1. The Effect of task- based language teaching on Iranian High School Vocabulary
learning.
Amirabbas Ghorbani
Islamic Azad University, Qazvin Branch, Iran.
Amir_qorbani@yahoo.com
Masoumeh Bahrami
Islamic Azad University, Qazvin Branch, Iran.
Seyed.fatemi_mb@yahoo.com
Abstract
In this study attempts were made to investigate the effect of task- based language teaching on
Iranian high school student’s vocabulary learning. To this end, 60 female Iranian high school
students were selected via convenience sampling to participate in the study. Their age ranged
from 15 to 17. Three kinds of instruments were used in this study. The first one was
Preliminary English Test (PET), used for homogenizing the subjects regarding their level and
they were assigned randomly into two groups: experimental and control. The second one was
a vocabulary pretest in the multiple-choice format. And the third test was a vocabulary
posttest in the multiple-choice format then the control group have no treatment, the traditional
vocabulary teaching, and an experimental group are in three conditions of task-based
teaching, including communicative cross words task, matching task, and negotiation of
meaning. To analyze the data obtained from these tests, ANOVA was run and the results
showed that task based language teaching positively affected the Iranian high school students’
vocabulary learning. The pedagogical implication of this study for EFL students and teachers
is that they can shift from traditional ways of memorizing vocabularies to using task based
language teaching.
Key Words: task- based teaching, vocabulary tasks, vocabulary learning
Introduction
Task-based language teaching (TBLT) has become a significant topic in second language
acquisition that promotes process-focused syllabi in order to improve learners’ real language

2. via communicative tasks in the early 1980s (Jeon and Hahn, 2006). Also it is a common idea
in language teaching and is based on the concepts of task ( Birjandi&Malmir, 2010). Task-
based language teaching is a reaction to traditional methods. It helps learners to direct their
learning process and be responsible for their learning.
The problem that this study is concentrated about refers to the techniques that Iranian teachers
apply for teaching vocabulary. These techniques are confined to traditional approaches. They
just memorize the meaning of a long vocabulary list for each lesson without any activity or
tasks to help them to learn new vocabulary effectively and communicate in real situations. It
should be stated that the English language is taught two hours per week in high school in Iran,
and teachers can mostly teach through their preferred methodology as there is no specific
teacher manual available.
Because of the University Entrance Exam (Konkoor) the teachers try to prepare the students
for this exam by focusing on the items of exam. The focus of the exam is mostly on
grammatical point, memorization of new words in isolation, and reading through some
passages and answering related questions (Riazi, 2010). So task has no place in most of the
Iranian English language teaching.
Previous researches on the effect of Task-based language teaching on vocabulary learning
have focused on three kinds of reading tasks which are text- based tasks to investigate the
effect of TBLT on vocabulary learning. These tasks are blank filling, comprehension multiple
choice questions, and sentence writing. Some research works have focused on the effect of
recognition and production tasks on vocabulary learning. (Touti, 2013; Thanh&Huan, 2012;
Vosoughi & Mehdipour 2013).
However minimal research attention has been directed towards the effect of negotiation of
meaning, matching, and communicative cross words tasks on vocabulary learning and the

3. significant difference between these three kinds of task in terms of their effect on vocabulary
learning. Examining the effect of these three tasks on vocabulary learning, the following
research questions were posed:
1. Does task- based vocabulary teaching have a significant effect on Iranian high school
students’ vocabulary learning?
2. Do negotiation of meaning, matching, and communicative crossword tasks make a
significant difference in Iranian high school students’ vocabulary retention?
3. How do Iranian high school students perceive the effect of task- based vocabulary
teaching on their vocabulary learning?
Background of the study
Several empirical studies have investigated the effects of tasks on learners’ vocabulary
learning (e.g Vosough&Mehdipour, 2013; Sarini&Sahebi, 2012) although, most of them have
limited to Vosough and Mehdipour (2013) investigated the significant effect of recognition
and production tasks on incidental vocabulary learning. They believe that there are some
factors that influence the learning of a lexical item and make the acquisition of vocabulary
difficult.
They refer to Ellis (2001) that suggests Consciousness-raising tasks to draw learners’
attention to a particular linguistic feature through a range of inductive and deductive
procedures. The assumption here is not that a feature once raised to consciousness will be
immediately incorporated into the learner’s inter-language.
It was concluded that those who did production task through reading outperformed those who
did recognition group in vocabulary test.
Sarini and Sahebi (2012) investigate the teaching of vocabulary in ESP courses within the
paradigm of task-based language teaching, concentrating on Persian literature students at
Birjand University in Iran. Data analysis showed that the task-based approach was more
effective in teaching technical vocabularies compared to the traditional one. Furthermore, the

4. results showed that in the experimental group the male learners outperformed the female
learners.
Thanh and Huan (2012) have a research on task-based language learning and student
motivation in vocabulary acquisition. This article explores the impact of task-based language
learning on motivating non-English majors to acquire vocabulary at a community college in
Vietnam. The findings indicated that the participants were motivated to learn vocabulary and
their vocabulary achievement improved after the experiment.
Alsagheer .A. Hasan (2014) investigates the effect of a task – based learning program in
teaching English on the secondary school students' oral English performance. To achieve this
objective, a task based program was constructed to teach two units from the second year
secondary school textbook.
After the analyzing the data, the results revealed that there were statistically significant
differences between mean scores of the experimental and the control group subjects in both
one way monologue and two way dialogue tests favoring the experimental group. Results also
showed statistically significant differences between mean scores of the experimental group
subjects in one way monologue and two way dialogue tests favoring the one way monologue
test.
Xu (2013) has an empirical study that was undertaken to test the Involvement Load
Hypothesis by examining the impact of three tasks on vocabulary acquisition. It was designed
to test and develop the involvement load hypothesis by examining the impact of different
reading tasks; multi-choice comprehension questions (Task M), blank-filling task (Task B) as
well as sentence-making task (Task S), on the L2 vocabulary acquisition.
The results indicate that using new words in contextualized communication is an efficient
means to extend and consolidate learners’ vocabulary acquisition.
The present study is primarily designed to investigate the effect of task-based teaching of high
school bookone new vocabularies on high school Iranian EFL learners’ vocabulary learning.
It also tried to find out whether there is any significant difference between the effect tasks of
vocabulary teaching that they are negotiation of meaning, matching, and information gap, on
high school Iranian EFL learners’ vocabulary learning.

5. Methodology
Participants
60 Iranian high school female students were the participants for the researcher to test the
research hypotheses. The participants were selected by the result of a preliminary English test
(PET) and were assigned into two groups of 30, namely a control group and an experimental
group. The experimental group received three types of tasks namely communicative cross
words task, matching task, and negotiation of meaning.
Instruments
The instrumentation included the PET, as a standardized general proficiency test in order to
select homogeneous groups in terms of their language proficiency level. The second
instrument was a researcher-made diagnostic vocabulary test as the pre and post- test. The test
consisted 30 items. The test was validated by two experts in the field. Cronbach alpha was
used to test the reliability of the test and it turned about to be 0.83. A semi-structured focus
group discussion was also conducted to explore learners' attitudes towards learning
vocabulary through task-based approach.
Data Collection procedure
To reach the goals of this study, a preliminary English test pre and post- test and an interview
were used. PET, as a standardized general proficiency test was used in order to select
homogeneous groups in terms of their language proficiency level. The pre-test was
administered at the first session and the post test was administered at the end of the sessions
and also two weeks later. Two groups (control and experimental) were assigned into two
teaching conditions. The researcher applied two different approaches to teach vocabularies to

6. the participants in the study. The participants in the control group were taught vocabulary
based on the traditional method. For the experimental group, the class time was divided into
three phases: pre-task, during task and post-task. The tasks were negotiation of meaning,
communicative cross words, and matching. At the end of the sessions focus group discussion
has been done in order to know the students’ ideas about task- based language teaching
approach.
Data Analysis Procedure
To conduct an ideal analysis of the collected data and to compare the measures of the mean
scores of two groups (traditional and task-based teaching) t-test were used. At first PET was
employed for screening purpose of the participants who were selected homogeneously.
Preceding the treatment, the pre-test was used to check the participants' knowledge. The
descriptive statistics of the pre-test of the two groups were displayed in tables. The core of the
analysis is comparing control and experimental groups’ vocabulary achievement. With regard
to the nature of this investigation which is mainly concerned with the comparison of the mean
scores of the two groups, the quantifiable data from the participants was analyzed by means of
the t-test formula utilized for describing the significance difference between two groups. To
compare the effect of tree kinds of tasks in experimental group, the researcher used ANOVA.
Results
To investigate the effect of task- based language teaching on students’ vocabulary learning the
mean score of experimental group and control group in post- test were compared. With regard
to the nature of the present investigation which is mainly concerned with the comparison of
the mean scores of the two groups, the quantifiable data from the participants were gleaned by

7. means of the t-test formula utilized for describing the significance difference between the
groups.
Table 4.1
Descriptive Statistics to show the effect of TBLT in experimental group
In this table the number, mean, normal distribution, and standard deviation are shown for each
group. Leven’s test investigates the equality of variance. In this situation, P is 0.029 that is
below 0.05 so the hypothesis of equality of variance is rejected. In this example the difference
between the scores of two groups is -7.40000 and according to Leven’s test and the statistics
related to the equal analysis P is 0.001. α is less than 0.05, In this situation the null hypothesis
is rejected, considering the 0.95 level of significance (p=.05).Therefore, the null hypothesis of
the study is rejected and we can safely claim that task- based vocabulary teaching had
significant effect on Iranian high school learners’ vocabulary learning.
To investigate the significant difference between three tasks of vocabulary teaching in
experimental group ANOVAwas used. The following table summarizes the results.
Leven’s Test
for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean
Differe
nce
Std.
Error
Diffe
rence
95%
Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Num
ber
Equal
variances
assumed
5.143 .029
-
3.775
38 .001
-
7.4000
0
1.96
040
-
11.3686
2
-
3.4313
8
Equal
variances
not
assumed
-
3.775
35.914 .001
-
7.4000
0
1.96
040
-
11.3762
0
-
3.4238
0

8. The first result of the variance analysis is shown in the above table. According to this
analysis, F is .224 and P is 0.800. In other words the equal hypothesis of the mean scores of
three teaching tasks is accepted which shows that there is no difference between at least one
teaching task with another teaching task. The descriptive result is shown below:
Table 4.3
Descriptive Statistics to show the difference between teaching tasks
N Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Minimu
m
Maximu
m
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
1 12 .6458 .17769 .05129 .5329 .7587 .35 1.00
2 10 .6250 .18143 .05737 .4952 .7548 .20 .75
3 8 .6812 .17308 .06119 .5366 .8259 .40 .95
Total 30 .6483 .17295 .03158 .5838 .7129 .20 1.00
According to the standard deviation and maximum and minimum amount it seems that data in
three groups (tasks) follow the equal normal distribution. So the equal mean hypothesis
between groups (tasks) or null hypothesis is accepted.
Table 4.2
ANOVA test for investigation of difference between three tasks in experimental
group.
Sum of
Squares Df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Between
Groups
.014 2 .007 .224 .800
Within Groups .853 27 .032
Total .867 29

9. The results show that there is no significant difference between three kinds of teaching tasks
(negotiation of meaning, matching, and communicative crosswords) in experimental group.
To investigate how Iranian high school students perceive the effect of task- based vocabulary
teaching on their vocabulary learningthe data was collected from group discussions in
experimental group. Data was analyzed through theme analysis procedures and the following
three categories emerged from the qualitative data.
1. Task- based vocabulary learning is easy for language learners.
2. Task- based vocabulary learning makes the students active in learning process.
3. Task- based vocabulary learning causes easy retention.
Fast and Easy
According to students interview ( July, 2014) It can be said that they are satisfied and happy
with TBLT class and they found task- based vocabulary learning as an easy and fast way of
vocabulary learning.
Pre-task activities provide a back ground for students about the new words which can be
helpful to learn the new words more easily. The pictures, synonyms, antonyms, use new
words in context, and….. as pre-task activities help students in TBLT class to elicit or at least
guess the new words meaning. (Observation note, July, 2014)
“We are interested in task- based vocabulary learning because it has the pre-task phase which
provides an opportunity for us to think about new words and relate the new words with their
pictures, synonyms, context, and… before having their direct meaning. But in traditional class

10. we are forced receive the new words and their meaning at the same time without any thinking
or mental preparation.” (Focus group discussion, July, 2014)
Students ‘Active Role
The students in TBLT class are more active. In TBLT class the students are asked to have
responsibility in their learning process and they are not forced just to be in class physically
and have no active mental participation in learning process, they do not repeat the new words
and their meaning after teacher and memorize them later ( observation note, July, 2014).
"We are not forced to listen to the teacher and just repeat after her without
any active role or sometimes any concentration."
(Focus group discussion, July, 2014).
The students’ participation is different in different tasks in TBLT class. Their role is more
active in matching task and communicative crosswords task in contrast with negotiation of
meaning task.
"We have the same question of “what is the meaning of ……….. ( new
words)” in negotiation of meaning task, so we think that this repeated
question reduces our challenging in contrast with other two tasks matching
and communicative crosswords which provide us more active role and
challenge."
(Focus group discussion, July, 2014).
In TBLT class the students’ engagement provide them a kind of motivation to learn and this
motivation will increase when they find that they do all parts or most parts of tasks correctly.

11. "We know that we are useful and have an important role in learning process
when we are successful in doing tasks and we can elicit the word meanings.
This helps us to continue and be satisfied with TBLT class"
(Focus group discussion, July, 2014).
Easy Retention
By comparing the oral class tests in both TBLT and traditional class, it seems that most
students in TBLT class remember the words and their meanings more easily and fast.
"We can remember the words and their meanings by referring and reviewing
the keys in vocabulary tasks through which we learn the word meanings. For
example we make a relationship between “kindergarten” as a new words and
“little children” in the task sentence as a key to be a fast way for
remembering the word meaning."
(Focus group discussion, July, 2014).
Another evidence that shows task- based vocabulary learning as an easy way in retention of
word meanings is the students ‘claim about their studying at home. According to the group
discussion (July 2014) they learn the new words in the classroom and they just have a review
at home. They believe that memorization of new words and their meanings is a difficult and
time consuming work in addition to forget them in a short time.
Therefore, it can be concluded that learning the new words and their meaning in a TBLT class
is easy and fast, motivational, effective, and it makes easy retention, and also learning
vocabulary as a homework does not take a lot of time

12. Discussion
The purpose of this study was to inspect the effect of task-based language teaching on Iranian
EFL learners’ vocabulary learning. In fact, this study intended to inspect which method is
better to teach vocabulary to EFL learners, task-based or traditional method. As the results of
this study showed, task-based method of vocabulary teaching outperformed traditional one in
Iranian EFL learners.
The findings of this study are similar to that of Thanh and Huan (2012). They have inspected
the task-based language learning and students’ motivation in vocabulary acquisition. The
findings of their study indicated that the participants were motivated to learn vocabulary and
their vocabulary achievement improved.
On the other hand, it can be said that the findings of this study is close to Xu’s (2013) study.
He was intended to test the Involvement Load Hypothesis by examining the impact of three
tasks on vocabulary acquisition. It was designed to test and develop the involvement load
hypothesis by examining the impact of different reading tasks; multi-choice comprehension
questions (Task M), blank-filling task (Task B) as well as sentence-making task (Task S), on
the L2 vocabulary acquisition. The results indicated that using these task-based methods is an
efficient means to extend and consolidate learners’ vocabulary acquisition.
One other study which has similar findings to the results of this study was Sarini and Sahebi’s
(2012) study. They investigate the teaching of vocabulary in ESP courses within the paradigm
of task-based language teaching. The results of their study showed that the task-based
approach was more effective in teaching technical vocabularies compared to the traditional
one.
The other issue that this thesis dealt with was how Iranian high school students perceive the
effect of task- based vocabulary teaching on their vocabulary learning. To answer this

13. research question, the data was analyzed based on four categories which emerged from
qualitative data.
The first category was task- based vocabulary learning is fast and easy. According to students
interview ( July, 2014), it can be said that they are satisfied and happy with TBLT class and
they found task- based vocabulary learning as an easy and fast way of vocabulary learning.
Pre-task activities provide a background for students about the new words, which can be
helpful to learn the new words more easily. The pictures, synonyms, antonyms, use new
words in context, and….. as pre-task activities help students in TBLT class to elicit or at least
guess the new words meaning(observation note, July, 2014). So it can be said that pre-task
activities activate learners to think about new words and their meanings. The researcher as the
class teacher found that this stage in TBLT is an opportunity for learners to be familiar with
the main teaching materials.
The second category was task- based vocabulary learning makes an active role for students in
TBLT class. The students in TBLT class are more active. In TBLT class the students are
asked to have responsibility in their learning process and they are not forced just to be in class
physically and have no active mental participation in learning process, they do not repeat the
new words and their meaning after teacher and memorize them later ( observation note, July,
2014).
In TBLT class the students’ engagement provides them a kind of motivation to learn and this
motivationincreases when they find that they do all parts or most parts of tasks correctly.
According to focus group discussion the students believe that they have an important role in
their learning, they are more satisfied with TBLT class.

14. Findings of group discussion on the shows task- based vocabulary learning causes an easy
retention of vocabulary meaning. By comparing the oral class tests in both TBLT and
traditional class, it seems that most students in TBLT class remember the words and their
meanings more easily and fast.
Another evidence that shows task- based vocabulary learning as an easy way in retention of
word meanings is the students’ claim about their studying at home. According to the group
discussion (July 2014) they learn the new words in the classroom and they just have a review
at home. They believe that memorization of new words and their meanings is a difficult and
time consuming work in addition to forget them in a short time. The researcher as the teacher
who observed the students’ motivation and interest in learning process and their learning
speed found that learning new words in TBLT class can be easy, fast, and motivational.
The forth category was relating the new words with their blanks in task sentences in TBLT.
According to the teacher’s observation (July, 2014), the students’ main problem in TBLT
class was making a relationship between the new words and their blanks in task sentences. It
seems that this problem is because of forgetting the previous words and their meaning. They
cannot have a proper comprehension of task sentences to decide which new word is correct
for the blanks. They guess the word meanings in pre-task phase but sometimes were not able
to relate them to task sentences.
According to the above information from teacher observation and group discussion (July,
2014), it seems that the students in TBLT class are happy and satisfied with this approach and
they like to learn all new words of their book by task- based vocabulary teaching. Task- based
vocabulary teaching is an easy, interesting, fast, effective, method and it provides motivation
and interest for students to do the tasks and also helps them to participate in learning process.

15. Conclusion
The teacher’s aim in the traditional language classroom is to assure that students learn the new
vocabulary and grammatical rules of the new language, the focus is on the language itself
rather than on the information carried out by the language or the way it is processed and used.
In contrast, TBLT environments have become a trend that involve learning goals that put the
emphasis on interaction, conversation, and language use, not learning the language itself. In
other words, TBI is an approach of language learning that involves doing a familiar task in
target language (Lightbown& Spada, 1999).
The purpose of the study was to examine whether the TBLT served the function of improving
high school student’s vocabulary learning. Students would benefit by interacting with peers
through task-based vocabulary activities—participants could have more chances to
communicate in the target language and enhance their language ability, especially developing
their oral proficiency.
On the other hand, students built up their self-confidence and self-fulfillment through task-
based activities, dared to speak, and learned to work together in class through task-based
activities—not only their language ability but also their communicative ability improved
rapidly. The results of the t-test performed to compare the mean scores of the experimental
and control group’ performances on vocabulary learning in the pre- test and post-test,
revealed a significant difference between the mean scores of the two groups.
Their performances on the posttest were considerably higher than that of their performances
on the pre-test. In response to the second research question, there was no significant
difference between three kinds of vocabulary tasks. And the result of third research question
showed that the students in experimental group (TBLT class) are satisfied with TBLT.

16. Totally, the results confirm that task- based vocabulary teaching had a significant effect on
learners’ vocabulary learning in contrast with traditional teaching and also the students in
TBLT were more satisfied and happy with TBLT class and they found task- based vocabulary
learning as an easy and fast way of vocabulary learning.
Reference
Alasghar.A.Hasan.A. 2014.The effect of using task- based learning in teaching English on
The oral performance of the secondary school students. Sohag University & King
Khalid University
Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Sarani, A., &Sahebi, L.(2012). The Impact of Task-Based Approach onVocabulary Learning
in ESP Courses. English Language Teaching, 5, 10, 118-128.
Thanh, L.N., &Huan, N.B. (2012). Task-based language learning and student motivation in
vocabulary acquisition. Language Education in Asia, 3(1), 106-120.
Touti.H.2013. Task-Type Based Vocabulary Instruction an Impact on Incidental Word
Retention. World Applied Sciences Journal
Vosoughi, H. &Mehdipour, Z. (2013).Effects of recognition task and production task on
incidental vocabulary learning of Iranian EFL learners..International research Journal
of Applied and Basic Sciences, 4 (3), 147-159.
Xu, J. ( 2013). An experimental study on the effect of different reading tasks on L2
Vocabulary acquisition. English Language Teaching.