Florida International University FIU Digital Commons FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations University Graduate School 11-1-2018 Task-based Language Teaching versus Present, Practice, Produce: Efficacy in Language Learning and Assessment Majeed Noroozi Florida International University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons Recommended Citation Noroozi, Majeed, "Task-based Language Teaching versus Present, Practice, Produce: Efficacy in Language Learning and Assessment" (2018). FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 3874. https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd/3874 This work is brought to you for free and open access by the University Graduate School at FIU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of FIU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY Miami, Florida TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING VERSUS PRESENT, PRACTICE, PRODUCE: EFFICACY IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND ASSESSMENT A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION by Majeed Noroozi 2018 To: Dean Michael R. Heithaus College of Arts, Science, and Education This dissertation, written by Majeed Noroozi, and entitled Task-Based Language Teaching versus Present, Practice, Produce: Efficacy in Language Learning and Assessment, having been approved in respect to style and intellectual content, is referred to you for judgment. We have read this dissertation and recommend that it be approved. _______________________________________ Teresa Lucas _______________________________________ Haiying Long _______________________________________ Eric Dwyer,Co-Major Professor _______________________________________ Melissa Baralt,Co-Major Professor Date of Defense: November 1, 2018 The dissertation of Majeed Noroozi is approved. _______________________________________ Dean Michael R. Heithaus College of Arts, Science, and Education _______________________________________ Andrés G. Gil Vice President for Research and Economic Development and Dean of the University Graduate School Florida International University, 2018 ii © Copyright 2018 by Majeed Noroozi All Rights Reserved iii DEDICATION Dedicated to my Parents iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Florida International University, School of Education for giving me the unique opportunity to afford and do my doctoral studies in Curriculum and Instruction. I am grateful for Dr. Melissa Baralt’s continuous help and support throughout the painstaking process of conducting this dissertation. My special thanks go to Dr. Dwyer who has always been there for me and without whose support I could not have finished this study. In addition, I would like to thank my dissertation committee members, Dr. Long and Dr. Lucas for their invaluable advice and consultation towards the completion of this study. v ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING VERSUS PRESENT, PRACTICE, PRODUCE: EFFICACY IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND ASSESSMENT by Majeed Noroozi Florida International University, 2018 Miami, Florida Professor Melissa Baralt, Co-Major Professor Professor Eric Dwyer, Co-Major Professor Long (2015) defines Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT) as “an approach to course design, implementation, and evaluation intended to meet the communicative needs of diverse groups of learners” (p. 5). Task-based Language Teaching has been introduced and developed by second language acquisition researchers as well as language educators in response to the teacher dominated and focus-on-formS methods of language teaching in classrooms such as the approach of Present, Practice, Produce (PPP) (Van den Branden, 2006). The present study aimed to build upon the previous literature on the possible differential effects of the PPP approach and TBLT on students’ language learning (e.g., De la Fuente, 2006;; Lai, Zhao, & Wang, 2011; Li, Ellis & Zhu, 2016; Gonzalez- Lloret & Nielson, 2015; Shintani, 2011, 2013) which have examined the differential effects of these two language methodologies on learners’ language learning. The present study aimed to address the methodological drawbacks of the Li et al. (2016) study by including Task-based Language Assessment (TBLA) in its methodology alongside the GJT and the EIT so as to obtain a more comprehensive picture of the comparison of PPP and TBLT. vi Thirty-four participants from three English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classes at the lower intermediate level of proficiency participated in this study, which took place at the Parsian Language Institute located in the city of Ghaemshahr in Iran. The three classes were randomly assigned to three groups of TBLT, PPP, and Control. Learning was measured with the same types of tests as the Li et al. (2016) study, i.e., a GJT and an Elicited imitation test; however, a Task Assessment was added. Participants were administered the pre-assessments, then participated in the TBLT, PPP and Control group treatments, respectively, and finally performed the post-assessments. A Wilcoxon Signed Ranked Test revealed that the performance of TBLT and PPP on the GJT and the EIT significantly improved from pre-assessment to post-assessment, while the Control group did not show any significant improvements on any of the tests. As for the task assessment, results showed that only the TBLT group made significant improvements on their post- assessment, while the PPP and Control group did not statistically improve vii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE 1. INTRODUCTION: PPP AND TBLT .............................................................................1 1.1. Background of the Issue....................................................................................1 1.1.1. TSLT vs. TBLT ...................................................................................3 1.2. Theoretical Rationale for TBLT .......................................................................6 1.2.1. Interaction, Input, and Output Hypothesis ..........................................9 1.2.2. Focus on Form ...................................................................................10 1.2.3. Needs Analysis ..................................................................................12 1.3. Criticisms of TBLT .........................................................................................13 1.4. Task-based Language Assessment (TBLA) ....................................................19 1.5. The Difference between TBLT and TBLA .....................................................22 1.6. Advantages of Task-based Language Assessment .........................................23 1.7. The PPP Approach ..........................................................................................23 1.8. Explicit/Declarative vs. Implicit/Automated knowledge ................................26 1.9. Definition of Key Terms .................................................................................31 2. TASK-BASED LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT .............................................................33 2.1. Paradigms of Language Assessment ...............................................................33 2.2. Performance Assessment ................................................................................35 2.3. Task-based Performance-referenced Tests .....................................................37 2.3.1. Assessment in Task-based Performance-referenced Tests ................38 2.4. Task-based System-referenced Tests ..............................................................40 2.5. Direct vs. Indirect Tests ..................................................................................41 2.6. Measurement in Task-based Language Assessment .......................................44 2.7. Issues in Task-based Language Assessment ...................................................45 3. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...............................................................................49 3.1. TBLT vs. PPP .................................................................................................49 3.2. The Role of the Teacher ..................................................................................74 3.3. Statement of the Problem ................................................................................75 3.3.1. Issues in the PPP Approach ...............................................................75 3.3.2. The Importance of TBLA ..................................................................76 3.3.3. Teacher’s Role in TBLT ....................................................................78 3.4. Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................80 3.5. Significance of the Study ................................................................................82 3.6. Research Questions .........................................................................................83 3.7. Limitations of the Study..................................................................................84 4. METHODS ....................................................................................................................86 4.1. Participants ......................................................................................................86 4.2. Teachers ..........................................................................................................87