The Effect of Output Tasks on the Noticing and Learning English Passive Structure

Journal of Teaching English Lnaguage Studies

مقاله 2، دوره 3، شماره 1، آبان 2014، صفحه 25-41   

نویسنده

Marjan Panbeyan

Islamic Azad University, Takestan Branch

چکیده

This study was an attempt to investigate whether output tasks, i.e., reconstruction and picturecued
writing tasks, promote learners’ noticing of English passive structure compared to nonoutput
tasks, i.e., reading comprehension and if so, which output task is more effective in
enhancing learners’ noticing. In addition, this study aimed to investigate whether output tasks
facilitate learning of English passive structure better than non-output tasks and if so, which one is
more effective. To this end, 45 pre-intermediate female students at Safir Language Academy in
Iran were divided into three groups: reconstruction, picture-cued writing, and control. The results
indicated that noticing across the three groups was equally improved, with the output tasks not
leading to greater noticing in comparison with the non-output task. According to the results, all
the three groups performed significantly better on post-production test but no improvement was
found on post-recognition test.

مراجع

Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and Second Language Acquisition. TESOL QUARTERLY, 27, 91-113.                                                                                                            

Ellis, R. (1995).  Interpretation Tasks for Grammar Teaching. TESOL QUARTERLY, 29(1), 88-106.                                                                                                                                   

Ellis,R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus-on-form. system, 30, 419-432.

Iwanaka, T., & Takatsuka, S. (2007). Influence of Attention and Noticing on Second Language Acquisition. Languages & Literatures, 21-30.                                                                       

Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL QUARTERLY, 34, 239–278.

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 21, 421-452.                                                                                                                                                           

Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–577.                                           

Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and Production processes in Second Language learning: In Search of Psycholinguistic Rationale of the Output Hypothesis.  Applied linguistics, 24(2), 168-196.                                                                                                                                    

Lee, L. (1994). L2 writing: Using pictures as a guided writing environment. Paper presented at the Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association Conference.                                                                     

Mackey, A., Adams, R., Stafford, C., & Winke, P. (2010). Exploring the Relationship Between Modified Output and Working Memory Capacity. Language Learning, 60(3), 501-533.                                                                                                                                                 

Richard, C.J., & Rodgers, S.T. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. 2^nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.                                                                                                              

Soleimani, H. (2008).The Noticing Function of Output in Acquisition of Rhetorical                           Structure of Contrast Paragraphs of Iranian EFL University Students. Linguistik online , 34, 59-74.                                                                                                                                                

Song, M., & Suh, B. (2008). The effects of output task types on noticing and learning of the English past counterfactual conditional. System, 36, 295-312.                                                              

Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158–164.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied linguistics, 16, 371-391.     

Thornbury, S. (1997).  Reformulation and reconstruction: tasks that promote 'noticing'. ELT Journal, 51(4), 326-335.                                                                                                        

Truscott, J. (1998).  Noticing in second language acquisition: a critical review. Second Language Research, 14(2), 103-135.                                                                          

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.