The Comparative Effect of Task Type and Learning Conditions on the Achievement of Specific Target Forms

Journal of Language and Translation

مقاله 4، دوره 8، شماره 1، فروردین 2018، صفحه 43-55   

نوع مقاله: Research Articles

نویسندگان

Jafar Firouzi¹؛ Mona Khabiri^{* 2}

¹Department of English Language and Literature, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad Universi- ty, Tehran, Iran

²English Department, Faculty of Foreign Languages, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

چکیده

The completion mode (individual, collaborative) of the tasks and the conditions under which these modes are performed have been reported to play an important role in language learning. The present study aimed to investigate the effects of employing text editing tasks performed both individually and collaboratively, on the achievement of English grammar under explicit and implicit learning conditions. Eighty-four English learners participated in this study. Some text editing tasks were developed regarding the target grammatical structures and presented to the participants under the explicit and implicit learning conditions. Their gram- mar achievement was operationalized through a multiple-choice recognition test. The results indicated that there was no significant difference between the effect of implicit and explicit conditions when editing tasks were performed individually, but collaborative completion of this task resulted in a significantly higher grammar achievement under explicit condition than implicit one. The comparison of the individual and col- laborative performance of the task, under implicit and explicit conditions, revealed no significant difference under implicit condition. Collaborative completion of the task under explicit condition, however, proved to yield higher levels of grammar achievement when compared with the individual mode of performance.

کلیدواژه‌ها

Editing task؛ Explicit condition؛ Implicit condition؛ Language achievement

مراجع

Akakura, M. (2012). Evaluating the effectiveness of explicit instruction on implicit and explicit L2 knowledge, Language Teaching Research, 16 (1), 9-37.

Bitchener, J., &Knoch, U. (2009).The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback.ELT Journal,63(3), 204-211.

Brender, A. S. (2002). Effectiveness of teaching articles to ESL students in writing classes using consciousness-raising methods. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(1), 59A.

DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom SLA (pp. 42-63). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Dekeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. J. Doughty, & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 314-448). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51, 1-46.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 305-352.

Ellis, N. C. (2008). Usage-based and form-focused SLA: The implicit and explicit learning of constructions. In A. Tyler, Y. Kim, & M. Takada (Eds.), Language in the context of use: Cognitive and discourse approaches to language and language learning (pp. 93-120). Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.

Foster, P. &Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance.Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(3), 299-323.

Foster, P. &Skehan, P. (1999). The influence of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance.Language Teaching Research3(3), 215-247.

Fotos, S. S. (1993). Consciousness raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar task performance versus formal instruction. Applied Linguistics, 14(4), 385-407.

Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks.TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 323–351.

Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach.TESOL Quarterly, 25(4), 605–628.

Housen, A. &Pierrard, M. (2006). Investigating instructed second language acquisition. In A. Housen& M. Pierrard (Eds.) Investigations in Instructed Second Language Acquisition, (pp. 12-27). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing in second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34, 239-278.

Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.

Krashen, S. D. (1987). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice-Hall International.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Leow, R. P. (1997). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 47(3), 467-505.

Leow, R. P. (2001). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 51, 113-155.

Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lynch, T. & MacLean, J. (2001). A case of exercising: Effect of immediate task repetition on learners’ performance. In M. Bygate., P. Skehan& M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks (pp. 141-162). New York: Longman.

McLaughlin, B. (1990). Conscious versus unconscious learning.TESOL Quarterly, 24, 617-634.

Michel, M., Kuiken, F., &Vedder, I.(2007). The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 241–259.

Nassaji, H., &Tian, J. (2010).Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs.Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 397-419.

Oxford, R. L. (2006). Task-based language teaching and learning: An overview. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3), 94-121.

Robinson, P. (1995b). Review article: Attention, memory, and the noticing hypothesis. Language Learning, 45(2), 283-331.

Robinson, P. (2002). Learning conditions, aptitude complexes, and SLA: A framework for research and pedagogy. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 113-133). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Rosa, E., &Leow, R. P. (2004).Awareness, different learning conditions, and second language development.Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 269-292.

Rosa, E., & O’Neill, M. D. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness: Another piece to the puzzle. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 511-556.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning.Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.

Schmidt, R. (1994a). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics.  AILA Review, 11, 11–26.

Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1-63). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Johnson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schmidt, R. (2010). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. In W. M. Chan, S. Chi, K. N. Cin, J. Istanto, M. Nagami, J. W. Sew, T. Suthiwan, & I. Walker (Eds.), Proceedings of Classic 2010, Singapore, December 2-4 (pp. 721-737). Singapore: National University of Singapore, Centre for Language Studies. Retrieved from -20and%20individual%20differences.pdf

Sharwood Smith, M. (1981).Consciousness-raising and the second language learner.Applied Linguistics, 2, 159-168.

Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2007). Complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis in taskbased performance: A meta-analysis of the Ealing research. In S. Van Daele, A. Housen, F. Kuiken, M. Pierrard& I. Vedder (Eds.), Complexity, accuracy andfluency in second language use, learning and teaching (pp. 207–226). Brussels: KoninklijkeVlaamseAcademie van BelgiëvoorWetenschappen en Kunsten.

Steinberg, W. J. (2010). Statistics Alive! Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Storch, N. (1999). Are two heads better than one? Pair-work and grammatical accuracy.System, 27, 363-74.

Svalberg, A. M. L. (2007). Language awareness and language learning.LanguageTeaching, 40, 287-308.

Swain, M., &Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research 4(3), 251-274

Takahashi, S (2005). Noticing in task performance and learning outcomes: A qualitative analysis of instructional effects in interlanguage pragmatics. System, 33, 437-461.

Takimoto, M. (2008).The effects of various kinds of form-focused instruction on learners’ ability to comprehend and produce polite requests in English.TESL Canada Journal, 26, 31–51.

Tarone, E. (1985). Variability in interlanguage use: A study of style shifting in morphology and syntax. Language Learning, 35, 373-403.

Tomlin, R. S., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183-203.

Tocalli-Beller, A., & Swain, M. (2007). Riddles and puns in the ESL Classroom: Adults talk to learn. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: Empirical Studies (pp. 143-167). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review.Second Language Research, 14, 103-135.