………………………………………. 48

2.8 Language Learning…………………………………………………………. 48

2.8.1 The Nature Of Input ………………………………………………. 48

2.8.2 The Process Of Intake……………………………………………… 49

2.8.3 The Role Of Interaction In The Classroom……………………. 49

2.8.4 The Role Of Error……………………………………………………. 49

2.9 Research In Language Learners Characteristics…………………… 50

2.10 Learner Autonomy……………………………………………………….. 50

2.10.1 What Is Autonomy?……………………………………………. 50

2.10.2 An Autonomous Learner Model……………………………. 52

2.10.3 Characteristics Of Autonomous Learners………………… 52

2.11 Research In Learner Autonomy………………………………………. 53

2.12 Learner Creativity………………………………………………………… 53

2.12.1 What Is Creativity?…………………………………………….. 53

2.12.2 Categories Of Creativity………………………………………. 54

2.12.3 Academic Achievement……………………………………….. 55

2.12.4 The Components Of Creative Performance…………….. 56

2.13 Research In Learner Creativity……………………………………….. 57

2.14 Conclusion………………………………………………………………….. 57

Chapter III- Method

3.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………….. 59

3.2 Participants…………………………………………………………………… 59

3.3 Instrumentation And Validation……………………………………….. 59

3.3.1 Questionnaires………………………………………………………. 59

3.3.1.1 Reliability ………………………………………………….. 60

3.3.1.2 Construct Validity ………………………………………. 60

3.3.2 Materials ……………………………………………………………… 62

3.4 Procedure …………………………………………………………………….. 62

3.5 Design …………………………………………………………………………. 63

3.6 Data Analysis ………………………………………………………………. 63

Chapter IV- Results And Discussion

4.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………. 64

4.2 Results ………………………………………………………………………… 65

4.2.1 Testing Assumptions …………………………………………….. 65

4.2.2 PET Score General Language Proficiency ……………. 66

4.2.3 Oral Proficiency Test(Pretest) ……………………………. 67

4.2.4 Pretest Of Autonomy ………………………………………… 69

4.2.5 Pretest Of Creativity …………………………………………. 70

4.2.6 Investigation Of The Major Research Question ……… 72

4.2.7 Investigation Of The Major Research Question One … 75

4.2.8 Investigation Of The Major Research Question Two .. 77

4.2.9 Investigation Of The Major Research Question Three 78

4.2.10 Investigation Of The Major Research Question Four 79

4.2.11 Investigation Of The Major Research Question Five . 81

4.2.12 Investigation Of The Major Research Question Six .. 82

4.2.13 Investigation Of The Major Research Question Seven 83

4.3. Discussion …………………………………………………………………… 85

Chapter V Conclusions, Implications And Suggestions

5.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………. 90

5.2 Summary Of The Findings ……………………………………………….. 90

5.3 Conclusions …………………………………………………………………. 92

5.4 Pedagogical Implications ………………………………………………… 93

5.5 Suggestions For Further Studies ……………………………………….. 94

References …………………………………………………………………………. 95

Appendices ………………………………………………………………………. 103

Appendix A: Arjmand Creativity Questionnaire

Appendix B: Learner Autonomy Questionnaire ( Sara Cotterall, 2005)

Appendix C: Cue Cards

Appendix D: The Level Short Story

Appendix E: PET Sample

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

List Of Tables

Table 2.1        Definition Of Task…………………………………………                 25

Table 2.2        Definition Of Task As An Educational Activity……………                 26

Table 2.3        List Of The Major Cognitive Styles………………………….        47

Table 3.1        Inter-Rater Reliability……………………………………..        60

Table 3.2        Total Variance Explained………………………………….       61

Table 3.3        Rotated Component Matrix………………………………..       61

Table 4.1        Testing Normality Assumption…………………………….      65

Table 4.2        Descriptive Statistics, PET By Groups……………………..      66

Table 4.3        Independent Sample Test, PET By Groups ………………..      66

Table 4.4        Descriptive Statistics, Oral Proficiency Test( Pretest) By Groups ………………………………………………………………………………     67

Table 4.5        Independent Sample Test, Oral Proficiency Test (Pretest)….    68

Table 4.6        Descriptive Statistics, Pretest Of Autonomy By Groups…..                 69

Table 4.7        Independent Sample Test, Pretest Of Autonomy By Groups..              69

Table 4.8        Descriptive Statistics, Pretest Of Creativity By Groups……                70

Table 4.9        Independent Sample Test, Pretest Of Creativity By Groups…             71

Table 4.10      Leven’s Test Of Equality Of Error Variances………………                72

Table 4.11      Test Of Between- Subjects Effects…………………………                72

Table 4.12      Description Statistics, Grand Mean By Groups…………….               73

Table 4.13      Descriptive Statistics, Oral Proficiency Test, Creativity And Autonomy (Posttests)……………………………………………………….    73

Table 4.14      Multiple Comparison………………………………………      73

Table 4.15      Descriptive Statistics, Interaction Effect……………………               74

 

Table 4.16      Descriptive Statistics, Oral Proficiency Test( Posttest )By Groups…………………………………………………………………..      75

Table 4.17      Independent Sample Test, Oral Proficiency Test( Posttest) By Groups…………………………………………………………………….                76

Table 4.18      Paired Samples Statistics, Pretest And Posttest Of Creativity..            77

Table 4.19      Paired Sample –Test, Pretest And Posttest Of Creativity (CCT Group)……………………………..………………………………………               77

Table 4.20      Paired Samples Statistics, Pretest And Posttest Of Autonomy..           78

Table 4.21      Paired Sample T-Test, Pretest And Posttest Of Autonomy (CCT Group)……………………………..………………………………………      79

Table 4.22      Paired Samples Statistics, Pretest And Posttest Of Autonomy..  80

Table 4.23      Paired Samples T-Test, Pretest And Posttest Of Autonomy (LS Group)………………………………..…………………………………….     80

Table 4.24      Paired Samples Statistics, Pretest And Posttest Of Creativity ( LS Group)………………………………………………………………………    81

Table 4.25      Paired Samples T-Test, Pretest And Posttest Of Creativity ( LS Group)………………………………………………………………………    81

Table 4.26      Descriptive Statistics, Posttest Of Autonomy By Groups…….    82

Table 4.27      Independent Samples Test, Posttest Of Autonomy By Groups………………………………………………………………………    83

Table 4.28      Descriptive Statistics, Posttest Of Creativity By Groups…….    84

Table 4.29      Independent Samples Test, Posttest Of Creativity By Groups………………………………………………………………………    84

 

 

 

List Of Figures

 

Graph4.1        PET By Groups…………………………………………       67

Graph4.2        Oral Proficiency Test( Pretest) By Groups …………………                68

Graph4.3        Pretest Of Autonomy By Groups ………………………….                70

Graph4.4        Pretest Of Creativity By Groups …………………………..                71

Graph4.5       Interaction Between Groups And Tests …………………..                75

Graph4.6       Oral Proficiency Test( Posttest) By Groups …………….                76

Graph4.7       Pretest And Posttest Of Creativity( CCT Groups) ……….                78

Graph4.8       Pretest And Posttest Of Autonomy( CCT Groups) ………                79

Graph4.9       Pretest And Posttest Of Autonomy( LS Groups) …………                80

Graph4.10     Pretest And Posttest Of Creativity( LS Groups) …………                82

Graph4.11     Posttest Of Autonomy By Groups ……………………….                83

Graph4.12     Posttest Of Creativity By Groups………………………. ..               85

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

List Of Abbreviations

 

TBLT ………………    Task-Based Language Teaching

CLT ……………….      Communicative Language Teaching

CCT……………….       Cue Card Timed

LS …………………      Linguistic Summarizing

ALM…………………   Audiolingual Method

GTM ………………..    Grammar Translation Method

EFL …………………    English As A Foreign Language

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

1. Introduction
1.1Theoretical Background

The Quest For Ways Of Recognizing Why Some English Learners Are More Successful Than Others Especially In Speaking Ability Turned Towards Individual Differences. Since Communication In The World Today Enjoys Utmost Importance, EFL Learners Are Looking For Ways To Help Them Improve Their Speaking Ability. In Iran, Although English Language Learners Receive English Instruction In Secondary High Schools And Universities, The Instruction Is Often Inadequate For Students To Develop Their Speaking As An Essential Component In Learning A Language. So They Tend Towards English Classes Which Are Supposed To Be More Communicative, As, For Example, They Expect To Receive Instruction Based On New Methods (I.E. Communication Methods).

The Term Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) Covers A Variety Of Approaches That All Focus On Helping Learners To Communicate Meaningfully In A Target Language. Moreover, “CLT Is Perhaps The Method Or Approach That Most Contemporary Teachers Would Subscribe To, Despite The Fact That It Is Widely Misunderstood And Misapplied. This Method Is Based On The Beliefs That Learners Will Learn Best If They Participate In Meaningful Communication” (Scrivener 2010, P.32).

Actually, We May Make Distinction Between A Stronger And Weaker Version Of CLT. In Strong CLT, Students’ Learning Is More Communicative, That Is, Doing Communication Tasks With A Limited Role For Explicit Teaching And Traditional Practice Exercises. On The Other Hand, In Weak Version Of CLT Students’ Learning Is Done Through A Wide Variety Of Teaching, Exercises, Activities And Study, With More Attention Towards Speaking And Listening Work (Scrivener, 2010).

Of Course , It Should Be Reiterated That Communicative Language Teaching May Be Realized By Different Frameworks Or Methods Such As Task- Based Language Teaching (TBLT).

1.1.2Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT)

TBLT Is ” A Variant Of CLT Which Bases Work Cycles Around The Preparation For, Doing Of, And Reflective Analysis Of Tasks That Reflect Real-Life Needs And Skills”  (Scrivener, 2010, P.32).  Moreover, TBLT Is” An Approach To The Design Of Language Courses In Which The Point Of Departure Is Not An Ordered List Of Linguistic Items, But A Collection Of Tasks” ( Nunan 1989, P.24). In His 1989 Book On Task-Based Language Teaching,

He Drew A Distinction Between Pedagogical Tasks And Real- World Or Target   Tasks , They Are The Sorts Of Things That Individuals Typically Do Outside The Classroom So The Ultimate Rational For Language Instruction Is To Enable Learners To Do These Things Using Language , And It Is To Be Expected That Classroom Time Will Be Taken Up With Rehearsal Of Making Reservation, Writing Letters, Finding Destination In A Dictionary And So On; However Learners Will Also Do Many Things In Class That Are Not Rehearsal For Performance Outside Of The Classroom (Nunan,1989, P.25).

Furthermore, Nunan (1989) Sequenced Tasks As Follows:

Tasks From Reception To Production.In Other Words Listening And Reading Tasks Generally Come Before Writing And Speaking Tasks. A Reproductive Task Is One In Which The Student Reproduces Language Provided By The Teacher, The Textbook, Or The Tape. In Contrast To Reproductive Tasks, Creative Tasks Are Those That Require Learners To Come Up With Language For Which They Have Not Been Specifically Cued. In Other Words, They Are Asked To Put Together Familiar Elements In New Or Novel Combinations, Therefore; In Designing Sequence Of Tasks, It Is Important To Consider The Salience For Learners Of The Pedagogical Goals Of The Tasks The Extent To Which Learning Strategies Are Made Explicit, The Extent To Which The Task Incorporates An Experiential Philosophy Of Learning By Doing, And The Opportunities Provided To Learners For Inductive Learning (P.30).