1887
image of The effect of task modality and discourse mode on EFL learners’ narrative task performance
  • ISSN 2211-7245
  • E-ISSN 2211-7253

Abstract

Abstract

This study examined the effect of task mode (written vs. spoken) and discourse mode (pair vs. individual) on advanced Iranian EFL learners’ task performance. Participants, four groups of advanced learners, performed a narrative task in four conditions: the first group of participants performed the task individually in a spoken mode, the second group performed the task individually in a written mode, the third group performed the task in pairs in a spoken mode, and the participants in the fourth group performed the task in pairs in a written mode. The results indicated that the participants’ performances, in terms of complexity, accuracy, and fluency improved greatly among learners who worked in pairs rather than individually, and those who performed written tasks rather than oral ones.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/dujal.17031.asg
2019-08-13
2019-12-11
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/10.1075/dujal.17031.asg/dujal.17031.asg.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/dujal.17031.asg&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Abram, Z. I., & Byrd, D. R.
    (2016) The effects of pre-task planning on L2 writing: Mind-mapping and chronological sequencing in a 1st-year German class. System, 63, 1–12. 10.1016/j.system.2016.08.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.08.011 [Google Scholar]
  2. Achmad, D., & Yusuf, U. Q.
    (2014) Observing pair-work task in an English speaking class. International Journal of Education, 7(1), 151–164.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Ahmadian, M. J.
    (2012) The effects of guided careful online planning on complexity, accuracy and fluency in intermediate EFL learners’ oral production: The case of English articles. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 129–149. 10.1177/1362168811425433
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811425433 [Google Scholar]
  4. Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J.
    (1994) Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465–483. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1994.tb02064.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02064.x [Google Scholar]
  5. Brown, H. D.
    (2001) Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brumfit, C. J., & Johnson, K.
    (1979) The communicative approach to language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bygate, M., & Samuda, V.
    (2005) Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Byrnes, H., & Manchón, R. M.
    (Eds.) (2014) Task-based language learning – Insights from and for L2 writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.7 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bulté, B., & Housen, A.
    (2012) Defining and operationalizing L2 complexity. InA. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp.21–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.32.02bul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.02bul [Google Scholar]
  10. Candlin, C.
    (1987) Towards task-based language learning. InC. Candlin, & D. F. Murphy (Ed.), Language learning tasks (pp.5–22). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Choong, K. P.
    (2011) Task complexity and linguistic complexity: An exploratory study. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers inTESOL & Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 1–28.
  12. Dobao, A. F.
    (2012) Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 40–58. 10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  13. Donato, R.
    (1994) Collective scaffolding in second language learning. InJ. P. Lantolf, & A. Gabriela (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp.33–59). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Ellis, R.
    (1987) Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9(1), 12–20. 10.1017/S0272263100006483
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100006483 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (2017) Moving task-based language teaching forward. Language Teaching, 50(4), 507–526. 10.1017/S0261444817000179
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000179 [Google Scholar]
  17. 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(1), 59–84. 10.1017/S0272263104261034
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104261034 [Google Scholar]
  18. Foster, P., & Skehan, P.
    (1996) The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299–324. 10.1017/S0272263100015047
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100015047 [Google Scholar]
  19. (1999) The effect of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3(3), 185–214. 10.1177/136216889900300303
    https://doi.org/10.1177/136216889900300303 [Google Scholar]
  20. Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G.
    (2000) Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354–375. 10.1093/applin/21.3.354
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.3.354 [Google Scholar]
  21. Foster, P., & Wigglesworth, G.
    (2016) Capturing accuracy in second language performance: The case for a weighted clause ratio. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 98–116. 10.1017/S0267190515000082
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190515000082 [Google Scholar]
  22. Fukunta
    Fukunta (2015) Effects of task repetition on learners’ attention orientation in L2 oral production. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 321–340. 10.1177/1362168815570142
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815570142 [Google Scholar]
  23. Fukuta, J., & Yamashita, J.
    (2015) Effects of cognitive demands on attention orientation in L2 oral production. System, 53, 1–12. 10.1016/j.system.2015.06.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.06.010 [Google Scholar]
  24. García Mayo, M. P.
    (2002a) The effectiveness of two form-focused tasks in advanced EFL pedagogy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 156–175. 10.1111/1473‑4192.t01‑1‑00029
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1473-4192.t01-1-00029 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2002b) Interaction in advanced EFL pedagogy: A comparison of form-focused activities. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3), 323–341. 10.1016/S0883‑0355(03)00008‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00008-9 [Google Scholar]
  26. Geddes, M., & Sturtridge, G.
    (1979) Listening links, London: Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B.
    (1996) Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective. New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Harmer, J.
    (2007) The practice of English language teaching (4th ed.). Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hudson, R. F., Lane, H. B., & Mercer, P. C.
    (2005) Reading fluency assessment and instruction: What, why, and how?The Reading Teacher, 58(8), 702–714. 10.1598/RT.58.8.1
    https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.58.8.1 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kellogg, R. T.
    (1996) A model of working memory in writing. InC. M. Levy, & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp.57–71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Kim, Y.
    (2013) Effects of pre task modelling on attention to form and question development. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 8–35. 10.1002/tesq.52
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.52 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kim, Y., Nam, J., & Lee, Y.
    (2016) Correlation of Proficiency with Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency in Spoken and Written Production: Evidence from L2 Korean. Journal of the National Council of Less Commonly Taught Languages, 19, 147–181.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Kormos, J., & Trebits, A.
    (2012) The role of task complexity, modality, and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 62(2), 439–472. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00695.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00695.x [Google Scholar]
  34. Kowal, M., & Swain, M.
    (1994) Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3(2), 73–93. 10.1080/09658416.1994.9959845
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.1994.9959845 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
    (2002) The effect of interaction in acquiring the grammar of a second language. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3–4), 343–358. 10.1016/S0883‑0355(03)00009‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00009-0 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2008) Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(1), 48–60. 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2012) Speaking and writing tasks and their effects on second language performance. InS. Gass, & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp.364–379). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Lantolf, J. P.
    (2000) Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Leeser, M.
    (2004) Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55–81. 10.1191/1362168804lr134oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr134oa [Google Scholar]
  40. Levelt, W. J. M.
    (1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Mehnert, U.
    (1998) The effects of different length of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 83–108. 10.1017/S0272263198001041
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263198001041 [Google Scholar]
  42. Morrow, K.
    (1979) Communicative language testing: Revolution or evolution?InC. J. Brumfit, & K. Johnson (Eds.), The communicative approach to language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Also inJ. C. Alderson, & A. Hughes (Eds.) Issues in Language Testing (pp.9–25).
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Nabei, T.
    (1996) Dictogloss: Is it an effective language learning task?Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 12(1), 59–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Nassaji, H., & Swain, M.
    (2000) Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random vs. negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34–51. 10.1080/09658410008667135
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667135 [Google Scholar]
  45. 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. 10.1177/1362168810375364
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810375364 [Google Scholar]
  46. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L.
    (2009) Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578. 10.1093/applin/amp044
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044 [Google Scholar]
  47. 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, 26(1), 27–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Park, S.
    (2010) The influence of pre-task instructions and pre-task planning on focus on form during Korean EFL task-based interaction. Language Teaching Research, 14(1), 9–26. 10.1177/1362168809346491
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168809346491 [Google Scholar]
  49. Payant, C., & Kim, Y.
    (2017) Impact of task modality on collaborative dialogue among plurilingual learners: A classroom-based study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7(1), 1–14. 10.1080/13670050.2017.1292999
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1292999 [Google Scholar]
  50. Philp, J., Oliver, R., & Mackey, A.
    (2006) The impact of planning time on children’s task-based interactions. System, 34(4), 547–565. 10.1016/j.system.2006.08.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  51. Polio, C., & Shea, M. C.
    (2014) An investigation into current measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 10–27. 10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  52. Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R.
    (2002) Longman dictionary of applied linguistics and language teaching. Harlow, UK: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Robinson, P.
    (2001) Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27–57. 10.1093/applin/22.1.27
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.27 [Google Scholar]
  54. (2005) Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 43(1), 1–32. 10.1515/iral.2005.43.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2005.43.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  55. (2007) Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45(3), 193–213. 10.1515/iral.2007.009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.009 [Google Scholar]
  56. Saeedi, M., & Rahimi Kazerooni, S.
    (2014) The influence of task repetition and task structure on EFL learners’ oral narrative retellings. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 8(2), 116–131. 10.1080/17501229.2013.770860
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2013.770860 [Google Scholar]
  57. Sangarun, J.
    (2005) The effects of focusing on meaning and form in strategic planning. InR. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.11.08san
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.08san [Google Scholar]
  58. Saslow, J., & Ascher, A.
    (2012) Top Notch Fundamentals teacher’s edition and lesson planner (2nd ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Shiau, Y. S., & Adams, R.
    (2011) The effects of increasing reasoning demands on accuracy and complexity in L2 oral production. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 6, 121–146.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Skehan, P.
    (1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Skehan, P. & Foster, P.
    (2002) The effects of post-task activities on the accuracy of language during task performance. London: King’s College.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Skehan, P.
    (2003) Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36(1), 1–14. 10.1017/S026144480200188X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144480200188X [Google Scholar]
  63. (2009) Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 28, 510–532. 10.1093/applin/amp047
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047 [Google Scholar]
  64. Skehan, P., & Foster, P.
    (1997) The influence of planning and post-task activities on accuracy and complexity in task based learning. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185–211. 10.1177/136216889700100302
    https://doi.org/10.1177/136216889700100302 [Google Scholar]
  65. Skehan, P. & Foster, P.
    (1999) The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93–120. 10.1111/1467‑9922.00071
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00071 [Google Scholar]
  66. Storch, N.
    (1998) A classroom-based study: Insights from a collaborative text reconstruction task. ELT Journal, 52(4), 291–300. 10.1093/elt/52.4.291
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/52.4.291 [Google Scholar]
  67. (2005) Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153–73. 10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  68. (2007) Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research, 2, 143–59. 10.1177/1362168807074600
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807074600 [Google Scholar]
  69. (2009) The nature of pair interaction. Learners’ interaction in an ESL class: Its nature and impact on grammatical development. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S.
    (2001) Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. InM. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp.99–118). Harlow: Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N.
    (1996) The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 84–119. 10.1093/applin/17.1.84
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.1.84 [Google Scholar]
  72. Ur, P.
    (1991) Teaching listening comprehension. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Vasylets, O., Gilabert, R., & Manchón, R. M.
    (2017) The effects of mode and task complexity on second language production. Language Learning, 67(2), 394–430. 10.1111/lang.12228
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12228 [Google Scholar]
  74. Vygotsky, L. S.
    (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. (1986) Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Weisburg, R.
    (2000) Developing relationship in the acquisition of English syntax: Writing vs speech. Learning and Instruction, 10, 37–53. 10.1016/S0959‑4752(99)00017‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(99)00017-1 [Google Scholar]
  77. Widdowson, H. G.
    (1978) Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N.
    (2009) Pairs versus individual writing: Effects of fluency, complexity, and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445–466. 10.1177/0265532209104670
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209104670 [Google Scholar]
  79. Williams, J.
    (2012) The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321–331. 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.007 [Google Scholar]
  80. Yu, R.
    (2008) Interaction in EFL classes. Asian Social Science, 4(4), 48–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Yuan, F., & Ellis, R.
    (2003) The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, accuracy, and complexity in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1–27. 10.1093/applin/24.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  82. Zalbidea, J.
    (2017) ‘One task fits all’? The roles of task complexity, modality, and working memory capacity in L2 performance. The Modern Language Journal, 101(2), 335–352. 10.1111/modl.12389
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12389 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/dujal.17031.asg
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/dujal.17031.asg
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: task performance; complexity; task mode; fluency; discourse mode; accuracy
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error