ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
The Impact of Proactive and Reactive Focus on Form in Multimodal Settings on EFL Learners' Comprehension and Production of Modal Auxiliaries
The major objective of this experimental research was to assess the differences between two varieties of focus on form instruction, namely proactive and reactive across multimodal vs. traditional input settings in both comprehension and production of modal auxiliaries. The participants of the study were 75 Iranian English as a foreign language (EFL) high school students at the elementary level in three classes. The students in each class took part in a pre-test including both comprehension and production items. Then, they were randomly exposed to one of the three types of grammar instruction, i.e. proactive focus on form in which students were exposed to multimodal input through preplanned techniques of input enhancement and input flood, reactive focus on form in which the tasks occurred in multimodal episodes including negotiation and correction by the instructor through recasts, clarification requests, and repetition techniques. Lastly, in the control group, the students were provided with a pamphlet and their teacher’s explanations. The post-test was then administered to the three groups, and the results were analyzed by conducting a one-way-analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) which revealed a significant difference among these three groups. The results showed that the proactive group outperformed the reactive and control groups both in the comprehension and production of modal auxiliaries. At the end of the experiment, a brief survey which was accomplished through an interview revealed that the majority of the students highly favored PowerPoint presentations, teacher's explanations, and video clips respectively.
https://tesl.shirazu.ac.ir/article_5367_fba7b1daad2469e513b4e6aba307c870.pdf
2019-03-01
1
46
10.22099/jtls.2019.32320.2639
Modal auxiliaries
Multimodal input
Proactive focus on form
Reactive focus on form
Mahsa
Adloo
mahsaadloo1371@gmail.com
1
Vali-e-Asr university of Rafsanjan
LEAD_AUTHOR
Gholam reza
Rohani
r.rohani@vru.ac.ir
2
Vali-e-Asr University of Rafsanjan, Rafsanjan, Iran
AUTHOR
Abdul-Fattah, H. (2011). A formal-functional analysis of the English modal auxiliaries. Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literature, 1, 39-63.
1
Bakshiri, N., & Mohammadi, M. (2014). International conference on current trends in ELT. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 334 – 342.
2
Baleghizadeh, S. (2010). Focus on form in an EFL communicative classroom. Retrieved March 7, 2010 from www.novitasroyal.org/Vol_4_1/baleghizadeh.pdf.
3
Butler, Y. (2004). What level of English proficiency do elementary school teachers need to attain to teach EFL? Case studies from Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 245-278.
4
Büyükbay, S., & Dabaghi, A. (2010). The effectiveness of repetition as corrective feedback. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3, 158-176.
5
Cárcamo, M., Cartes, R., Velásquez, N., & Larenas, C. (2016). The impact of multimodal instruction on the acquisition of vocabulary. Trabalhos em Linguística Aplicada, 2, 135-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/010318134842170942.
6
Coşgun Ögeyik, M. (2011). Form-focused discovery activities in English classes. The Reading Matrix, 1, 122-140.
7
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form, in C. J. Doughty and M. H. Long (ed.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 114-38.
8
Doughty, C., & Willams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, 3, 197-262. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10
Ellis, R. (1995). Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 87-105.
11
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12
Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(1), 1-46.
13
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172.
14
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15
Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. New York, NY: Wiley.
16
Ellis, R. (2015). The importance of focus on form in communicative language teaching. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2, 1-12.
17
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001a). Learner Uptake in Communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281–318. doi:10.1111/1467-9922.00156.
18
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H. & Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus-on-form. System 30(3), 419– 432.
19
Faramarz Zadeh, R. (2016). EFL learners' attitudes and perceptions about an effective English language teacher. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3, 148-156.
20
Farias, M. A., Obilinovic, K., and Orrego, R. (2011). Engaging multimodal learning and second/foreign language education dialogue. The International Conference Multimodality and Learning, 2, 133-151.
21
Fotos & Nassaji, S. (2007). Issues in form-focused instruction and teacher's education. In S. Fotos & H. Nassaji (Eds.), Issue in form-focused instruction and teacher's education: Studies in honor of Rod Ellis. New York: Oxford University Press.
22
Ghalimberti, V., & Miralpeix, I. (2018). Multimodal Input for Italian Beginner Learners of English. La didattica delle lingue nel nuovo millennio, 1, 615-626.
23
Ghariblaki, Z., & Poorahmadi, M. (2017). The Effect of Recast vs. Clarification Request as Two Types of Corrective Feedback on Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners' Structural Knowledge Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3, 87-96.
24
Ghelichi, M. (2017). Contextualizing Grammar Instruction through Meaning-Centered Planned Pre-emptive Treatment and Enhanced Input in an EFL Context. The Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 40(1), 72-91.
25
Ghalimberti, V., & Miralpeix, I. (2018). Multimodal Input for Italian Beginner Learners of English. La didattica delle lingue nel nuovo millennio, 1, 615-626.
26
Ghaniabadi, S., Hashemnejad, E., & Amirian, M. (2015). The effect of proactive versus reactive focus on form on Iranian EFL learners' grammatical accuracy. International Journal of Education and Research, 52(2), 227-236.
27
Gu, X. (2007). Focus on form or focus on forms: Which method is more effective? Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 1-2.
28
Hawkes, M. J. (2012). Using task repetition to direct learner attention and focus on form, ELT Journal, 66, 327-336.
29
Hu. Z. L. (2007). Multimodal in the research of social semiotics. Language Teaching and Research, (1), 1-10.
30
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 second language learning (Tech. Rep. 9, 183–216). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
31
Kamiya, N. (2018). Proactive versus reactive focus on form. The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 21, 320-339.
32
Kessler, G. (2013). Teaching ESL/EFL in a world of social media, mash-ups, and hyper-collaboration. TESOL Journal. doi: 10.1002/tesj.106.
33
Keyvanfar, A., & Bakshiri, N. (2011). Time matters: Proactive vs. reactive FoF. I-manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching, 22,145-166.
34
Kim, J., & Nassaji, H. (2017). Incidental focus on form and the role of learner extraversion. Language Teaching Research, 1, 1–21.
35
Krashen, Stephen D. (1987). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Prentice-Hall.
36
Levine, Philip & Ron Scollon. (2004). Discourse and technology: Multimodal discourse analysis. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
37
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1990) Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning+ Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429–448.
38
Loewen, S. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. Language Learning, 54, 153-188.
39
Loewen, S. (2011). Focus on form. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, 2, 576–92. New York, NY: Routledge.
40
Loewen, S. and T. Nabei. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In Conversational interaction in second language acquisition, ed. A. Mackey, 22, 361–377. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41
Long, M. H. (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, 1, 39-52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
42
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, 33, 413-468. San Diego: Academic Press.
43
Long, M. H. (2000). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In R. D. Lambert (Ed.), Language policy and pedagogy, 23, 179-192. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
44
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, 2, 15-41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45
Macaro, E. & Masterman, L. (2006). Does intensive explicit grammar instruction make all the difference? Language Teaching Research 10 (3), 297–327.
46
Moghimi, N., & Khalaji, H. (2015). The effect of enriched input on Iranian EFL learners’ grammar learning. International Journal of Educational Investigations, 12, 31-41.
47
Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning. 50(2), 617-673.
48
Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50(3), 417–528.
49
Pienemann, M. (1985). Learnability and syllabus construction. In Hyltenstam, K., and Pienemann, M. (Eds.). 1985. 1, 23-76.
50
Poole, A. (2005). Focus on form instruction: Foundations, applications, and criticisms. The Reading Matrix. 5(1), 47-57.
51
Ranta, L., & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awareness-practice feedback sequence. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology, 12, 141-160. UK: Cambridge University Press.
52
Rooholamin, A., Biria, R., & Haghverdi, H. (2016). Effectiveness of proactive intensive FFI in cultivating grammatical knowledge of Iranian EFL learners at different proficiency levels. English Language Teaching, 22, 151-175. doi: 10.5539/elt.v9n3p197.
53
Royce, T. (2002). Multimodality in the TESOL classroom: Exploring visual-verbal synergy.
54
TESOL Quarterly, 36(2), 191–205.
55
Ruan, X. (2015). The Role of Multimodal in Chinese EFL Students’ Autonomous Listening Comprehension & Multiliteracies. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5, 549-554. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0503.14.
56
Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and SL acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 13, 206-226.
57
Sharwood-Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics 2, 159-169.
58
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 165–179.
59
Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between the characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 11, 361–392.
60
Shirkhani, S., & Tajeddin, Z. (2016). L2 teachers’ explicit and implicit corrective feedback and its linguistic focus. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11, 181-206.
61
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30, 73-87.
62
Supakon, P., Feng, M., & Limmun, W. (2018). Strategies for Better Learning of English Grammar: Chinese vs. Thais. English Language Teaching. doi: 10.5539/elt.v11n3p24.
63
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, 5, 120-135.
64
Tode, T. (2007). Durability problems with explicit instruction in an EFL context: The learning of the English copula be before and after the introduction of the auxiliary be. Language Teaching Research, 11(1), 11–30.
65
Thournbury, S. (2004). English teaching essential grammar. English Teaching Professionals, 30, 40-41.
66
Ting, K. (2014). Multimodal resources to facilitate language learning for students with special needs. International Education Studies. doi:10.5539/ies.v7n8p85.
67
Tomita, Y., & Spada, N. (2013). Form-Focused Instruction and Learner Investment in L2 Communication. The Modern Language Journal. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12031.x 0026-7902/13/591–610.
68
Trahey, M. and White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 15, 181-204.
69
VanPatten, B. (1989). Can Learners Attend to Form and Content While Processing Input?, JSTOR, 11, 409-417.
70
Yu, H. –W. (2001). An investigation into the effectiveness of computer support in academic writing. Ph.D. dissertation, King's College, London.
71
Zhang, D. L. (2009). Comprehensive theoretical framework for multimodal discourse analysis. Foreign Languages in China, (1), 24-30.
72
Zhu, Y. S. (2008). Multiliteracy research and its implications for Chinese EFL teaching reform. Foreign Language Research, (5), 10-14.
73
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
The Effect of Summary Training on Intermediate EFL Learners’ Reading Comprehension in Individual and Collaborative Conditions
Inspired by Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory (SCT), the current study intended to investigate the effect of summary training (i.e., oral and written) on intermediate EFL learners’ reading comprehension in different conditions (i.e., individual and collaborative). Data collection tools and procedures encompassed PET test, First Certificate in English (FCE) reading pre-test, and post-test. First, to ensure that the instruments, scoring, as well as summary training procedures were reliable, the researchers conducted a pilot test. During the main study, 120 Iranian EFL intermediate male and female learners aged from 16-18 were considered as the main participants. Learners were divided into 6 groups (i.e., three individual and three collaborative conditions). Furthermore, each condition included three groups with oral summary, written summary groups, and no summary group. A post-test followed the treatment that lasted for 6 sessions. A series of ANOVA with follow up pair-wise comparisonsand a series of independent-samples t-tests indicated that: (1) summary training, especially the oral one, was more effective in enhancing the EFL learners’ reading comprehension, and (2) members of the collaborative groups outperformed the members of the individual groups regarding their reading comprehension development. The theoretical and practical implications are discussed concerning enhancing the EFL learners’ reading comprehension.
https://tesl.shirazu.ac.ir/article_5323_7ef785a217322080693c8a05d85a8675.pdf
2019-03-01
47
70
10.22099/jtls.2019.33798.2695
Summary training
Reading comprehension
Collaborative learning
Individual learning
Sociocultural theory
zahra
aghazadeh
zahra.aghazadeh.zm@gmail.com
1
Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Urmia University, Urmia, West Azarbaijan, Iran
LEAD_AUTHOR
Mohammad
Mohammadi
mohammadi680@yahoo.co.uk
2
Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Urmia University, Urmia, West Azarbaijan, Iran
AUTHOR
Mehdi
Sarkhosh
mdsarkhosh@gmail.com
3
Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Urmia University, Urmia, West Azarbaijan, Iran
AUTHOR
Adams, E. T. (1995). The effects of cooperative learning on the achievement and self-esteem levels of students in the inclusive classroom (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis).Wayne State University.
1
Akkakoson, S. (2012). Raising strategic awareness of Thai EFL students of science and technology disciplines through metacognitive strategy training. 3L; Language, Linguistics and Literature, The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 18(4), 35-47.
2
Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. Modern Language Journal, 75, 460-472.
3
Behjat, F., Yamini, M., & Bagheri, M. S. (2012). Blended learning: A ubiquitous learning environment for reading comprehension. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(1), 97-105.
4
Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macro rules for summarizing texts: the development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1-14.
5
Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the conversation of mankind. College English, 28(1), 181- 8.
6
Carrell, P. L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern Language Journal, 73, 121-134.
7
Corder-Ponce, W. L. (2000). Summarization interaction: Effects on foreign language comprehension and summarization of expository texts. Reading Research and Instruction, 39(4), 329-350.
8
Dymock, S., & Nicholson, T. (2007). Reading comprehension: What is it? How do you teach it? Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
9
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading ability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6-10.
10
Gow, L., & Kember, D. (1990). Does higher education promote independent learning? Higher Education, 19(3), 307-322.
11
Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 375-396.
12
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. Harlow: Longman.
14
Huan, N. B., & Thi Kim Ngan, N. (2017). Summarizing strategy: Potential tool to promote English as a foreign language (EFL) students’ reading comprehension in a vocational school, Vietnam. European Journal of Education Studies, 3(8), 51-72.
15
Huang, W. C. (2014). The effects of multimedia annotation and summary writing on Taiwanese EFL students’ reading comprehension. The Reading Matrix, 14(1), 136-153.
16
Hwang, W. Y., Wang, C. Y., & Sharples, M. (2007). A Study of multimedia annotation of web-based materials. Computers & Education, 48, 680-699.
17
Jalilifar, A. (2010). The effect of cooperative learning techniques on college students reading comprehension. System, 38, 96–108.
18
Jenkinson, R. (1998). The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. London: John Benjamins.
19
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first to fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447.
20
Kazemi, M. (2012). The effect of Jigsaw technique on the learners’ reading achievement: The case of English as L2. MJAL, 4(3), 170-184.
21
Khoshsima, H., & Rezaeian Tiyar, F. (2014). The effect of summarizing strategy on reading comprehension of Iranian intermediate EFL learners. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2(3), 134-139.
22
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363–394.
23
Kobayashi, M. (2002). Method effects on reading comprehension test performance: Text organization and response format. Language Testing, 19(2), 193–220.
24
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
25
Marzec-Stawiarska, M. (2016). The influence of summary writing on the development of reading skills in a foreign language. System, 59, 90-99.
26
Masoud Kabir, F., & Aghajanzadeh Kiasii, Gh. (2018). The effect of collaborative strategic reading on EFL learners’ reading comprehension and vocabulary knowledge. European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 3(1), 1-16.
27
McDonough, K., Crawford, W. J., & De Vleeschauwer, J. (2014). Summary writing in a Thai EFL university context. Journal of Second Language Writing, 24, 20-32.
28
Mokeddem, S., & Houcine, S. (2016). Exploring the relationship between summary writing ability and reading comprehension: Toward an EFL writing-to-read instruction. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 7(2), 197-205.
29
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 545-562). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
30
Rahmani, M., & Sadeghi, K. (2009). The effect of note-taking strategy training on reading comprehension and recall of Iranian EFL learners (Unpublished Master's Thesis). Urmia University, Urmia, Iran.
31
Rasti, I. (2011). Involving the reader in the text: Engagement markers in native and non-native student argumentative essays (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). The University of Liverpool.
32
Soleimani, H., & Hajghani, S. (2013). The effect of teaching reading comprehension strategies on Iranian EFL pre-university students' reading comprehension ability. International Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 5(5), 594-600.
33
Sweet, A. P., & Snow, C. E. (Eds.). (2003). Rethinking reading comprehension. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 12-30.
34
Tavakoli, M., Dabaghi, A., & Khorvash, Z. (2010). The Effect of meta-discourse awareness on L2 reading comprehension: A case of Iranian EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 3(1), 92-102.
35
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78.
36
Torgesen, J. K. (2002). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of School Psychology, 41, 7-26.
37
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38
Yu, G. (2007a). Effects of source texts on summarization performance. Paper presented at the Language Testing Research Colloquium (29th). Barcelona, Spain.
39
Yu, G. (2007b). Students’ voices in the evaluation of their written summaries: Empowerment and democracy for test-takers? Language Testing, 24(4), 539-572.
40
Zarrati, Z., Nambiar, R. M. K., & Massum, T. N. R. (2012). Effect of meta-discourse on reading comprehension of Iranian EFL learners. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 20(3),27-38.
41
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
The Integration of Explicit Instruction and Implicit Meaning-Focused Experience for L2 Vocabulary Development: The Comparative Effect of Time Sequence
The combination of implicit meaning-focused input and explicit instruction has been suggested by recent research as very effective for learning L2 vocabulary; however, the time sequence for such juxtaposition has not been adequately examined through empirical studies. Therefore, this study sought to find the optimal time for combining explicit and implicit L2 vocabulary instruction using an explanatory mixed-method design. A convenience sample of 62 upper-intermediate EFL learners from three intact classes participated in this study. The Test of Academic Word List (Version A) that assesses Coxhead’s (2000) Academic Word List (AWL) was administered as a pertest. The reading book, Focus on Vocabulary 2, that has been developed based on the AWL was used for giving meaning-forced input. The target words were explicitly pre-taught in Class A (n=22), taught concurrent with encountering them in the reading text in Class B (n=20), and post-taught in Class C (n=22). Version B of the AWL Test was used as the posttest and after a 14-day retention interval (RI) as the delayed posttest. Then, 25% of the learners were orally interviewed about their attitudes toward the treatment they received. Quantitative data analysis using one-way ANCOVA revealed that explicit teaching during the reading was the optimal time and could help learners significantly do better on the immediate and delayed post-tests followed by pre-teaching. Qualitative analysis also verified the obtained quantitative results. The findings of this study imply that explicit vocabulary teaching during the reading should be practiced by EFL teachers/learners for fostering vocabulary development.
https://tesl.shirazu.ac.ir/article_5426_6a90f5224e523ef1067d7a851870b2c0.pdf
2019-03-01
71
108
10.22099/jtls.2019.34651.2730
Explicit teaching
Implicit teaching
Vocabulary development
Vocabulary retention
Meaning-focused experience
Ali
Malmir
malmir@hum.ikiu.ac.ir
1
Assistant Professor at Imam Khomeini International University
LEAD_AUTHOR
Qutibaa
Yousof
qutibaa.y@hotmail.com
2
MA Student of Applied Linguistics, Imam Khomeini International University (IKIU), Qazvin, Iran
AUTHOR
Alamri, K., & Rogers, V. (2018). The effectiveness of different explicit vocabulary-teaching strategies on learners’ retention of technical and academic words. The Language Learning Journal, 46(5), 622–633,
1
Alcón, E. (2007). Incidental focus on form, noticing and vocabulary learning in the EFL classroom. International Journal of English Studies, 7(2), 41–60.
2
Alderson, J. C. (2005). Diagnosing foreign language proficiency. London: Continuum.
3
Arndt, H. L., & Woore. R. (2018). Vocabulary learning from watching YouTube videos and reading blog posts. Language Learning & Technology, 22(1), 124–142.
4
Bernard, H. R. (2013). Social research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5
Bolger, D. J., Balass, M., Landen, E., & Perfetti, C. A. (2008). Contextual variation and definitions in learning the meaning of words. Discourse Processes, 45(2), 122–59.
6
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238.
7
Coxhead, A., & Nation, I. S. P. (2017). Reading for the academic world. Sachse, TA: Seed Learning.
8
Coxhead, A., Nation, I. S. P., & Sim, D. (2015). Vocabulary size and native speaker secondary school students. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 50(1), 121–135.
9
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
10
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11
Elgort, I., Candry, S., Boutorwick, T. J., Eyckmans, J., & Brysbaert, M. (2016). Contextual word learning with form-focused and meaning-focused elaboration. Applied Linguistics, 39(5), 646–667.
12
Ellis, R. (2009). Implicit and explicit learning, knowledge and instruction. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 3–26). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
13
Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition (2nd Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14
González Fernández, B., & Schmitt, N. (2017). Vocabulary acquisition. In S. Loewen, & M. Sato (Eds.), Routledge handbook of instructed SLA (pp. 280–298). New York: Routledge.
15
Gwet, K. L. (2014). Handbook of inter-rater reliability (4th Ed.). Gaithersburg, MD.: Advanced Analytics, LLC.
16
Hennebry, M., Rogers, V., Macaro, E., & Murphy, V. (2017). Direct teaching of vocabulary after listening: Is it worth the effort and what method is best? The Language Learning Journal, 45(3), 282–300.
17
Hill, M., & Laufer, B. (2003). Type of task, time-on-task and electronic dictionaries in incidental vocabulary acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 41(2), 87–106.
18
Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). Intentional and incidental second-language vocabulary learning: A reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal, and automaticity. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 258–286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19
Ko, M. H. (1995). Glossing in incidental and intentional learning of foreign language vocabulary and reading. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, 13(1),49–94. ­­­
20
Laufer, B. (2005). Focus on form in second language vocabulary learning. In S. Foster-Cohen, M. P. García Mayo, & J. Cenoz (Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook 5 (pp. 223–250). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
21
Laufer, B. (2006). Comparing focus on form and focus on forms in second-language vocabulary learning. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 149–66.
22
Laufer, B. (2017). From word parts to full texts: Searching for effective methods of vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 21(1), 5–11.
23
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J.H. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 1–26.
24
Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 587–604.
25
Marulis, L. M., & Neuman, S. B. (2010). The effects of vocabulary intervention on young children's word learning: A meta-analysis. Review Of Educational Research, 80(3), 300–335.
26
McCarthy, M., & O’Dell, F. (2016). Academic vocabulary in use: Vocabulary reference and practice, self-study and classroom use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories (2nd Ed.). London: Hodder Arnold.
28
Mondria, J. (2003). The effects of inferring, verifying, and memorizing on the retention of L2 word meanings: An experimental comparison of the meaning-inferred method and the meaning-given method. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(4), 473–99.
29
Morgan, D. (1998). The focus group guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30
Nation, I. S. P. (2008). Teaching vocabulary: Strategies and techniques. Boston: Heinle.
31
Nation, I. S. P. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
32
Nation, I. S. P. (2012). The BNC/COCA word family lists. Retrieved from http://www.victoria.ac. nz/lals/about/staff/paul-nation
33
Nation, I. S. P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language (2nd Ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
34
Nation, I. S. P. (2015). Principles guiding vocabulary learning through extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 27(1), 136–145.
35
Nation, I. S. P. (2016). Making and using word lists for language learning and testing. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
36
Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary development. In J. Coady, & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp. 174–199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37
Plano Clark, V. L. (2010). The adoption and practice of mixed methods: U.S. trends in federally funded health-related research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(4), 428–440.
38
Pellicer-Sanchez, A., & Schmitt, N. (2010). Incidental vocabulary acquisition from an authentic novel: Do things fall apart? Language Learning & Technology, 17(2), 75–99.
39
Perfetti, C. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357–83.
40
Perfetti, C. A., & L. Hart. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. In L. Vehoeven, C. Elbro, & P. Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp. 189–213). New York: Benjamins.
41
Reichle, E. D., & Perfetti, C. A. (2003). Morphology in word identification: A word experience model that accounts for morpheme frequency effects. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7(3), 219–37.
42
Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2007). Increasing retention without increasing study time. Psychological Science, 16(4), 183–186.
43
Schmitt, D., Schmitt, N., & Mann, D. (2011). Focus on vocabulary (Book 2): Bridging vocabulary. New York: Longman.
44
Schmitt, N. (2008). Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 329–363.
45
Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
46
Schmitt, N., & McCarthy, M. (1997). Introduction. In N. Schmitt, & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and pedagogy (pp. 1–5). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47
Schmitt, N. (2014). Size and depth of vocabulary knowledge: What the Research Shows. Language Learning, 64(4), 913–951.
48
Schmitt, N. (2019). Understanding vocabulary acquisition, instruction, and assessment: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 52(2), 261–274.
49
Serrano, R. (2011). The time factor in EFL practice. Language Learning, 61(1), 117–145.
50
Serrano, R., & Huang, H. U. (2018). Learning vocabulary through assisted repeated reading: How much time should there be between repetitions of the same text? TESOL Quarterly, 52(4), 971–994.
51
Sharwood Smith, M., & Truscott, J. (2014). Explaining input enhancement: A MOGUL perspective. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 52(3), 253–81.
52
Shintani, N. (2013). The effect of focus on form and focus on forms instruction on the acquisition of productive knowledge of L2 vocabulary by young beginning-level learners. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 36–62.
53
Smithson, J. (2000). Using and analyzing focus groups: Limitations and possibilities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 3(2), 103–19.
54
Sonbul, S., & Schmitt, N. (2009). Direct teaching of vocabulary after reading: Is it worth the effort? ELT Journal, 64(3), 253–60.
55
Stæhr, L. S. (2008). Vocabulary size and the skills of listening, reading, and writing. The Language Learning Journal, 36(2), 139–152.
56
Suzuki, Y. (2017). The optimal distribution of practice for the acquisition of L2 morphology: A conceptual replication and extension. Language Learning, 67(4), 512–545.
57
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson Inc.
58
Takač, V. P. (2008). Vocabulary learning strategies and foreign language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
59
Thornbury, S. (2015). How to teach vocabulary. Harlow: Pearson Educated Limited.
60
Toppino, T. C., & Gerbier, E. (2014). About practice: Repetition, spacing, and abstraction. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 60(1), 113–189.
61
Vidal, K. (2011). A comparison of the effects of reading and listening on incidental vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 61(1), 219–258.
62
van Zeeland, H., & Schmitt, N. (2013). Lexical coverage in L1 and L2 listening comprehension: The same or different from reading comprehension? Applied Linguistics, 34(4), 457–479.
63
Webb, S. (2008). The effects of context on incidental vocabulary learning. Reading in a Foreign Language, 20(2), 232–245.
64
Zimmerman, C. B. (1997). Do reading and interactive vocabulary instruction make a difference? An empirical study. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 121–40.
65
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
A Qualitative Inquiry into Perceptions and Practices of High and Low EFL Achievers towards the Limitations and Benefits of Code-Switching
In English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and bilingual language classrooms, code-switching is widespread among teacher-student and student-student interactions; however, there seem to be few or no studies tracking the perceptions and practices of EFL learners toward code-switching. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify the perceptions and practices of high and low achievers toward teacher code-switching with focus on the possible limitations and benefits that it might have in language classrooms. For this purpose, the researchers used a qualitative design in the form of grounded theory. Accordingly, 11 high and 13 low achievers were interviewed individually and in focus groups. Further, the elicited responses were transcribed and codified using Straus and Corbin’s (1998) constant comparative method. In addition, for the purpose of validation, real observations of 10 university classes in different English courses were made. The findings revealed 4 major themes and 26 categories for high and low achievers. Consequently, the findings implicated that code-switching was an advantageous tool at the disposal of English teachers.
https://tesl.shirazu.ac.ir/article_5427_4349f9e1f8e3325e3cb91c04ed16850b.pdf
2019-03-01
109
139
10.22099/jtls.2019.33872.2697
Code-switching
Bilingual context
Classroom discourse
High and low achievers
Zahra
Mohammadi Salari
z.mohammadisalari@gmail.com
1
Department of English, Qeshm Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qeshm, Iran
AUTHOR
Fazlolah
Samimi
fazl.samimi67@gmail.com
2
Department of English, Bandar-Abbas branch, Islamic Azad University,Bandar-Abbas, Iran.
LEAD_AUTHOR
Shahram
Afraz
a.sh32@rocketmail.com
3
Dept. of English Language, Qeshm Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qeshm, Iran.
AUTHOR
Akindele, D. F., & Letsoela, M. (2001). Code-switching in Lesotho secondary and high schools: lessons and its effects on teaching and learning. BOLESWA Educational Research Journal, 18, 83-100.
1
Alenezi, M. (2016). Gender and students’ perspective toward code-switching: A correlational study with reference to Saudi Arabian medical students at Northern Border University. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies. 4(3), 154-166.
2
Asali, S., & Hussein, R. F. (2011). Attitudes of Arab American Speakers in the USA Towards English-Arabic code-switching, Middle East University, Amman, Jordan.
3
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C., & Walker, D. A. (2014). Introduction to research in education. USA: Cengage Learning.
4
Milroy, L., & Muysken, P. (1995). One speaker, two languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5
Azlan, Mastura, N., Ismail, N., & Narasuman, S. (2013). The role of code-switching as a communicative tool in an ESL teacher education classroom. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 458-467.
6
Hamers, J. F. & Blanc, M. H. A. (2000) Bilinguality and Bilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2ndedition.
7
Brown, J.D. (1990). Short-cut estimates of criterion-referenced test consistency. Language Testing, 7 (l), 77 -97.
8
Brown, J. D., & Hudson, T. (2002). The alternatives in language assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 653-675
9
Bruney, G. (2012). The teacher-student relationship: the importance of developing trust and fostering emotional intelligence in the classroom (Master’s thesis).Retrievedfromhttps://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/35096/1/Glenda%20 MTRP%20Complete.pdf
10
Cantone, K. F. (2007). Code-switching in bilingual children. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
11
Gardner-Chloros, P. (2009). Code-switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12
Ghafar Samar, R., & Moradkhani, S. (2014). Codeswitching in the language classroom: A study of four EFL teachers’ cognition. RELC Journal, 45(2), 151-164.
13
Chaudron, C. (1988) Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14
Chi, W.C. (2000). The Importance of bilingual teachers to Chinese-oriented AMEP Learners. Paper presented at the AMEP Conference 2000. [Online] Available: http://www.nceltr.mq.edu.au/conference2000 (September 26, 2005).
15
Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 402-423.
16
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
17
Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd Ed., pp. 392-431). New York: Mc. Millan.
18
Grobler, R. (2017). Students’ Perceptions of Code-Switching in Natural Sciences Classrooms: A South African Perspective. Journal of Africa Education Review, 15(1), 38-51.
19
Grosjean F. (2010). Bilingual: Life and Reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
21
Gysels, M. (1992). French in urban Lubumbashi Swahili: Codeswitching, borrowing, or both. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 13, 41-55.
22
Harmer. J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching (4th Ed.). Pearson: Longman.
23
Hobbs, V., Matsuo, A., & Payne, M. (2010). Code-switching in Japanese language classrooms: An exploratory investigation of native vs. non-native speaker teacher practice. Linguistics and education, 21(1), 44-59.
24
Jingxia, L. (2010). Teachers' code-switching to L1 in EFL Classroom. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal,3,10-23, retrieved from;
25
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toalj/articles/V003/10TOALJ.pdf (2010).
26
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada N., (2011). How languages are learned. New York: Oxford University Press.
27
Macnamara, J. (1969). How can one measure the extent of a person’s bilingual proficiency? In L. Kelly (Ed.), Description and measurement of bilingualism: An international seminar, University of Moncton, June 6-14, 1967 (pp. 80-97). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
28
Martin-Jones, M. (2000). Bilingual classroom interaction: A review of recent research. Language Teaching33 (1), 1–9.
29
Mirhasani, A., & Jafarpour-Mamaghani, H. (2009). code-switching and Iranian EFL Learners’ Oral Proficiency. Journal of Teaching English as a Foreign Language and Literature, 1(2), 21-31.
30
Mattsson, A & Burenhult-Mattsson, N. (1999). Code-switching in second language teaching of French. Working Papers, 47(1), 59-72.
31
Nguyen, H. T. (2007). Rapport building in language instruction: A microanalysis of the multiple resources in teacher talk. Language and Education, 21(4), 284-303.
32
Nordin, N. M., Ali, F. D. R., Zubir, S. I. S. S., & Sadjirin, R. (2013). ESL learners'reactions towards code-switching in classroom settings. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 478-487.
33
Palmer, D.(2009). code-switching and symbolic power in a second-grade two-way classroom: A teacher’s motivation system gone awry. Bilingual Research Journal, 32(1), 42-59.
34
Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Allen, J. P. (2012). Teacher-student relationships and engagement: Conceptualizing, measuring, and improving the capacity of classroom interactions. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 365-386). Springer, Boston, MA.
35
Rahimi, A., & Jafari, Z. (2011). Iranian students’ attitudes towards the facilitative and debilitative role of code-switching; types and moments of code-switching at EFL classrooms. The Buckingham Journal of Language and Linguistics, 4, 15-28.
36
Rasouli, A. and Simin, S. (2016). Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of code-switching in aviation language learning courses. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 5(3), 3-18
37
Rezaee, A. A., & Fathi, S. (2017). The Perceptions of Language Learners across Various Proficiency Levels of Teachers’ Code-switching. Issues in Language Teaching, 5(2), 254-233.
38
Rose, S. 2006. The functions of code-switching in a Multicultural and Multilingual High School. Unpublished MAThesis. Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, Capetown.
39
Samimi, F., Sahragard, R. (2018). On the Validation of a Preliminary Model of Reading Strategy Using SEM: Evidence From Iranian ELT Postgraduate Students. Research in Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 105-126. doi:10.22055/rals.2018.13407
40
Samimi, F., Sahragard, R., Razmjoo, S. (2016). On the Development of a Model of Discipline-specific Reading Strategies in the Context of Iranian EFL Learners. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 4(15), 99-115.
41
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
42
Sert (2005). The Functions in Code-switching in ELT Classrooms. The Internet TESL Journal, 11 (8). Retrieved on 5 August 2018 from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Sert-CodeSwitching.html
43
Yao, M. (2011). On attitudes to teachers’ code-switching in EFL classes. World Journal of English Language, 1(1), 19-28.
44
Zagura, N. (2012). Focus on the form versus focus on the message in lingua franca conversation. Estonian Papers in Applied Linguistics, 8, 275 -287. doi: 10.5128/ERYa.1736-2563
45
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Exploring EFL Learners’ Use of Formulaic Sequences in Pragmatically Focused Role-play Tasks
Communicative language use largely entails regular patterns consisting of pre-constructed phrases or sequences. These sequences have been examined by many researchers to find the situation-based formulas which may help L2 learners follow a possibly more target-like speaking system. This study, therefore, explored two categories of formulaic expressions including speech formulas and situation-bound utterances used by EFL learners. The randomly selective participants included 30 intermediate and 30 advanced learners, who performed a total number of 120 role-play tasks focused on the situations which required the use of thanking, requesting, offering, and apology speech acts. Audio-recorded data from role-plays were transcribed and analyzed based on existing lists of speech formulas. Results showed that the participants produced more than 102 types of formulaic sequences that could be called “a list of pragmatic routines for thanking, requesting, offering, and apologizing speech acts in the EFL context”. This list includes 44 and 58 speech formulas and situation-bound utterances, respectively. Results further indicated that advanced language learners used more diverse situation-bound utterances in terms of its internal and contextual complexity than their counterparts in the intermediate group due to expert judgments. Because these formulas can increase coherence in speaking, and enhance effective and natural communication, their instruction could be part of the language teaching curriculum.
https://tesl.shirazu.ac.ir/article_5364_51768aa1d0097a5604666decc302d5d5.pdf
2019-03-01
141
165
10.22099/jtls.2019.33711.2694
Formulaic Expressions
Language Formula
Pragmatic Routines
Teaching English as a Foreign Language
Abdullah
sarani
sarani_ling@hamoon.usb.ac.ir
1
University of Sistan and Baluchestan
AUTHOR
Rasool
Najjarbaghseyah
najjar.rasool@yahoo.com
2
Language Department,
IRI Amin Police University, Tehran, Iran
LEAD_AUTHOR
Abdou, A. (2010). The semantic structure of Arabic idioms. In D. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: acquisition and communication (234-256). New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
1
Adolphs, S. & Durow, V., (2004). Social-cultural integration and the development of formulaic sequences. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use (107-126). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
2
Aijmer, K. (1996). Conversational routines in English. London: Longman.
3
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2012). Formulas, routines, and conventional expressions in pragmatics research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 206–227.
4
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013). Pragmatic routines. The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
5
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Griffin, R. (2005). L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESL classroom. System, 33, 401-415.
6
Bhatia, V. K., Flowerdew, J., & Jones, R. H. (2008). Approaches to discourse analysis. In V. K. Bhatia, J. Flowerdew, and R. H. Jones (Eds.) Advances in discourse studies. Oxon: Routledge.
7
Chen, L. (2008). An investigation of lexical bundles in electrical engineering introductory textbooks and ESP textbooks. Unpublished master’s thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario.
8
Coklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers? Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 72–89.
9
Dai, Z., & Ding, Y. (2010). Effectiveness of text memorization in EFL learning of Chinese students. In D. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: acquisition and communication (71-87). New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
10
Dörnyei, Z., Durow, V., & Zahran, K. (2004). Individual differences and their effects on formulaic sequence acquisition. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use (87-106). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
11
Forsberg, F., & Fant, L. (2010). Idiomatically speaking: Effects of task variation on formulaic language in highly proficient users of L2 French and Spanish. In D. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (257-274). New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
12
Giammarresi, S. (2010). Formulaicity and translation: A cross-corpora analysis of English formulaic binomials and their Italian translations. In D. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (257-274). New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
13
Hammod, J. (2011). Classroom discourse. In K. Hyland and B. Paltridge (eds.), the continuum companion to discourse analysis (pp. 22–38). London: continuum.
14
Ishihara, N. (2010). Maintaining an optimal distance: Nonnative speakers’ pragmatic choice. In A. Mahboob (Ed.), Non-native speakers of English in TESOL: Identity, politics, and perceptions (pp. 35–53). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars.
15
Jones, M., & Haywood, S. (2004). Facilitating the acquisition of formulaic sequences: An exploratory study in an EAP context. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use (269-300). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
16
Jung, J., Y. (2002). Issues in acquisitional pragmatics. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 2(3), Retrieved August 25, 2019, from http://journal.tc-ibrary.org/ojs/index.php/tesol/article/download/21/26
17
Kanagy, R. (1999). Interactional routines as a mechanism for L2 acquisition and socialization in an immersion context. Journal of Pragmatics, 3, 1467-1492.
18
Kecskes, I. (2007). Formulaic language in English Lingua Franca. In I. Kecskes and L. R. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive, and intercultural aspects (191-218). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
19
Kirner-Ludwig, M. (2018). Trying to make it fit…That's what she said: An argument for a new category on the formulaic continuum. Journal of Pragmatics, 137, 76-91. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.001
20
Li, S. (2014).The effects of different levels of linguistic proficiency on the development of L2 Chinese request production during study abroad. System 45, 103-116. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.05.001Get rights and content
21
Li, J., & Schmitt, N. (2010). The development of collocation use in academic texts by advanced L2 learners: A multiple case study approach. In D. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (257-274). New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
22
McGuire, M. (2009). Formulaic sequences in English conversation: Improving spoken fluency in non-native speakers. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of North Texas, US.
23
Nekrasova, T., M. (2009). English L1 and L2 speakers’ knowledge of lexical bundles. Language Learning, 59(3), 647-686.
24
Schmitt, N. (Ed.). (2004). Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
25
Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N. C. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 487-512.
26
Solar, E. A., & Martinez-Flor, A. (2008). Pragmatics in foreign language contexts. In E. A. Solar and A. Martinez-Flor (eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
27
Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289–310.
28
Taguchi, N. (2013). Production of routines in L2 English: Effect of proficiency and study-abroad experience. System, 41(1), 109-121. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.01.003Get rights and content
29
Tajeddin, Z., & Hosseinpur, R. (2014). The impact of deductive, inductive, and L1-based consciousness-raising tasks on EFL learners' acquisition of the request speech act. JTLS, 33(1), 73-92. doi: 10.22099/jtls.2014.2022
30
Tajeddin, Z., & Malmir, A. (2015). The construct of interlanguage pragmatic learning strategies: investigating preferences of high vs. low pragmatic performers. JTLS, 33(4), 153-180. doi: 10.22099/jtls.2015.301
31
Tremblay, A., & Baayen, H. (2010). Holistic processing of regular four-word sequences: A behavioral and ERP study of the effects of structure, frequency, and Probability on Immediate Free Recall. In D. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (151-173). New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
32
Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse language in action. New York: Routledge.
33
Weinert, R. (1995). The role of formulaic language in second language acquisition: A review. Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 180-205.
34
Wood, D. (2010). Lexical clusters in an EAP textbook corpus. In D. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (88-106). New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
35
Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice. Applied Linguistics, 21, 463–89.
36
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Comparison of the effects of Written Corrective Feedback and Task-complexity Manipulation on the Grammatical Accuracy of EFL Learners’ Writing
This study compared the effects of teacher-provided written corrective feedback and manipulation of resource-directing dimensions of task cognitive-complexity along +/- Here and Now condition on the grammatical accuracy of Iranian EFL learners’ writing products. There were 45 participants in the study who were randomly assigned to three experimental groups. All the participants were first given a prompt for the pre-test of writing, and then each group received its own intervention (direct written corrective feedback, indirect written corrective feedback, and task manipulation) for four sessions during four weeks. Subsequently, all the groups took the pre-test prompt of writing for their post-test performance after which the data were collected for the statistical analyses and fed into SPSS. The findings of the study confirmed the significant effects of direct written corrective feedback on increasing the grammatical accuracy of learners’ writings. There were implications, then, based on the results, highlighting the role of meaningful context of task application in the classroom.
https://tesl.shirazu.ac.ir/article_5365_6d76cbb1643704930ba2c7d33ba69a4c.pdf
2019-03-01
167
194
10.22099/jtls.2019.33549.2688
Written corrective feedback
Task manipulation
Grammatical accuracy
Direct feedback
Indirect feedback
Sedigheh
Vahdat
s.vahdat@scu.ac.ir
1
Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Iran
LEAD_AUTHOR
Niloofar
ِDaneshkhah
niloofar.daneshkhah@gmail.com
2
Petroleum University of Technology
AUTHOR
Abdollahzadeh, S., & Fard Kashani, A. (2011). The effect of task complexity on EFL learners' narrative writing task performance. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 1-28.
1
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Mahwah, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2
Bitchener, J. (2012). Written corrective feedback for L2 development: Current knowledge and future research. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 855-860.
3
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267–296.
4
Chen, S., Nassaji, H., & Liu, Q. (2016). EFL learners’ perceptions and preferences of written corrective feedback: A case study of university students from Mainland China. Asian- Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1(5). doi:10.1186/s40862- 016-0010-y
5
Daneshkhah, N., & Alibabaee, A. (2017). The role of increasing task cognitive-complexity in quality of L2 writing and learners’ distribution of metacognitive sub-processes. Journal
6
of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 4(3), 95-118.
7
Daneshvar, E., & Rahimi, A. (2013). Written corrective feedback and teaching grammar. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 136, 217-221.
8
Dawn Sia, P. F., & Cheung, Y. L. (2017). Written corrective feedback in writing instruction: a qualitative synthesis of recent research. Issues in Language Studies, 6(1), 61-80.
9
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based research and language pedagogy. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate, & J. M. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp.109-130). Philadelphia/ Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
10
Ellis, R., &Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 59-84.
11
Ellis, R., Erlam, R. & Loewen, S. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368.
12
Elwood, J. A., & Bode, J. (2014). Student preferences vis-à-vis teacher feedback in university EFL writing classes in Japan. System, 42, 333-343.
13
Eslami, E. (2014). The effects of direct and indirect corrective feedback techniques on EFL students’ writing. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 445-452.
14
Fakhraee Faruji, L., & Ghaemi, F. (2017). Task complexity manipulation and accuracy in writing performance. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 35(4), 103-132.
15
Farjadnasab, A. H., & Khodashenas, M. R. (2017). The effect of written corrective feedback on EFL students’ writing accuracy. IJREE, 2(2), 30-42.
16
Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 33-53.
17
Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long- term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18
Ferris, D. R., & Helt, M. (2000). Was Truscott right? New evidence on the effects of error correction in L2 writing classes. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics Conference. Vancouver, BC, March, 11–14.
19
Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184.
20
Ferris, D.R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181–201.
21
Flower, L. S. & Hayes, J. R. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg, & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp.31-50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22
Flower, L. S. & Hayes, J. R. (1981). Plans that guide the composing process. In C. H. Frederiksen, & J. F. Dominic (Eds.), Writing: The nature, development and teaching of written communication (pp. 39 - 58). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23
Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In M. Torrance, & D. Galbraith (Eds.) Knowing what to write (pp. 139-160). Amsterdam, NL: Amsterdam University Press.
24
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25
Gunawardena, M. (2014). Developing effective pedagogies of grammar: The two-in-one approach. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 8(3), A113-A123.
26
Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of second language writing, 30, 31-44.
27
Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merrill, P. F., Sudweeks, R. R., Strong-Krause, D., & Anderson, N. J. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 84–109.
28
Horbacauskiene, J., & Kasperaviciene, R. (2015). Learners’ preferences towards corrective feedback in writing assignments in tertiary education. Explorations in English Language and Linguistics, 3(2), 70-83.
29
Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 255–286.
30
Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31
Hyland, K. (2013). Student perceptions of hidden messages in teacher written feedback. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(3), 180-187.
32
Ishikawa, T. (2006). The effect of manipulating task complexity along the (Here- and-Now) dimension on L2 written narrative discourse. In C. M. Garcı´a Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp.136-156). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
33
Kim, Y., & Emeliyanova, L. (2019). The effects of written corrective feedback on the accuracy of L2 writing: comparing collaborative and individual revision behavior.
34
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819831406
35
Kuiken, F. & Vedder, I. (2008) Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(1), 48-60.
36
Learning Express LLC. (2003). 501 writing prompts. United States of America, NY: LearningExpress LLC.
37
Lee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 144-164.
38
Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69-85.
39
Li, s., & Roshan, S. (2019). The association between working memory and the effects of four different types of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 1-15.
40
Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S., & Chen, X. (2009). Second language learners' beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 91-104.
41
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective, 2(1), 39-52.
42
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie and T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego: Academic Press.
43
Michigan State University. (2007). Technical Writing Guide. Retrieved from: www.egr.msu.edu/age/bewritingguideV2.0.pdf
44
Muller, A., & Gregoric, C., & Rowland, D. R. (2017). The impact of explicit instruction and corrective feedback on ESL postgraduate students’ grammar in academic writing. Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 11(1), A125-A144.
45
Naylor, H., & Murphy, R. (2007). Essential Grammar in use supplementary exercises. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46
Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417-528.
47
Norris, J. M., & Manchón, R. M. (2012). Investigating L2 writing development from multiple perspectives: Issues in theory and research. In R. Manchón (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (221-244). Boston/Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
48
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49
Ong, J. (2014). How do planning time and task conditions affect metacognitive processes of L2 writers? Journal of Second Language Writing, 23, 17-30.
50
Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2010). Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 218- 233.
51
Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2013). Effects of the manipulation of cognitive processes on EFL writers’ text quality. TESOL, 47, 375-398.
52
Poulos, A., & Mahony, M. J. (2008). Effectiveness of feedback: The students’ perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(2), 143-154.
53
Reid, J. (2001). Advanced EAP writing and curriculum design: What do we need to know? In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp.143-160). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
54
Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287-318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55
Robinson, P. (2001b). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27-57.
56
Robinson, P. (2003). The cognition hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21, 45–105.
57
Robinson, P. (2007). Re-thinking-for-speaking and L2 task demands: The cognition hypothesis, task classification, and sequencing. Plenary address at the Second International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching, University of Hawai’i.
58
Ruiz-Funes, M. (2015). Exploring the potential of second/foreign language writing for language learning: the effects of task factors and learner variables. Journal of Second Language Writing, 28, 1-19.
59
Saeli, H. (2019). Teachers’ practices and students’ preferences: grammar-centered written corrective feedback in Iran. Research in English Language Pedagogy, 7(1), 46-70.
60
Said, K., & El Mouzrati, A. (2018). Investigating teacher written corrective feedback as a formative assessment tool. Arab World English Journal, 9(4), 232-241.
61
Shak, J., & Gardner, S. (2008). Young learner perspectives on four focus-on-form tasks. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 387-408.
62
Sheen, R. (2003). Focus on form-a myth in the making? ELT Journal, 57(3), 225-233.
63
Sheen, Y & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. 2. 593-610.
64
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283.
65
Tan, K. E., & Manochphinyo, A. (2017). Improving grammatical accuracy in Thai learners’ writing: comparing direct and indirect written corrective feedback. Journal of Asia TEFL, 14(3), 430-442.
66
Truscott, J. (1996) The Case against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
67
Westmacott, A. (2017). Direct vs. indirect written corrective feedback: student perceptions. Ikala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 22. 17-32.
68
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity. Honolulu: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
69
Yahyazadeh Jelodar, Z., & Farvardin, M. T. (2019). Effects of collaborative tasks on EFL learners’ writing productions. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 389-406.
70
Zohrabi, M., Torabi, M. A., & Baybourdiani, P. (2012). Teacher-centered and/or student- centered learning: English language in Iran. English Language and Literature Studies, 2(3), 18-30.
71