1.1.6.4 Writing6
1.2 Statement of Problem 7
1.3 Purpose and Significant of the Study8
1.4 Research Questions 9
1.5 Research Hypotheses10
1.6 Definition of Key Terms10
1.6.1Autonomy10
1.6.2 Creativity 11
1.6.3 Cue card11
1.6.4 Speaking ability11
1.6.5 Task11
1.6.6 TBLT12
1.7 Limitations and Delimitations of the Study 12
1.7.1 Limitations 12
1.7.2 Delimitations 13
Chapter II- Review of Related Literature
2.1 Introduction 14
2.2 Language Teaching Methods 14
2.2.1 A Historical Perspective 14
2.3 Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT)18
2.3.1 What is a task?22
2.3.2 Task Types28
2.4 Research in Task-Based Teaching30
2.5 Task- based Teaching and Language Skills32
2.5.1 What are Language Skills 32
2.5.1.1 The Nature of Listening Comprehension 32
2.5.1.1.1 Tasks for Listening Comprehension 33
2.5.1.2 The Nature of Reading Skill 34
2.5.1.2.1 Tasks for Reading Comprehension35
2.5.1.3 The Nature of Reading Skill36
2.5.1.3.1 Tasks for Writing Skill 36
2.5.1.4 The Nature of Speaking Skill 37
2.5.1.4.1 Aspects of Speaking 39
2.5.1.4.2 Speaking Genres40
2.5.1.4.3 Speaking Instructions 41
2.5.1.4.4 Tasks for Speaking Skill 41
2.6 Research in Speaking Skill 42
2.7 Learning Characteristics 43
2.7.1 Personality43
2.7.2 Aptitude44
2.7.3 Motivation 45
2.7.4 Language Styles and Learning Strategies45
2.7.4.1 Learning Styles 45
2.7.4.1.1 Kolb’s and Riding’s Model of Learning Styles 46
2.7.4.2 Cognitive Styles 47
2.7.5 Learning Strategies48
2.7.5.1 Cognitive Strategies 48
2.7.5.2 Metacognitive Strategies48
2.7.5.3 Social Strategies48
2.7.5.4 Affective Strategies48
2.8 Language Learning48
2.8.1 The Nature of Input 48
2.8.2 The Process of Intake49
2.8.3 The Role of Interaction in the Classroom49
2.8.4 The Role of Error49
2.9 Research in Language Learners Characteristics50
2.10 Learner Autonomy50
2.10.1 What is Autonomy?50
2.10.2 An Autonomous Learner Model52
2.10.3 Characteristics of Autonomous Learners52
2.11 Research in Learner Autonomy53
2.12 Learner Creativity53
2.12.1 What is Creativity?53
2.12.2 Categories of Creativity54
2.12.3 Academic Achievement55
2.12.4 The Components of Creative Performance56
2.13 Research in Learner Creativity57
2.14 Conclusion57
Chapter III- Method
3.1 Introduction59
3.2 Participants59
3.3 Instrumentation and Validation59
3.3.1 Questionnaires59
3.3.1.1 Reliability 60
3.3.1.2 Construct Validity 60
3.3.2 Materials 62
3.4 Procedure 62
3.5 Design 63
3.6 Data Analysis 63
Chapter IV- Results and Discussion
4.1 Introduction 64
4.2 Results 65
4.2.1 Testing Assumptions 65
4.2.2 PET Score General Language Proficiency 66
4.2.3 Oral Proficiency Test(Pretest) 67
4.2.4 Pretest of Autonomy 69
4.2.5 Pretest of Creativity 70
4.2.6 Investigation of the Major Research Question 72
4.2.7 Investigation of the Major Research Question one 75
4.2.8 Investigation of the Major Research Question two 77
4.2.9 Investigation of the Major Research Question Three 78
4.2.10 Investigation of the Major Research Question Four 79
4.2.11 Investigation of the Major Research Question Five 81
4.2.12 Investigation of the Major Research Question Six 82
4.2.13 Investigation of the Major Research Question Seven 83
4.3. Discussion 85
Chapter V Conclusions, Implications and suggestions
5.1 Introduction 90
5.2 Summary of the Findings 90
5.3 Conclusions 92
5.4 Pedagogical Implications 93
5.5 Suggestions for Further studies 94
References 95
Appendices 103
Appendix A: Arjmand Creativity Questionnaire
Appendix B: Learner Autonomy Questionnaire ( Sara Cotterall, 2005)
Appendix C: Cue Cards
Appendix D: The Level Short Story
Appendix E: PET Sample
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Definition of Task………………………………………… 25
Table 2.2 Definition of Task as an Educational Activity…………… 26
Table 2.3 List of the major cognitive styles…………………………. 47
Table 3.1 Inter-Rater Reliability…………………………………….. 60
Table 3.2 Total Variance Explained…………………………………. 61
Table 3.3 Rotated Component Matrix……………………………….. 61
Table 4.1 Testing Normality Assumption……………………………. 65
Table 4.2 Descriptive Statistics, PET by Groups…………………….. 66
Table 4.3 Independent Sample Test, PET by Groups ……………….. 66
Table 4.4 Descriptive Statistics, Oral Proficiency Test( Pretest) by Groups ……………………………………………………………………………… 67
Table 4.5 Independent Sample Test, Oral Proficiency Test (Pretest)…. 68
Table 4.6 Descriptive Statistics, Pretest of Autonomy by Groups….. 69
Table 4.7 Independent Sample Test, Pretest of Autonomy by Groups.. 69
Table 4.8 Descriptive Statistics, Pretest of Creativity by Groups…… 70
Table 4.9 Independent Sample Test, Pretest of Creativity by Groups… 71
Table 4.10 Leven’s Test of Equality of Error Variances……………… 72

در این سایت فقط تکه هایی از این مطلب با شماره بندی انتهای صفحه درج می شود که ممکن است هنگام انتقال از فایل ورد به داخل سایت کلمات به هم بریزد یا شکل ها درج نشود

شما می توانید تکه های دیگری از این مطلب را با جستجو در همین سایت بخوانید

ولی برای دانلود فایل اصلی با فرمت ورد حاوی تمامی قسمت ها با منابع کامل

اینجا کلیک کنید

Table 4.11 Test of Between- Subjects Effects………………………… 72
Table 4.12 Description Statistics, Grand mean by Groups……………. 73
Table 4.13 Descriptive Statistics, Oral Proficiency Test, Creativity and Autonomy (Posttests)………………………………………………………. 73
Table 4.14 Multiple Comparison……………………………………… 73
Table 4.15 Descriptive Statistics, Interaction Effect…………………… 74
Table 4.16 Descriptive Statistics, Oral Proficiency Test( Posttest )by Groups………………………………………………………………….. 75
Table 4.17 Independent Sample Test, Oral Proficiency Test( Posttest) by Groups……………………………………………………………………. 76
Table 4.18 Paired Samples Statistics, Pretest and Posttest of Creativity.. 77
Table 4.19 Paired Sample –Test, Pretest and Posttest of Creativity (CCT Group)……………………………..……………………………………… 77
Table 4.20 Paired Samples Statistics, Pretest and Posttest of Autonomy.. 78
Table 4.21 Paired Sample t-test, pretest and Posttest of Autonomy (CCT Group)……………………………..……………………………………… 79
Table 4.22 Paired Samples Statistics, Pretest and Posttest of Autonomy.. 80
Table 4.23 Paired Samples t-test, Pretest and Posttest of Autonomy (LS Group)………………………………..……………………………………. 80
Table 4.24 Paired Samples Statistics, Pretest and Posttest of Creativity ( LS Group)……………………………………………………………………… 81
Table 4.25 Paired Samples t-test, Pretest and Posttest of Creativity ( LS Group)……………………………………………………………………… 81
Table 4.26 Descriptive Statistics, Posttest of autonomy by Groups……. 82
Table 4.27 Independent Samples Test, Posttest of Autonomy by Groups……………………………………………………………………… 83
Table 4.28 Descriptive Statistics, Posttest of Creativity by Groups……. 84
Table 4.29 Independent Samples Test, Posttest of Creativity by Groups……………………………………………………………………… 84
List of Figures
Graph4.1 PET by Groups………………………………………… 67
Graph4.2 Oral Proficiency Test( Pretest) by Groups ………………… 68
Graph4.3 Pretest of Autonomy by Groups …………………………. 70
Graph4.4 Pretest of Creativity by Groups ………………………….. 71
Graph4.5 Interaction between Groups and Tests ………………….. 75
Graph4.6 Oral Proficiency Test( Posttest) by Groups ……………. 76
Graph4.7 Pretest and Posttest of Creativity( CCT Groups) ………. 78
Graph4.8 Pretest and Posttest of Autonomy( CCT Groups) ……… 79
Graph4.9 Pretest and Posttest of Autonomy( LS Groups) ………… 80
Graph4.10 Pretest and Posttest of Creativity( LS Groups) ………… 82
Graph4.11 Posttest of Autonomy by Groups ………………………. 83
Graph4.12 Posttest of Creativity by Groups………………………. .. 85
List of Abbreviations
TBLT ……………… Task-Based Language Teaching
CLT ………………. Communicative Language Teaching
CCT………………. Cue Card Timed
LS ………………… Linguistic Summarizing
ALM………………… Audiolingual Method
GTM ……………….. Grammar Translation Method
EFL ………………… English as a Foreign Language

1. Introduction
1.1Theoretical Background
The quest for ways of recognizing why some English learners are more successful than others especially in speaking ability turned towards individual differences. Since communication in the world today enjoys utmost importance, EFL learners are looking for ways to help them improve their speaking ability. In Iran, although English language learners receive English instruction in secondary high schools and universities, the instruction is often inadequate for students to develop their speaking as an essential component in learning a language. So they tend towards English classes which are supposed to be more communicative, as, for example, they expect to receive instruction based on new methods (i.e. communication methods).
The term Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) covers a variety of approaches that all focus on helping learners to communicate meaningfully in a target language. Moreover, “CLT is perhaps the method or approach that most contemporary teachers would subscribe to, despite the fact that it is widely misunderstood and misapplied. This method is based on the beliefs that learners will learn best if they participate in meaningful communication” (Scrivener 2010, p.32).
Actually, we may make distinction between a stronger and weaker version of CLT. In strong CLT, students’ learning is more communicative, that is, doing communication tasks with a limited role for explicit teaching and traditional practice exercises. On the other hand, in weak version of CLT students’ learning is done through a wide variety of teaching, exercises, activities and study, with more attention towards speaking and listening work (Scrivener, 2010).
Of course , it should be reiterated that communicative language teaching may be realized by different frameworks or methods such as Task- based Language Teaching (TBLT).
1.1.2Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT)
TBLT is ” a variant of CLT which bases work cycles around the preparation for, doing of, and reflective analysis of tasks that reflect real-life needs and skills” (Scrivener, 2010, p.32). Moreover, TBLT is” an approach to the design of language courses in which the point of departure is not an ordered list of linguistic items, but a collection of tasks” ( Nunan 1989, p.24). In his 1989 book on task-based language teaching,
He drew a distinction between pedagogical tasks and real- world or target tasks , they are the sorts of things that individuals typically do outside the classroom so the ultimate rational for language instruction is to enable learners to do these things using language , and it is to be expected that classroom time will be taken up with rehearsal of making reservation, writing letters, finding destination in a dictionary and so on; however learners will also do many things in class that are not rehearsal for performance outside of the classroom (Nunan,1989, p.25).
Furthermore, Nunan (1989) sequenced tasks as follows:
Tasks from reception to production.In other words listening and reading tasks generally come before writing and speaking tasks. A reproductive task is one in which the student reproduces language provided by the teacher, the textbook, or the tape. In contrast to reproductive tasks, creative tasks are those that require learners to come up with language for which they have not been specifically cued. In other words, they are asked to put together familiar elements in new or novel combinations, therefore; in designing sequence of tasks, it is important to consider the salience for learners of the pedagogical goals of the tasks the extent to which learning strategies are made explicit, the extent to which the task incorporates an experiential philosophy of learning by doing, and the opportunities provided to learners for inductive learning (p.30).
1.1.3Task
As the core of TBLT, task is primarily defined as an activity which learners carry out using their available language resources and leading to a real outcome. Examples of tasks are playing a game, solving a problem, or sharing and comparing experience. In carrying out tasks, learners are said to take part in such process as negotiation of meaning, paraphrasing, and experimentation which are thought to lead to successful language development (Renandya & Richards, 2002, p.94).
Exemplification of tasks may imply that each type may have certain implications and play certain features in the process of teaching and learning, which may justify specific studies. Besides, mechanisms of teaching language, individual characteristics and contemporary rationale behind teaching are of great significance. By the former, we may refer to motivation, attitude, creativity, perceptions amongst many others. And the latter basically revolves around learner- centered education, learner autonomy, learning styles and strategies, etc. However, due to the significance of two variables among them (i.e. creativity and autonomy), this study focuses on them in relations to language teaching mechanisms (i.e. TBLT more specifically).
1.1.4 Creativity
Logic and Creativity:
A distinction between creativity and logic was drawn. “Although it is often said that our brain has two halves, a creative right half and a logic left half- this is purely figurative language. In reality, the creative and logical functions of our brain intermingle all over the place “(Starbuck, 2006, p.5). In fact, right-brain is related to activities that tap in to imagination, imagery, rhythm, and rhyme. In contrast, anything that is text-based or involve ordering and sequencing is the realm of the left half (Starbuck, 2006). However,” creativity is not good without order, and logic is not productive without an imaginative spark; so the two ‘halves’ need to form neural connections between each other to operate effectively and understand things fully.” (Starbuck , 2006, p.5). In an attempt to link task with mental mechanism , he further ( 2006) states that ” Tasks that use both sides of the brain stimulate neural connections and therefore tend to grab students’ attention” (p.5).
From a psychological point of view,” creativity is an important factor because it provides a framework for the description of an individual, and also specific differences between individual. These individuals differences are important because they can be used to predict future behavior such as academic success” (Otto1998, cited in Khodadady, Pishghadam & Zabihi, 2011, p.466). In the area of second language learning, however, some studies have been done on creativity, (Albert, 2006; Albert & Kormos, 2004;Dornyei, 2005; Mecra & pemya, 2010). In addition, there are three aspects of creativity, i.e creative fluency, originality and flexibility, employed by the researchers (Khodadady, Pishghadam & Zabihi, 2011). Furthermore, Guilford (1950) states that ” a creative act is an instance of learning and that a comprehensive learning theory must take into account both insight and creative activity”(cited in Fasko, 2001, p.446). In this regard, Guilford (1967) suggested that transformation of information is a key to understanding insight. Besides, creative learning is widely understood to be characterized by:
• Questioning and challenging
• Making connections and seeing relationships
• Envisaging what might be
• Exploring ideas, keeping options open
• Reflecting critically on ideas, actions and outcomes (Anonymous, 2010, p.8).
Actually, any clear definition of creativity has been questioned from a variety of angles. In fact, in the past, researchers tended to center this discussion on either the creative person or the creative process.
Some theorists continue to think of creativity as process their definitions most frequently cite characteristics of the product as the distinguishing signs of creativity . A product or response will be judged as creative to the extent that(a) it is both a novel and an appropriate, useful, correct, or valuable response to the task at hand, and (b) the task is open- ended with more than one way of doing (Amabile & Hennessey,1987, p.7).
1.1.5 Autonomy
This is probably the single most difficult question to answer that what autonomy is, and it is likely to be subjective. Benson (2006) states that” autonomy is about people taking more control over their lives- individually and collectively. Autonomy in learning is about people taking more control over their learning in the classroom and outside them and autonomy in language learning about people taking more control over the purpose for which they learn languages and the ways in which they learn them.”(p.114). He further (2006) believes that” autonomy can also be described as a capacity to take charge of, or take responsibility for, or control over your own learning.”(p.114).So, it is believed that autonomy can involve abilities and attitudes that people possess, and can develop to various degree.
There are a number of terms related to autonomy that can be distinguished in various ways. These terms are, ‘self-instruction’, ‘self- access’, ‘self- study’, ‘self- education’, ‘out of class learning’, and ‘distance learning’.(Benson, 2006).
1.1.6 Language Skills
Four traditional skills of language use are speaking , writing , reading and listening , they can be categorized according to their direction and modality. According to Sauvignon (1991) language generated by the learner ( in speech or writing) is productive , and language directed at the learner ( in reading or listening ) is receptive( cited in Nabavi Ekhlas, 2012, p.14).
1.1.6.1 Listening
According to Rost (2002 ) listening comprehension is an inferential process. Rost (2002) stated ” The term listening is used in language teaching to refer to a complex process that allows us to understand spoken language. Listening is the channel in which we process language in real time – employing pacing , units of encoding and pausing that are unique to spoken language “( cited in Nabavi Ekhlas, 2012, pp.14-15 ).
1.1.6.2 Speaking
Bygate (1987) stated ” speaking in a second language (L2) involves the development of a particular type of communication skill” (cited in Nabavi Ekhlas, 2012. p.15).
1.1.6.3 Reading
Rayner et al. (2001) stated that ” Reading comprehension is defined as the level of understanding of a text. This understanding comes from the interaction between the words that are written and how they trigger knowledge outside the text”(p. 31).
1.1.6.4 Writing
Hedge (2000) pointed that ” Writing is the result of employing strategies to manage the composing process , which is one gradually developing a text ” (Nabavi Ekhlas, 2012, p.15).

1.2 Statement of the Problem
It seems that improving speaking ability among EFL learners is one of the important factors in learning a foreign language. However, the extent to which they are able to speak fluently and accurately is still blurred. Therefore, it would be pedagogically useful to investigate whether TBLI can affect developing EFL learners’ speaking ability. Moreover, it is valuable to survey whether Cue card Timed and Linguistic Summarizing Tasks affect the developing EFL learners’ speaking ability, their autonomy and creativity at intermediate level. Besides, employing newly developed methods of teaching such as task-based instruction as underlying layer for speaking ability, may pave the way of becoming more autonomous and creative in thinking process. This might imply the dependence of individuals on books and also on their teachers can lead to more independency in skill acquisition.
Furthermore, English, as a foreign language, is regarded as a central channel in current information age and the main source for getting information about the world. However, employing appropriate tasks by teachers may have an effective impact not only on learners’ motivation, which is one of the learner characteristics, but also on learners output in order to learn English more autonomously.
Since, most of the time, teachers pay more attention to talkative, outgoing, and self –assured students, and also it might be made a mistake between these kinds of learners and who are called creative ones, it is worth drawing attention to both development of learners’ creativity and the correct definition of creative learners.
In addition, according to Benson (2006) autonomy is a capacity to take charge of or take responsibility for or control over learners ‘ own learning. So, from this point of view autonomy involves, abilities and attitudes that people possesses and can develop to various degrees. However, the teachers who want to employ the task in order to increase autonomous learning, should be aware that teaching autonomously does not mean that learners by themselves have to carry full responsibility for their learning.
Considering the above mentioned status, the researcher of this study tried to claim that autonomous teaching and autonomous learning are interrelated concepts.
1.3 Purpose and Significance of the Study
Mastery of speaking English, or it is better to say, communication and negotiation has become one of the major factors in the present world; thus, improving effective communication abilities has established the main focus in all developing countries.
Many young Iranian English learners are looking for the ways which can encourage, motivate and offer them correct ways of learning. Accordingly, attention needs to be drawn to the individual differences which are assumed to play an important role in teaching and learning process.
Given the problem stated above, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of TBLT (through Cue card Timed and Linguistic Summarizing tasks) on developing EFL learners’ speaking ability at intermediate level. In fact, an attempt was made to explore which of two tasks was more effective in developing EFL learners’ speaking ability. This study also attempted to find out the extent to which TBLI could improve both learner autonomy and creativity. The significance of this study resides in opening a new way of thinking and stating ideas freely among EFL learners and also EFL teachers by employing new methods such as TBLT.
It is expected that the outcome of this study can provide direct benefits to the Iranian learners in order to know individual differences, according to the their relationships with language skills, proficiency and their employing the suitable tasks. All in all, investigating more effective CCT task – based instruction would help to provide and support English teachers and learners in order to enhance their teaching and learning strategies.
1.4 Research Questions
In order to meet the purpose and the problem of the study, the following research questions and respective hypotheses were raised:
Major Research Question:
Does task type (i.e. Cue Card Timed (CCT) vs. Linguistic Summarizing (LS)) have any distinctive effects on developing EFL learners’ speaking ability and cognitive skills (i.e. Creativity vs. Autonomy)?
Minor Research Questions:
Q1.Is CCT task- based instruction more effective than LS task – based instruction in developing Iranian Intermediate EFL learners’ Speaking ability?

Q2.Does CCT task- based instruction have any significant effect on developing learners’ creativity?
Q3.Does CCT task- based instruction have any significant effect on developing learners’ autonomy?
Q4.Does LS task – based instruction have any significant effect on developing learners’ autonomy?
Q5.Does LS task- based instruction have any significant effect on developing learners’ creativity?
Q6.Is CCT task – based instruction more effective than LS task – based instruction in developing learners’ autonomy?
Q7. Is CCT task- based instruction more effective than LS task- based instruction in developing learners’ creativity?
1.5 Research Hypotheses
H0.1. Task type (i.e. CCT vs. LS) does not have any distinctive effects on developing EFL learners’ speaking ability and cognitive skills (i.e. Creativity vs. Autonomy).
H0.2. CCT task- based instruction is not more effective than LS task- based instruction in developing Iranian Intermediate EFL learners’ Speaking ability.
H0.3. CCT task – based instruction does not have any significant effect on developing learners’ creativity.
H0.4.CCT task – based instruction does not have any significant effect on developing learners’ autonomy.
H0.5. LS task – based instruction does not have any significant effect on developing learners’ autonomy.
H0.6. LS task- based instruction does not have any significant effect on developing learners’ creativity.
H0.7. CCT task – based instruction is not more effective than LS task- based instruction in developing learners’ autonomy.
H0.8. CCT task – based instruction is not more effective than LS task- based instruction in developing learners’ creativity.
1.6 Definition of Key Terms
1.6.1 Autonomy
“Autonomy can be described as a capacity to take charge of, or take responsibility for, or control over your own learning and also autonomy involve abilities and attitudes that people possess, and can develop to various degree” (Benson, 2006, p.114).
1.6.2 Creativity
“Creativity is an ability which involves sensitivity to problems, creative fluency of production, ability to come up with novel ideas, flexibility of mind, synthesizing ability, analyzing ability, re definition of organized wholes” (Khodadady, Pishghadam &Zabihi, 2011, p .465).
1.6.3 Cue Card
“Cue cards, also known as note cards or idiot cards, are cards with words written on them that help actors and speakers remember what they have to say.”(Bongar, 2000).Besides, in this study cue cards are cards which involved the topic and sub topics in order to autonomously aid EFL learners to think more freely around the topic. It is worth saying that the idea of employing these cue cards as a TBLI was drawn by the researcher from the second part of the IELTS tests.
1.6.4 Speaking Ability
Speaking is” an ability to function in another language is generally characterized in terms of being able to speak that language” (Nunan , 2004, p. 225).
1.6.5 Task
Ellis (2003) stated “A work plan that requires learners to process language pragmatically in order to achieve an outcome that can be evaluated in terms of whether the correct or appropriate propositional content has been conveyed. To this end, it requires them to give primary attention to meaning and to make use of their own linguistic resources” (cited in Branden, 2006, p.4).
1.6.6 TBLT
TBLT is “an approach to design of language course in which the points of departure are not an ordered list of linguistic items, but a collection of tasks”(Nunan 1989, p. 24).”A teaching approach which is based on the use of communicative and interactive tasks as the central units for the planning and delivery of instruction such tasks are said to provide an affective basis for language learning since they
a) involve meaningful communication and interaction and
b) negotiation
c) enable the learners to acquire grammar as a result of engaging in authentic language use”.(Richards & Schmidt,1988, p.540).
1.7 Limitations and Delimitations of the study
1.7.1 Limitations
The first limitation referred to the nature of the instruments, especially questionnaire. Many of the participants may not reveal their true ideas when answering a questionnaire. Furthermore, the differences of participants’ educational background and language learning may cause teething troubles for the researcher in order to choose the appropriate level short story. Since the 10- session treatment should be done one after another for both experimental groups, the absences of some participants put the researcher in trouble and made the process of the treatments longer. In addition, because of the purpose of homogeneity, one proficiency test (PET) was employed, so the coordination of both day and time with all of the participants was a demanding job for the researcher.
Accordingly, because of the pre and post tests of this study the questionnaires (Autonomy and Creativity) were distributed twice during the treatment; so, some participants did not submit the answers honestly; hence, the researcher had to eliminate them from the study completely.
1.7.2 Delimitations
The main delimitation of this study was the focus on just two types of task and just speaking skill. Besides, because of lack of time the researcher reduced the sessions of treatment just into 10 sessions, while longer course could be able to reveal more valid results specially as far as any charges in cognitive variables were concerned. Moreover, the study was limited to the respective centers and participants from Karaj, which was a threat to the validity of the study. This study considered homogeneity of groups in terms of language proficiency level; it did not take in to account other criteria such as age and sex as determining variables.
Since this study was conducted just in one institute in Karaj (Iranmehr), and choosing the participants were limited to the researcher’s learners, the participants were not equal in terms of gender factor.
2.1 Introduction
A considerable number of factors have been identified as having an influence on speaking English accurately and fluently. Employing a suitable task, as a key component in most language programs, serves as the basis for much of the language input learners receive through new language methods such as TBLT. Therefore, the more creative teaching programs or input, the more creative learning process and learners output will be. In this line, the primary purpose of the current study was to investigate the influence of task- based instruction and two kinds of task on improving speaking ability and learner autonomy and creativity.
This chapter reviews the literature related to the primary areas of interest in this study. The researcher begins with describing language teaching methods. After that, task – based instruction and related research are described. Following that, language skills and different tasks in each skill are introduced. Then, learner characteristics and language learning are described. Finally, the researcher ends with leaner autonomy and learner creativity, their definitions and their related literature.
2.2 Language Teaching Methods
The field of second or world language teaching has undergone many shifts and trends over the last few decades. Many methods have come and gone, such as Audiolingual Method, cognitive based approaches, the Total Physical Response (TPR), the Natural Approach, and many others. To meet the goals and needs of all learners and their programs, there is no one single best method (cited in Brandl, 2008, p.2).
2.2.1 A Historical Perspective
For many decades the most important method was Grammar – Translation method. This method is rooted in the teaching in the nineteenth century and was widely used for the first half of the last century to teach modern foreign languages .Vocabularies and rule explanation were seen in text books as a primary concern. Moreover , students were asked to take part in translation activities and little oral proficiency would result from the grammar – translation method , therefore, students often were expected to go abroad and immerse themselves to become a fluent speaker. Besides this method was not without its opponents, and the demand for oral proficiency led to several counter and parallel movements that led to new ways of teaching. One such method is Direct Method, sometimes, also referred to Berltiz Method because it was widely used in Bertliz schools (Brandl, 2008).
Furthermore, Some reformers of the nineteenth century (e.g., Gouin and Sauveur) believed that languages should be taught in a natural way, that is, how children learn language. As Richards and Rodgers (2001) point out, if meaning was transported directly through explaining and action ,foreign language could be taught without translation or the use of the learner’s native language ( cited in Brandl, 2008, p.2).
In addition, ” Richards and Rodgers (2001) described principles of procedures underlying Direct Method in the following way:

دسته بندی : پایان نامه ارشد

دیدگاهتان را بنویسید