Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I. INTRODUCTION
Tasks entered second language research as the need to
focus on meaning was gaining premium in the formfocused era. Tasks were utilized to indicate how learners
can manifest their linguistic knowledge in more fluent
and effective ways (Ellis, 2003). Perhaps the first serious
implementation of task based language teaching (TBLT)
took place by Prabhu (1987) as a project in secondary
schools in South of India as a reform to the structuraloral-situational method in which, the primary focus was
on form and attention to meaning was only incidental.
Several definitions have been devised throughout the
literature on what exactly tasks are, but no unified
agreement exists on their meaning. Ellis (2003) reviewed
all the definitions and proposed several features for tasks:
1) tasks have a special work plan for the materials to be
used and the activities to be conducted, 2) the primary
focus of tasks is on meaning, 3) tasks are authentic and
reflect real-life uses which combine four language skills
and 4) tasks have specific outcomes which should be
achieved at the end.
A framework has been put forward for TBLT by Willis
(1996) as he stated that tasks are comprised of three
cycles: namely a pre-task stage, a task cycle and language
focus. In the pre-task, the instructor can do several things
such as offering a model, doing some non-task activities
to prepare the learners or do some strategic planning in
which they can decide on the linguistic forms they may
need during the main task. During the main task phase,
the learners perform the main task and finally, the posttask phase takes place. Only the main task is obligatory in
task based instruction (Ellis, 2006). As Willis stated, the
last step, which focuses on the linguistic forms, can be
carried out by the teacher or can be left to the learners.
Instructors can devise several actions in the final stage of
TBLT: repeating the tasks, whether a similar task or the
same task have been under focus and is said to affect the
accuracy, complexity, fluency and lexical density of L2
B. Consciousness-Raising Task
Attending to the linguistic form in second language
acquisition leads to explicit knowledge in which, unlike
the implicit knowledge, awareness is a key factor
(Doughty, 2003). Explicit learning is a matter of finding
out the regularities and trying to make up rules out of
51
III. METHODOLOGY
A. Participants
To carry out this study, 60 lower intermediate EFL
learners were chosen in two separate intact classes who
were attending English classes in a private language
institute in Shiraz. To ensure the homogeneity of the
participants in terms of proficiency, their proficiency
level was determined by Oxford Quick Placement Test
which is a standardized placement test devised by Allen
(1992). Those learners whose scores ranged from 28-36
were regarded as lower intermediate. Lower intermediate
level of proficiency was taken into consideration since
beginners lack the ability to write and advance learners
have mostly passed writing courses. The idea behind
choosing intact classes was the naturalness of the data
since experimental and control groups were required to
carry out the study. None of the participants have ever
been to English speaking countries and they were not
fully informed about the purpose of the study. 31 learners
participated in the experimental group and the remaining
29 learners were in the control group.
B. Instruments
2.
consciousness
writing output
consciousness
writing output
IV. RESULTS
To answer the research questions, mixed betweenwithin analysis of variance was conducted using the
statistical package for social sciences (SPSS version
16.0). Before addressing the research questions, the
homogeneity of the complexity and accuracy of learners'
writing output in the pre-test was evaluated using
independents samples t-test. Descriptive statistics along
with the significant levels are depicted in Table 1.
TABLE 1. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR COMPLEXITY AND
ACCURACY IN PRE-TEST
Group
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Sig.
Accu
Compl
Accu
Compl
Accu
racy
exity
racy
exity
racy
Control
29
.78
.42
.04
.07
Experim
30
.76
.39
.05
.04
.20
Compl
exity
.08
ental
D. Data Coding
The data were coded for complexity and accuracy. The
first step was to code the writings for the T-units. T-units,
as defined by Gass and Selinker (2008), are the uttered
finite clauses that may include any subordinate clauses.
Then, based on the formula to be presented in the next
section, accuracy and complexity of each draft was
determined. This procedure was carried out by two raters,
the researcher and a qualified MA colleague majoring
TEFL. At the end of data coding, Pearson Correlation
was conducted to evaluate inter-rater reliability and a
high degree of correlation (0.78) resulted.
A. Accuracy
The first research question probed about the possible
effects of task repetition with CR on the accuracy of L2
written output. To this end, the descriptive data for the
53
Group
Mean
Std. Deviation
Pre-test
control
.42
.075
29
Group
Mean
Std. Deviation
complexity
experimental
.39
.042
31
Pre-test
control
.78
.044
29
Post-test
control
.42
.073
29
accuracy
experimental
.76
.055
31
complexity
experimental
.41
.041
31
Post-test
control
.78
.043
29
Delayed Post-
control
.43
.071
29
accuracy
experimental
.83
.053
31
test complexity
experimental
.41
.048
31
Delayed Post-
control
.79
.037
29
test accuracy
experimental
.82
.054
31
V. DISCUSSION
The current study was an attempt to study the possible
effect of two follow-up activities on task based
instruction, namely task repetition alone or along with
CR tasks, in enhancing more accurate or more complex
L2 written production and whether this effect is long
lasting or not. The results revealed that applying CR tasks
led to more accurate writing production in the repeated
performance for EFL learners in lower intermediate level
of proficiency, implying that merely repeating a task is
not enough for creating more accurate writing drafts.
Furthermore, such effects did not vanish within a three
week interval.
However, the data signified that CR activities did not
increase the complexity load of the written output
significantly. Repeating the task for the second or third
time resulted in more complex written productions but
this improvement cannot be assigned to conducting CR
activities, it was only the repetition which led to more
complex drafts. The effect of task repetition was also
long lasting.
Enhancing the production of more accurate L2 output
by task repetition was suggested by Gashan and
Almohaisen (2014) who pinpointed the positive role of
B. Complexity
To address the second research question on the
effectiveness of task repetition with CR tasks, the
following statistical analysis were carried out. First,
descriptive statistics for complexity data of the two
groups in the three successive tasks are presented in
Table 3.
54
VI. CONCLUSION
Overall, the results of the present research suggest that
to enhance the complexity and accuracy of L2 written
output, repeating the written task can be used in second
language acquisition contexts. In addition, to gain much
more accurate written output, repeating the task along
with conducting follow-up CR activities may be
influential since the focus of these tasks are on
internalizing in learners, the right application of specific
linguistic structures through awakening their internal
heuristics which may lead to accurate linguistic rules.
Remembering these forms may be due to the fact that it
was the learner who discovered such regularities.
The lion share of the benefits gains from CR tasks has
been for accuracy load of L2 production. Therefore, the
practitioners in SLA field can benefit from such tasks in
their classes if their syllabuses are aimed at developing
better grammatical systems in the learners' competence.
In addition, instructors can benefit from such findings
since they can be sure that what they thought to the
learners will sticks to their minds in doing the task for
second or third time and these influences are long lasting.
TBLT and the activities which may lead to the
improved effects of tasks have opened new avenues of
research. The present study only took task repetition and
CR tasks as post-task activities. Further research can be
carried out on the effects of other follow up activities
such as noticing activities, reviewing the errors,
production-practice activities, focusing on forms and
reflecting on the tasks (Ellis, 2003, p. 259). Additionally,
the effect of task repetition with or without CR on other
language skills like reading and listening and speaking
can be investigated. In the current study, only learners at
the lower intermediate group were under investigation.
To be able to evaluate the difference between learners at
different levels of competency, comparative study of
different proficiency levels can be carried out.
55
REFERENCES
Akbarzadeh, R. Saeidi, M., & Chehreh, M. (2014). The effect of
oral interactive feedback on the accuracy and complexity
of EFL learners' writing performance: uptake and
retention. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching, 2(2),
105-126.
Allan, D. (1992). The Oxford Quick Placement Test. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Amirian, S. M. R., & Abbasi, S. (2014). The Effect of
Grammatical Consciousness-Raising Tasks on Iranian EFL
Learners Knowledge of Grammar. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences. 98( 2014 ).251257.
Ansarin, A. A., & Arasteh, B. (2012). Effectiveness of
Consciousness-Raising in Acquisition of English Dative
Alternation.Vigo International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 9-38.
Baleghizadeh, S., & Derakhshesh, A. (2012). The effects of task
repetition and noticing on EFL learners' oral output.
International Journal of Instruction, 5(1), 141-152.
Beglar, D., & Hunt, A. (2002). In R. Carter, & D. Nunan (Eds.),
Teaching English to Speakers of other Languages (pp. 3441). UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: appraising the
developing. In J. Willis & D. willis (Eds.), Challenge and
Change in Language Teaching. Oxford: Heinemann.
Bygate, M. (1999). Task as the context for the framing, reframing and unframing of language. System, 27, 33-48.
Bygate, M. (2001). Effect of task repetition on structure and
control of oral language. In M. S. Bygate (Ed.),
Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language
Learning, Teaching, and Testing. Harlow: Longman.
Bygate, M. (2002). Speaking. In R. Carter, & D. Nunan (Eds.),
Teaching English to Speakers of other Languages (pp. 3441). UK: Cambridge University Press.
Crookes, G., & Chadron, C. (2006). Guidelines for language
classroom instruction. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching
English as a Second or Foreign Language. Boston: Heinle
& Heinle.
DeKeyser, R. (1997). Beyond explicit learning: Automatizing
second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 19, 195-221.
Doughty, C. (2003). Instructed SLA: constraints, compensation,
and enhancement. In C. Doughty and M. H. Long (Eds.),
The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 256510). Oxford: Blackwell.
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: dynamic interactions of the
explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition. 24, 143-188.
Ellis, R. (1991). Second Language Acquisition and Language
Pedagogy. In R. Ellis (Eds). Task Based Language
Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2002). Grammar Teaching_ Practice or
Consciousness-Raising? In R. Carter, & D. Nunan (Eds.),
Teaching English to Speakers of other Languages (pp. 3441). UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2006). Modeling learning difficulty and second
language proficiency: the differential contributions of the
explicit and implicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics.27,
431-63.
56
57