Long (2015) defines Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT) as “an approach to course design, implementation, and evaluation intended to meet the communicative needs of diverse groups of learners” (p. 5). Task-based Language Teaching has been introduced and developed by second language acquisition researchers as well as language educators in response to the teacher dominated and focus-on-formS methods of language teaching in classrooms such as the approach of Present, Practice, Produce (PPP) (Van den Branden, 2006). The present study aimed to build upon the previous literature on the possible differential effects of the PPP approach and TBLT on students’ language learning (e.g., De la Fuente, 2006;; Lai, Zhao, & Wang, 2011; Li, Ellis & Zhu, 2016; Gonzalez-Lloret & Nielson, 2015; Shintani, 2011, 2013) which have examined the differential effects of these two language methodologies on learners’ language learning. The present study aimed to address the methodological drawbacks of the Li et al. (2016) study by including Task-based Language Assessment (TBLA) in its methodology alongside the GJT and the EIT so as to obtain a more comprehensive picture of the comparison of PPP and TBLT.
Thirty-four [e1] participants from three English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classes at the lower intermediate level of proficiency participated in this study, which took place at the Parsian Language Institute located in the city of Ghaemshahr in Iran. The three classes were randomly assigned to three groups of TBLT, PPP, and Control. Learning was measured with the same types of tests as the Li et al. (2016) study, i.e., a GJT and an Elicited imitation test; however, a Task Assessment was added. Participants were administered the pre-assessments, then participated in the TBLT, PPP and Control group treatments, respectively, and finally performed the post-assessments. A Wilcoxon Signed Ranked Test revealed that the performance of TBLT and PPP on the GJT and the EIT significantly improved from pre-assessment to post-assessment, while the Control group did not show any significant improvements on any of the tests. As for the task assessment, results showed that only the TBLT group made significant improvements on their post-assessment, while the PPP and Control group did not statistically improve
[e1]Spell out at the beginning of sentences.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:fiu.edu/oai:digitalcommons.fiu.edu:etd-5205 |
| Date | 01 November 2018 |
| Creators | Noroozi, Majeed |
| Publisher | FIU Digital Commons |
| Source Sets | Florida International University |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations |
Page generated in 0.0024 seconds