The opportunity of enjoying the option to make a choice in any situation has always affected the outcome which results from the works done on the topics. Students compiling a term projects benefit this opportunity to choose the topic they want to work on .this can give them the chance and motivation to do themselves justice in writing a term paper, something that they are deprived of in their in class performances.
References
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Corder, S. P. (1971). Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis. IRAL VOL 9.
Fries, C. (1945). Teaching and learning English as a Foreign Language. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press.
James , C .(1985). Contrastive analysis . Singapore : Longman Singapore Publishers.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press.
APPENDICES Appendix 1: The frequency of Technical terms in exam papers
EXAM PAPERS TECHNICAL TERMS FREQUENCY
Research 35 3Translation 32 Language 30 ESP 21 Data 19 Learner 17 Translator 16 Syllabus 14 Learning 13 Target text 13 Pronunciation 13 Method 12 Consonant cluster 12 Questionnaire 10 Experimental 10 Material 9 Researcher 9 Research question 9 Qualitative 9 Course 9 Treatment 8 EFL 7 Variable 7 Hypothesis
7
Iranian EFL Journal 310
Problem 7 Teaching 7
Error 7 Lit. Review 6 Source text 6 Translator ideology 6 Target language 6 Statistical 6 C.A 6 Genre 5 Native 5 Quantitative 5 Participant 5 Descriptive 5 Design 5 Procedure 5 Speech 5 Performance 5
EXAM PAPERS TECHNICAL TERMS FREQUENCY
Iranian EFL Journal 311
Data collection 4
interpreter 4
motivation 4
Pre-test 4
Control group 4
Study 4
Data collection 4
interpreter 4
motivation 4
Pre-test 4
Control group 4 Non-special vocabulary 3 Non-special vocabulary 3
Article 3
morphological 3
content 3
literature 3
instrument 3
interpretative 3 Foreign language 3
competence 3
sample 3
context 3
usage 2
linguistics 2
technique 2
Translation competence 2
population 2
Negative transfer 2 interpretation 2 Null-hypothesis 2
Post-test 2
frequency 2
proficiency 2
Culture-bound 2
Conceptual 1
Authentic speech 1 Special vocabulary 1
pedagogy 1
overgeneralization 1
Faculty 1
Iranian EFL Journal 312
Appendix 2: The frequency of Technical terms in term paper projects TERM PAPER PROJECTS TECHNICAL TERMS FREQUENCY
translation 101
Soft news 64
Procedure 57
headline 56
vocabulary 54
Hard news 48
Rhetorical devices 45
language 44
term 40
translator 37
context 28
ideology 27
study 23
Culture-bound teaching 20
Pre-test 16
Post-test 16
researcher 13
treatment 10
lexical 10
paper 10
learner 10
participant 9
definition 9
addition 9
Source language 8
reading 8
equivalence 7
article 7
t-value 6
Culture specific 6 Second language 5 Foreigne language 5
Omission 5
content 5
Style 5
Method 4
linguistics 4 Source text 4
strategy 4
subject 4
Iranian EFL Journal 313
TERM PAPER PROJECTS
TECHNICAL TERMS FREQUENCY
system 4
Target culture 4
Phase 4
problem 4
F.L.L 3
Theory 3
translation 3 Multilingual 2
Bilingual 2
L1 2
Multiple choice test 2 Incidental vocabulary learning
2 Questionnaire 2
Mean 2
Standard deviation 2 Second language
acquisition
2
ESL 2
T-test 2
Data analysis 2 Degree of freedom 2
Approach 2
Material culture 2
Semantic 2
Communicative 2
Implicit 2
Critical discourse 2
Structural 2
speech 2
ESP 2
Target text 1
Theory 1
Anthropological 1 universality 1 Source culture 1 extra linguistics 1 Institutional culture 1 Descriptive 1
Vowel 1
Iranian EFL Journal 314
TERM PAPER PROJECTS TECHNICAL TERMS FREQUENCY
Consonant 1
Stressed syllabus 1
C.A 1
Error 1
Cognitive 1
L2 vocabulary
acquisition 1
E.L.A 1
Task 1
Experimental group 1 Experimental research 1 Research question 1 Substitution 1
Borrowing 1
Mental culture 1
TEFL 1
Language proficiency 1 Contextual vocabulary learning
1
Teaching 1
Accuracy 1
Reading comprehension
test 1
Listening 1
Direct learning 1 Empirical study 1
Drill 1
Rich-context 1 Meaningful context 1 Null-hypothesis 1 Homogeneous class 1
polygon 1
syllabus 1
variable 1
Statistic 1
Classical method 1 Direct method 1 Natural method 1
FLT 1
Content based approach 1 Contextual clues 1
Iranian EFL Journal 315 Title
The Impact of Task Complexity and Reading Proficiency Level on Learners' Pedagogic Task Performance
Authors
Seyyed Mohammad Alavi (Ph.D.)
Associate Professor, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran Reza Bagheri Nevisi (Ph.D.)
Assistant Professor, University of Qom, Qom, Iran Biodata
Seyyed Mohammad Alavi is an associate professor of applied linguistics at University of Tehran (UT). He has taught English in England and Iran for over two decades. His research interests include testing, assessment, teaching and research methodology.
Reza Bagheri Nevisi is an assistant professor of applied linguistics at University of Qom. He has published articles and presented in many national and international conferences. His research interests include task-based language teaching, communicative language teaching, language assessment, pedagogic task types, task complexity and second language acquisition.
Abstract
This research project has investigated the impact of task complexity and reading proficiency level on the performance pattern of university students across different pedagogic task types. Ninety students of State, Payamme-Noor, and Islamic Azad University took part in the present study. They were all taking a reading comprehension course at the time. The study was conducted in two phases. In phase 1, a reading TOFEL test was administered so that all participants could be placed into two levels of reading proficiency i.e. high and low. In phase 2, two different reading passages with three different pedagogic task types for each (Comprehension- check, Restatement, and Synonym) were administered. Descriptive statistics, post- hoc tests and repeated measures ANOVA were utilized to analyze the data. The results indicated that reading proficiency of the learners had a significant impact on their performance across the pedagogic task types but the effect size was moderate.
Participants in the high reading proficiency group outperformed those in the low reading proficiency group on three different pedagogic task types. Task complexity
Iranian EFL Journal 316 also affected learners’ performance on the pedagogic task types significantly and the effect size was strong.
Keywords: Pedagogic task types, Task complexity, Reading proficiency level
1. Introduction
Nation and Macalister (2010) maintain that with a shift to Communicative Language Teaching in the 1970s, there has been an increasing passion in the mainstream pedagogy to convey a message rather than a linguistic form. This, in turn, has led to more emphasis on the use of pedagogic tasks in the classroom. During the past three decades, there has been a growing interest in task-based language teaching in general and the use of pedagogic tasks for classroom purposes and research in particular. Van den Branden (2006) states that task-based language teaching (TBLT) has attracted the attention of second language acquisition researchers, curriculum developers, educationalists, teacher trainers, and language teachers around the world over the past twenty-five years.
Nunan (1989) maintains that task-based language teaching (TBLT) is actually developed out of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and he even considers it a strong version of CLT. Richards and Rodgers (2001) assert that in a task-based approach the primary focus is away from language forms to negotiated meaning. Ellis (2003) also states that a task-based approach engages learners in real-life, authentic, communicative activities so that the meaning-negotiation is promoted very rapidly. Learners will be actively involved in the learning process and a key role is assigned to learners in a task-based methodology.
Willis (1996) points out that there is no pre-selected syllabus in a task-based approach as it is mostly drawn from the learner' needs and interests. Cook (2008, p. 257) defines task-based learning (TBL) as “the notion that learning and teaching should be organized around a set of classroom tasks.” Willis and Willis (2007) support the notion that starting with topic-based lexis is essential to ease and speed up task-based interactions and the problem of incorporating systematic language in TBLT can be resolved using pedagogic tasks. “Task- based language teaching is an approach to the design of language courses in which the point of departure is not a list of linguistic items, but a collection of tasks (Nunan, 1999, p.24).”
According to Nunan (2004), from a pedagogic perspective, task-based language teaching is a needs-based approach to content selection. In task-based language teaching, communication through interaction in the target language is emphasized. Authentic texts are introduced into the learning situation, opportunities for learners to focus not only on
Iranian EFL Journal 317 language but also on the learning process itself are provided, learners’ own personal experiences as important contributing elements to classroom learning are enhanced, and classroom language learning is linked with language use outside the classroom.
2. Review of Related Literature 2.1. Task-Based Implementation
Carless (2002, p.389) maintains that, "There is little practical discussion of how tasks are actually implemented in school settings". He argues for basic requirements of the procedures of implementing pedagogic tasks in school settings and believes that large class size, cramped classrooms, lack of appropriate resources, teachers not trained in task-based methodologies, teachers with limited language proficiency, and traditional examination-based syllabi should be handled when implementing a task-based methodology.
2.2. Tasks and Second Language Acquisition
Cameron (2001) indicates that the essential aspect of a task is that learners are focused on the meaning of the content rather than form and the leaning outcomes are not explicitly language- focused. Kumaravadivelu (2008, p.95) states that: “Task is not a methodological construct; it is a curricular content. A language learning and teaching task is not inextricably linked to any one particular teaching method.” Davies and Pearse (2000) strongly support the notion that tasks should have clear objectives and conclude with a very tangible sense of achievement for the learners.
Ellis (2003) defines a task as a workplan that requires learners to process language pragmatically in order to arrive at a measurable outcome in terms of content. Tasks have also played a pivotal role in SLA research and have brought SLA in closer affinity with language pedagogy (Slimani-Rolls, 2005). In SLA research, tasks have been widely used as vehicles to elicit language production, interaction, negotiation of meaning, processing of input and focus on form, all of which are believed to foster second language acquisition.
2.3. Reasons for Research on Pedagogic Tasks
Research on pedagogic task types encompasses having an understanding of what ‘pedagogic task’ means. Based on the definition of the concept of pedagogic task, one will be able to design, administer, perform, and score the very same pedagogic tasks.
Nunan (1989) makes a distinction between real-world tasks and pedagogic ones. He further identifies these two task types as two different rationales for task selection. The former requires learners to approximate the kind of tasks required of them in the world
Iranian EFL Journal 318 beyond the classroom and the latter requires learners to do things extremely unlikely they would be asked to do outside classroom environment.
According to Bygate (2001), the term pedagogic task refers broadly to structured, bounded, purposeful activities involving language processing which learners carry out to learn. Such tasks vary widely in kind and purpose and may involve listening, speaking, reading and writing. They may be undertaken by learners individually, in pairs, in groups, or with the help of a teacher.
One key reason for studying pedagogic tasks is that they provide appropriate content for learning and teaching. Bygate (1999) illustrates how pedagogic tasks can be manipulated systematically as context for promoting learners' knowledge of language, their ability in language use, and teachers' ability to teach them. The assumption is that appropriate selection and use of a range of pedagogic tasks can be very crucial for successful learning to take place. Accordingly, pedagogic tasks have turned into a focus of research interest.
Bygate (2001) also maintains that the interest in pedagogic tasks has extended beyond merely providing learners with the experience of language use and researchers have begun to explore how such tasks can be manipulated for consciousness-raising purposes. From this perspective, pedagogic tasks are seen as a context for learners to experience language in a variety of ways and for teachers to select, manipulate, and evaluate learners' performance on such tasks. Such tasks provide a means of empowering learners to experience and explore the widest range of language functions within classroom environment. Pedagogic tasks provide a vehicle for the presentation of appropriate target language samples to learners.
More specifically, the present study investigated learners' performances across different pedagogic task types to ascertain whether a discernible pattern could be recognized at two different levels of reading proficiency i.e. high and low. The present study aimed at developing different pedagogic task types and sequencing them based on pre-determined models of task complexity suggested by Prabhu (1987), Skehan (2001), Brown et al. (1984), and Robinson (2001&2007).
2.4. Task Complexity (TC)
The concept of Task Complexity (TC) is central to the main objectives of this study. Four models of task complexity exist in the literature.
2.4.1 Brown et al. (1984) Model of Task Complexity.
Brown et al. (1984) who apparently made the first attempts to sequence tasks from simple to complex, distinguished among three different types of tasks i.e. static tasks (ST), dynamic tasks (DT), and abstract tasks (AT) which range from easy to difficult. Static tasks (ST) were
Iranian EFL Journal 319 proposed as the easiest type and abstract tasks (AT) as the most difficult type. The model appears in Figure (1). Degree of difficulty
--- ►
Static task Dynamic task Abstract task
Task A Task B ... ằ Task G Task H --- ► Task L e.g. e.g. e.g. e.g.
Pegboard Story Info gap Opinion Many elements, relationships, characters, etc.
(more difficult)
Few elements, relationships, etc.
(less difficult)
__________________________________________________________________
Figure (1): Tasks of Ascending Difficulty adapted from: (Brown et al., 1984, p. 64).
2.4.2 Prabhu's Model of Task Complexity
Prahbu (1987, p. 47) graded tasks according to a number of criteria in his “Bangalore Communicative Teaching Project" in India .These criteria described as "rough measures of cognitive complexity" are as follows:
The amount of information, the amount' of reasoning needed, the degree of precision, familiarity with the purposes, the degree of abstractness and degree of difficulty.
2.4.3. Skehan’s Model of Task Complexity
To Skehan and Foster (2001, p. 196) task difficulty has to do with the amount of attention the task demands from the participants. Difficult tasks require more attention than easy tasks.
Based on the Skehan's model of task complexity, the following factors were taken into account.
a) Code complexity that has to do with vocabulary load and variety.
b) Cognitive complexity that is related to familiarity of topic, discourse, and the task itself.
c) Communicative stress which accounts for time, number of participants, and length of text, modality, and opportunity for control.
d) Learner factors that takes learners' intelligence, their imagination, and personal experiences into consideration.
2.4.4. Robinson’s Model of Task Complexity
Robinson's model of task complexity takes into account the following factors (2001, 2007).
a) Cognitive factors which has to do with the resource directing, and resource dispersing. By resource directing, he refers to the number of elements and amount of reasoning needed to complete a task. By resource dispersing, he means the amounts of planning and prior knowledge required to perform a task.
b) Interactive factors that account for task condition (participation and participant variables). Participation variables refer to whether a task is one-way or two-way, convergent
Iranian EFL Journal 320 or divergent, open or closed. Participant variables points to subjects' gender, familiarity, power, and solidarity.
c)Difficulty factors that have to do with task difficulty; the affective variables like motivation, confidence, and anxiety and ability variables such as aptitude, proficiency, and intelligence are related with task difficulty.
2.5. Empirical Studies on TBLT
Foster and Skehan (1999) point to the significance and influence of planning during task performance. They also state that pre-task planning will have a beneficial effect upon task performance. The results suggest that teacher-based planning as effective as solitary planning and both are superior to group-based planning. Dornyei and Koromos (2000) explore the role of individual and social variables in oral task performance. The results provide insights into the interrelationships of multiple variables determining the learners' task engagement, and recommend a multi-level construct whereby some independent variables only come into effect when certain conditions have been satisfied.
Swain and Lapkin (2000) focus on the uses of the first language in task-based second language learning. They also address the relationship between the amount of L1 use and the quality of students' writing, and the variability in task performance across student pairs.
Brown (1991) also deals with group work, task difference, and language acquisition.
The study suggest that the level of challenge of a task, measured by its procedural or interpretive nature, may be an important variable in ensuring that learners are pushed into framing their ideas in more novel language and thus have opportunities to learn and not only to practice.
Carless (2002) finds out how a task-based methodology is implemented with young language learners. Discussions of how tasks are implemented in school settings with young learners are provided in detail. The paper carries implications for teachers carrying out activities or tasks with young EFL learners in other contexts. Robinson (2001) explores topics such as task complexity, task difficulty, and task production; interactions within a componential framework are also explored. Sequencing does affect the accuracy and fluency of speaker production. He further argues that sequencing tasks based on their cognitive complexity is preferred over sequencing decisions based on task difficulty or task conditions.
Littlewood (2004) addresses the questions of what tasks are. The paper also shows the continuity between task-based language teaching and the broader communicative approach within which it is a development. Finally, the article asks whether task-based approach is
Iranian EFL Journal 321 really the most appropriate term at all for describing these developments in language pedagogy.
Ellis (2000) reports on two very different theoretical accounts of task-based language use and learning. One account, which he refers to as the psycholinguistic perspective draws on a computational model of second language acquisition. According to this perspective, tasks are seen as devices that provide learners with the data they need for learning. Three different psycholinguistic models are discussed: Long's interaction hypothesis, Skehan's cognitive approach, Yule's framework of communicative efficiency. The second theoretical account of tasks is that provided by socio-cultural theory. This is premised on the claim that participants co-construct the activity they engage in when performing a task, consistent with their own socio-history and locally determined goals. Both theoretical approaches are of value to task- based teaching. The psycholinguistic approach provides information that is of significance for planning task-based teaching and learning. The socio-cultural approach accounts for the kinds of improvisation that teachers and learners need to engage in during task performance to enhance communicative efficiency.
Carless (2003) uses detailed qualitative case study data to explore the implementation of task-based teaching in three primary school classroom in Hong Kong. It reviews six issues, which were found to impact on how teachers approached the implementation of communicative tasks in their classroom. The themes to be addressed are teacher beliefs;
teacher understandings; the syllabus time available; the textbook and the topic; preparation and the available resources; and the language proficiency of the students. It is argued that the complex interplay between these factors can have bearing on the extent of implementation of task-based teaching in the classroom. A tentative exploratory framework for the implementation of task-based teaching with young learners in Hong Kong is proposed. The study may also shed more light on the prospects for the implementation of communicative or task-based approaches in a variety of other contexts.
Carless (2007) analyzes the suitability of task-based teaching for Hong Kong secondary schools. Suggestions are derived for the development of a version of task-based approaches feasible for this and other comparable school contexts. The research method for the study involved semi-structured interviews with 11 secondary school teachers and 10 teacher educators based on purposive sampling. The results emphasize the need for adaptation and a flexible situated version of task-based teaching. The proposed adaptation involves clarifying and enhancing the role of grammar instruction; integrating tasks with the requirements of examinations; and emphasizing reading and writing tasks in addition to oral ones. The study