Task-based Pedagogies in Iran: The Relationship between Oracy and Literacy

Introduction

This article explores oracy implementation in secondary school English language classes through the lens of task-based pedagogy in Iran – a country where the script is different, students often have limited exposure to English language outside of school and a reform in English language teaching has recently taken place. In 2013, English language textbooks at secondary schools in Iran were revised to focus on the use of communicative approaches to language teaching with a particular emphasis on oracy. Oracy includes the ability to decode and interpret language meaning through listening, and the skills to conceptualize, devise and produce the intended message through spoken language (Goh, 2013; Goh, 2014). The reform aligned with a growing focus on real life communication in English to guide students to make international connections, and to understand and influence what is happening in the world (see Goh, 2013; Goh, 2014).

Unlike the old textbooks that largely emphasized the development of literacy and more specifically reading skills (Ganji et al., 2018; Borjian, 2013; Dahmardeh and Hunt, 2012), the reformed textbooks emphasize both oracy and literacy, whilst still maintaining a focus on Islamic culture and values in Iran (Kheirabadi and Alavi Moghaddam, 2014). Unlike strong forms of communicative pedagogies, which focus on meaning more than structured language forms (Richards and Rogers, 1986), the communicative teaching model in the Iranian textbooks still provides a controlled model of language learning; students are expected to master predetermined language features in order to communicate. The functional-notional syllabus that appears in the new textbooks is designed to be operationalized through the prescribed order of Presentation-Practice-Production (P-P-P) pedagogies. In a P-P-P model, targeted language features are highlighted and presented to learners to allow them to induce language items in the oral or written language before guiding them to practise those items through controlled activities such as drills and finally to produce targeted language features in more meaning-focussed activities (Criado, 2013; Ellis and Shintani, 2014). Nevertheless, despite the introduction of these new texts, a focus on oracy continues to challenge teachers (Ganji et al., 2018).

This article reports on findings from a study that investigated the introduction of a weak form of task-based pedagogy to three junior high school teachers while they were teaching an intensive summer course. The researcher intended to suggest ways that the teachers could improve their students’ speaking skills through a weak form of task-based pedagogy embedded in the production stage of the P-P-P model: this model is commonly used in English language teaching in Iran. However, even though the teachers understood their students’ speaking skills to be improving, their traditional emphasis on literacy instruction appeared to have a constraining influence on the development of students’ oral communicative proficiency. The spoken language produced by the students was found to remain very controlled. In what follows, literature on the embedding of a weak form of task-based pedagogy into a P-P-P model is reviewed, and the relationship between oracy and literacy using this approach is explored. Study design is then clarified before moving on to the results and discussion.

The Relationship between Literacy and Oracy in Task-based Pedagogy

Task-based pedagogy is an approach that emphasizes the implementation of pedagogic activities or tasks for the development of learners’ communicative competence. According to Ellis (2003; Ellis 2018), a task is a work plan or activity that focusses on the meaningful use of language so that students understand and/or produce a message for a communicative purpose. It engages learners in interaction in the target language in order to fill an existing communicative gap where learners need to convey information, give a reason or express their opinions. In order to complete a task, rather than being supplied with the necessary language resources, learners are required to draw on their existing linguistic repertoire, as well as non-linguistic resources like body language and facial expressions. Finally, a task seeks a clear communicative outcome which is the basis for measuring learners’ performance. This means that a task performance is deemed successful if the intended non-linguistic outcome is achieved and not whether the language is used accurately (Ellis, 2018). Language is thus a means to achieve an outcome (Ellis, 2012; Ellis and Shintani, 2014). Tasks are often described or discussed as ‘input-providing’, or engaging learners in listening and reading, or ‘output prompting’, or involving learners in speaking/writing (Ellis, 2012: 200; see also Ellis, 2018).

Although a focus on meaning is central to task-based pedagogy, a focus on form is not neglected (Ellis, 2003; Ellis, 2009; Ellis, 2018; Ellis and Shintani, 2014; Van den Branden, 2006; Willis and Willis, 2007). The strong form of task-based pedagogy draws on a task-based syllabus and a fluency-oriented methodology (East, 2012). It highlights the involvement of learners in meaningful use of language in order to achieve a communicative outcome (Ellis, 2003; Van den Branden, 2006; Willis and Willis, 2009). The weak form draws on a structural syllabus and an accuracy-based methodology (East, 2012). It stresses the use of tasks to activate learners’ existing knowledge of the target language (Ellis, 2003; Samuda and Bygate, 2008) and provides them with opportunities to use the explicitly-taught target language features accurately while trying to achieve a communicative outcome (East, 2012). Nevertheless, in the weak form of task-based pedagogy, even though a non-linguistic outcome may occur, a display of language appears to be key to the successful performance of the activity. Given that learners are made aware of the linguistic focus of tasks before participation in communicative activities (Ellis, 2016; Ellis and Shintani, 2014), this weak form of task-based pedagogy conforms with the traditional P-P-P model of language teaching. It can offer a focus on meaning before and during the task stage, and the task outcome is not necessarily confined to specific pre-determined language items (Skehan, 1996).

This weak form is similar to the pedagogical approach in the new Iranian secondary school English textbooks. Language functions and the relevant vocabulary are introduced in the presentation stage and these are practised through drills before the final stage of free-language production. During production, although attention is paid to meaningful communication, there seems to be more emphasis on the information gap feature of the task and a subsequent display of language; consequently a communicative outcome is not necessarily prioritized. An initial focus on language forms while implementing a P-P-P model turns the final, free-language stage into an exercise rather than a communicative practice (see Ellis, 2003). Willis (1996, as cited in East, 2012: 21) argued that the goal of free-language production is difficult to achieve given that a focus on pre-taught language features restricts learners’ experience of the language.

Nevertheless, it is well-established that the implementation of strong forms of task-based pedagogy has been challenging in settings where traditional grammar translation and audio-lingual English language teaching are deeply embedded practices (e.g. Assalahi, 2013; Carless, 2009; Pei, 2008; Sato, 2009). In traditional language teaching settings, in order to provide learners with opportunities for communicating meaning and mastering language forms, teachers often rely on the P-P-P model of teaching (see Carless, 2007). Even though P-P-P is not considered to prepare learners to use language for communicative purposes (Ellis, 2003), it is argued to be more practical than stronger task-based approaches because it provides clarity around planning, teaching and assessing students’ proficiency in English. Learners can also feel more secure when they have a language model to follow and are familiar with the language structures and vocabulary used (Ciubancan, 2013). Although it is important for teachers to implement indirect oracy instruction that targets meaningful and communicative use of language, they should also be made aware that direct or controlled instructions that allow for the practice of language forms to address accuracy can be important (see Goh, 2013; Goh, 2014).

In communicative approaches such as task-based pedagogy, literacy and oracy are integrated (e.g. Larsen-Freeman, 2000; Van den Branden, 2006) because it is ‘almost impossible to complete a task successfully in one skill area without involving some other skills’ (Harmer, 2013: 299). This means that the degree to which an intended oracy task relies on literacy or whether and how oracy tasks are complemented by literacy practices is often not clear. For example, literacy appears to be intrinsic to Ellis’ (2003: 59) ‘academic listening’ tasks aimed at helping enhance comprehension. Similarly, Nunan (2004) emphasized the provision of literacy-based input such as using shopping lists, newspapers, and menus while introducing oracy tasks. Larsen-Freeman (2000) also appeared to highlight literacy – reading a text, completing a questionnaire or conducting a survey, for example – at the start of the class before incorporating oracy practices. Her intention was to show that all four language skills can be integrated; when – or to what extent – oracy needs to be supported by literacy was not a specific focus. In the Iranian context, teachers who pursue traditional-oriented models of teaching such as P-P-P can rely strongly on literacy in order to facilitate oracy, which can mean verbatim reading with no focus on less-controlled language use. It may seem to be a more efficient use of classroom time to display knowledge through literacy than oracy, but this can result in the implementation of controlled (or ‘read aloud’) speaking practices. A challenge in Iran is to shift the focus from oracy practices that are reliant on the written word, in the form of the textbook, to increase teachers’ and students’ own communicative use of English in class.

Design of the Study

The study was designed as a qualitative ethnographic case study. The nature of this investigation allowed for the exploration of the teachers’ practices from a perspective that stresses the need to acknowledge and interpret the social interdependence between the first author – the researcher – and the participating teachers (see Cobb, 1994; Johnson, 2009; John-Steiner and Mahn, 2011). The case study design further allowed a deep understanding of specific aspects of the teachers’ behaviours, interactions and collaborations as a single unit bounded within the context of a summer school (Denscombe, 2010; Marvasti, 2004; and Yin, 2014).

Data Analysis

The study used Engeström’s (1996; Engeström, 2001) third generation Activity Theory (AT) as the analytical lens. The AT frame for analysis is situated under the umbrella of sociocultural theory. It is a means for analysing complex spaces, conceptualized as activity systems that interact with each other. Each activity system is represented in the form of a triangle which comprises elements such as subject, mediating tool, object, rule, community and division of labour (Engeström, 2001). AT (see Figure 1) is a practice-based theoretical frame which is used to explore professional practices, tensions and transformations in practices within particular sociocultural historical contexts (Engeström, 1996). In this study, each teacher was understood to be the subject of her own activity system. The mediating tools consisted of the first author’s suggestions, such as the role play and new AV materials, and the rules were the teachers’ stated beliefs about the teaching and learning of English. After interacting, activity systems may adopt new components and be renewed, and subsequently tensions may appear between the newly adopted and old components of each activity system (Engeström, 1987; Engeström, 2001). The tensions between the mediating (task-based) tools and the rules around the literacy-oracy interface are a particular focus of this article.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Two interacting activity systems as a minimal model for the third generation of activity system. (Adapted from Engeström, 1996: 133).

In Activity Theory, tensions are referred to as contradictions, and activity systems provide a vehicle to explore and understand the relationship between old and new forms of practice, and any points of resistance or conflict. The identification of the contradictions is important because it is these contradictions that are considered to stimulate change and development as well as to encourage collaboration, negotiation and collective problem solving (Engeström, 2000). In the study, themes were developed using Braun and Clark’s (2006) thematic analyses, and were categorized under the major elements of the activity system model. The analysis helped recognize contradictions in the teachers’ practices.

The Centrality of Literacy to Oracy Practices

The rules (beliefs) that appeared to govern the teachers’ uptake of the task-based suggestions of AV materials and role play (new tools) were strongly connected to literacy practices; the teachers in the study were found to prioritize literacy, even when focussing on oracy. First, in an interview at the start of the study, the teachers reported that they understood literacy to be at the core of English language learning. Their beliefs were found to be grounded in their teaching practices before the reform when the development of literacy was the major goal of English language education. The teachers’ understanding of the significance of literacy also derived from the way they had formally learnt English. Illustrative comments ¹ from all three teachers are provided below:

When I was a student, we had to learn the meaning of the vocabulary before the teacher read texts in the textbooks. Then, it was the students’ turn to read the same texts […] Writing was also part of class practices (Elnaz, interview).

Back to the old time when I was studying at secondary school, all class practices concentrated mainly on developing students’ ability to read and write. We were expected to learn to read the texts in the textbook and understand their meaning by learning the meaning of every single vocabulary in the texts in order to meet the final test requirements. Writing was mainly practised through dictation or other similar exercises (Bita, interview).

During my schooling, the whole alphabet was initially taught and teachers made sure the students learnt to read and write the whole English alphabet and words well and were ready to read the textbook (Simin, interview)

In line with their reported experiences, Elnaz and Bita, the teachers of the second-year junior high school students, were found to spend a large portion of class time on literacy skills development through reading and translating conversation texts in their classes before the intervention. Simin, the first-year teacher in the same school, was found to primarily focus on reading and writing the alphabet. Oracy practices mainly involved repetition or choral reading with minimal single question-and-answer exchanges that were conducted after an initial focus on literacy.

At the time of the study, the researcher suggested that the teachers use AV materials and role play in groups. The researcher understood role play to have characteristics of a task, as defined by Ellis and Shintani (2014; see also Ellis, 2003; Ellis, 2018). She was aware that, in contrast to most language exercises in class, tasks have a non-linguistic outcome (Nunan, 2004). Nevertheless, given her knowledge of the teachers’ traditional emphasis on oracy and literacy, she advised the teachers to rely on role play models that appeared in the new textbooks. As mentioned earlier, these practices appeared to incorporate meaningful use of language and emphasized an information gap. The researcher was interested in discovering how the teachers might implement the textbook role play in class – they had previously been avoiding these activities.

The teacher guides associated with the textbooks stipulated that the teachers involve their students in role play at the end of each lesson in order to help students more freely produce spoken language while working in pairs or groups. For example, the guidebook for the textbook used by the second graders stated that, through the aid of the relevant language functions, expressions and structures, teachers were to help students play different roles, such as tourists visiting Iran and looking for places to go sightseeing. This led the researcher to make the suggestion that the students be given time to work in groups to prepare their role plays before performing these to the class. From her previous teaching experience, the researcher understood that oracy could develop by engaging students in collaborative and interactive activities such as group work, and suggested that role play be done in small groups of three or four. The researcher also provided AV materials to the teachers. The AV materials, which she ensured were connected to each lesson, related to the students’ everyday life experiences, containing conversations about greetings, age, health and so on. The researcher understood the materials to provide input and instruction and that they would introduce the topic (see Willis and Willis, 2007) before the teachers could engage their students in role plays. Although the researcher did not explicitly explain to the teachers whether role plays were different from the question-and-answer practices they used to employ in class, she assumed that the use of AV materials and role plays would facilitate the teachers’ transition towards the application of less-controlled spoken language and help promote their oral proficiency.

Despite the introduction of the AV materials and role play, there was still minimal oracy practice in the teachers’ classrooms. The uptake of the AV materials and role plays was found to be limited to simple exchanges and related to what the students had read earlier from their textbooks. However, compared to the teachers’ previous whole-class practices, now the teachers allowed their students to practise the exchanges within small groups. In Bita’s and Elnaz’ classrooms, for example, each of these two teachers asked their students to respond to the question ‘Where are you from?’, and required them to provide an answer from a list of countries provided. The underlying belief of the centrality of literacy to oracy, as indicated from the teachers’ earlier comments appeared to be affecting their use of the AV materials and the implementation of the role play because language was read aloud in both cases, with no focus given to less-controlled practice.

A similar literacy-to-controlled-oracy sequence was evident in Simin’s class. Simin prioritized a movement from knowledge of letter sounds and words – the smallest units of language – to the larger language units such as the phrases and sentences of the textbooks. She said in an interview:

Reading and writing the alphabet letters are the main priorities in my class to help my students differentiate between “bag” and “book”, for example. No matter what I am expected to do, whether a new textbook is introduced or I’m asked to teach differently, I always teach the way that best helps my students learn English. I need to make sure students initially read and write the alphabet well before introducing any oral question and answer practices (Simin, interview).

This quotation shows that, for Simin, there was tension between adapting the task-based suggestions of the AV materials and the role play in any form, and her firm beliefs around literacy learning in formal English language instruction. In all three teachers’ classes, oral question-and-answer practices as written in the textbook or as models on the board, preceded oral practice and therefore could not occur before students were able to read.

This centrality of literacy to the inclusion of English language in the classroom was possible because Persian was the main language of instruction, and the textbook was the primary source of English in the classroom. This rule of spoken language predominantly taking place in the first language was explained by the teachers to be a way to facilitate their students’ learning and to reduce anxiety and embarrassment. Thus, even though the new textbooks emphasized oracy development and the role play and audio material tools were designed to assist this development, there appeared to be an important tension between the introduction of aspects of task-based pedagogy and the teachers’ strong reliance on the written word for language teaching.

Integration of Literacy and Oracy Practices

Although literacy continued to remain central to oracy, and speaking was found to be scaffolded through the practice of reading aloud, teachers still appeared to be influenced by the ‘oracy’ rule of the Iranian English language teaching reform, or the need to improve students’ oral language proficiency. They were thus willing to act on the researcher’s task-based suggestions but, as mentioned, they adapted the suggestions to reduce the tension between the communicative language tools and the centrality of literacy. This tension could also be understood in relation to the researcher’s desired object of less controlled oral language practices, and the teachers’ intention to help students to rote learn the language. For example, in order to control language in the AV clips, the teachers chose to use material that had English subtitles, and the students read these subtitles aloud as they viewed the clips. The teachers then supplied conversation models that were largely copied from the subtitles, and supplemented with English language structures the students read from their textbooks. New vocabulary for role plays was introduced in written form and then reinforced in the speaking/recitation activities without any student modification or input.

Despite the tensions, the adaptations did show the teachers’ determination to engage with the new tools. This was particularly clear in the case of Simin’s Year 1 beginner class, where she did not reject the tools outright when they did not appear to work, but postponed their use. Simin attempted to introduce the idea of role play by writing the text on the whiteboard and reading as well as using Persian to translate the text for the students, who then repeated what she said. However, the students’ struggle to read the alphabet appeared to spark the tension between the centrality-of-literacy rule and the new role play tool. Simin thus decided to postpone her engagement with role play until she had finished teaching the alphabet.

Even though Simin’s emphasis on alphabetic knowledge and decoding the (written) alphabet initially appeared to be an impediment to oracy, once she had introduced the alphabet, she became open to (her own modified versions of) the task-based pedagogies discussed during the intervention. In their Year 2 classes, Bita and Elnaz did not confront this problem as their students were familiar with the alphabet, so were able to continue with their adaptations rather than postponing the intervention. Although Simin chose to postpone the use of the new tools, she reported that, encouraged by Bita and Elnaz, she became engaged with oracy practice earlier than she would have otherwise:

During our group conversations, Bita and Elnaz suggested that I keep using the suggested audio-visual materials and involve my students in speaking practices. They said that the speaking practices were useful and helped improve their students’ speaking skills … Following my colleagues, I also asked my students to do extra reading and writing practices at home so they could spend more time on speaking in class (Simin, interview).

When Simin did begin using the suggested audio-visual tools, she was found to employ a large number of structured question-and-answer practices, recitation and rote learning. However, she mentioned that the more her students were exposed to the new materials, the more they appeared to understand the content of the conversations, and thus she wanted to continue using them.

Next, all three teachers accepted the idea that group work could be used to conduct the role plays and modifications around the tool were found to involve levels of student–student interaction. Group work, implemented by the teachers for the first time, gave students more opportunity to speak English. Nevertheless, their interpretation of role play coincided with the kind of drill practices they were used to delivering to the whole class. They attempted to expand these group drill practices in different ways. For example, Simin developed her single question-and-answer exchanges to chain drill practices in which a repeated sequence of exchanges was practised in groups. In contrast, Bita and Elnaz used controlled dialogue. A model Elnaz had proposed to the other two teachers during the intervention involved using a larger number of question-and-answer exchanges and a step-by-step process of first using instructions in Persian followed by written translation into English. This suggestion was made with the idea that students would continue working in small groups. The vocabulary the students were required to use was written on the board in English. For example, Bita was observed to provide the following model for her students ² in order to support their oral practice. She used one group as an example to demonstrate how to practise the spoken language using the written cues. The original Persian is shown here in order to demonstrate the way the activity was one of Persian-English translation:

Bita to Shirin:

سلام کن به آناهیتا و ازش سوال کن توانایی چه کارهایی رو داره و چه کارهایی میتونه انجام بده

(Greet Anahita, ask her what she can do and what she is good at).

Bita to Anahita:

سلام کن به شیرین و به سوالاتش جواب بده و سوالهای شبیه به این سوالهارو ازش ببرس

(Greet Shirin, answer her questions, and ask her a similar question).

Bita to Sarah:

سلام کن به آناهیتا و شیرین و بگو چه توانایی هایی داری و در چه توانایی هایی با اونها مشترکی

(Greet Anahita and Shirin, tell them about your abilities and which abilities you share with them)

The teachers reported that the reason behind their engagement with and expansion of oracy teaching was that they noticed improvement in their students’ speaking skills and this encouraged them to continue incorporating oracy practices in class. These group role plays more closely resembled drills than tasks based on an information or opinion gap. Even though the students were found to use their language resources translating new vocabulary from Persian into English to complete the group work, meaningful communication and a less-controlled language were still missing from the activities. The teachers appeared to allay tensions between rules and tools in the activity system to achieve their object of students speaking more frequently. The teachers’ object was therefore found to differ from the researcher’s object: for the students to use less-controlled language. Time dedicated to speaking, albeit recitation and other controlled practices, appeared to be key to the oracy-related choices made by the teachers.

During the study, the researcher noted the teachers’ use of scripted drills and dialogues and suggested working towards less-controlled language production. Of the three teachers, Elnaz was the only one to choose to attempt to work with this suggestion. She continued using a controlled type of role play, but provided instructions in Persian without a written model. Previously practised drill structures were used for the activity. For example, the members of one group from Elnaz’ class chose to play the roles of a doctor, a patient and her parents. This conversation included a large number of exchanges between the four students and included raising an issue, explaining what had happened and seeking advice from the doctor. The students’ use of English language was accompanied by their own language as well as a few body movements while working within groups. However, the conversations consisted of previously practised controlled spoken language structures.

Simin and Bita continued implementing group drills and/or scripted dialogue practice as an end in itself – to increase students’ speaking time. They explained that they understood controlled speaking practices to be more suitable given their students’ low English language proficiency level and that they found such practices to help develop their students’ oral proficiency and engagement. They reported that their students were capable of working within groups because they had a written model to follow. Elnaz differed in that she introduced unscripted performances, but they were very much supported by scripted drills and dialogues. The ‘unscripted’ performances were therefore still dependent to a significant degree on the written word, in that they appeared to be memorized by the students. She explained that she gave her students time to practise so they could perform without the support of a written model.

Discussion

In the current study, the teachers’ practices were investigated through the lens of a weak form of task-based pedagogy and Engeström’s (1996; Engeström, 2001) third generation activity theory. Activity theory was found to be beneficial because it helped deconstruct the relationship between the teachers’ focus on a traditionally-driven literacy and a more communicative-orientated oracy, thus revealing why a controlled and read-aloud rather than less-controlled spoken language was enacted in the classrooms. The investigation of the teachers’ interacting activity systems crystalized the relationship between the newly negotiated task-based suggestions (tools), the teachers’ existing practices and beliefs in improving oracy through read-aloud practices (rules) and the object of the teachers (Engeström, 2000; Engeström, 2001). This object appeared to be to give students more speaking time on comprehensible themes in a controlled way.

Thus, an increase in the teachers’ attention to oracy was evident over the course of the study. The teachers were found to be open to trialling (and modifying) aspects of task-based pedagogy through the negotiated use of the suggested audio-visual materials and role plays. Also, they were found to develop solutions, such as accommodating oracy by leaving some literacy practices for homework and allowing more time for oracy in class in order to give students more opportunity to speak. However, this object of more opportunity to speak did not appear to align with the use of less controlled language – the reason behind the researcher’s suggestions. The contradictions that emerged between the use of new tools and a reliance on literacy to facilitate oracy were only resolved after the teachers adapted their oracy-related practice based on their understanding of the purposes of the oracy practices, or the object in their activity system (see Engeström and Sannino, 2010).

Although literacy and oracy are commonly integrated in task-based pedagogies, a traditional reliance on literacy can impede less controlled oral practices. Even though the researcher attempted to suggest ways for teachers to improve their students’ oracy through less-controlled spoken language, her suggestions had literacy at their core. The AV materials often included subtitles, and role play entailed the teachers’ reading of instruction models from the guidebooks and writing those instructions on the whiteboard for their students. The teachers’ knowledge about teaching the spoken language had been influenced by their previous teaching knowledge and practice (Chen and Goh, 2014) as well as their schooling experiences – what Lortie (1975: 61) referred to as ‘apprenticeship of observation’. The teachers who had learned and were accustomed to teaching through the written word found it very challenging to leverage reading and writing to help students learn oracy in a more communicative (meaning-focussed) way. The fact that they had no clear rule of speaking English themselves in class appeared to be an obstacle to their movement towards task-based practices. Given the way they reported learning English, their level of comfort and confidence in their own oral communication skills might have been a reason behind the evident challenges they faced.

The reformed Iranian education system appears to be relying on the new textbooks as a vehicle to encourage oracy development through the use of communicative approaches to language teaching. The teachers in this study were not comfortable with this approach, citing their students’ low proficiency as a major barrier to the adaptation of communicative pedagogies. However, teachers’ own experiences with learning English and the lack of historical emphasis given to speaking indicates that professional development to enhance the teachers’ own communicative proficiency in English might be an important step in moving ahead with the reform. Persian language remained the major means of communication between the teachers and their students.

The results of this study indicate teachers’ willingness to implement practices that focus on improving students’ speaking skills, but time is needed to resolve the ongoing tensions between traditional – and less communicative – literacy-based approaches and more meaning-focussed pedagogies. Studies (e.g. Carless, 2007) have shown that task-based pedagogy in its weak form seems to be a suitable model of language teaching in contexts where teachers are used to employing traditional pedagogies. However, given these results, a weak form of task-based pedagogy may not help improve communicative oral language skills when teachers embrace a traditional focus on literacy while dealing with oracy. Also, in such contexts, textbooks might not be the most effective way of introducing communicative approaches to oral production. Providing teachers with different kinds of learning experiences themselves so that they have the opportunity to revise deeply held ‘rules’ of English language teaching might offer a way forward in their engagement with less controlled forms of oral practice. Consideration of the kinds of non-textbook-based professional development available to teachers is very important in this case.

In foreign language classes, controlled, modelled and accuracy-focussed oracy practices can help guide learners’ speaking skills, but they do not necessarily support second language acquisition unless they are incorporated into lessons which also pay attention to speaking though communicative practices (Goh, 2013). In this study, the teachers’ initial and continued emphasis on the presentation and practice of the target language features appeared to have a limiting influence on more communicative spoken language (see East, 2012). Even though fitting task-based pedagogy into a P-P-P model appeared to be beneficial in that the teachers understood their pedagogies to help improve their students’ speaking skills, the teachers’ traditional emphasis on literacy instruction and learning through literacy appeared to have a constraining influence on the development of students’ oral communicative proficiency.

It should be noted that this study was conducted during a summer course where the teachers had more freedom to adapt pedagogies and were less pressured to meet the commitments of the academic year. The summer school provided a useful setting in which to experiment with pedagogies that are very new in the Iranian context. However, the implementation of pedagogical reforms during the academic year, where teaching is often more formal is likely to conform to even stricter ‘rules’ of engagement than the summer course. Connecting less controlled practices to concrete objectives and outcomes would perhaps be even more important in the context of formal schooling.

Conclusion

In sum, this study offers insight into the attempted implementation of task-based approaches in a learning environment where, despite a movement towards embracing oracy development in English language classes in secondary schools, there is a strong dependence on the written word. This perhaps results from limited exposure to oracy practices outside class (for both teachers and students) and the need to study a script that is different from that of the first language. The study has highlighted the need for greater flexibility and teacher support in the adaptation of communicative practices. Communicative practices have been found to look different across different contexts (see Carless, 2007 in China; East, 2012 in New Zealand; Van den Branden, 2009 in Belgium), and this foregrounds a need for greater accommodation across different settings to support teachers in the process of change. It also offers insight into how teachers revisit and revise their approach to literacy and oracy and how they may begin slowly to re-assess and realign the relationship between these two aspects of language learning. The importance of literacy in the world today is undeniable, but further understanding of the relationship between oracy and literacy, especially in contexts where the script is different, and how we support teachers to embrace communicative pedagogies is required if the goal is to facilitate change.