Effects of Input Enhancement Cues on EFL Learners' Intake of English Grammar: The Case of Connectors

Research in English Language Pedagogy

مقاله 3، دوره 6، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 10، خرداد 2018، صفحه 39-55   

نوع مقاله: Original Article

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30486/relp.2018.538758

نویسندگان

Samira Kian¹؛ Bahman Gorjian^{* 2}

¹Department of ELT, Khouzestan Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran. Department of, ELT, Ahvaz Branch Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran.

²Department of ELT, Abadan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Abadan, Iran

چکیده

 
The present study investigated the effect of two types of attention drawing techniques (i.e., choice and underlining) on the learners' intake of English connectors. The design of the study was a quasi-experimental research. Participants took a homogeneity test and were assigned to two experimental and a control group in Kalam Language Institute of Shoush. Then, sixtynine learners were divided into three groups. The two experimental groups used attention drawing techniques to choose or underline the correct connectors in the texts. The control group, however, was simply exposed to read the text and exercise the drills of grammar in their text. Results indicated that both attention drawing techniques had a significant effect on the intake of the targeted forms of connectors. Implications of the study for practical teaching suggest that the attention drawing techniques can enhance learning connectors and they may be effective in teaching grammar to the pre- intermediate learners.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

input enhancement؛ intake؛ underlining؛ choice؛ connectors

مراجع

Acer, P. & Lee, L. (2005). Cause & effect. United State of America: James W. Brown. 

Carroll, W. P. (1998). Communicate what you mean: A concise advanced grammar. (2^nd Edition).  London: Longman.

Congjun. M. U. (2005). A taxonomy of ESL writing strategies. In Proceedings Redesigning Pedagogy: Research, Policy, Practice.

Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.) (1998). Focus and form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics 30, 474-509.

Erturk, E. (2013). The impact of intellectual property policies on ethical attitudes toward internet piracy. Knowledge Management: An International Journal, 12(1), 101-109.

Farahani, A. K, & Sarkhosh, M. (2012). Do different textual enhancement formats have differential effects on the intake of English subjunctive mood? Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2, 687-697.

Fraser, B., (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 931-952.

Halliday, M. & R. Hasan. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Oxford: Pregamon Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition Research. New York: Longman.

Lee, I. (2002). Teaching coherence to ESL students: a classroom inquiry. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 135-159.

Leow, R. (1997). The effects of input enhancement and text length on adult L2 readers' comprehension and intake in second language acquisition. Applied Language Learning, 8, 151-182.

Liu, M., & Braine, G. (2005). Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduates. System, 33(4), 623-636.

Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot Ginsberg, and C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amesterdam: John Benjamins.

Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: theory, research and practice. In: Doughty, C., Williams. J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Nassaji, H. (1999). Toward integrating form focused instruction and communicative interaction in the second language classroom: Some pedagogical possibilities. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 385-402.

Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 27-67.

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

Rouchota, V. (1998). Connectives, coherence and relevance: Current Issues in Relevance Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Sarboland, E. (2012). Different textual enhancement formats and the intake of English past simple tense. International Journal of Linguistics, 4, 459-474.

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press.

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

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 5-11). Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

Simard, D. (2009). Differential effects of textual enhancement formats on intake. System, 37, 124-135.

 

Shokrpour, N., & Fallahzadeh, M. (2007). A survey of the students and Interns’ EFL writing  problems in Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. Asian EFL Journal, 9(1), 1-15.

Wall, D. (1981). A pre-sessional academic writing course for postgraduate students in economics. Practical Papers in English Language Education, 4, 34-105.

Warner, R. G. (1985). Discourse connectives in English. New York: Garland Publishing.

Wong, W. (2005). Input enhancement: From theory and research to the classroom. New York: McGraw-Hill.