Comparing the Three Types of Tasks in Task-Based Approach and Their Effects on Teaching Persian Language Grammar to Speakers of Other Languages (Short Composition, Editing Task and Spot the Differences)

زبانشناسی و گویش های خراسان

Article 1, Volume 11, Issue 2, June 2020, Pages 1-24   

Document Type: Original Article

DOI: 10.22067/jlkd.2019.29133

Authors

mohammad javad Hadizadeh¹; Mohammad javad Mahdavy^{* 2}; rezamorad sahraee³; ali alizadeh⁴

¹Mohammad Javad Hadizadeh Phd Graduate in Persian Language and Literature, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

²Mohammad Javad Mahdavi Assistant Professor of Persian language and Literature Dept. Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

³Reza Morad SahraeiAssociate Professor of linguistics Dept. Allameh Tabataba´i University, Tehran, Iran

⁴Associate Professor in Linguistics, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract

Task-based learning method is considered as one of the successful methods in communicative language teaching, which possess the advantages of teamwork and class interaction along with the positive components of attention to the grammatical forms. Although, few independent studies have been conducted on the task-based method in Persian language; numerous studies have been done on the impact of the task-based method in English language. After stating the significance of the task-based method, by selecting three types of the most common tasks in text books relating to teaching Persian language grammar to speakers of other languages(short composition, editing task and spot the differences)and registering the interactions between sixteen Persian language learners in Saadi Foundation through studying the language related episodes and meta-talks of each of them while performing these tasks in a group, the current study attempts to examine these tasks effects on drawing the language learners' attention to the grammatical forms; and then it presents a resultant from the practical application of task-based method in classroom and its advantages. Results show that performing the tasks in teamwork has obviously a positive effect on improving the grammatical ability of the language learners; the positive or negative feedback that the learners provide in their interactions are constructive in most cases; it leads to a correct decision-making, and the learners are more dominant on the grammatical categories that they learn in form of a task. Among the various types of task, editing task is the most suitable choice for teaching grammar due to having the redesigning capability for paying attention to various grammatical forms and a more specific reflection of the target grammatical categories on it.

Keywords

Task-Based Method; Group Task; Language Related Episodes; Grammar; Teaching Persian Language to Speakers of Other Languages

References

1- پذیرش، ج. (1389). تهیه و تدوین متون گفت‌وگو برای فارسی‌آموزان سطح متوسط به شیوه‌ی تکلیف‌مدار و با رویکرد آموزشی. پایان‌نامه‌ی کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.

2- تقی‌زاده، ف. (1392). تأثیر آموزش تکلیف‑محور بر یادگیری واژگان: مطالعه‌ی مقایسه‌ای تأثیر تکلیف جیگسا و شکاف اطّلاعات بر یادگیری واژگان. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه دریانوردی و علوم دریایی چابهار.

3- جعفری، ف. (1390). دستور کاربردی (ج 1 و 2). تهران: مرکز بین‌المللی آموزش زبان فارسی دانشگاه تهران، مؤسسه‌ی لغت‌نامه‌ی دهخدا.

4- دبیرمقدّم، م.، و صدیقی‌فر، زهره (1391). آموزش جمله‌های شرطی زبان فارسی به غیرفارسی‌زبانان: مقایسه‌ی دو روش تدریس ساختاری و تکلیف‌محور. پژوهش‌نامه‌ی آموزش زبان فارسی به غیرفارسی‌زبانان، 1(2)، 31-59.

5- ذوالفقاری، ح.، و غفاری، م.، و محمودی بختیاری، ب. (1380). فارسی بیاموزیم (ج 1). تهران: انتشارات مدرسه.

6- شکوهی علی‌آبادی، م. (1391). توصیف و آموزش بندهای موصولی در چهارچوب برنامه‌های درسی. پایان‌نامه‌ی کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.

7- صحرایی، ر. م.، و میدانی، ف. (1390). برنامه‌ی درسی تکلیف‌محور؛ رویکردی نوین برای تقویت فارسی آموزی. فصلنامه‌ی زبان و ادب پارسی، 15(47): 161-180.

8- صفّارمقدّم، ا. (1386). زبان فارسی (ج 1). تهران: شورای گسترش زبان و ادبیّات فارسی.

9- صفری، ب. (1395). سلام فارسی. تهران: انتشارات بنیاد سعدی.

10- کلانتری، ر.، و سعیدی، م. (1388). تأثیر روش تدریس تکلیف‌محور بر درک مطلب زبان‌آموزان. علوم تربیتی، 2(6): 175-187.

11- Adair-Hauck, B., & Donato, R. (1994). Foreign Language explanations within the zone of Proximal Development. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50(3), 532-57.

12- Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J.P. (1994). Negative feedback and second language learning inthe zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465-83.

13- Aston, G. (1986) Trouble-shooting in interaction with learners: The more the merrier?. Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 128-43.

14- Bardovi-Harlig, K., & T. Bofman. (1989). Attainment of syntactic and morphological accuracy by advanced language learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11. 17-34.

15- Brooks, F.B., & Donato, R. (1994) Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreignlanguage learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania, 77, 2-14.

16- Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 25(3), 459-480.

17- Crookes, G., & Gass, S.M. (1993). Tasks and Language Learning: Integrating Theoryand Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

18- Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication 7. 482-511.

19- Dickins, P., & E. Woods. (1988). Some criteria for the development of communicative grammar tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 22(4), 623- 651.

20- Donato, R. (1994) Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J.P. Lantolf andG. Appel Vygotskian Perspectives to Second Language Research (pp. 33-56). Ablex PublishingCorporation, Norwood NJ.

21- Donato, R., & Adair-Hauck, B. (1992) Discourse perspectives on formal instruction.Language Awareness, 1(2), 73-89.

22- Doughty, C., & Pica, T. (1986) Information gap tasks: Do they facilitate second languageacquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 305-26.

23- Duff, P. (1986). Another look at interlanguage talk: Taking task to task. In R.R. Day (ed.)Talking to Learn (pp. 147-81). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

24- Doughty, C., & I. Williams. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Edited by C. Doughty and I. Williams. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

25- Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991) Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 605-28.

26- Garcia Mayo, M. P. (2001). Focus on form tasks in EFL grammar pedagogy. In D. Lasagabaster, &J. Sierra (Eds.), Language awareness in the foreign language classroom (pp. 221–236). Bilbao:Universidad del Pais Vasco.

27- Garcia Mayo, M. P. (2002). The effectiveness of two form-focused tasks in advanced EFL pedagogy. International Journal of Applied Linguistic, 12(2), 156–175.

28- Harley, B., & Allen, P., & Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1990). The Development of Second LanguageProficiency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

29- Jackson, D. O .(2001). Language- Rlated Episodes.  ELT Journal, 55(3), 298-299.

30- Kowal ,M., & Swain,M. (1994). Using collaborative languageproduction tasks to promotestudents. Language Awareness, 2(3), 73-93.

31- Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: PergamonPress.

32- Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2002). The Effect of Interaction in Acquiring the Grammar of second Language. International Journal of Educational Research, (37), 343-358.

33- LaPierre, D. (1994). Language output in a cooperative learning setting: Determining itseffects on second language learning. MA thesis, University of Toronto (OISE).

34- Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus on form and corrective feedback in communicativelanguage learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(4), 429-48.

35- Long, M.H., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26(1), 27-56.

36- Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second languageacquisition. ELT Journal, 47(3), 203-10.

37- Nunan, D. (1989). Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

38- Olson Flanigan, B. (1991). Peer tutoring and second language acquisition in the elementaryschool. Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 141-58.

39- Pica, T. (1992). Second language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom. AppliedLinguistics, 8(1), 3-21.

40- Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985). The role of group work in classroom second languageacquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 233-48.

41- Pica, T. (1985). The selective impact of classroom instruction on second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 6(3), 214-221.

42- Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second‌language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes?. Language Learning, 44(3), 493-527.

43- Pica, T. (1997). Second language teaching and research relationships: A North American View. Language Teaching Research, 1(1), 48-72.

44- Samuda, V., & Rounds, P.L. (1993). Reference points for analyzing a task in action. In G.Crookes and S.M. Gass (eds) Tasks in a Pedagogical Context: Integrating Theory andPractice (pp. 125-138). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

45- Schmidt, R.W., & Frota, S.N. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a secondlanguage: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R.R. Day (ed.) Talking toLearn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 237-326). Rowley, MA: NewburyHouse.

46- Skehan, P. (1992). Second language acquisition strategies and task-based learning. In P.Skehan and C. Wallace (eds) Thames Valley University Working Papers in English LanguageTeaching (pp. 178-208).

47- Storch, N. (1997). The Editing talk of adult ESL learners. Language Awareness, 6(4), 221-232.

48- Storch. N. (1998). A classroom-based study: insights from a collaborative text reconstruction task. ELT Journal, 52(4), 291- 307.

49- Storch, N., & Gillian, W. (2003). Is there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2setting?. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 760–770.

50- Storch. N. (2001). Comparing ESL Learners' Attention to Grammar on Three Different Classroom Tasks. RELC journal, 2(32), 104-124.

51- Storch, N. (2002). Role relationships in dyadic interactions and their effect on language uptake. Paperpresented at Form-meaning connections in second language acquisition. February 21, Chicago.

52- Storch. N. (2007). Investigating the Merits of Pair Work on a Text Editing Task in ESL Classes. Language Teaching Research, 2(11), 143-159.

53- Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren't enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158- 164.

54- Swain, M. (1995). Collaborative dialogue: Its contribution to second language learning. Plenary Paper presented at the Annual AAAL Conference, Long Beach, California.

55- Swain, M .(1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Edited by C. Doughty and I. Williams. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

56- Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language leaming. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371-391.

57- Swain, M., & S. Lapkin. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320-337.

58- Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1994). Problems in output and the cognitive processes theygenerate: A step towards second language learning. Paper presented at the annualconference of the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Baltimore.

59- van Lier, L. (1994). Contingency in classroom interaction. Paper presented at the Associationfor Language Awareness 2nd International Conference, Plymouth: England,April.

60- Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

61- Vygotsky, L.S. (1979). Consciousness as a problem in the psychology of behaviour. Soviet Psychology, 17(4), 3-35.

62- Vygotsky, L.S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R.W. Rieber and A.S. Carton (eds) The Collected Worksof L.S. Vygotsky, Vol. 1. New York: Plenum.

63- Williams,A.(1995). Focus on form in communicative language teaching: Research findings and the classroom teacher. TESOL Jouma, I4(4), 12-16.