elt voices indiaeltvoices.in/volume3/issue_2/evi_32_3.pdf · elt research paper 3 the effects of...

[Type text]

ELT Voices – India Volume 3 Issue 2 | April 2013

ISSN 2230-9136

© Ignite (India) Publishing, Bhavnagar, Gujarat – India

www.eltvoices.in

ELT Research Paper 3

The Effects of Task-Based Instruction on the Development of Different Aspects of Pragmatic Competence Fatemeh Shoushinasab Payam Noor University, PNU, Iran

Fatemeh Shoushinasab: The Effects of Task-Based Instruction on the Development of Different Aspects of Pragmatic

Competence

32 | E L T V o i c e s – I n d i a ( V o l . 3 I s s u e 2 ) | A p r i l 2 0 1 3 | I S S N 2 2 3 0 - 9 1 3 6

Abstract

Tasks are activities with a purpose or activities towards a purpose. Task-based language

teaching has become very popular in the last decade. The purpose of this study was to

investigate the effects of task-based instruction on the development of different aspects

of pragmatic competence. The participants in this study were the intermediate adult

students of Ahvaz Gooya Educational and Cultural institute, 50 male and 50 female

who were chosen based on their performance on a quick placement test (QPT).The

participants were divided into two groups; the control and experimental, experimental

group was taught for four weeks using the techniques such as Role-Play, Learning

Together and Pair Talk; the control group was taught in the conventional method. One-

way ANOVA was applied for the null hypothesis. Analysis of the results showed that:

(1) the performance for situational routines was better than those for the other two

aspects, that is, implicatures and speech acts; (2) the performance for speech acts was

better than that for implicatures. The results can be of significance to teachers and

learners of English.

Key words: Tasks, task-based instruction, aspects of pragmatic competence


Competence


1. Introduction

Task-based instruction means incorporating tasks into the curriculum, which may also

contain other types of activities (Ellis, 2003). Tasks themselves are activities with a purpose

or activities towards a purpose as Ellis (2003) mentions. A task also requires participants to

act primarily as ‘language users’ in the sense that they must employ the same kinds of

communicative processes as those involved in real-world activities, therefore, any learning

that takes place is incidental (Ellis, 2004).

According to Garcia (2004), the pragmatics of a language refers to the ability to use language

appropriately based on the communicative situation. Human communication fulfills many

different goals at the personal and social levels (Celce-Murcia & Elite Olshtain, 2000), hence

to understand the message in communication, one should be pragmatically competent to

decode the language.

Therefore, considering the importance of task-based instruction and significance of mastering

pragmatic competence, the present study aims at investigating the effects of task-based

instruction on the development of different aspects of pragmatic competence.

2. Review of the Related Literature

2.1. Theoretical Background

Tasks

A general view of task would be that a task is any kind of thing people do in their lives. In a

pedagogical view, a task would be something more specific. This is to say that a task is an

activity whose completion necessarily involves language. Tasks are designed to imitate real-

world activities and, therefore, learners are expected to act as language users while they try to

accomplish those.

Ellis (2004) believes that a task requires participants to act primarily as ‘language users’ in

the sense that they must employ the same kinds of communicative processes as those

involved in real-world activities. Thus, any learning that takes place is incidental. According

to Willis (1996), the components of a Task are: 1 Goals and objectives, 2 Input, 3 Activities,

4 Teacher role, 5 learner role, and 6 Settings. Richards, Platt and Weber (1996) believe that, a

task in a pedagogical perspective is an activity or action which is done as the result of


Competence


processing or understanding language (i.e. as a response). For example, drawing a map while

listening to a tape, listening to an instruction and performing a command, may be referred to

as tasks.

Four Characteristics of Tasks

According to Rod Ellis (2003), a task has four main characteristics: a) A task involves a

primary focus on (pragmatic) meaning, b) A task has some kind of ‘gap’, c) The participants

choose the linguistic resources needed to complete the task, d) A task has a clearly defined

outcome.

Task-Based View of Language

The task-based view of language teaching, based on the constructivist theory of learning and

communicative language teaching methodology, has evolved in response to some

limitations of the traditional PPP approach, represented by the procedure of presentation,

practice, and performance (Ellis, 2003). Another name for task-based language learning

(TBLL) or task based instruction (TBI) focus on the use of authentic language and on

requesting students to do meaningful tasks using the target language. Such tasks can include

visiting a doctor, conducting an interview, or calling customer service for help. Assessment is

primarily based on task outcome (in other words the appropriate completion of tasks) rather

than on accuracy of language forms. This makes TBLL especially popular for developing

target language fluency and student confidence.

Task-Based Teaching and Task

Task and task based teaching is a widely researched area in language teaching and so many

researchers such as Ellis(2003) and Taylor(2003), have attempted to elaborate on it.

Nevertheless, as our study tries to explore the effects of tasks on pragmatic competence, no

integrated and crucial study investigated it. Because of lack of research in this field, via this

study, remarkably we attempt to shed light on this subject. The researcher, as it will be the

purpose of this study, believes that there is a significant relationship available between TBI

and DPC. The task-based view of language teaching, based on the constructivist theory of

learning and communicative language teaching methodology, has evolved in response

to some limitations of the traditional PPP approach, represented by the procedure of

presentation, practice, and performance (Ellis, 2003).


Competence


Pragmatics

Levinson (1983) defines pragmatics as “the study of language usage”. As under his

perspective this definition would be too simplistic, the author adds that pragmatics is “the

study of language from a functional perspective, that is, that it attempts to explain facets of

linguistic structure by reference to non-linguistic pressures and causes” (Levinson, 1983). He

also adds that pragmatics should focus on language with language usage and have no relation

to the description of linguistic structure. According to Yule (1996), pragmatics is the study

of meaning communicated by the speaker rather than by the utterance. It interprets what is

said according to the influence of the context and tries to get what is inferred by the speaker

which is, most of the times, much more than is said.

With regard to the definition, it is possible to consider that only pragmatics takes the user of

the language into the analysis of the meaning. It believes, therefore, that there is no language

without users and that the same utterance may mean different things if said by distinct people

in different circumstances. So, Pragmatics studies the relation between language contexts and

users and the resulting grammatical forms. It claims that there is an association between

grammar and context, that is, according to the context the speaker is in, he chooses different

structures to mean what he wants.

Pragmatic Competence

This is the pragmatics of a language which is the “ability to use language appropriately

according to the communicative situation” (Garcia, 2004). According to Celce-Murcia and

Elite Olshtain (2000). Human communication fulfills many different goals at the personal and

social levels. We convey information, ideas, beliefs, feelings, and attitudes to one another in

our daily interactions, and we construct and maintain our positions within various social

contexts by employing appropriate language forms and performing speech activities to ensure

solidarity, harmony, and cooperation – or to express disagreement or displeasure, when called

for. According Aquino (2012), the acquisition of communication skills in one’s first language

is a lifelong process, but the basic skills are acquired quite early in life. When learning

another language, we have to add to, change, and reajust our native language strategies to fit

the new language and culture.

Pragmatic competence – would consider the cultural adequacy of this knowledge. It means

the ability speakers have to react or respond to a specific situation in an expected way.


Competence


Communicative and pragmatic competences are used interchangeably by many authors

(Aquino, 2012).

2.2. Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to explore what aspects of pragmatic competence are enhanced

more by applying task-based instruction.

2.3. Research Question

Q: What aspects of pragmatic competence are enhanced more through task based instruction?

2.4. Research Null Hypothesis

According to the research question above, the following null hypothesis is formulated:

NH: Task-based instruction has the same effect on different aspects of pragmatic

competence, namely, implicatures, situational routines, and speech acts.

3. Methodology

3.1. Participants

The participants of this study were 50 male and 50 female intermediate EFL students

studying English at Gooya Art and Cultural English Institute who were non-randomly chosen

by administering a general English placement test, namely, Quick Placement Test. They were

divided into two groups, one class as the experimental group (n = 50) and the other one as the

control group (n= 50).

3.2. Instruments

Different materials were employed in this study to carry out the intended research. In the

following subsections, they are described in detail.

The QPT(Quick Placement Test)

In order to identify the general English knowledge of the participants, the QPT is being

designed to be used for filtering intermediate group from others who do not normally pass

this QPT test. This test (as shown in appendix I) consists of 50 questions with one point for

each correct answer.


Competence


Pragmatic Competence Test (PCT)

This test consists of different parts for evaluating different aspects of pragmatic competence

of subjects and has11 questions for implicatures aspect, 12 questions for situational routines

aspect, and 8 questions for speech acts aspect.

Oral Task

Two oral tasks were used in this study as the pre-test and post-test. The tasks involving paired

dialogues were designed to test the participants' oral communicative competence regarding

the linguistic features. The first task was administered at the beginning of the semester as the

pre-test and the second one toward the end of the semester as the post-test.

Writing Task

Two writing tasks were used in this study. At the first step and the beginning of the semester

the list of the new words and passages were taught to the experimental group during the three

weeks. At the end of the semester and for the last week incomplete conversation with blank

spaces and some questions about the related texts were given to students to answer the

questions and complete dialogue by their words.

3.3. Procedures

First of all, the proficiency test was given to the subjects under study to homogenize them.

Those participants whose scores fall 1SD above and 1SD below the mean chosen and

considered as the intermediate proficiency level. This research studied only the intermediate

level students based on the supposition that the majority of students in this institute belong to

that level. The selected sample randomly was divided into two groups, experimental and

control which took pre-test. The experimental group underwent the treatment for four weeks

and received their instructional material through task-based approach as the treatment,

whereas the control group received the same material through the conventional approach,

grammar translation method. After the treatment, a post-test was administered to both groups.

The collected data was analyzed by SPSS to see if there was a significant difference between

the experimental and control groups.


Competence


4. Results

4.1. The Result of the QPT

The population of this comprised 100 students who were selected through administer in the

QPT. Then they were assigned to two groups of experimental and control. In order to make

sure that the two groups were homogeneous; their performances on the QPT were compared

through running a t-test. Table 4.1 indicates the results of the descriptive statistics and the t-

test, and Figure 4.1 illustrates their means graphically.

Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics and t-test results for the QPT

Group N Min Max Mean SD t df Sig.

Experimental 50 37 47 42.28 3.137 .443 98 .659

Control 50 37 47 42.02 2.722

Figure 4.1. Graphical representation of the means for QPT

According to Table 4.1, the amount of t-observed (t(98)= .443) is significant at the probability

level of .659 which is not statistically significant. Therefore, it can be said that the two groups

were homogeneous with regard to their English proficiency level.

4.2. Investigating the Null Hypothesis

In order to test the validity of the second hypothesis, the performance of the experimental

group on the posttest for different pragmatic aspects had to be compared. It should be

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Experimental Control

42.28 42.02


Competence


mentioned that since the maximum score for different aspects were different—that is, 11 for

implicatures, 12 for situational routines, and 8 for speech acts—they had to be homogenized.

Therefore, all the scores for the aspects were changed to percent to be comparable. Table 4.2

indicates the descriptive statistics for the pretest for different aspects of pragmatic

competence, and Figure 4.2 shows the means graphically.

Table 4.2 Descriptive Statistics for the Aspects

N Mean SD Min Max

Aspect 1 50 59.82 15.266 36.36 90.91

Aspect 2 50 77.83 12.779 50.00 100.00

Aspect 3 50 69.75 16.577 25.00 100.00

Aspect 1= implicatures

Aspect 2= situational routines

Aspect 3= speech acts

Figure 4.2 Graphical representations of the aspects

By investigating Table 4.2 and Figure 4.2, one can easily find out that the results for the three

aspects under study were different. In order to understand whether these differences are

significant or not, a one-way ANOVA was implemented. Table 4.3 presents the results of this

ANOVA.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Aspect 1 Aspect 2 Aspect 3

59

.92

77

.83

69

.75


Competence


Table 4.3The Results of One-way ANOVA for the Aspects

Source SS df MS F Sig.

Between Groups 8142.116 2 4071.058 18.197 .000

Within Groups 32886.849 147 223.720

Total 41028.965 149

According to Table 4.3, the amount of F-observed (F(2, 147)= 18.197) is significant at the

probability level of .000 which is again much higher than the agreed probability level of .05.

However, this amount of F-observed does not specify the exact place(s) of difference(s). In

order to find this out, a Scheffe post hoc test was employed. Table 4.4 depicts the results of

this post hoc test.

Table 4.4 The Results of the Scheffe Post hoc Test

Aspect Aspect

Mean

Difference Sig.

1 2 -18.02* .000

3 -9.93* .005

2 1 18.02* .000

3 8.08* .028

3 1 9.93* .005

2 -8.08* .028

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

By checking the comparisons in table 4.4, the following results can be concluded: (1) the

performance for situational routines was better than those for the other two aspects, that is,

implicatures and speech acts; (2) the performance for speech acts was better than that for

implicatures. Therefore, according to the abovementioned results, the second null hypothesis

stating that task-based instruction has the same effect on learning different aspects of

pragmatic competence, namely, implicatures, situational routines, and speech acts can also be

rejected. In other words, different pragmatic aspects are affected differently by task-based

instructions.


Competence


5. Discussions and Conclusions

In this study an attempt was made to answer the following research null hypothesis

appropriately:

H02: Task-based instruction has the same effect on different aspects of

pragmatic competence, namely, implicatures, situational routines, and speech

acts.

The null hypothesis of the current study investigated the aspects of pragmatic competence of

Iranian intermediate EFL learners which were enhanced more through task based instruction.

In order to test the validity of the second hypothesis, the performance of the experimental

group on the posttest for different pragmatic aspects had to be compared through

implementing one-way ANOVA. It should be mentioned that since the maximum score for

different aspects were different—that is, 11 for implicatures, 12 for situational routines, and 8

for speech acts—they had to be homogenized. According to data gained from this study and

the statistics done in part 4, the amount of F-observed (F(2, 147)= 18.197) is significant at the

probability level of .000 which is again much higher than the agreed probability level of .05.

However, this amount of F-observed does not specify the exact place(s) of difference(s). In

order to find this out, a Scheffe post hoc test was employed.

Based on the results obtained in part 4, it can be concluded that: (1) the performance for

situational routines was better than those for the other two aspects, that is, implicatures and

speech acts; (2) the performance for speech acts was better than that for implicatures, the

second null hypothesis stating that “task-based instruction has the same effect on learning

different aspects of pragmatic competence, namely, implicatures, situational routines, and

speech acts” can also be rejected. In other words, different pragmatic aspects are affected

differently by task-based instructions.

This result is parallel with what Roever’s (2012) claims that exposure to the target language

is especially beneficial when acquiring routine formulae since situational routines are highly

frequent and specific in certain settings and social situations. It is also in line with Ravid,

Olshtain, and Ze’elon (2003) who explored the question of how native speakers of a language

modify their speech in terms of both pragmatic and linguistic features when conversing with

non-native speakers. Their participants were grade-schoolers in Israel, one group of who were


Competence


native speakers of Hebrew, and the other of which were Russian-speaking learners of

Hebrew.

The researchers found that the native speakers had differing levels of ability to lead a

conversation using foreigner talk, and to deal with breakdowns in communication that came

up. A logical conclusion from the findings is that individual speaker/listeners, for various

possible reasons, have different levels of pragmatic awareness.

The study was in fact an attempt to determine whether there is any relationship between task-

based instruction and the development of pragmatic competence, furthermore it was tried to

see whether task-based instruction has the same effect on different aspects of pragmatic

competence, namely, implicatures, situational routines, and speech acts or not. As it was

illuminated in the preceding section of the study, the findings of the study revealed that first;

task-based instruction produces positive effects in EFL learners.

Second different pragmatic aspects are affected differently by task-based instructions. Based

on the results obtained through the statistical analysis on the collected data mentioned in

chapter three, it can be safely claimed that there is a significant difference between task -

based instruction and the development of pragmatic competence

6. Implications of the Study

This study dealt with exploring the effects of task based instruction on the development of

pragmatic competence of Iranian EFL learners. In order for the findings of this study to be

pedagogically valid and applicable, they must be first subjected to replication and empirical

validation. It is then and only then that the results and findings can be generalized to other

populations. It should be mentioned that the findings of this study could enrich the literature

in the area of second language acquisition development especially Iranian EFL learners’

pragmatic competence. Furthermore the findings of this study can be useful for EFL

methodologists, textbook authors, syllabus designers, curriculum developers, language

teachers, and language test makers.

7. Suggestions for Further Research

The preliminary purpose of this study was to probe the existence or lack of existence of any

interrelationship between the effects of task based instruction on the development of

pragmatic competence of Iranian EFL learners. However, in order to complement the


Competence


findings of the present study, the topic needs to be further explored in some other studies. So,

further research may be necessary in the following areas:

Since pragmatic competence is a central part of second language learning, it would be

important to find new methods and tests to assess the pragmatic performance of learners.

Making a comparison between the results of the present study and also the same ones carried

out in EFL contexts with those done in ESL contexts can be another area of study. Different

age groups and proficiency levels with diverse educational backgrounds can be the subjects

of this study to see if they come up with the same results. In addition, the production of

pragmatic aspects in real-life communication should be examined in future studies.


Competence


References

Aquino, C. (2012). Pragmatic competence: How can it be developed in the foreign language

classroom? Retrieved April 2013from revistaseletronicas.pucrs.br/ojs/index.php/belt/article.

Celce-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E. (2003). Discourse and Context in Language Teaching.

Cambridge University Press,

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University

Press. Garcia, P. (2004). Pragmatic comprehension of high and low level language

learners. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. Retrieved April 2013 from

http://tesl-ej.org/ej30/a1.html

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP.

Ravid, D., Olshtain, E., & Ze'elon, R. (2003). Gradeschoolers’ linguistic and pragmatic

speech adaptation to native and non-native interlocution. Journal of Pragmatics, 35 (1), 71-

99.

Richards, J., Platt, J., & Weber, H. (1986). Longman dictionary of applied linguistics.

London: Longman.

Roever, C. (2012). What learners get for free: learning of routine formulae in ESL and EFL

environments. ELT Journal, 66 (1), 10-21.

Taylor, M. E. (2003). Using collateral material to improve writing performance. ELT Journal

57 (2), 149-57.

Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow, U.K.: Longman Addison-

Wesley.

Yule, G. Pragmatics. (1996). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

http://journals.ohiolink.edu/ejc/article.cgi?issn=03782166&issue=v35i0001&article=71_glapsatnani

http://journals.ohiolink.edu/ejc/article.cgi?issn=03782166&issue=v35i0001&article=71_glapsatnani

elt voices indiaeltvoices.in/volume3/issue_2/evi_32_3.pdf · elt research paper 3 the effects of...

Documents