ELT VOICES INDIAeltvoices.in/Volume4/Issue_1/EVI_41_18_Alipanahi_Abad.pdfThe reading part of KET test including 35 reading questions consisted of five parts: short texts, such as authentic

ELT VOICES – INDIA

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR TEACHERS OF ENGLISH

FEBRUARY 2014 | VOLUME 4, ISSUE 1 | ISSN 2230-9136 (PRINT) 2321-7170 (ONLINE)

The Effect of Task-based Instruction VS. Focus on Forms Instruction on Improving High School Students' Reading Comprehension Ability Fatemeh Alipanahi1 & Parinaz Bahari Nemat Abad2

ABSTRACT The present study investigated the effect of task-based instruction and focus on forms

instruction on improving high school students reading comprehension ability. A group of 86

female students within the age range of 14 to 16, studying in the first grade of high school,

participated in this study, 60 of whom were considered homogenized. The participants were

divided into two groups of thirty. Then, KET test was administered as a pre-test in order to

homogenize the participants in terms of the students reading comprehension ability. One of the

groups received a task-based instruction and the other one received a traditional focus on forms

instruction for teaching reading. Treatment was implemented in two months for about 16

sessions. Since the participants were the school students, they used their own course books, the

texts were the same in both groups, but the tasks and activities were different. The researcher

was the teacher of both classes and tried to keep the time in both classes the same. At the end,

the two groups were given KET reading comprehension tests as the post-test. And also, a

teacher-made achievement test which was constructed based on students’ course-book, was

given to measure the two groups’ language proficiency development. An independent sample t-

test was used to analyze the data gathered from pre-test, post-test, and achievement test. The

results revealed that the learners who were taught through task-based instruction outperformed

their counterparts on both post-test and achievement test.

Key words: Task-based instruction, focus on forms instruction, reading comprehension.

1Assistant professor, English Language Department Islamic Azad University, Zanjan Branch, Zanjan, Iran. 2Department of English, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Zanjan, Iran.

ELT VOICES – INDIA February 2014 | Volume 4, Issue 1

287|ELT Voices – India International Journal|ISSN 2230-9136 (Print) 2321-7170 (Online)

1. Introduction

In recent years, an increasing number of teachers in all subjects has been looking for ways to change the

traditional forms of instruction, in which knowledge is transmitted, in a one way process, from a dominant

teacher to a class of silent, obedient, passive learners. They have sought ways to make the classroom more

student-centered and have investigated the different ways in which students can play more active roles in

processing and discovering knowledge. Given the fact that language acquisition is influenced by the complex

interactions of a number of variables including activities, materials and evaluative feedback, Task-based

Language Teaching (TBLT) has a dramatic, positive effect on these variables (Ellis, 2003). This means that

TBLT can provide learners with natural sources of meaningful materials which create ideal situations for real-life

communicative activities.

Introducing task-based instruction as a practical methodology which can be supplemented in EFL textbooks,

Finch (2004) asserts that by creating such student-centered and interactive learning materials, teachers can achieve

syllabus goals and can help their students to become more motivated and effective learners. Willis (1996) sees a

task as a goal-oriented activity which has a clear purpose and involves achieving an outcome through creating a

final product that can be appreciated by others. According to Nunan (1989), in Task-Based Language Learning

(TBLL), learning is fostered through performing a series of activities as steps towards successful task realization.

According to Ellis (2001), Form-Focused Instruction (FFI) refers to "any planned or incidental instructional

activity that is intended to induce language learners to pay attention to linguistic forms." Therefore, using Ellis'

terms (2001, p. 23), form-focused instruction "includes both traditional approaches to teaching forms based on

structural syllabi and more communicative approaches, where attention to form arises out of activities that are

primarily meaning-focused".

According to Ellis, Basturkmen, and Loewen (2006), there are three kinds of basic approaches in form-based

instruction. The focus on forms has intensive distribution and structural syllabus, and its primary focus is on form.

The planned focus on form has task-based syllabus and intensive distribution, and its primary focus is on

meaning, in contrast, the incidental focus on form has task-based syllabus but extensive distribution, and its

primary focus is on meaning.

1.1 Statement of the Problem

Considering the importance of reading comprehension in students’ SLA acquisition, and deficiency of textbooks

in high schools, the researcher tries to look at reading comprehension development from a new viewpoint and to

explore the effects of two various types of instructions (task-based and focus on forms) on the development of

reading comprehension indirectly. Far less empirical research has been done where tasks have been used as the

basic units for the organization of educational activities in language classrooms.

This study gives language teachers and learners an opportunity to begin thinking about the new ways of teaching

and learning a foreign language in an attempt to persuade them to examine modern methods and techniques.



1.2 Research Questions and Hypotheses

1. Will implementing task-based instruction yield significantly better results than focus on forms instruction

on improving high school students reading comprehension ability?

2. Will task-based instruction improve reading comprehension ability of the high school students more than

focus on forms instruction on achievement test?

1.3 Research Null Hypotheses

1. Implementing task-based instruction will not yield significantly better results than focus on forms

instruction on improving high school students reading comprehension ability.

2. Task-based instruction will not improve reading comprehension ability of the high school students more

than focus on forms instruction on achievement test.

2. Review of the Related Literature

Many reading specialists (e.g., Chodkieiwicz, 2001; Ellis, 2000; Hadley, 2003; Rivers, 1990; Skehan, 1998;

Wallace, 2001; Willis, 1996) have shown interest in using authentic material in the form of tasks for the purpose

of improving reading comprehension ability without having to worry about unfamiliar structures and vocabulary.

Chastain (1988, p. 216) defines reading as "a process involving the activation of relevant knowledge and related

language skills to accomplish an exchange of information from one person to another." Aly (1992), defines

reading comprehension is an interactive process between the reader and the text. The reader interacts with the text

and relates ideas from the text to prior experiences to construct meaning. The ability to read, no matter what the

purpose of reading is, requires readers to extract information from the text and combine it with information and

expectations they already have.

Task-based language learning refers to an approach in which the core unit of planning and instruction is the use of

tasks. Some of its proponents (e.g., Willis, 1996) present it as a logical development of communicative language

learning since it is based on several principles that formed part of communicative language learning from the

1980's. As Richards and Rogers (2001) state these principles are as follows:

-Activities that involve real communication are essential for language learning.

-Activities in which language is used for carrying out meaningful tasks promote learning.

-Language that is meaningful to the learner supports the learning process.

In SLA research, tasks have been widely used as vehicles to elicit language production, negotiation of meaning,

interaction, processing of input, and focus on form, all of which are believed to foster second language

acquisition. TBL provides students with both a framework of structures, words and/or forms to be used and a good

purpose/reason for doing the activities. That is why task-based reading activities may prove to be a good means of

integrating the four skills and fostering effective language learning because such activities are done with the



purpose of comprehending something, reaching a conclusion, and/or creating a whole picture of something within

a pre-set frame (Nunan, 2005).

A task is a piece of classroom work involving learners in an understanding, directing, producing or interacting

way in the target language while the students’ attention is focused on activating their grammatical knowledge in

order to express meaning, and in which the aim is to express meaning rather than to manipulate form (Nunan,

2006). Ellis (2003) defines that, a task is a work plan which involves a primary focus on meaning and real-world

process of language use which can involve any of the four language skills, also, it engages cognitive processes and

has a clearly defined communicative outcome.

The term 'form-focused instruction' (FFI) is an umbrella term which includes both focus on form and focus on

forms. Long (2000 cited in Ellis, 2006) distinguished ‘focus-on-forms’ from ‘focus-on-form’: while the former

involves taking individual linguistic items out of context and isolating them for separate study as part of a priori

synthetic syllabus, in a focus-on-form approach to instruction, learners are involved first and foremost in

meaning-based activities before any attention is paid to specific linguistic features. In other words, in focus-on-

form approach, this noticing of formal linguistic features occurs incidentally, or arises out of primarily meaning-

focused instruction, while in focus-on-forms, it becomes the principal concern of classroom activity (Ellis, 2003).

Hayati and Mohammadi (2009) investigated the usefulness of task-based activities versus translation for

incidental learning of vocabulary. They conducted that "In EFL context, using translation in a communicative

framework enhances vocabulary learning at deeper levels of cognitive processing leading to deeper vocabulary

gains for unknown words. Thompson & Millington (2012), examined whether an oral interactive task could be

designed using limited resources and implemented with a large class to promote L2 interaction and grammar use.

The results of the study show that ordering and sorting tasks were successfully designed to elicit L2 interaction

and use of English articles, and this was achieved with limited financial resources and time.

3. Methodology

3.1 Participant

A group of 86 female students within the range of 14 to 16 years of age, studying in first grade of high school

participated in this study. The students were studying in Fezzeh High School in Zanjan. All the students were

bilingual speakers of Turkish and Persian, and all their language proficiency of English had been gained through

their English classes in guidance school, only. Since all the students were female, sex variable is controlled.

3.2 Instruments

3.2.1 Oxford Placement Test (OPT)

In this study, the standard Oxford Placement Test (OPT) developed by Dave Allan (2004) was used at the

beginning of the study for the assessment of the participants' language proficiency level. A fifty-item OPT was

used to ensure homogeneity of the students in terms of language proficiency. They were given forty-five minutes,

as required by the test, to answer the questions.



3.2.2 Cambridge Key English Test (KET)

A Cambridge Key English Test (KET) (2014) was administered to groups as the pre-test to check the

homogeneity of the two groups. KET was also used at the post-test. There was an optimal distance (a period

around 2 months) between administrating the pre-test and the post-test; therefore, the test effect factor was

naturally eliminated.

The reading part of KET test including 35 reading questions consisted of five parts: short texts, such as authentic

notices and signs, multiple-choice reading comprehension questions, matching, true or false, and cloze-test.

3.2.3 An Achievement Test

At the end, an achievement test which was constructed based on the students' course book, was administered to

assess students' language proficiency. The reliability and validity of achievement test were examined and also the

researcher asked some of her colleagues to check the test.

3.3 Procedure

A group of 86 first-grade students in Fezzeh high school in Zanjan were asked to participate in this study. First,

Oxford Placement Test (OPT) was administered to 86 female students. The answer sheets were scored

objectively. Each correct answer received one point. There was no penalty for incorrect responses. Sixty students

whose scores fell between 0-30 were chosen and took part in the study.

KET test was administered as pretest in order to ensure the homogeneity of groups with respect to reading

comprehension. The homogeneity of the groups was confirmed by the independent samples t-test. The students

equally distributed into two groups. Then, one group was randomly considered as task-based group and the other

as the focus on forms group. The experimental group 1 with thirty students went through task-based instruction

and the other, as the experimental group 2, including thirty students, went through traditional method of focus on

forms. Treatment was implemented in two months for about 16 sessions.

The students used their own course books, the texts were the same in both groups, but the tasks and activities were

different. The researcher was the teacher of both classes. The researcher tried to keep the time in both classes the

same. And after two months, KET test was administered as a post-test.

Since the subjects were the school students, a teacher-made achievement test which was constructed based on

students’ course-book, was given. The purpose of final testing was to measure the two groups’ end-of the-course

language proficiency development.

3.3.1 The task-based lesson

a) Pre-reading tasks: According to Skehan (2003), before implementing any task, it is necessary to

familiarize the learners with the kind of activity which is to be performed in the class. Therefore, in this

study one session was held before the experiment for the task-based group. This session at familiarizing



the participants with the principles of task-based learning. In the first sessions, the students learned the

new words by playing cards or guessing the word. The first half of the second session was used for

reviewing the new words of the previous session through matching the words by the meanings and

answering the questions. The teacher had a kind of warm up by talking about the topic in order to awaken

students’ background knowledge. Students discussed the topic.

b) While reading-tasks: During the task cycle, students read the text and after the completion of the text,

students had pair or group discussion tasks. The teacher gave discussion topics based on the texts of

students’ course book. First, students worked in pairs, and discussed the topic. Then, the entire groups

discussed the topics in class with each other while the teacher managed and observed the discussion. In

this phase, the teacher offered help to the learners with any probable difficulty, but the teacher tried to be

as peripheral as possible. Error correction of the students in during task phase is through recast, it means

a task participant rephrases part or the whole of another participant’s utterance.

c) Post reading-tasks: At the post-task phase, after the task has been completed, the text was followed by

form-focused tasks which drew the attention of the students to the target word itself, rather than to the

context surrounding. In this task, the target words and their definitions or synonyms were provided by the

researcher and the learners had to match each word with its corresponding meaning. In order to reduce

the chances of guessing, the number of definitions was higher than the words. The students were asked to

prepare a short oral or written report to tell the class what had happened during their task. Meanwhile, the

teacher was available for the students to ask questions to clear up any language problem they might have

had.

3.3.2 The PPP lesson

The second method of instruction was the traditional focus-on-forms instruction. The teacher talked

about the topic in order to activate student’s background knowledge. Then, the students read the text.

Here, the teacher provided the material to students who were asked to work individually to fulfill the

exercise. There was no communication among the learners. At first the teacher introduced the topic; then,

the teacher asked the students to work on their own to read the lesson, and at the end if they had any

problem, they could ask the teacher.

4. Data Analysis

An independent sample t-test was used to analyze the data gathered from placement test, pre-test and post-test,

and achievement test. The data were analyzed in SPSS version 18 edition to see if there was a significance

difference in mean and standard deviation in experimental groups 1 and 2.

4.1 Testing Assumptions

This study aims at investigating the effect of task-based instruction on the improvement of the reading ability of

L2 learners. To achieve this goal two experimental groups took part in a pretest to measure their entry reading

ability. The experimental group 1 receives task-based instruction and the experimental group 2 receives traditional

focus on forms instruction. And finally, at the end of the term both groups took part in the posttest of reading.



Since the parametric independent samples t-test were used to compare the mean scores of the two groups on the

pretest and posttest of reading, the researcher should confirm that four assumptions of interval data, independence

of subjects, normality and homogeneity of variances were met.

The present data are measured on an interval scale and the subjects’ perform independently on the tests; i.e. group

work or cooperative methods were not employed in this study. The assumption of normality is also met. As

displayed in Table 1, the ratios of skewness and kurtosis over their respective standard errors are within the ranges

of +/- 1.96 (Filed, 2009).

Table 1: Normality Tests

Group N Skewness Kurtosis

Statistic Statistic Std.

Error

Ratio Statistic Std.

Error

Ratio

Experimental

1( task-based

instruction)

Pretest 30 -.018 .427 -0.042 -1.278 .833 -1.534

Posttest 30 -.008 .427 -0.019 -.938 .833 -1.126

Achievement 30 -.137 .427 -0.321 -.788 .833 -0.946

Experimental

2( focus on

forms

instruction)

Pretest 30 -.380 .427 -0.890 -1.231 .833 -1.478

Posttest 30 .075 .427 0.176 -.629 .833 -0.755

Achievement 30 -.036 .427 -0.084 -.628 .833 -0.754

The assumption of homogeneity of variance will be discussed when reporting the results of the independent t-test

although when sample sizes are equal – as is the case in this study – there is no need to check the assumption of

homogeneity of variances (Bachman 2005).

4.2 Pretest of KET Reading Comprehension Test

An independent t-test was run to compare the two experimental groups’ mean scores on pretest of Reading

Comprehension in order to prove that the two groups enjoyed the same level of reading comprehension ability



prior to the main study. As displayed in Table 2 the mean scores for experimental 1and experimental 2 groups on

Pretest of Reading Comprehension were 17.53 and 17.60 respectively.

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics Pretest of Reading Comprehension by Groups

Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

Mean

Experimental

1

30 17.53 1.737 .317

Experimental

2

30 17.60 1.714 .313

The results of the independent t-test (t (58) = .150, P > .05, r = .020 it represents a weak effect size) indicated that

there was not any significant difference between experimental groups 1 and 2 on pretest of Reading

Comprehension. Thus it can be concluded that the two groups enjoyed the same level of reading comprehension

ability prior to the main study.

Table 3: Independent t-test Pretest of Reading Comprehension by Groups

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. T Df Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

Equal variances

assumed

.011 .917 .150 58 .882 .067 .445

Equal variances

not assumed

.150 57.990 .882 .067 .445

4.3 Research Question 1



Will implementing task-based instruction yield significantly better results than focus on forms instruction on

improving high school students reading comprehension ability?

An independent t-test was run to compare the two experimental groups’ mean scores on posttest of Reading

Comprehension in order to probe the effect of task-based instruction on the improvement of the reading

comprehension ability of the EFL learners. As displayed in Table 4 the experimental group 1 (M = 28.10) after

receiving task-based instruction outperformed the experimental group 2 (M = 22.77) on the Posttest of Reading

Comprehension.

Table 4: Descriptive Statistics Posttest of Reading Comprehension by Groups

Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Experimental 1 30 28.10 2.928 .535

Experimental 2 30 22.77 2.029 .370

The results of the independent t-test (t (58) = 8.20, P < .05, r = .73 it represents a large effect size) indicated that

there was a significant difference between experimental group 1 and experimental group 2 on posttest of Reading

Comprehension. Thus, it can be concluded the first null-hypothesis as implementing task-based instruction will

not yield significantly better results than focus on forms instruction on improving high school students reading

comprehension ability was rejected.

Table 5: Independent t-test Posttest of Reading Comprehension by Groups

Levene's Test for




tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

Equal variances

assumed

4.921 .030 8.200 58 .000 5.333 .650

Equal variances

not assumed

8.200 51.626 .000 5.333 .650

4.4 Research Question 2



Will task-based instruction improve reading comprehension ability of the high school students more than focus on

forms instruction on achievement test?

An independent t-test was run to compare the two experimental groups’ mean scores on the achievement test in

order to probe the effect of task-based instruction on the improvement of the achievement of the EFL learners. As

displayed in Table 6 the experimental group 1 (M = 16.87) after receiving task-based instruction outperformed the

experimental group 2 (M = 13.33) on the achievement test.

Table 6: Descriptive Statistics Achievement Test by Groups

Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Experimental 1 30 16.87 2.063 .377

Experimental 2 30 13.33 2.631 .480

The results of the independent t-test (t (58) = 5.78, P < .05, r = .60 it represents a large effect size) indicated that

there was a significant difference between experimental group 1 and experimental group 2 on achievement test.

Thus, it can be concluded the second null-hypothesis as task-based instruction will not improve reading

comprehension of high school students more than focus on forms instruction on achievement test was rejected.

Table 7: Independent t-test Achievement Test by Groups

Levene's Test for




tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

Equal variances

assumed

1.938 .169 5.789 58 .000 3.533 .610

Equal variances

not assumed

5.789 54.886 .000 3.533 .610

5. Discussion and Conclusion



This study was a research attempt to investigate the effects of task-based instruction versus focus on forms

instruction on improving reading to first grade high school students. According to the results in the previous

chapter, it can be concluded that the improvements of students' reading comprehension will be higher when task-

based instruction is applied in comparison to application of focus on forms instruction. In task-based instruction,

communicative tasks are used to present the reading activities, which are meaningful to the learners. Unlike

grammar exercises that are focused directly on the structure and comprehension questions that may become

boring and senseless, TBL provides students with both a framework of structures, forms and/or words to be used

and a good reason/purpose for doing the activities. That is why task-based reading activities may prove to be a

good means of integrating the four skills and fostering effective language learning because such activities are done

with the purpose of comprehending something, reaching a conclusion and/or creating a whole picture of

something within a pre-set frame (Nunan, 2006). Among different tasks, reading tasks seem to be more promising

since they can involve children in perhaps the most basic yet essential activity of their academic life. Although

such activities are done in order to improve the learners reading skill, they are expected to help improve the other

skills as well.

It attempted to empirically reveal that activities in the form of classroom tasks can be very helpful in accelerating

students’ language learning development because they preserve situational and interactional authenticity to a large

extent, can engage learners in using language pragmatically rather than displaying language, and require learners

to employ cognitive processes such as selecting, classifying, ordering, reasoning, or evaluating information in

order to carry out a task.

In order to test the null hypothesis, first 60 participants out of 86 students from Fezzeh high school in Zanjan were chosen

through a OPT test. Then the necessary data were gathered. At the end of data gathering processes, the data related to those

60 individuals whose scores fell

within 0-30 on the OPT were retained for the purpose of the study. KET was administered as a post-test to ensure

the homogeneity of the participants in terms of reading comprehension ability. The experimental group 1 and

experimental group 2 underwent reading classes through reading the same text, from their grade 1 book and same

amount of instruction. After 16 sessions of instructions, the two groups were post-tested taking KET test. To

address the objectives of the study, an independent sample t-test was run to determine the statistical significance

of the difference between the means of the two experimental groups. According to the results, the null hypothesis

was rejected and the task-based instruction employed in this study had significantly improved the experimental

group 1 on reading comprehension ability.

The second research question and hypothesis is as follows:

Afterwards, to observe the two groups' end of the course, achievement test, their performances on the final test

were compared with each other through the application of another independent t-test. The second null hypothesis

was rejected and the results indicated a considerable difference between the mean scores of the two groups'

performances. Task-based instruction significantly improved reading comprehension of high school students more

than focus on forms on the achievement test.



These findings are indicated that activities such as underlining structures can familiarize learners with

grammatically correct and meaningful sentences while activities such as discussion help learners to be fluent even

with ungrammatical meaningful sentences. In this study, students in task-based group was involved in pair/group

work and tried to perform the activities which they do not handle by themselves and also, pair/group work gives

students a strong sense of motivation and accomplishment.

Finally, students' familiarity with the activity procedures is an important point in accurate accomplishment of the

activity. Moreover, it is critical to provide students with feedback because students tend to remember their

incorrect solutions. Consequently, the teacher as a facilitator of learning process needs to be available during

activities and attends to the accuracy of the final product. Moreover, randomizing the subjects was not possible

because these classes already existed at schools. Therefore, subjects were somehow intact and a quasi-

experimental design was implemented.

The findings of this research were in line with the results of many studies concerning the valuable use of tasks in

improving language learning. For example, Skehan and Foster (1999) observed that tasks can have beneficial

effects on the nature of performance, thus leading to greater fluency and complexity, less dependably, and greater

accuracy. Similarly, Willis and Willis, (2009) investigated the effectiveness of using consciousness raising tasks

in the classroom to improve language learning by allocating the learners' attention between form and meaning

while they were completing an earlier task. Last but not least, Lapkin and Swain (2000) made use of dictogloss1

and jigsaw2 to explore the effectiveness of using classroom tasks and L1 as a scaffolding strategy to improve

language learning.

6. Suggestions for Further Studies

Since this study was narrowed down in terms of its participants, techniques of task-based, etc., it seems necessary

to point out some further research to be done in this regard.

• This study could be replicated with learners at higher and lower levels of language proficiency.

• Similar research could be done regarding other language skills such as listening, speaking, writing,

vocabulary and grammar.

• Other techniques of task-based instruction, such as output enhancement and interaction enhancement can

be used in task planning.

• The participants of this study were all female students. Other studies can compare the effects of TBI and

focus on forms method on improving reading of male and female students.

• In this study, the effect of TBI on the improvement of reading was compared with that of focus on forms

method. Other researchers can compare the effect of TBI with other methods of teaching reading.

Reference



[1] Aly, A. A. (1992). The effect of story grammar instruction on EFL students' comprehension of narrative text.

Reading in a Foreign Language 8(2), 711-720.

[2] Bachman, L. F. (2005). Statistical Analysis for Language Assessment. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press.

NY.

[3] Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second language skills: Theory and practice. San Diego: Hurcourt Brace

Jovanovich.

[4] Chodkieiwicz, H. (2001). The acquisition of word meaning while reading in English as a foreign language.

EUROSLA Yearbook, 1, 29-49.

[5] Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language teaching research, 4 (3), 193-220.

[6] Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Form Focused Instruction in Second

Language Learning. Blackwell, Oxford.

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

[8] Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 83-

107.

[9] Ellis R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2006). Disentangling Focus on Form. A response to Sheen and

O'Neill (2005). Applied Linguistics, 27,135-141.

[10] Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. 3rd

ed. SAGE. London.

[11] Finch, A. (2004). Supplementing secondary EFL textbooks. Gyeongbuk Secondary English Education, XVI,

96 -107.

[12] Hadley, A. O. (2003). Teaching language in context (3rd ed.). Boston: Heinle& Heinle Publishers.

[13] Hayati, M., & Mohammadi, M. (2009). Task-based Instruction vs. Translation Method in Teaching

Vocabulary. IJLS, 3, 153-176.

[14] Lapkin, S., & Swain, M. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language.

Language Teaching Research, 4 (3), 251-274.

[15] Long, M. (2000). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In Lambert, R.L. and Shohamy, E., editors,

Language policy and pedagogy. John Benjamins, 179–92.

[16] Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.



[17] Nunan, D. (2005). Important tasks of English education: Asia-wide and beyond. Asian EFL Journal, 7 (3),

34-46.

[18] Nunan, D. (2006). Task-based language teaching in the Asia context: Defining ‘task’. 10. Asian EFL Journal

8 (3). Retrieved from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/Sept_06_dn.php. [15.12.2006]

[19] Richards, J.C. & Rodgers, T.S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

[20] Rivers, M. W. (1990). Speaking in many languages: Essays in foreign-language teaching (3rd ed.). New

York: Cambridge University Press.

[21] Skehan, P. (1998). Task-based instruction. Annual review of applied linguistics, 18, 268-286.

[22] Skehan, P. (2003). Review article: Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1-14.

[23] Skehan, P., Foster, P. (1999). The influence of planning and focus on planning on task-based performance.

Language Teaching Research, 3, 215–47.

[24] Thompson, C. J.& Millington, N.T. (2012). Task-based learning for communication and grammar use1.

Language Education in Asia, 3 (2), 159-167.

[25] Wallace, C. (2001). Reading. In R. Carter, & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to

speakers of other languages (pp. 7-13). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[26] Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. London: Longman.

[27] Willis, D. & Willis, J. (2009). Task-based language teaching: some questions and answers. The Language

Teacher, 33(3), 3–8.

http://www.asian-efl-/

Documents

ELT VOICES INDIAeltvoices.in/Volume4/Issue_1/EVI_41_18_Alipanahi_Abad.pdfThe reading part of KET test including 35 reading questions consisted of five parts: short texts, such as authentic