آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 45 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 1,361 |
| تعداد مقالات | 16,731 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 53,983,180 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 16,667,675 |
An Investigation of Spoken Output and Intervention Types among Iranian EFL Learners | ||
| Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning | ||
| مقاله 2، دوره 5، شماره 12، اسفند 2013، صفحه 17-41 اصل مقاله (294.26 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Paper | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Sasan Baleghizadeh* ؛ Arash Saharkhiz | ||
| Shahid Beheshti University, İran. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| This study was inspired by VanPatten and Uludag’s (2011) study on the transferability of training via processing instruction to output tasks and Mori’s (2002) work on the development of talk-in-interaction during a group task. An interview was devised as the pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest to compare four intervention types for teaching the simple past passive: traditional intervention as the comparison group and three task-based groups were processing instruction, consciousness-raising, and input enhancement. The interviews and the interactions during the treatments were also analyzed qualitatively. Task-based instruction (TBI) proved significantly more effective than traditional intervention and processing instruction significantly outperformed all others on both posttests. Furthermore, processing instruction was the only task-based intervention to retain its improvement till the delayed posttest. Qualitatively, processing instruction led to true negotiation of meaning and deep-level learning, consciousness-raising led to massive negotiation over the function of the target structure and deep-level learning, input enhancement led to enormous unfocused interaction about meaning, and traditional intervention just led to interaction about the forms. It was concluded that a well-planned processing instruction is a promising intervention for focusing on language form; however, due to the strong points cited for the other two tasks, their roles should not be ignored. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| input enhancement؛ processing instruction؛ consciousness-raising؛ traditional exercise-based intervention | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 259-302). Honolulu: University of Hawaii. Benati, A. (2005). The effects of processing instruction, traditional instruction, and meaning-output instruction on the acquisition of the English past simple tense. Language Teaching Research, 9, 67-93. Benati, A., & Lee, J. F. (2008). Grammar acquisition and processing instruction: Secondary and cumulative effects. Bristol UK: Multilingual Matters. DeKeyser, R. M., & Sokalski, K. J. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 46, 613-642. Dempster, F. N. (1987). Effects of variable encoding and spaced presentation on vocabulary learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 162-170. Duff, P. (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Dupuy, B., & Krashen, S. D. (1993). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in French as a foreign language. Applied Language Learning, 4, 55-63. Ellis, R. (1991). Second language acquisition and language pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Ellis, R. (1995). Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 87-105. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. New York: Oxford University Press. Ferna´ndez, C. (2008). Reexamining the role of explicit information in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 207-305. Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 323-351. Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 605-628. Griffin, G. F. (1992). Aspects of the psychology of second language vocabulary list learning. PhD thesis, Dept. of Psychology, University of Warwick. Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment. Applied Linguistics, 10, 331-359. Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual: design and statistics for applied linguistics. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle. House, J., & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine (pp. 157-185). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. Hulstijn, J. H. (1992). Retention of inferred and given word meanings: Experiments in incidental vocabulary learning. In P. Arnaud and H. Bejoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 113-25). London: Macmillan. Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541-577. Johnson, K. (1988). Mistake correction. ELT Journal, 42, 89-101. Jourdenais, R., Ota, M., Stauffer, S., Boyson, B., & Doughty, C. (1995). Does textual enhancement promote noticing? A think aloud protocol analysis. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 183-216). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Keating, G. D., & Farley, A. P. (2008). Processing instruction, meaning-based output instruction, and meaning-based drills: Impacts on L2 classroom acquisition of Spanish object pronouns. Hispania, 91, 639-650. Kim, S. (2001). Structured input and production practice in foreign/second-language learning. Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia. Koike, D. A., & Pearson, L. (2005). The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence. System, 33, 481-501. Laufer, B. and Shmueli, K. (1997). Memorizing new words: Does teaching have anything to do with it? RELC Journal, 28, 89-108. Lyster, R. (1994). The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics, 15, 263-287. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Min, H. T. (2008). EFL vocabulary acquisition and retention: Reading plus vocabulary enhancement activities and narrow reading. Language Learning, 58, 73-115. Mori, J. (2002). Task design, plan, and development of talk-in-interaction: An analysis of a small group activity in a Japanese language classroom. Applied linguistics, 23, 323-347. Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, 719-758. Pitts, M., White, H., & Krashen, S. (1989). Acquiring second language vocabulary through reading: A replication of the Clockwork Orange study using second language acquirers. Reading in a Foreign Language, 5, 271-275. Qin, J. (2008). The effect of processing instruction and dictogloss tasks on the acquisition of English passive voice. Language Teaching Research, 12, 61-82. Salaberry, M. R. (1997). The role of input and output practice in second language acquisition. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 422-451. Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence vs. explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer assisted study. Language Learning, 54, 35-78. Sheen, R. (1992). Problem solving brought to task. RELC Journal, 23, 44-59. Storch, N. (1999). Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System, 27, 363-374. Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty and J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tanaka, S., & Kawade, S. (1982). Politeness strategies and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 18-33. Tateyama, Y. (2001). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines. In K. Rose and G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 200-222). New York: Cambridge University Press. Trahey, M., and White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 181-204. Truscott, J., & Sharwood Smith, M. (2004). Acquisition by processing: A modular perspective on language development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 1-20. VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225-243. VanPatten, B., & Uludag, O. (2011). Transfer of training and processing instruction: From input to output. System, 39, 44-53. Witten, C. (2000). Using video to teach for sociolinguistic competence in the foreign language classroom. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 5(1) 143-175. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 72 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 68 |
||