The Effect of Information-Gap Vs. Opinion-Gap Tasks on Iranian EFL Learners’ Reading Comprehension
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
International Journal of Educational Investigations Vol.2, No.3: 170-181, 2015 (March) Available online @ www.ijeionline.com ISSN: 2410-3446 The Effect of Information-gap vs. Opinion-gap Tasks on Iranian EFL Learners’ Reading Comprehension Safieh Fallahi 1, Faramarz Aziz Malayeri 2*, Abbas Bayat 2 1. M.A Student, English Teaching Department, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran 2. PhD. English Teaching Department, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran * Corresponding Author’s Email: [email protected] Abstract – The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of information-gap and opinion-gap tasks on improving Iranian EFL learners’ listening comprehension. To accomplish the purpose of the study, quasi experimental design was utilized. That is, after selecting three intact groups, they were randomly assigned to a control group and two experimental groups. The experimental groups received special treatment by using two different tasks while the control group received question-answer activity. Treatment lasted 12 sessions or about two months. The results of the pretest and posttest in data analysis through statistical procedure such as One-Way ANNOVA confirmed the superiority of the experimental groups to the control group, and task based instruction helped to improve reading comprehension. Therefore, it is recommended to apply task-based instruction in teaching other skills especially to listening skill. Keywords: task-based instruction, information-gap tasks, opinion-gap tasks I. INTRODUCTION 'Both second language acquisition (SLA) researchers and language teachers want to elicit samples of language use from learners .The researchers need these samples to find out how second language learning takes place. In the case of teachers, these samples are important because they serve as the means to help learners to learn and as evident that successful learning is taking place' (Ellis, 2003, p. 1). He adds researchers and teachers know that the samples they elicit can vary according to the extent to which learners focus on using language correctly or using the language to communicate a message. For example, blank–filling exercises are likely to reflect the learner's attention to accuracy whereas some kinds of communicative activities are more likely to reflect how learners use the L2 to convey message. He continues that researchers and language teachers both accept the need to get samples of language use as a representation of how learners perform when they don’t pay attention to accuracy. It is believed that these samples show learner's ability to use L2 language in real-time communication. But how such samples of meaning focused language use are obtained? The means that both researchers and language teachers have employed are ' tasks'. 170 S. Fallahi et al. Notions of task have developed out of communicative teaching and material development. Johnson defines task-oriented teaching as teaching which provides "actual meaning" by focusing on tasks to be mediated by language, and success is judged in terms of whether the tasks are performed (Brumfit & Johnson, 1979, P. 200). II. LITERATURE REVIEW A. Research on Task Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) refers to an approach based on the use of tasks as the central unit of planning and teaching in language teaching. Some of its advocates (e.g., Willis, 1996) present it as a logical development of Communicative Language Teaching since it draws on several principles that formed part of communicative language teaching from 1980s (Richard & Rodgers, 1986, P. 223) In fact, CLT is not a monolithic and uniform approach (Ellis, 2003, P. 28). Howatt (1984) distinguishes a 'weak' and a 'strong' version'. A weak version of CLT which is manifest in the proposals for functional /notional syllabuses developed by Wilkin (1976) and Van Ek (1976) drew on assumption that the components of communicative competence can be identified and systematically taught. In this respect, a weak version of CLT does not involve a basic departure from earlier methods. Thus, instead of teaching learners the structural properties of language, a weak version of CLT proposes they be taught how to realize the notions of language such as 'time' and 'possibility ' , and functions such as 'inviting' and 'apologizing' (Ellis, 2003, P. 28 ). In contrast, a strong version of CLT claims that 'language is acquired via communication' (Howatt, 1984, P. 279). That is, learners do not first acquire language as a structural system and then learn how to use this system in communication but rather actually discover this system while they participate in communicative activities. The strong version of CLT provides opportunity for learners to experience how to use language in communication. The strong version is apparent in Krashen and Terrell's (1983) natural approach and also in proposals for teaching centered on the use of tasks (Candlin, 1987). B. Some Theoretical Rationales for Task-Based Learning Research The Procedural Syllabus: The first large-scale attempt to realize TBLT and to develop a theoretical rationale for it occurred in India, between 1979 and 1984, and is described in Prabhu (1987). Prabhu argued that: task-based teaching operates with the concept that, while the conscious mind is working out some of the meaning content, a subconscious part of the mind perceives, abstract, or acquire some of the linguistic features embodied in those entities, as a step in the development of an internal system of rules (as cited in Robinson, 2011, P.10). Prabhu's cognitive rationale for TBLT is compatible with Krashen's (1982) claim that 171 S. Fallahi et al. comprehensible input is necessary for learning and working out meaning-content promotes incidental learning of tacit or implicit knowledge. Since it has been demonstrated that teaching a descriptive grammar does not help learners to communicate, explicit teaching in grammar in the project was avoided. So tasks were designed with the primary focus was on meaning. (Prabhu, 1987, PP. 70-71) The interaction hypothesis and focus on form: In contrast to Prabhu (1987), Long (1981, 1989) argued that the interaction is important, it not only makes the input comprehensible but also serves as a context for attending to problematic forms in the input and output during task-work. Long (1981, 1989) places similar emphasis on the role of input, he claims that the best input for language acquisition is that which arises when students negotiate meaning in exchanges where a communication problem has happened. In other words, he emphasizes the importance of meaning negotiation to provide comprehensible input. The output hypothesis: Swain (1995) argues that comprehensible input is necessary but it is not sufficient (Swain, 1995, PP. 125-126). She claims that productive output is also critical for language acquisition. Tasks provide both the input and output processing necessary for language acquisition. Tasks are believed to increase processes of negotiation, modification, rephrasing, and experimentation that are at the center of language learning. She (1995) adds, attention to output, is a facilitating role, since in producing the target language …students may notice a gap between what they want to say and what they can say, leading them to find out what they do not know, or know only partially. C. Task Definition Skehan (1996a) defines 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' (as cited in Ellis, 2003, p.4). Lee (2000) believes that a task is '(1) a classroom activity or exercise that has: (a) an objective obtainable only by the interaction among participants, (b) a mechanism for structuring and sequencing interaction, and (c) a focus on meaning exchange; (2) a language learning endeavor that requires learners to comprehend, manipulate, and/or produce the target language as they perform some set of work plans' (as cited in Ellis, 2003, pp. 4-5). Bygate, Skehan, and Swain (2001) consider a task as 'an activity, which requires learners to use language, with emphasis on meaning to attain an objective' (as cited in Ellis, 2003, p. 5). Prabhu (1987) limits the notion of a task as an activity which require learners to arrive at an outcome from given information through some process of thought, and which allow teachers to control and regulate that process. 172 S. Fallahi et al. D. Information-gap vs. Opinion-gap Tasks An information-gap task is a technique in language teaching where students are missing information necessary to complete a task or solve a problem, and must communicate with their classmates to fill in the gaps (Larsen-Freeman, 2000, P. 148). She claims that it is often used in communicative language teaching and task-based language learning. One example of an information gap task is a spot-the-difference activity. Another is an activity where one student is given a picture, and must describe it to another student, who creates a drawing from the description. Further examples are students sharing information to complete a class timetable, and an activity where students must share information about their families and then draw each other’s family trees. Opinion-gap activity, on the other hand, involves identifying and articulating a personal preference, feeling, or attitude in response to a given situation. Information gap tasks are contrasted with opinion gap tasks, in which all information is shared at the start of the activity, and learners give their own opinions on the information given. E. The Importance of Reading in Language Learning Celce-Murcia (2001) defines reading comprehension as 'the ability to read-taking general comprehension as the example-requires that the reader draw information from a text and combine it with information and expectations that the reader already has. This interaction of information is a common way to explain reading comprehension (Celce-Murcia, 2001, P.