International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW)
Volume 6 (4), August 2014; 280-‐292 Khansir, A. A., & Darvishi, O EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org
THE EFFECT OF TASK COMPLEXITY ON EFL LEARNERS' READING COMPREHENSION PERFORMANCE Ali Akbar Khansir Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran
[email protected] Omid Darvishi Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bushehr, Iran ABSTRACT The aim of this article was to examine the Effect of Task Complexity on English foreign language Learners' Reading Comprehension Performance. Reading skill has been always used as one of the basic skills in the processing of learning English language among Iranian EFL learners in their classroom. In this research, 45 intermediate male Iranian EFL learners were participated (who were selected out of total number 90) whose scores fell 1 SD above and below the Mean. In addition, the participants were divided into three groups of 15 students in order to facilitate the training process in this research. The subjects were studying Touch Stone series at the intermediate level in the Oil Company English Classes, in Bushehr city in Iran, where the researchers were teaching English conversation and reading comprehension courses. The results of this article indicated that task-based teaching of reading comprehension can be more effective than the conventional method of teaching reading. Students exposed to complex tasks can represent a better performance on reading comprehension tests compared to the learners exposed to simple tasks in their trainings. KEYWORDS: English Foreign language, EFL learners, Reading comprehension, Task-based activity INTRODUCTION Reading skill has been the home of choice for ESL and ELT researchers. It also has been attractive enough to initiate specific studies on various psychological concepts related to language learning such as perception, recognition, concept mapping, and the like (Amiri & Maftoon, 2010). In the study of a foreign language (English), reading has often been the center of debate among scholars (Anastasiou & Griva, 2009; Nuttall, 1996). Reading comprehension has always played a crucial role in Iranian EFL classroom. Reading skill is one of the skills used for Iranian high school and pre-university learners to pass entrance examination to get seat in Iranian universities. However, reading comprehension is used in EFL materials, textbooks and courses at several levels (school and university) and almost in all number of areas, both general and particular ( Khansir & Dashti , 2014).Cornoldi and Oakhill (2001:943) argued that “reading is a 280
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW)
Volume 6 (4), August 2014; 280-‐292 Khansir, A. A., & Darvishi, O EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org
pervasive and vital activity in our live we read for pleasure, to acquire new language or skills, to keep up with current events and to navigate our complex world.” Ellis (2008) mentioned that in both first and second languages, reading is the primary source of new information about all kind of topics. Brindley and Slatyer (2002) mentioned some factors that might affect task difficulty in EFL context. First, there is the amount of information which is involved in the assessment process. For example, a static task involving describing a diagram is easier when the input contains few elements of a similar size presented in a regular array than when it involves many elements of varying sizes in an uneven display. In a dynamic task, a storyline that contains few characters and roles is easier to tell than one that contains many of the objects. The second item in task difficulty is the type of information which can be ranged from familiar, personal, concrete authentic information to unfamiliar, impersonal, abstract, and unauthentic information. Reading comprehension has always been considered significant both in the EFL (English as Foreign Language) and ESL (English as Second Language) contexts as it could be considered as one the main and prime sources of gaining information, expanding knowledge, and solving the problem of shortage in the background in the cultural, social, and linguistic norms. Lee (2000) mentioned that a task has two objects: 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; c) a focus on meaning exchange. 2. A language learning endeavor that requires learners to comprehend, manipulate and produce the target language as they perform some set of work plans. According to Bygate et al (2001) argued that a task is an activity which requires learners to use language, with emphasis on meaning, to attain an objective ( cited in Khansir et al, 2013:1689 ). Nunan (1989: 10) defined task as “a piece of classroom work which involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language while their attention is principally focused on meaning rather than form”. Willis and Willis (1996: 53) defined task as “… a goal oriented activity in which learners use language to achieve a real outcome. In other words, learners use whatever target language resources they have in order to solve a problem, do a puzzle, play a game, or share and compare experiences”. Reading is the process of recognition, interpretation and perception of written material. Comprehension is the understanding of the meaning of that material and contains the sensible strategies that will lead to understanding. Reading deals with language form while comprehension, the end product, deals with language content (Sheng, 2000). Richards et al (1992) classified comprehension into four types: 1) Literal comprehension: this is reading to understand, remember, or recall information clearly that is in a text or passage. 2) Inferential comprehension: this is reading to find information that is not clearly expressed in a text or passage, using the readers experience and perception and by inferring. 3) Critical or evaluative comprehension: this is reading in order to compare information in a text or passage with the readers’ own values and knowledge.4) Appreciative comprehension: this is reading in order to obtain an emotional or valued response from a text or passage. Another research, Mohamad (1999) mentioned that there are three levels of comprehension as follows:
281
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW)
Volume 6 (4), August 2014; 280-‐292 Khansir, A. A., & Darvishi, O EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org
1) Literal comprehension: in this level comprehension involves surface meanings. At this point teachers can ask students to find information and ideas that are explicitly stated in a text or passage. 2) Interpretive/Inferential comprehension: at this level students go for deeper meanings. They must be able to read critically and analyze carefully what they have read. Also they have to be able to see relationships among ideas as instance, how ideas go together and what the implied meanings of these ideas are. Of course before students can do this, they have to understand the main ideas that are stated (literal comprehension). This level also includes thinking processes such as drawing conclusions, generalizing and predicting outcomes. 3) Critical reading: at this level ideas and information are evaluated. Critical evaluation happens after the students have understood the ideas and information that the writer has stated in the text or passage. At this level students can be tested at different skills, as follows: • The ability to distinguish between facts and opinions. • The ability to identify convincing statements. • The ability to judge the precision of the information stated in the text or passage. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Many researchers discussed on the study of reading and task design as follows: This review of literature can be classified into two categories: 1) those which only study of reading 2) those which discuss task design. A) Components of reading comprehension, Grabe; (1991) argued six general component skills and knowledge areas: 1) Automatic recognition skill 2) Vocabulary and structural knowledge 3) Formal discourse structure knowledge 4) Content/world background knowledge 5) Synthesis and evaluation skills/strategies 6) Metacognitive knowledge and skills monitoring. B) the internal and external facts which affect reading; Wells (2000) mentioned a few of the internal and external factors that can effect on reading: 1) Physical-Vision, hearing, lateral dominance, one’s sex and health.2) MentalIntelligence, conceptualization, mental immaturity and listening.3) Emotional-Self-concept, subject matter and teacher effect.4) Socio Economic-Low, socio-economic status, mobility and familystability.5) Educational. Inadequate teaching of reading, inadequately prepared teachers, poor teacher strategy, overemphasis on one reading skill, indiscriminate use of reading materials, unsuitable instructional material, teacher bias, poor or insensitive administration. 6) Lack of motivation. C) Interactive models of reading, Interactive models of reading are based on the belief that, recent models of reading present the reading process as a continuous interaction between top down and bottom-up processes. Interactive approaches can refer to two different notions. First, it refers to the broad interaction which takes place between the reader and the text. The basic idea is that the reader recreates the text information based in part on the knowledge drawn from the text and in part on the knowledge available on the reader (Carrell & Eisterhold, 1983, as cited in Grabe, 1991). Second, the term can refer to the interaction of many component skills possibly in concurrent operations; the interaction of these cognitive skills leads to fluent reading comprehension. Simply put, reading involves both lower-level, automatic identification skills and higher-level comprehension/interpretation skills (Grabe, 1991). 2. Task definitions, Task have been defined by different researchers. Skehan (1996: 20) defined task as “an activity which has meaning as its primary focus. Success in the task is evaluated in terms of achievement of an outcome, and tasks generally bear some resemblance to real-life language use”. Nunan 282
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW)
Volume 6 (4), August 2014; 280-‐292 Khansir, A. A., & Darvishi, O EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org
(1989: 10) mentioned that “task refers to a piece of classroom work which involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language while their attention is basically focused on meaning rather than on form” . He also mentioned that “tasks can be conceptualized in terms of the specific goals they are intended to serve, the input data, which forms the point of departure for the task, and the related procedures, which the learners undertake in the completion of tasks. Nunan (1989: 137) emphasized that “the starting point for task design should be the goals and objectives”. A) Pedagogical vs. Real-World tasks, Nunan (1989) distinguished pedagogical tasks (tasks that learners perform in the classroom) and target or real-world tasks (tasks that people perform in real life). Target tasks are activities that people do outside the classroom. B) One-way vs. two-way tasks, another distinction between tasks is the difference between one-way and two-way tasks. Long (1981) found that in two-way tasks (in which all students in a group discussion had distinctive information to contribute) stimulated meaningfully more modified interactions than one-way tasks (tasks in which one member of the group possessed all related information). (Modified interactions are those cases in which speakers adjust their language in order to guarantee that they have been correctly understood; they result from a sign of no comprehension, usually on the part of the listener). C) Open vs. closed tasks, Nunan mentioned (1999) an open task is a task that there is no single correct answer to it, while a closed task is one in which there is a single correct answer or a limited number of answers. In the end of this item, we would like to discuss "task characteristics"; Skehan (1996) mentioned the task characteristics as a task is an activity as follows: 1. Meaning is primary; 2. There is some communicative problem to solve; 3. There is some sort of relationship to similar real world activities; 4. Task completion has priority; and 5. The assessment of the task is in terms of the outcome. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES The following question and hypotheses are as follows: 1. Does task-based instruction have any significant effect on learners’ reading comprehension? 2. Does task complexity have any significant effect on EFL learners' reading comprehension? H01. Task-based instruction has no significant effect on learners’ reading comprehension. H02. Task complexity has no significant effect on EFL learners' reading comprehension. METHODOLOGY Design The present research employed a true experimental design with pre-test and post-test and with participants being randomly assigned to the control or one of the two experimental groups. After being randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups, the participants took a pre-test. The pre-test was assigned to see if there was any statistical difference among the groups before the treatment. Then, the learners participated in the treatment sessions over 12 week's period during which the experimental groups received tasks with two levels of difficulty. After completing the treatment sessions, the participants of the three groups took the post-test. 283
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW)
Volume 6 (4), August 2014; 280-‐292 Khansir, A. A., & Darvishi, O EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org
Participants In this research, forty five Iranian EFL male learners in the age range of 20 studying Touch Stone series at the intermediate level in the Oil Company English Classes, in Bushehr, Iran where the researchers were teaching English conversation and reading comprehension course. For the purpose of the study, a Reading Comprehension Workshop was designed and the almost homogeneous students who had been briefed about the purposes of the class took part in it. They are Iranian national and their language is Persian. In addition, they were mostly university graduates with different majors. Instruments In this study, two instruments in the process of data collection used as follows: 1. A Comprehensive English Language Test (CELT) which was used as the homogeneity test. This test that contained 90 multiple-choice items (30 listening items, 30 structure items and 30 vocabulary items), was administered to the subjects in order to confirm that the subjects have the same level of language proficiency. The learners were selected after running the proficiency and were randomly divided into three equal groups of 15. 2. A teacher-made reading comprehension test as the pre-test and post-test used in order to measure the reading comprehension ability of the learners before and after the treatment. The pretest and post-test were parallel forms which differed from each other in terms of the sequence of the items and the four options, were just changed the sequence of the questions and the responses. The test included 25 multiple choice items. Reliability of the instruments The Comprehensive English Language Test (CELT) is a standardized test and it's the reliability of which has been proved and it has been in use for a long time in the British Council English measurement basket. The reliability of the teacher made tests of reading comprehension which included 25 items (two versions of reading comprehension test were used as the pre-test and posttests) were computed and taken into consideration as follows: The tests were constructed and developed based on the general reading materials taught to the EFL learners at the intermediate level and were put to the scrutiny of the experts for their content and modifications were made. The reliability of the pre-test then was calculated as 0.88 based on Kr-21 method which is an acceptable reliability. The mean calculated of the pre-test was 74.95, the SD was 3.38 and the variance was 11.42. Table 1: Calculations of Reliability of the Pre-test Results: Total Numbers: 45 Mean (Average): 74.94 Standard deviation: 3.38 Variance(Standard deviation): 11.42 Population Standard deviation: 3.73 Variance(Population Standard deviation): 13.94 Reliability based on KR-21 0.88
284
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW)
Volume 6 (4), August 2014; 280-‐292 Khansir, A. A., & Darvishi, O EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org
The mean of the post-test was 72.50 and the SD was 3.07. The reliability of the post-test then was 0.86 based on Kr-21 method which is an acceptable reliability. Table 2: Calculations of Reliability of the Post -test of the Reading Comprehension Results: Total Numbers: 45 Mean (Average): 72.50 Standard deviation: 3.07 Variance(Standard deviation): 14.73 Population Standard deviation: 3.83 Variance(Population Standard deviation): 13.84 Reliability based on KR-21 0.86
Procedure In order to achieve the aim of this study, the researchers used this procedure: After the pre-test of reading comprehension, instructions were given to both Experimental and Control groups by the researchers. The instructions continued for 12 weeks, three sessions per week. Everything was equal for the three groups except that the experimental groups received 30 minutes of task-based instruction at the end of each session. For each treatment session, one of the experimental groups received a simple task while the other group received the more complex task. The simple and difficult (more complex) tasks were operationalized based on Robinson’s concepts of here-andnow versus there-and- then tasks. According to Robinson (1996) simple tasks are those which are based on here-and-now concept. To this end, the task which was used as a simple task for the first experimental group was summarization. The participants were asked to read a text and summarize it afterward. For each treatment session a different summarization task was used. According to Robinson (1996) tasks that demand learners to focus on a situation beyond the present time and outside the current situation (there and then) can be called a more complex task because it demands more cognitive processing. As a result a prediction task as a there and then task was used for the second experimental group. During the treatment sessions the following steps were taken: a) defining tasks to the learners the way they could understand it, b) presenting reading comprehension tasks (summarization or prediction) each and every session so as to get the learners involved in task-based activities, and c) providing the learners with tasks with different complexity levels in the two groups, as the experimental group A received simple tasks and the experimental group B received the more complex tasks. For the control group the procedure was the same for learners except that they did not receive any task based instruction at the end of the treatment session instead they perform other activities such as answering comprehension questions, skimming and scanning. In addition, The SPSS software version 21 was employed to analyze the data in this study. A one-way ANOVA was run to compare the means of the easy and complex tasks and control groups on the pre-test of reading comprehension in order to prove that they enjoyed the same level of reading comprehension ability prior to the main study. Then, a one-way ANOVA was run to compare the means of the easy and complex tasks and control groups on the post-test of reading comprehension in order to probe research questions in this study. Finally, the priory (planned contrast) was used in order to a) compare the simple and 285
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW)
Volume 6 (4), August 2014; 280-‐292 Khansir, A. A., & Darvishi, O EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org
complex task groups as a whole with the control group in order to probe the first research question and, b) compare the means of the simple and complex tasks groups on the post-test of reading comprehension in order to investigate the second research question. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The aim of this article was to investigate the Effect of Task Complexity on EFL Learners' Reading Comprehension Performance. Details of the data analysis and results of the study based on both descriptive and statistical analyses are reported in this research as follows: Table 3: Descriptive Statistics for Per -test Scores 95%Confidence Interval for Mean
Simple Tasks Complex Task Control
N
M
Std.D
Std.Errors
15 15
70.33 71.60 68.60
5.900 6.401
1.523 1.653
67.07 68.06
Upper Bound 73.60 75.14
6.801
1.756
64.83
72.37
6.354
.947
68.27
72.09
15
Total
45
70.18
Lower Bound
A one-way ANOVA was run to compare the means of the easy and complex tasks and control groups on the pre-test of reading comprehension in order to prove that they enjoyed the same level of reading comprehension ability prior to the main study. As displayed in Table 3, means of the simple and complex tasks and control groups on the pre-test of reading comprehension were 70.33, 71.60 and 68.60, respectively. Table 4: One Way ANOVA for the Pre-test Scores
Between Groups Within Groups Total
Sum of Square 68.044
DF 2
Mean Square 34.022
1708.533 1776.578
42 44
40.679
F .836
Sig. .440
Based on the results displayed in table 4, (F (2, 42) = .836, P > .05; ω2 = .007 it represents a weak effect size) it can be concluded that there were not any significant differences between means of the three groups on the pretest of reading comprehension. Thus it can be claimed that they enjoyed the same level of reading comprehension ability prior to the main study. 286
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW)
Volume 6 (4), August 2014; 280-‐292 Khansir, A. A., & Darvishi, O EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org Table 5: Descriptive Statistics for the Post-test 95%Confidence Interval for Mean
Simple Tasks Complex Task Control
N
M
Std.D
Std.Errors
15 15
76.20 83.80 73.93
4.784 6.361
1.235 1.642
73.55 80.28
Upper Bound 78.85 87.32
4.284
1.106
71.56
76.31
6.649
.991
75.98
79.98
15
Total
45
77.98
Lower Bound
One way-ANOVA was run to compare the means of the control and the two experimental groups on the post-test reading comprehension in order to probe research questions in this paper. The significant results of one-way ANOVA will be followed by a – priori (planned contrast) compare first the two experimental groups as whole with the control group and then to compare the two experimental groups. As displayed in table 5, the complex tasks group (M= 83.80) showed higher mean than the simple (M= 76.20) and control group (M.73.93) groups on the post-test of reading comprehension.
Between Groups Within Groups Total
Table 6: One-Way ANOVA for the Post-test Scores Sum of Square DF Mean Square F 801.244 2 400.622 14.71 1143.733 1944.978
42 44
Sig. .000
27.232
Based on the results displayed in table 6 (F (2, 42) = 14.71, P < .05; ω2 = .37 it represents a large effect size) it can be concluded that there were significant differences between means of the three groups on the post-test of reading comprehension. Although the F-value of 14.71 indicates significant differences between the mean scores of the three groups on the posttest of reading comprehension, the a-priori (planned contrast) should be used; a) To compare the simple and complex tasks groups as a whole with the control group in order to probe the first research question and, b) To compare the means of the simple and complex tasks groups on the posttest of reading comprehension in order to investigate the second research question.
287
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW)
Volume 6 (4), August 2014; 280-‐292 Khansir, A. A., & Darvishi, O EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org Table 7: Post Hoc Analysis of Reading Comprehension Post-test Contrast Value of Std.Error t df Sig.(2-tailed) Contrast Simple+ 6.07 1.650 3.67 642 .001 Complex vs.Control Simple 7.60 1.905 3.98 842 .000 vs.Complex
Based on the results displayed in table 7, it can be concluded that; 1: There was a significant difference between the means of the simple and complex tasks groups as whole (M = 80) with the control group (M = 73.93) (MD = 6.07, t = 3.67, P < .05). The experimental groups as a whole outperformed the control group on the posttest of reading comprehension. 2: There was a significant difference between the means of the simple (M =76.20) and complex groups (M = 83.80) (MD = 7.60, t = 3.98, P < .05). The complex task group outperformed the simple task group on the post-test of reading comprehension. In addition, figure 1 showed post-test of reading comprehension by groups.
Figure 1: Post-test of Reading Comprehension by Groups
In the discussion of this paper, the statistical analysis revealed the first null hypothesis that says tasks based on instruction has no significant effect on learners' reading comprehension. Thus, the first null hypothesis was rejected. According the findings of one way ANOVA both experimental groups outperformed the control group. However, it could be concluded experimental groups as a whole outperformed the control group on the post-test of reading comprehension. Considering the fact that English as a foreign language for the Iranian learners, the researchers might feel in ease to propose that task-based teaching of reading comprehension can be more 288
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW)
Volume 6 (4), August 2014; 280-‐292 Khansir, A. A., & Darvishi, O EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org
effective than the conventional method of teaching reading. Since reading comprehension is considered as one of the most fruitful media through which the foreign language learners can compensate for their lack of exposure to the immediate environment, employing task-based teaching of reading comprehension is of paramount importance both for Iranian students and teachers. Concerning the second null hypothesis, the statistical analysis proved a significant difference between the mean scores of the simple and complex experimental groups on the posttest of reading. Thus, it can be concluded that the second null-hypothesis as “task complexity does not have any significant effect on EFL learners' reading comprehension. However, the second null hypothesis was rejected. Actually, the complex task group outperformed the simple task group on the post-test of reading comprehension. This means that the learners dealing with difficult task trainings have been able to perform better on the reading comprehension compared to the learners trained through simple tasks, despite the fact that the learners in the simple task group have been trained how to deal with the task throughout the treatment. The reason for the success of the complex task training probably lies in the learners’ attentiveness while they are dealing with more complicated tasks. On the other hand, less success of learners with the simple task training could be sought in the learners’ ever experienced situation of learning and teaching which has not prepared them towards critical thinking, developing cognitive abilities, and concept mapping. It seems that the mentality of these learners is in line with less complicated, less stressful, and less critically oriented activities and tasks. We might then conclude that task-based teaching and learning of reading via “reading comprehension” has proved to be better than the conventional methods and the difficult, creative, and more complicated tasks have helped the learners gain more ability in L2 reading comprehension and the easily understood tasks have left the stage to the complex ones. This in itself is satisfactory and might be translated to the researchers as a sort of creative action the learners could be helped through. The problems related to the less success of the simple task group could be pertained to the nature of the input, the task conditions, the processing operations involved in completing the task and the outcome that is required. Robinson (2001: 29) refers to these factors under the heading of task complexity. He comments that: task complexity is the result of the attentional memory, reasoning, and other information processing demands imposed by the structure of the task on the language learner. These differences in information processing demands, resulting from design characteristics, are relatively fixed and invariant. CONCLUSION The present study was an attempt to investigate the effect of task complexity on EFL learners' reading comprehension performance. In order to test null hypotheses, ninety male students of the Oil Company English Classes, in Bushehr, in Iran were selected through a homogeneity test. The learners selected were randomly divided into three equal groups of 15, two being the experimental groups and the other one the control group. All the participants received a validated pre-test of reading comprehension and it was ensured that they almost enjoyed similar characteristics. The learners in the experimental groups experienced task based training for twelve weeks, three sessions per week (the experimental group A received simple task training 289
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW)
Volume 6 (4), August 2014; 280-‐292 Khansir, A. A., & Darvishi, O EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org
while the experimental group B received complex task training). Everything was equal for the three groups except that the experimental groups received 30 minutes of task-based instruction at the end of each session. Following the treatment the learners took the posttest of reading comprehension, which was a version of reading comprehension task including 25 items developed, modified, validated, and checked both statically and via the experts’ view to reach the desired reliability possible. The data gathered was put into statistics, analyzed, and reported. The test results were analyzed via employing SPSS version 21 and, ANOVA and descriptive statistics were conducted. The analyses of the results revealed that: 1. Task-based teaching of reading comprehension can be more effective than the conventional method of teaching reading. 2. Students exposed to complex tasks can represent a better performance on reading comprehension tests compared to the learners exposed to simple tasks in their trainings. Concerning the participants of the study who were Iranian learners at the intermediate level, the success of learners exposed to difficult tasks and less success of the participants trained through simple tasks in reading comprehension, the researchers could conclude that irrespective of the nature of the tasks and their effects on one’s general language development, both intra- learner and inter-learner variability affect the learners’ performance. Also, it could be concluded that dealing with more complicated tasks paves the way for the learners to improve better critical thinking, problem solving, and concept mapping. Limitations and Delimitations of the Study In this research, the researchers were faced with the following limitations: 1) There was no absolute control over students’ possible practice outside the classroom. 2) Individual differences were impossible to control in the present study. This might have affected the results, and therefore the generalizations should be proposed with a high degree of caution. Delimitations are the boundaries of the study which are set by the researchers to make it more attainable. The present research was narrowed in order to give more trustable results; the delimitations of the study, hence, go as follows: 1) As for the subjects, they were chosen from among male Iranian EFL learners studying in the Oil Company English Classes, Bushehr in Iran. 2) In this study, sex was a control variable which was be held the same in order to reduce the effect it might have on the results. The female students therefore were not taken in to the consideration.3) The focal point of the study was restricted to learners’ reading comprehension ability in English; other language skills were not center of attention of this study and could be studied in a separate research. 4) The language proficiency-level of the participants was at intermediate level. Learners with high or low levels of language proficiency might present a different performance regarding the effect of task difficulty on reading comprehension.
290
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW)
Volume 6 (4), August 2014; 280-‐292 Khansir, A. A., & Darvishi, O EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org
REFERENCES Amiri, M., &Maftoon, P. (2010). Awareness of reading strategies among Iranian high school students. EDULEARN10 Proceedings CD, 6782–6791.ISBN: 978-84-613-9386-2, IATED, Valencia. Anastasiou, D., & Griva, E. (2009). Awareness of reading strategy use and reading comprehension among poor and good readers. Elementary Education Online, 8(2), 283297. Brindley, G., & Slatyer, H. (2002). Exploring task difficulty in ESL listening assessment. Language Testing, 19, 369-394. Bygate, P. Skehan and M. Swain (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp.167-185).Harlow: Longman. Cornoldi, C., & Oakhill, J. (2001).Reading comprehension difficulties:Processes and intervention. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 943-956 (Online).Available atwww.elsevier.nl/locate/pragma. Carrell, P.L., & Eisterhold, J.C. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. In P.L. Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nded.).Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grabe, W. (1991).Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 375-406. Khansir, A.A., Mousavi Basri, S. A., & Hajivandi, A. (2013). The Impact of Different Tasks on Iranian EFL Students’ Vocabulary Learning. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research,16(2), 221-228. Khansir, A.A., & Gholami Dashti, J. (2014). The Effect of Question-Generation Strategy on Iranian EFL Learners’Reading Comprehension Development. English Language Teaching, 7(4), 38-45. Lee, J. (2000).Tasks and Communication in Language Classroom. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Long, M. ( 1981). Input, Interaction and Second Language Acquisition. in H. Wintiz (ed): Native Language and Foreign Language Acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Mohamad, A. (1999). What do we test when we test reading comprehension? The Internet TEST Journal, 5(12). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/MohamadTestingReading.html . Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning.Boston: Heinle&Heinle Publishers. Newbury House. Nuttall, C. (1996). Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language . Oxford: Heinemann. Ricards, J. Platt, J., & Platt, H.(1992). Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics. London: Longman. Robinson, P. (1996). Task complexity and second language syllabus design: Data- based studies and speculations. University of Queensland Working Papers in language and linguistics (special issue). Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential frame work. Applied Linguistics,22, 27-57. 291
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW)
Volume 6 (4), August 2014; 280-‐292 Khansir, A. A., & Darvishi, O EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org
Sheng, H.J. (2000). A cognitive model for teaching reading comprehension. Forum English Teaching,38,12-15. Skehan, P. (1996). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford:Oxford University Press. Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic enquiry in education: Building on the legacy of Vygotsky' in C. Lee and P. Smagorinsky (eds.): Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research. New York: Cambridge University Press. Willis, J., & Willis, D. (1996).Challenge and change in language teaching. New York: Macmillan Heinemann.
292
