European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences 2013; www.european-science.

com
Vol.2, No.2 Special Issue on Teaching and Learning.
ISSN 1805-3602

Investigating the Effectiveness of Task Types on Vocabulary Learning in

Multilevel Language Ability Classes

Ali Ziyaeemehr
Strategic Research Management, Supreme Council of Education, Iran
Email: ziyaeeali@gmail.com

Abstract
Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) utilizes a set of tasks that are representative of
how learners perform when they are actually involved in real-life and real-time complex situations
to elicit authentic samples of language use. This study investigated the effectiveness of using
different task types in promotion of vocabulary learning among students of differing language
ability in Iranian secondary schools. One hundred and twenty students of third-grade in secondary
school participated in the study that were assigned to three groups of elementary, lower
intermediate, and intermediate based on their performance in language proficiency and placement
tests. The experimental group received instruction through three task types namely 'listen and do',
'classification of related items' and 'practice through dialog' for four weeks, two sessions a week.
The results indicated no statistically significant difference among students' performance across the
three task types; however, their language proficiency level significantly influenced their
performance in vocabulary learning. Implications for curriculum development and policy making
in EFL/ESL education have been discussed.
Key words: Task type, task-based language teaching, EFL/ESL, vocabulary learning

Introduction
The process of second/foreign language (L2) teaching and learning is a complex
undertaking which has undergone many methodological shifts over the years. Following the advent
of communicative language teaching (CLT) in the early1980s that provided a new methodological
option for teaching and learning of a second language, Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) was
made popular in the field of second language acquisition (SLA) as a subcategory of CLT. Placing
considerable importance on learner's knowledge of the linguistic forms, meanings and functions in
order to be able to use the language appropriate to the given situation, CLT attracted attention and
acceptance from various scholars of the field.
Bearing in mind the fact that a single linguistic form can often convey several meanings and
understandings while serving many functions at the same time, L2 learners are required to master a
diversity of linguistic forms and functions in order to be able to manage the complex process of
message conveyance and interaction with other L2 speakers. Second/foreign language teachers have
always been striving to employ the most convenient and efficient ways of establishing situations
which are optimal to promote learning among students. In pursuit of such an effective discipline to
satisfy the demands of L2 pedagogy, CLT and its offspring Task-Based Instruction (TBI) came to an
existence in the world of second language acquisition.
TBI stresses utilizing a set of tasks that are representative of how learners perform when
they are actually involved in real-life and often real-time complex situations. The tenet of TBTL is
a pedagogical shift from teacher-oriented to more learner- oriented teaching (East, 2012).
Increasingly, by realizing the fact that effective and efficient learning/acquisition of a second
language takes place when the acquired knowledge is practiced and used in real life

Openly accessible at http://www.european-science.com 659

 Ali Ziyaeemehr

communications, the use of tasks as some ‘tools to elicit samples of language use’ as Ellis (2003)
notes, attracted much attention and proposed a challenging alternative to the field of SLA.

Defining a Task
The concept of task is central to many theories of classroom teaching and learning. Tasks
have been defined in a variety of ways in the literature. Prabhu (1987) as one of the earlier initiators
of the idea, views a task as a ‘meaning-focused activity in the classroom’. He points out that such an
activity might be under three different forms: information-gap activity, reasoning-gap activity and/or
opinion-gap activity. Information-gap activity involves “transfer of a given information from one
person to another . . ." reasoning-gap activity entails "deriving some new information from given
information through processes of inference deduction, practical reasoning, or a perception of
relationships or patterns" and opinion-gap activity involves " identifying and articulating a personal
preference, feeling, or attitude in response to a given situation" (Prabhu, 1987, pp. 46-47).
Skehan (1996) defines a task as an activity in which: meaning is primary; there is some sort
of relationship to the real world; task completion has some priority; and the assessment of task
performance is in terms of task outcome. Other scholars have looked at a task from various
perspectives. For instance, Ellis (2003) summarizes a task as comprising four main characteristics:
(a) it involves a primary focus on (pragmatic) meaning, (b) it has some kind of ‘gap’, (3) the
participants choose the linguistic resources needed to complete the task, and (d) it has a clearly
defined, non-linguistic outcome.
After reviewing key definitions from the TBL literature, Nunan ()presents a task as: “a piece
of classroom work that involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting
in the target language while their attention is focused on mobilizing their grammatical knowledge in
order to express meaning, and in which the intention is to convey meaning rather than to manipulate
form. The task should also have a sense of completeness, being able to stand alone as a
communicative act in its own right with a beginning, a middle and an end.”
Further understandings of the concept, is provided in Ellis's (2004, p. 4) comprehensive
collection of task definitions delineated in the literature by a number of renowned scholars of the
field.

Task-based language teaching

Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) utilizes a set of tasks that are representative of
how learners perform when they are actually involved in real-life and often real-time complex
situations to elicit authentic samples of language use. TBLT constitutes a strong version of CLT.
Ellis (2003) argues that tasks provide the basis for an entire language curriculum; however, that
task-based language teaching is not the only way of achieving a strong version of CLT…. Clearly a
strong version of CLT can be realized in a variety of ways, not by tasks. Nevertheless, tasks can
function as a useful device for planning a communicative curriculum, particularly in contexts where
there are few opportunities for more authentic communicative experiences, for example, many FL
situations. Carter and Nunan (2001) characterize CLT as an approach to the teaching of language
which emphasizes the uses of languages by the learner in a range of contexts and for a range of
purposes; CLT emphasizes speaking and listening in real settings and does not only prioritize the
development of reading and writing skills; methodologies for CLT tend to encourage active learner
involvement in a wide range of activities and tasks and strategies for communication.
Carter and Nunan (2001) point out that one feature of TBL is that learners carrying out a task
are free to use any language they can to achieve the outcome: language forms are not prescribed in
Openly accessible at http://www.european-science.com 660
Special Issue on Teaching and Learning.

advance. As language users, human beings have an innate capacity to work out ways of expressing
meanings. Learners do not simply take note of new language input and attempt to reproduce it. They
are not aiming to reproduce a series of language forms in conformity with target norms. Their aim in
language use is to create a meaning system which they can operate rapidly and efficiently in real
time. In order to achieve this goal they will use and develop language forms to which they have been
recently exposed, but they will also adopt strategies which are not sanctioned by the target norms.
In addition to the aforementioned characteristics for task-based instruction, the inclusion of
some type of instruction on the formal aspects of target language can also be found in the guidelines
of task-based language instruction. Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research supports a focus
on form which uses pedagogical tasks to draw learners' attention to particular aspects of the
language code which are naturally embedded in the tasks (Long & Robinson, 1998). Likewise,
Skehan (1992, as cited in Carter and Nunan 2001, p.174) argues that unless we encourage a focus on
form, learners will develop more effective strategies for achieving communicative goals without an
accompanying development of their language system. They will develop a 'classroom dialect', which
enables them to exchange meanings in spite of the shortcomings of their language. As a result they
may fossilize at a relatively low level of language development. He suggests that learning is
promoted by the need to communicate, but argues that learning will be more efficient if:
- there is a need to focus on accuracy within a task-based methodology, and
- there is a critical focus on language form within the task-based cycle.
In short, task-based language teaching appeared to meet the basic requirements of learners in
different settings, from children to adults, with varying levels of language proficiency. By engaging
learners in more meaningful and naturalistic communication, as it is in real-life situations, by
providing opportunities for meaningful use and promotion of language learning, and at the same
time by striking a balance between form and meaning, task-based language teaching has gained
prominence over other approaches to language teaching and learning over the past years. In TBL
approaches, therefore, language development is promoted by language use, with the study of
language form playing a secondary role.

Principles of task-based instruction

Task based language instruction mainly emphasizes the employment of a variety of tasks that
involve language learners in the process of active communication so that they can pick up the
language by doing and performing. Some basic principles of TBI can be summarized as:
authenticity, learner-centeredness, and intentional and interactive use of the language, where task
completion plays a substantial role.
Nunan (2004) outlines some pedagogic principles and practices of task-based language
teaching as follows:
- A needs-based approach to content selection.
- An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target language.
- The introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation.
- The provision of opportunities for learners to focus not only on language but also on
the learning process itself.
- An enhancement of the learner’s own personal experiences as important contributing
elements to classroom learning.
- The linking of classroom language learning with language use outside the classroom.
Having been introduced well into the world of language pedagogy, TBI has now gained a
more established position in recent language teaching methodology as opposed to those of
Openly accessible at http://www.european-science.com 661
 Ali Ziyaeemehr

traditional, less direct and less communicative approaches. This is evidenced in numerous research
studies relating to TBI (e.g., East, 2012; Ellis, 2003; Lee, 2000, Nunan, 2004; Plews, & Zhao 2010).
Underscoring the role of authentic tasks in language pedagogy, these studies have highlighted the
role of meaningful content in interaction among learners and have focused attention on the
authenticity and meaningfulness of communication. As such, by employment of different task types
to facilitate language teaching-learning processes, TBI has been acknowledged as an important
contributor to second language education and research throughout these studies. However, there is
considerable controversy as to which approach is the most effective, and as Ellis (2005) contends,
the research and theories do not give definite answers on what types of instruction can best facilitate
language learning.

Objectives of the study

Despite the fact that several studies have investigated the effects of tasks on several aspects
of L2 learning, to the author’s best knowledge, studies on whether different task types can have
different effects on students’ language learning have been quite scant. Regarding the context of the
current study- Iranian secondary schools- no published studies are found that have tried to establish
relationships between task types employed in teaching and their effects on students’ language
learning. The current study, then, aims to provide insights into the relationships between task types
used in teaching L2 vocabulary and learners’ performance in vocabulary learning. More specifically,
the study is an attempt to answer the following research questions:
RQ#1: Does task type affect students' vocabulary learning in multilevel language ability
classes?
RQ#2: Does students’ proficiency level affect their vocabulary learning through different
task types?

Method
Participants
A total of 120 third-grade secondary school students in the city of Tehran, Iran participated
in the study. All third-grade students making up five classes in a secondary school were included in
the study during the spring semester. Two classes out of five were considered as the control group
who received no treatment, while the other three, taken as the experimental group were subjected to
the intended and designed task-based instruction. Since the participants' awareness of the study
might have affected their performance and consequently the validity of the study, they were not
informed of their participation in the study until the data were collected.
The subjects attended English classes twice a week during the school year and took no
regular language classes during three months of summer holidays. They were roughly of the same
age – 16 to18 teenage schoolboys with approximately the same language background. Each class
session normally lasted for one and a half hours.
The control group received their traditional, form-based language instruction based on the
designed curriculum practiced regularly by the teacher. On the other hand, under TBI framework,
the experimental group received a task-based, communicative instruction focusing on implicit
meaning conveyance. The new materials were developed under the premises TBI framework, by the
searcher who was the teacher of all five classes during the year.
Task based materials were developed in a way that the vocabulary items in students’
textbooks were incorporated within the tasks to be completed by the students. Hence, the

Openly accessible at http://www.european-science.com 662

Special Issue on Teaching and Learning.

experimental group was taught the new vocabulary items in each lesson through practicing three
types of tasks considered for this purpose.
Materials
To determine the proficiency level of the students so as to divide them into homogeneous
groups, two sets of tests were administered before the study: a placement test that the subjects were
expected to be familiar with its content, as it was based on their previous year textbooks, and a
pretest with a quite unfamiliar content to them, provided based on their new textbook. Both test
materials were developed and developed and validated by the researcher. The two types of tests,
made it possible to have two sets of analyses: one on the basis of students' general vocabulary
knowledge tested via a placement test which allowed classifying the subjects into three
homogeneous groups in three levels as elementary, lower intermediate and intermediate. The other
were used to make comparisons with those of the posttest to see the effects of the treatment. Due to
participants’ lower listening skills as well as availability of authentic audio or visual means, both
pretest and posttest materials were provided in written form.
Procedure
From the total number of 120 students, as shown in (Table 1), 8 students were eliminated
from the data analyses. Five students were outliers, scoring either too low or too high in the
placement and the pre-test, and 3 students failed to attend all treatment sessions. Therefore, 112
students successfully participated in the study for 4 weeks, two sessions of one and a half hours per
week. To make sure that the participants were not familiar with the given words earlier to teaching
sessions, they were asked to write the meaning of 60 English words (Appendix B) in their L1 before
the instruction. Out of 60 words, 25 incorrect or unanswered items were selected as new words to
the participants. The three task types then were designed based on these new vocabulary items. The
three task types employed for the purpose of the study were as follows:
(1) listen and do
(2) practice through dialogs
(3) classification of related items
The three task types were assigned randomly each for a class. That is, task 1 (listen and do)
was selected and worked on in class one, task 2 (practice through dialog) for class two, and task 3
(classification of related items) was presented to class three. Due to time constraints performing all
three tasks in all three classes was not practical.
Based on the premises of TBI, each task consisted of three phases to be accomplished: pre-
task, during-task and post-task. Before completion of each task, in pre-task phase, any requirement
to follow each task in terms of allotted time, procedures to perform the activities, and grouping
participants was met by the teacher. The purpose of pre – task phase is to prepare students to
perform the task in ways that will promote acquisition. Dornyei (2001, as cited in Ellis 2004)
emphasizes the importance of presenting a task in a way that motivates learners.
Next, in during - task phase, students attempted successful learning of the specified
vocabulary items through completion of given tasks. This phase is the actual performance of a task
that is planned by the teacher prior to the completion of each task.
And finally, in post-task phase, the students' performance is reinforced by repetition, or
asking them to give their opinions on how they did the task and what was new to them in
comparison to their previous experiences of vocabulary learning. Ellis (2004) has provided three
major pedagogical goals for this stage: (1) to provide an opportunity for a repeat performance of a
task; (2) to encourage reflection on how the task was performed; and (3) to encourage attention to

Openly accessible at http://www.european-science.com 663

 Ali Ziyaeemehr

form, in particular to those forms that proved problematic to the learners when they performed the
task.
Examples of the tasks that were used in posttest to assess the students’ progress in
vocabulary learning included fill in the blanks, completion items, matching items, error-
identification, translation from L2 to L1, and multiple choice vocabulary items.
To show the effect of different task types on learners' performance in vocabulary learning
through TBI, their scores in pretest were compared with those of the posttest within and among
groups.

Results and discussion

Based on the results of the placement test conducted to identify the students’ language
proficiency level, those scoring from 1 to 11.86, from 11.78 to 14.2, and from 14.3 to 20 (as the
highest mark in the education system) were assigned to elementary, lower intermediate and
intermediate levels, respectively. Table1 indicates these figures as well as the range of scores for
each level based on the placement and pretest results.

Table 1. Frequency and range of scores for each level based on placement and pretest
Langua Based on Placement Based on Pretest
ge Level Score Freq % Mean SD Score Freq % Mean SD
Range Range
EL 1-11.86 33 29.5 12.16 2.02 1-10.69 37 33.0 3.56 1.21
LI 11.87-14.2 38 33.9 12.79 2.38 10.70-15.37 39 34.8 6.96 0.96
IN 14.3-20 41 36.6 14.18 2.18 15.38-20 36 32.1 10.84 1.45
Total - 112 100 13.03 2.34 - 112 100 7.08 3.19
 EL = Elementary LI= Lower Intermediate IN= Intermediate Freq= Frequency

To show the difference between students’ proficiency levels across the two types of
classification, a one-way ANOVA was performed. The results (as presented in Table 2.2) indicate
that in both ways of classification, participants are significantly different from one another (F placement
(2,111) = 8.85, F pretest (2,111) = 10.32, p =.00).

Table 2. One-way ANOVA: Language level identification based on pretest and placement test
classification
Some of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Pr Pl Pr Pl Pr Pl Pr Pl Pr Pl
Between Group 11.62 10.26 2 2 5.81 5.13 10.32 8.85 0.00* 0.00*
Within Group 61.36 63.16 109 106 0.56 0.58
Total 72.99 73.42 111 111
Pr= pretest, Pl=placement, *= statistically significant at P<0.05

In order to find out the effect of task type on vocabulary learning across different language
ability levels, addressed by RQ#1, a two-way ANOVA was run across the three task types and the
three identified language ability levels. As shown in Table 2, the difference among participants’
performance across the three task types is not statistically significant (F (2, 66), P=.262), implying that
Openly accessible at http://www.european-science.com 664
Special Issue on Teaching and Learning.

the type of the task used for teaching vocabulary does not make significant contribution to students’
understanding and improvement of vocabulary knowledge in a second language.
Looking at students’ performance across the three task types shows that they performed less
successfully in “listen and do” compared to “dialog’ and “classification of related items”. This
implies that listen and do task is a more complex and demanding activity type that requires the
learners to have knowledge of other elements of the language such as intonation and stress pattern,
pragmatic competence, and listening skills apart from their lexical knowledge. Other possible
interpretation for such a difference might be explained so that cognitive complexity, level of
abstractedness, modality, time-boundedness or tasks being performed in a unidirectional or
bidirectional way can influence the learners’ performance of the tasks.
In a similar vein, the higher mean scores in dialog task compared to the other two types
indicates that dialogs are more appropriate tasks to improve students’ language ability in terms of
vocabulary knowledge. This finding is in line with the Anton’s (1999) statement as cited in Ellis
(2004, p.177) contending that verbal interaction can be monologic or dialogic. Whereas both can
serve to mediate learning, dialogic interaction is seen as central. Dialogic interaction enables an
expert (such as a teacher) to create a context in which novices can participate actively in their own
learning and in which the expert can fine-tune the support that the novice is given.

Table 3. Analysis based on subjects’ performance in placement test

Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 231.867 8 28.983 3.883 0.001
Intercept 11620.009 1 11620.009 1556.765 0.000*
LGLEVPLC 177.289 2 88.645 11.876 0.000*
TASk_TYPE 21.362 2 10.681 1.431 0.247
LGLEVPLC* 40.337 4 10.084 1.351 0.262
TASk_TYPE
Error 432.924 58 7.464
Total 13534.910 67
*= statistically significant at P<0.05

However, further analysis shows that students’ performance in the three language ability
levels are meaningfully different, indicating that language proficiency per se creates a difference
while performing a task by the learners.

Table 4. Analysis based on subjects’ performance in pretest

Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 391.37 8 48.92 10.37 0.000
Intercept 12508.28 1 12508.28 2653.41 0.000*
TASk_TYPE 12.74 2 6.37 1.35 0.267
LGLEVPRE 337.62 2 168.81 35.81 0.000*
TASk_TYPE* 31.68 4 7.92 1.68 0.167
LGLEVPRE
Error 273.41 58 4.71
Total 13534.91 67
Corrected Total 664.79 66
*= statistically significant at P<0.05
Openly accessible at http://www.european-science.com 665
 Ali Ziyaeemehr

Lack of meaningful difference between elementary and lower intermediate levels can
suggest that to perform successfully on a task a threshold level of language ability is required. As
displayed in Table 4, similar to the results obtained from the placement test, the difference among
participants’ performance across the three task types was not statistically significant (F (2, 66) = 1.35,
P=.267) in the pretest either. This implies that improvement of vocabulary knowledge has not varied
among the students to a considerable degree across different task types.
Further analysis of the results (shown in Table 4) reveals that the difference between the
three identified language levels is statistically significant (F (2, 66) = 35.81, P=.000), indicating the
fact that participants’ background language ability has affected their performance during
performance and completion of tasks.
In addition, like the results from the placement test, no statistical significance was observed
in the interaction between task type and language level in the pretest-based analysis. These findings
suggest that students’ proficiency is not improved by the type of the task but rather their knowledge
of linguistic and non-nonlinguistic components plays a crucial role in learners’ vocabulary learning
improvement.
It was also noticed that the interaction between task type and language proficiency level is
not significant, indicating that language proficiency level and task type have a kind of reciprocal
influence on the performance of tasks. In other words, it is assumed that in performing tasks, lower
proficiency might be compensated by learners’ non-linguistic knowledge that they take advantage of
to comprehend the new lexicon in a given text or context. Ellis (1995) discusses that there is general
agreement that 'knowing' a word involves knowing: its spoken and written contexts of use; its
patterns with words of related meaning as well as its collocational patterns; its syntactic, pragmatic
and discourasl patterns.

Conclusion
This study was an attempt to investigate the impact of different task types on learning
vocabulary in multilevel language ability classes where English is taught as second/foreign
language. The three task types employed in the study was "listen and do", "classification of related
items", and "practice through dialog". The analysis showed that the effect of task type on students’
vocabulary knowledge was not statistically meaningful suggesting that the type of the task employed
in teaching vocabulary does not make significant contribution to students’ understanding and
improvement of vocabulary knowledge. However, further analysis of the data revealed that students’
task performance is considerably affected by their language ability level. Additionally, the lack of
statistically significant difference between elementary and lower intermediate levels indicates that
successful task performance and completion requires a threshold level of language proficiency.
The results indicate that although the type of the task, through which language items are
presented in the teaching-learning process, may not have an immediate impact on students’ further
attainment, the learners’ background knowledge of the language does play a significant role in their
vocabulary learning. This emphasizes the importance of providing enough pragmatic and discourasl
input to L2 learners before involving them in task performance.
Findings indicates that other things being equal, the kind of task is not the key factor in
vocabulary achievement, but rather the quality of interaction through which instruction takes place
can be affected by students' background knowledge. Hence, teachers are suggested to be more
sensitive to crediting students of lower proficiency who are not qualified enough to be placed in
upper grades.

Openly accessible at http://www.european-science.com 666

Special Issue on Teaching and Learning.

This study has also particular relevance to the kind of exercises and activities included in
textbooks. Since diversity of tasks can increase the opportunities of meaning exchange and
interaction in the classroom, hence reinforce the quality of vocabulary acquisition, inclusion of
appropriate task types in school curricula based on students’ proficiency level is strongly
recommended.

Suggestions for Further Research

Task – based teaching as a relatively new approach to language teaching has a wide range of
unexplored aspects. Thus as far as it is concerned with this study, the following suggestions are
made for conducting similar studies and carrying out further research:
- The interaction between task type and language proficiency did not show significant
difference, indicating that language proficiency and task type have a kind of reciprocal influence on
the performance of tasks. Therefore, the low proficiency of the subjects was concluded to be
compensated by the test takers' non-linguistic knowledge such as situational, pragmatic, discoursal
and collocational knowledge. These understandings can have significant implications for vocabulary
teaching and learning and need further investigation.
- Since the study involved only male subjects, the effect of gender related variables on
vocabulary learning through different task types remained undiscovered.
- This study investigated the differential effect of a limited number of task types on
promotion of learners' vocabulary knowledge and the room is left for further investigation on
characteristics of certain task types which are claimed to tap particular language skills.
- Variables such as participants' L1, learning style, intelligence and attitude are deemed
to affect the rate and quality of task completion and vocabulary improvement. Further research is
needed to investigate the effects and relationships of these variables in varying contexts.

References:
Carter, R. & Nunan, D. (2001). Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. UK: Cambridge
University Press.
East, M. (2012). Task-Based Language Teaching from the Teachers‟ Perspective.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. New York: Oxford University Press,
Inc.
Ellis, R. (2004). Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. New York: Oxford University Press,
Inc.
Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. In P. Robertson, P. Dash, & J. Jung
Lee, J. (2000). Tasks and Communicating in Language Classroom. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty &
J. Williams (Eds.), focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. (pp.15-41).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Plews, John L.; Zhao, Kangxian (2010). Tinkering with tasks knows no bounds: ESL Teachers’
Adaptations of Task-Based Language-Teaching. TESL Canada Journal, 28(1), 43-48.
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Openly accessible at http://www.european-science.com 667