Binding Task-Based Language Teaching and Task-Based Language Testing : A Survey into EFL Teachers and Learners ' Views of Task-Based Approach

In most settings, task-based language teaching and testing have been dissociated from each other. That is why this study came to rethink of the learners’ views towards awareness and implementation of task-based language teaching through IELTS listening tasks. To these objectives, after sketching instrumentation, the learners were divided into IELTS-Instructed group and TOEFL-Instructed group, the former was treated through IELTS listening task with the related strategies and tips, and the latter was instructed through TOEFL listening materials. Prior to treatment, statistically viewed, a significant difference was observed between the questionnaires of teachers and learners, but after undertaking an instruction, a significant difference was observed just between the views of the teachers and IELTS-instructed group. As such, a significant difference between the performances of the two groups was revealed. The results displayed that the performance and views of the task-associated group were, respectively, increased and changed, affected by the wash-back effect of the task-oriented IELTS activities. It is hoped that this paper will be of pedagogical use for the teachers and learners enchanted to bridge the gap between task-based language teaching and task-based language testing.


Introduction
Since the-coming-into-an-existence of communicative language teaching (CLT) in the early 1980s, there has been argued two versions for CLT: weak version and strong version (Ellis, 2008;Willis, 1996).The former is based on the assumption that the components of communicative competence can be identified and systematically taught (Murphy, 2003;Nunan, 2004).In this respect, the weak version of CLT follows the same principle as the earlier approaches.But the strong version of CLT is founded on the fact that language is acquired through communication.This argument leads us to the claim that TBLT constitutes the strong version of CLT, the central element of which is task (Littlewood, 2004;Nunan;2005).So, TBLT is based on the communicative language teaching methodology (Ellis, 2008;Long & Crookes, 1991;Candlin and Murphy, 1987).
Built on this, there has been a dramatic change and rethinking associated with the role of task in learning, so that passionate interest in and intriguing attention to engaging the learners in the process of learning through task have been on agenda and hence, TBLT came into prevalent application.Ellis (2008) and Willis (1996) hold the position that the main tenet of TBLT largely includes the communicative role of language, social negotiation and interaction of the learners in task management situations, focus of meaning and functions (Nunan, 2005;Kamaravadivelu, 1991).To translate the ideals of TBLT into practice, the approach demands syllabus of its own nature such as procedural syllabus and process syllabus leading to meaning-focused activities and the negotiation between the teacher and the learners, respectively (Breen, 1987;Long & Crookes, 1991;Candlin & Murphy, 1987;Prabhu, 1987).
The trend related to TBLT places more urgent emphasis on the fact that tasks can be effectively arranged, implemented and assessed grounded upon the systematic components including goals, input, setting, activities, roles, and feedback.Before providing brief explanation of each, it is worth citing that the design of the task-based lesson involves consideration of the stages including pre-task, during task and post task and also the procedures regarding how to perform the task are more regarded and the teachers are obliged to be well-aware of these procedures and instructions (Ellis, 2008;Willis, 1996).
To make the long definition of these components short, goals refer to the objectives for the task and input reflects the verbal or non-verbal materials in which the learners can get engaged.Setting is also associated with the context in which the task is fulfilled and activities involve the things the learners do in a certain setting.Also, the roles are intricately relevant to the fact that the learners and teachers are the facilitative rather than the overwhelmingly interfering factors and finally, wash back is concerned with task evaluation (Nunan;2004;Ellis, 2008).The afore-cited principles are mainly intended as a general introduction to task-based language teaching.Before, hence, elaborating on the relationship task-based language teaching and task based language testing, a short look at the related literature is taken below.

Literature Review
The literature in connection to task-based research shows that plenty of research findings have concentrated on investigating the types of activities motivating interaction-tailored language use in real world or classroom situations (Jeon, 2005) and less attention, hence, has been dedicated to the attitudes of the learners towards TBLT.Of course, a well-elaborated-on paper on the views of teachers towards TBLT has been conducted by Jeon and Hahn (2005).They clearly state that the teachers at the high schools of Korea, in the areas in which they conducted the research, used to be TBLT-minded teachers and could as sophisticatedly as possible undertake and implement it.Some literature is traced also back to Lam and Wong (2000) who conducted a research regarding the effect of TBLT education, asserting that however in training we teach the teachers and learners some particular strategies and techniques so as to perform the task as effectively as possible, they are not as such employed effectively.They continue to argue that in training, there is a need to carefully consider the components of the task in order to be properly instructed by the teachers and performed by the learners.Of course, some researchers believe that the needed training regarding this should be undertaken and on the other hand, there are contradictory positions concerned with the reality that the effectiveness of the related training can not be taken for granted (Ellis, 2008;Nunan, 2005;Breen, 1987).
The activities more noticeably committed to within the framework of TBLT are categorically, however not comprehensively, classified by Prabhu (1987) into information gap, reasoning gap, and opinion gap activities.More supportably, Ellis (2008) proposed that learners could develop flexible communication strategies through matching activities based on inferring the meaning of unknown elements.In a nutshell, researchers' findings in the field demonstrate that each activity type can have its own strengths in facilitating language learning, thereby helping learners to develop their own specific strategies.
On the other hand, fundamental claim (Willis, 1996) is that through tasks either in assessment task or teaching task, we can engage the learners cognitively in both inside the class and outside the class because task naturally has engaging properties.For an instance, when we assess the learners through task, from the beginning to the end of the test the learners get involved and engaged in doing the task, as mentioned above, either in assessment or teaching and learning.For one thing, the logic is that in this case there is no distant feature between learning and assessment, that is due to the realization that assessment, in task-based language testing, becomes one kind of learning.That is why task-based language testing such as IELTS compared to psychometric testing such as TOEFL is pedagogically much bulkier.

Binding Task-based language Teaching and Assessment through Listening
Testing is not a new concern and has a history as long as teaching history, but only in the second half of the 20 th century, it appeared pedagogically and scientifically as a social practice and an interdisciplinary endeavor (McNamara, 2006).With the advent of the reality that assessment underwent a paradigm shift from psychometrics to educational assessment, from testing and examination culture to an assessment and decision-making culture, a much broader perspective came into being, called binding teaching and assessment ( Gipps, 1994;Backman, 1990;Bachman, 2002).More generally, task-based language testing, for instance IELTS, is seen as a kind of decision-making culture through which we can reach a close correlation between the test performance, i.e, what the testee does during the test and the criterion performance, i.e., what the testee has to do in the real world, and thus of ensuring the validity of the assessment (Buck, 1991;Backman, & Palmer, 1996).On the contrary, the psychometric tradition in language testing draws on the methods used in structural linguistics, such as TOEFL in PBT form, and no or little close correspondence is seen between the real-world performance and test performance.
Notwithstanding, the blame made for psychometrics should not be overstated because some researchers (Jipps, 1994;Backman,1990;Mcnamara,1996) hold that psychometric tests never died, but rather the view towards them and the way to apply them were more rethought and recharged.In the approval of the finding, it also follows that within the practice of testing, it is necessary to deeply appreciate the contribution that psychometrics, despite its serious limitations, has made and continues to make, both socially and pedagogically, to language testing (Messick, 1994;Gipps, 1994;Backman, 1990), the direct influence of which can be felt on task-based language teaching which appeared cyclically as a result of previous test findings.
Accordingly, the point at which teaching and testing meet, an invitation of all of the stakeholders into the evaluation and assessment process gets urgently necessitated.As a deep consequence of this phenomenon, a short-cut in the length of teaching and testing history was undertaken because the long history of assessment proceeds in line with the educational needs of the society and individuals and that both of these disciplines mutually share the findings of each other (Messick,1994;Gipps, 1994 ).
Given that modern societies will crucially enjoy the findings of the task-based principles binding teaching and testing, the existence of the consequential use of the assessment on the one hand and the effect assessment can exert on teaching on the other hand, are more striking.In effect, the pedagogical rationale for the use of task-based language teaching and task-based language testing reflects the importance that, according to broader consensus, task can, either in evaluative sense or instructional one, guide or shape both pedagogy and assessment through task-resulted wash back (Anderson & Wall 1993;Ellis, 2008).
In particular, since the movement of pendulum from past view of validity as a stable one to the unified notion named "unified view of validity" (Mesick, 1994), a general consensus concerning the incorporation of assessment into teaching was solidly made.That is why it is unanimously maintained that the decision-making nature of validity binds assessment and teaching together.Put clearly, the logic behind is traced on the whole back to the statement that tests are applied for judgmental objectives and to achieve this cause, the consequential validity of the tests are injected into teaching, learning styles of the learners, learning process, and cognitive strategies.So, the way we test the learners will for certain exert effect on the way we instruct the learners, will also affect the way we learn, and the way the decisions are either at macro-level or at micro-level made.(Backman, 1990;Mesick, 1994;Buck, 1991;Backman, & Palmer, 1996).
Our argument in the present study is finally framed in relation to recognition that language testing is beyond the teething stage and ripe from a broader view of assessment.Typically, assessment of task-based performance, i.e, IELTS, and assessment of TOEFL are quite different from each other and have different wash back effect ( Anderson & Hamp-Lyns, 1996;Anderson & Wall, 1993) either at micro-level or macro level (Bachman, 2002).The very power of task-associated assessment has had a mesmerizing effect on consciousness of the learners of their learning outcome and learning process.In the present study, the face of the discussion is, in the main, with realization of the fact that the wash-back effect of task-oriented activities is a lot more effective than the activities to prepare for TOEFL.Briefly, since the popularity of audio-lingual methodologies in the early 1960s, primary emphasis has been put on oral proficiency.In particular, in large part, affected by the developments of Krashen's view about the need for comprehensible input, listening has received greater attention (Hadley, 2003).However, until recently the listening skill had been somewhat neglected since the audio-lingual teaching strategy had to make students listen and repeat rather than listen and practice (Richards & Renandya, 2002).Accordingly, teaching listening comprehension is now felt a fundamental need and reflects a current concern for the instructors to stress this skill.Thus, grounded on the emphasis placed on the significance of oral skills, I embarked on considering the way to bind teaching and testing through listening skills.Therefore, the problems related and the following findings are clearly lending evidence to the statement.

The Research Questions
1. Is there any difference between the views of the learners and teachers towards TBLT? 2. Is there any difference between the performances of the IELTS-task-instructed learners and TOEFL-materials-instructed ones on listening?

The Participants
Population for this study included 32 EFL teachers working at English as a foreign language centers in the provinces of Ardebil, Gazvin, and Tabriz, in Iran.From 10 different EFL centers, a total of 470 learners, selected randomly, participated in this survey.Specifically, the participants were learners of English as a foreign language in the communicatively-oriented classes instructed with task-oriented syllabus and were of different ages and at various educational levels.However the sample in this research included language learners at various educational levels, a careful attempt was made to select the learners who were at the intermediate or upper-intermediate levels in order to make sure of the homogeneity of the learners.A worth-citing point is, first of all, that all of the teachers were EFL teachers teaching at least 8 years and of great interest in task-based language teaching and testing.So as to avoid some of the potential interfering variables, the teachers were less or more at the same age and preferably, they had at least MA in EFL teaching.Second of all, a considerate attention was then paid to the participants' attrition; that is to say, some of the subjects were omitted from the study.To prevent the intervening variables associated with this event, some learners' TBLT-questionnaire data and pre-test data collected before treatment were set aside and disregarded.

Research Design and Procedures
The design of the study was experimental.To conduct the present study, two procedures were taken into consideration: First, the questionnaire of TBLT view with trivial changes was prepared and an attempt was exclusively made to invite the teachers with MA degree in EFL teaching.The reason for this was, first of all, to control some of the variables threatening the validity and reliability of the research, and second of all, to make sure of the fact that the teachers will be able to deal consciously with the questionnaire and to assist their learners with the items and statements of the questionnaire.The teachers were through phone-call and email contacted to cooperate and fill in the questionnaire.Followed by these, the TBLT-view questionnaire was administered to both teachers and learners and the learners were divided into II group and TI group.Then, the teachers gave the learners pre-test of listening so as to be certain of their listening knowledge for the homogeneity purposes.Next, some strategic tips for IELTS listening prepared from books of IELTS and treatment materials were embarked on.After that, IELTS-task instructed subjects and TOEFL-materials instructed ones undertook treatment, the former was treated through IELTS listening task with the related strategies and tips, and the latter was instructed through TOEFL listening materials.Finally, a t-test was run on post-test and task-based view and the raised hypotheses were either supported or rejected.

Instruments
Five instruments were employed in this study: 1. a questionnaire for specifying the views of the teachers and learners towards task-based language teaching, either in technical sense or practical one, 2. a pre-test including 20 questions and for examining the entrance knowledge of the learners and for that either the learners are homogeneous or not, 3. the strategic tips for IELTS listening: the learners were instructed listening along with these tips.4. Treatment materials: these materials were of wide rage of listening input either inside the class room in intensive form or out-of-the class activities such as Tactics for Listening Book and Impact Listening Book.The reason for the choice of these books is due to the reality that they are task-based, as are IELTS listening exam prompts. 5. Post-test was finally used for calculating and assessing the possible effect of task-based treatment on the listening performance of the applicants.The point follows that for ease of comparison, the five-point scales were merged into a two-point simplified scale (strongly disagree & disagree and strongly agree& agree).It is also worth citing that the questions of tests were extracted from IELTS and TOEFL books so as to get assured of their reliability.Given this fact, as a result of pilot testing, estimated reliability for TOEFL test and IELTS test demonstrated less or more a high degree of reliability, as is clear in Table 1.

Results
First a description of the teachers and learners' view toward TBLT, before treatment and after treatment is presented in Table 2. Generally viewed, the overall mean of the questionnaire scores demonstrates that the teachers' view toward TBLT is higher than the II group and TI group, before treatment.However, after treatment, the II group's view towards TBLT approached the teachers' view, as it is obvious in Table 7, and the TI group's view stayed less or more the same, as did before treatment.Hence, the effect of task-based instruction, contrary to TOEFL materials-based instruction, gets more highlighted.To tackle the first research question and find out whether there are any significant differences in the views of the teachers and learners towards TBLT and also between the performances of the TOEFL-based instruction and IELTS-based instruction, a t-test was conducted ( Table 3).The results of t-test demonstrated a significant difference (t = 3.53; P> 0.001) between the view of teachers and II group toward TBLT before treatment.On the other hand, a significant difference (t = 4.03; P> 0.001) was observed between the teachers and TI groups' view towards TBLT before treatment, as it is well indicated in Table 4.
To touch on the second research question, as Table 5 is informative, an attempt was made to find out whether the pre-test performances of the two groups were the same or not.Along this line, the results of the analysis presents no statistically significant difference (P > 0.24; Mean= 5.01 and 5.15) between the entry knowledge of the two groups.
As for the second research question, we visibly notice that there is significant difference (P < 0.004; Mean=16.01 and 8.12) between the performance of the two groups.In effect, IELTS-task-instructed learners outperformed the TOEFL-materials-instructed learners on listening.Also, with a closer look at the Table 5, it gets simply clear that the latter group had an unimportant increase, but the former had high overall performance.
To further investigate the research questions one and two, in addition to the descriptive data available in Table 2, Tables 7 and 8 are more demonstrative; According to the former, a t-test run on the II group and teachers' view toward TBLT displayed that no significant difference (P> 0.21;Mean: 18.94 and 16.38) is seen between the teachers' view towards TBLT and that of II group.It gets hence clear that (Table 3 and 4) a significant difference was demonstrated between the two groups' view towards TBLT.How come?With a view to Table 7, task-related instruction after treatment has changed the views of the learners towards TBLT; whereas a careful look-back at Table 3 clarified a significant difference (t = 3.53; P> 0.001) between the view of teachers and II group toward TBLT before treatment.So, after treatment with task-based materials related to listening, both the attitudes of the II group (as Table 7 indicates) and their performance on vocabulary (as Table 6 suggests) have dramatically changed.What about the view of teachers and TI group towards TBLT?A statistical look at Table 8 is more demonstrative, i.e., no significant difference (P> 0.23; Mean: 18.94 and 8.76) was observed, indicating the fact that our treatment did not affect the view of TI group towards TBLT.By sharp contrast, as is seen in Table 7, the instruction has exerted a great effect on the view of II group towards TBLT.

Discussion
The analysis of the results demonstrated no significant difference between the TBLT questionnaire of the teachers and learners before the learners were instructed.But after the learners were treated, a significant difference was observed between the scores of the teachers and IELTS-task instructed learners only and no significant difference was observed between the teachers' view and TOEFL-materials instructed ones.Consequently, we have clearly observed that teacher's views toward task-based language teaching runs in parallel line with the views of learners toward TBLT as a result of implementing task-based language testing i.e., as a consequence of instructing the learning through listening -related task.That is to say, the IELTS-task instructed learners outperformed the TOEFL-materials instructed ones.Therefore, it grows evident that the IELTS-task instructed learners were greatly affected by the task in which they were involved.In light of the findings associated with the second research question, it is strongly supported that task-based language testing associated with listening development, as explained in review of literature, is more effective than the traditional psychometric testing (Messick, 1994).
To further investigate the point, this finding is connected to the reality that the teachers who move along the line of task, they can not only make the students participate in meaning-making situations, they can raise the consciousness of the learners toward the significance of the task-oriented activities as well (Ellis,2008;Willis,1996 ).To put another way, the change of II group's views towards task-based language teaching was undertaken as a function of task in task-based language testing.Because once they understood that how interesting the process of the learning through task based instruction and how productive the result of the learning are, the role of task-based language testing and teaching got more highlighted and the awareness of the teachers was raised.Finally, they came into realization that task-based project is effective, affected by which they got inclined to task-based language teaching and testing.
After all, we notice that implementing task and moving along the line of performance-based assessment are constructive and instructive because this represents an attempt to get an overall picture of learners' communicative abilities.But, as is vividly imaginable, in psychometric testing, the possibility of drawing a correspondence between test performances and task performance is paled into insignificance (Bachman & Palmer 1996;Jipps, 1994).).For one thing, task-oriented activities and task-based assessment are generally believed to develop learners' communication skills as well as to challenge their group members so as to realize their potential (willis, 1996).More apparently put, Bachman and Palmer (1996) suggest a well-specified target language use domain which refers to a set of specific language use tasks that the test taker is likely to encounter outside the test itself.

Conclusion and Implications
The above-made argument leads us to the conclusion that despite its pedagogical rationale and educational advantages in language learning contexts and in reverse of the fact that task and task-relevant approaches yield educationally and socially rich fruits, a task per se does not necessarily guarantee its successful implementation unless the teacher and the facilitator of the task performance understands how tasks actually work in the classroom (Ellis, 2008;Willis, 1996;Skehan, 2004).It is then hoped that task-educated people take the findings in connection with task-based language teaching and task-based language testing into their practical account so as to make a significant contribution to the further rethinking and reformation of the task-based language teaching and task-based language testing application.Anderson, A., & T. Lynch. (1998 )  Fill in the information you hear on the form below in the spaces numbered 8-14.

References
The first one, has been done for you as an example.
Given Name: You will now hear a short report broadcast on the television.Look at the map of Estonia and complete the sentences below with the correct number, word or phrase according to what you hear.

6.
We must practice and be familiar with all kinds of listening questions and we must see the relationship between the questions.

7.
We must concentrate all the time.So, I listen to recording rather just hear.

8.
We must know that listening will be played just once, so our style and strategy of listening must be tuned to the instructions and demands of the real listening test.

9.
We must be familiar with the fact that IELTS listening tests the psychological process of our understanding and that it draws a parallel between the real situation and test situation.

10.
I find dialogues easy to listen to.
11.I practice listening o numbers and their auditory discrimination such as thirteen, thirty… 12.I find monologues easy to listen to.13.I can ignore words I do not know.

Table 3 .
The difference between the teachers and II group's view toward TBLT

Table 4 .
The difference between the teachers and TI group's view toward TBLT

Table 5 .
An independent t-test for the pre-test of the learners' listening performance

Table 6 .
An independent t-test for the post-test of the learners' listening Performance

Table 7 .
t-test run on the II group and teachers' view toward TBLT after treatment

Table 8 .
Result of t-test run on the TI group and teachers' view toward TBLT after treatment