|تعداد مشاهده مقاله||9,887,897|
|تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله||6,482,990|
Is the Pushed Output-Based Instruction Effective in Promoting Iranian EFL Learners Grammatical Accuracy in Writing?
|Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies|
|مقاله 3، دوره 12، شماره 1، شهریور 2020، صفحه 65-88 اصل مقاله (321.16 K)|
|نوع مقاله: Research Paper|
|شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22111/ijals.2020.5828|
|Simin Anbarshahi* 1؛ Lida Sharafati* 2|
|1English Language Department, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University, Tabriz, Iran|
|2Payame Noor University, Tabriz Branch, Tabriz- Iran|
|In an attempt to contribute to the ongoing debate about how output tasks affect noticing of linguistic forms, the present study set out to investigate the effect of pushed output tasks on grammatical accuracy in sentence writing of Iranian EFL learners. Fifty homogenous Iranian EFL learners were randomly assigned to two experimental and control groups. Then, every group underwent ten different treatment sessions. The control group received writing instruction through conventional methods, while the experimental group received instruction through two pushed output tasks. In the case of the experimental group, in the first five treatment sessions, four grammatical structures were presented through picture cued tasks. The next five treatment sessions directed at other structures took place via reconstruction tasks. Two different versions of the writing section of the Preliminary English Test (PET) were used as pre/post-test. The results indicated that the experimental group significantly outperformed the control group. Therefore, it might be argued that pushed output-based tasks had a positive effect on the Iranian EFL learner’s grammatical accuracy in sentence writing. These findings provide empirical support for the output hypothesis and have pedagogical implications for the choice of output-oriented grammar tasks.|
|output hypothesis؛ grammatical accuracy؛ text reconstruction؛ picture cued tasks؛ output tasks|
Birjandi, P., & Malmir, A. (2009). The effect of task-based approach on the Iranian advanced EFL learners’ narrative vs. expository writing. The Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies (IJALS), 1(1), 1-23.
Birjandi, P., & Mamaghani, H. J. (2014). The impact of immediate and delayed written pushed output produced by pre-intermediate EFL learners in Iran on their acquisition of English verb tenses. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(6), 13-40.
Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices.: Pearson Education.
Campillo, P. (2006). Focus on form tasks and the provision of corrective feedback. IBERICA, 2, 123-138.
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form‐focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(1), 1-46.
Ellis, R. (2008). Explicit form-focused instruction and second language acquisition. In B. Spolsky, & F. Hult (Ed.), The handbook of educational linguistics, (pp. 437-455). Wiley Blackwell Publications.
Esmaieelzade, V. (2014). The effect of text reconstruction on grammar ability of Iranian EFL learners. Advances in Environmental Biology, 8(2), 153-157.
Fotos, S. S. (1993). Consciousness raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar task performance versus formal instruction. Applied Linguistics, 14(4), 385-407.
Fortune, A. (2005). Learners’ use of metalanguage in collaborative form-focused L2 output tasks. Language Awareness, 14(1), 21-38.
Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. J. Doughty, & M. K. Long, M. K. The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224-254). Blackwell.
Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L. (1994). Second language acquisition: An introductory
course. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2001) Second edition second language acquisition: An introductory course. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Hawkes, M. L. (2012). Using task repetition to direct learner attention and focus on form. ELT journal, 66(3), 327-336.
Izumi, S., & Lakshmanan, U. (1998). Learnability, negative evidence and the L2 acquisition of the English passive. Second Language Research, 14(1), 62-101.
Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the output hypothesis: Effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 421-452.
Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 239-278.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 541-577.
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 168-196.
Izumi, Y., & Izumi, S. (2004). Investigating the effects of oral output on the learning of relative clauses in English: Issues in the psycholinguistic requirements for effective output tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review, 60 (5), 587-609.
Kim, E. C. (2010). Textual input enhancement: Applications in teaching. ORTESOL Journal, 28, 22.
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3(2), 73-93.
Kim, Y., Choi, B., Yun, H., Kim, B., & Choi, S. (2020). Task repetition, synchronous written corrective feedback and the learning of Korean grammar: A classroom-based study. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 4342-561.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on Form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). John Benjamins.
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams, Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge University Press.
Leeser, M. J. (2008). Pushed output, noticing, and development of past tense morphology in content-based instruction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65(2), 195-220.
Lee, S. K., & Huang, H. T. (2008). Visual input enhancement and grammar learning: A meta-analytic review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(3), 307-331.
Lozano, M. B., Mayo, M. D. P. G., & Leeser, M. J. (2014). Pushed output and noticing in a dictogloss: Task implementation in the CLIL classroom. Porta Linguarum: Revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras, 22, 7-22.
Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48(2), 183–218.
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399-432.
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 557-587.
Malmir, A., Khosravi, F. (2018). The effect of argument mapping instruction on L2 writing achievement across writing tasks and writing components: A case of Iranian EFL learners. Applied Research on English Language, 7(4), 515-540.
Mayo, M. G. (2013). Collaborative tasks and their potential for grammar instruction in second/foreign language contexts. In M. G. Mayo (E.d), The Grammar dimension in instructed second language learning (pp. 82-102). Wiley-Blackwell.
Nahavandi, N., & Mukundan, J. (2013). The impact of textual input enhancement and explicit rule presentation on Iranian elementary EFL learners’ intake of simple past tense. English Language Teaching, 6(1), 92-102.
Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. ELT Journal, 47(3), 203-210.
Pawlak, M. (2011). Text reconstruction activities and teaching language forms. In J. Majer, & Ł. Salski (Eds.), FLOW: Foreign language opportunities in writing (pp. 8-21).Łódz University Press.
Reinders, H. (2009). Learner uptake and acquisition in three grammar-oriented production activities. Language Teaching Research, 13(2), 201-222.
Rezvani, E. (2011). The effect of output requirement on the acquisition of grammatical collocations by Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 2(3), 674-682.
Rutherford, W. (1987). Second language grammar: Learning and teaching. Longman.
Schmidt, R. (1994). Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: Of artificial grammars and SLA. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 165–209). Academic Press.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge University Press.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10(1-4), 209-232.
Shehadeh, A. (2001). Self- and other-initiated modified output during task-based
interaction. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 433–457.
Shin, S. Y., Lidster, R., Sabraw, S., & Yeager, R. (2016). The effects of L2 proficiency differences in pairs on idea units in a collaborative text reconstruction task. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 366-386.
Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1-14.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Instruction, first language influence, and developmental readiness in second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 83(1), 1-22.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Form‐focused instruction: Isolated or integrated?. TESOL Quarterly, 42(2), 181-207.
Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58(4), 835–874.
Song, M. J., & Suh, B. R. (2008). The effects of output task types on noticing and learning of the English past counterfactual conditional. System, 36(2), 295-312.
Sitthitikul, P. (2017). The roles of output in second language acquisition. Human Behavior, Development and Society, 15(1), 63-76.
Storch, N. (1998). A classroom-based study: Insights from a collaborative text reconstruction task. ELT Journal, 52 (4), 291–300.
Suzuki, W., & Itagaki, N. (2007). Learner metalinguistic reflections following output-oriented and reflective activities. Language Awareness, 16(2), 131-146.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence, some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gadd, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input SLA (pp. 235-253). Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook, & B. Seidelhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom SLA (pp. 64-81). Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied linguistics, 16(3), 371-391.
Tomita, Y., & Spada, N. (2013). Form-focused instruction and learner investment in L2 communication. The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 591-610.
Thornbury, S. (1997). About language: Tasks for teachers of English. Ernst Klett Sprachen.
Uggen, M. S. (2012). Reinvestigating the noticing function of output. Language Learning, 62(2), 506-540.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Greenwood Publishing Group.
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52(4), 755-803.
Williams, J. (2005). Form-focused instruction. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 695-716). Routledge.
Zoghi, M., & Hasannejad, M. R. (2015). A comparative study of output task types on EFL learners’ comprehension of target forms. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(3), 498-503.
Yoshimura, F. (2006). Does manipulating foreknowledge of output tasks lead to differences in reading behavior, text comprehension and noticing of language form?. Language Teaching Research, 10(4),419-434.
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 278
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 273