Effect of Input vs. Collaborative Output Tasks on Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners’ Grammatical Accuracy and Willingness to Communicate

Document Type: Research Article

Authors

English Department, Shahrekord University, Shahrekord, Iran

Abstract

This study explored the effect of input vs. collaborative output tasks on Iranian EFL learners’ grammatical accuracy and their willingness to communicate (WTC). In so doing, the study utilized 3 input (i.e., textual enhancement, processing instruction, and discourse) and 3 collaborative output (i.e., dictogloss, reconstruction cloze task, and jigsaw) tasks and compared their effects on 5 English grammatical structures (used to, too, enough, wish, and past tense). To this end, 50 Iranian intermediate EFL students in 2 groups (input- and collaborative output-based) participated in this study. To collect the data, a 32-item grammar test and WTC questionnaire were used as the pretests and posttests. Results of the t tests and analyses of covariance revealed that the input- and output-based tasks had a significantly positive effect on the participants’ grammatical accuracy. Moreover, the output-based instruction enhanced the participants’ WTC more than the input-based one. Findings have implications for L2 grammar pedagogy.

Keywords


Allen, L. (2004). The Oxford placement test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Arbuckle, L. J. (2007). Amos™ 16.0 user’s guide. USA, Chicago: Amos Development Corporation.

Campillo, P. S. (2006). Focus of form tasks and the provision of the corrective feedback. Iberica, 12, 123-138.

Cetinkaya, Y. B. (2005). Turkish collage students’ willingness to communicate in English as a foreign language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.

DeKeyser, R., Salaberry, R., Robinson, P., & Harrington, M. (2002). What gets processed in processing instruction? A commentary on Bill VanPatten’s ‘Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 805-23.

Dalili, M. V., Ketabi, S., Kassaian, Z., & Eslami Rasekh, A. (2011). The effect of textual enhancement on system learning of English dative alternation. World Applied Sciences, 15, 63-69.

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Farahani, A, Kh., & Sarkhosh, M. (2012).Do different textual enhancement formats have differential effects on the intake of English subjunctive mood? Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(4), 688-698.

Forouzandeh, F. (2013). On the relationship between L2 learners’ metaphorical competence and their intrapersonal intelligence. LEARN Journal, 6(1), 1-14.

Krashen, S. (1993). The effect of formal grammar teaching: Still peripheral. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 722-25.

Lee, S, K. (2007). Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students’ reading and learning of passive form. Language Learning, 57(1), 87-118.

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 (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Long, M. (2000). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In R. D. Lambert & E. Shohamy (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy: Essays in honor of A. Ronald Walton (pp. 179-92). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

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 (pp.15-41). New York: Cambridge University Press.

MacIntyre, P. (1994). Variables underlying willingness to communicate: A casual analysis. Communication Research Reports, 11, 135-142.

MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R., & Conrod, S. (2001). Willingness to communicate, social support, and language learning orientations of immersion students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 369-388.

MacIntyre, P., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15, 3-26.

MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. (1998). Conceptualizing   willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545-562.

MacIntyre, P. D., & Legatto, J. J. (2011). A dynamic system approach to willingness to communicate: Developing an idiodynamic method to capture rapidly changing affect. Applied Linguistics, 32(2), 149-171.

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

Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126-45.

Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Nassaji, H., & Tian, J. (2010). Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs. Language Teaching Research, 14, 397-419.

Oruc, N. (2012). Dictogloss: The role of reconstruction tasks on noticing. INONU University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 13(2), 43-56.

Peng, J., & Woodrow, L. (2010). Willingness to communicate in English: A model in the Chinese EFL classroom context. Language Learning, 60(4), 834-876.

Richard, J, C., & Hull, J., & Proctor, S. (2013). New interchange, book 2. Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press.

Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. New York:  Palgrave-Macmillan.

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Storch, N. (1998). A classroom based study: Insights from a collaborative text reconstruction task. ELT Journal, 7(4), 176-91.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some rules of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-53). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In H. G. Widdowson, G. Cook, & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-44). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain(Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp.99-118). Harlow: Longman.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285-304.

VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755-803.

Vatankhah, M. (2013).Exploring willingness to communicate in English in the Iranian context: Language learning orientations and social support. Unpublishedmaster’s thesis,Shahrekord University, Shahrekord, Iran.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wang, Y. (2004). The relationship between second language written performance and the level of willingness to communicate in class: A quantitative analysis of second-year Chinese class 2004 at the Australian National University. Paper presented at the 15thBiennial Conference of the Asian Studies Association ofAustralia, Canberra, Australia.

Wang, Y. J., & Erlam, R. (2011). Willingness to communicate in the Japanese language classroom: An inquiry learning project in a year 7 classroom. The New Zealand Language Teacher, 37, 39-44.