|
|
|
 |
Search published articles |
 |
|
Showing 8 results for Output
Parviz Birjandi, Jamileh Rahemi,
Volume 12, Issue 2 (9-2009)
Abstract
This study was intended to compare processing instruction (PI), an input-based approach to L2 grammar instruction developed by VanPatten (1996), with an output-oriented type of instruction (OI) to assess their relative effects on learners' ability to interpret and produce English causatives. A pretest and posttest (immediate and delayed effects) design was used. 151 university students from four intact classes were randomly assigned to three treatment groups of PI, OI, and EI (Explicit-information-only) and one uninstructed control group (C). Students were assessed on interpretation and controlled written production tasks at the sentence level. Within-group comparisons indicated that the three instructional options, as compared to the control group, resulted in some kind of knowledge gain in both interpretation and production tasks, but the gains were not equal. The results of between-group comparisons contradicted VanPatten's claims about the superiority of PI over OI. While PI and OI were equally better than EI on interpretation tasks, OI group outperformed both PI and EI on production tasks. No significant difference was found between PI and EI on production tasks. The same results were obtained after a one-month interval, reflecting the durability of the instructional effects on the interpretation and production of the target structure.
Abdolhossein Ahmadi, Reza Ghafar Samar, Massood Yazdanimoghaddam,
Volume 14, Issue 2 (9-2011)
Abstract
The present study examines the impact of focused tasks on the development of Iranian EFL learners’ pragmatic competence. To this end, we compared the effectiveness of the dictogloss (DIG) as an output-based task and the consciousness raising (CR) as an input-based task in teaching English requestive downgraders. Prior to the experiment, 147 Iranian EFL learners participated in the study to develop the instruments. Also, 43 American native English speakers provided the baseline data for the construction of the recognition test and the instructional treatment. We matched 60 Iranian EFL learners in two groups based on their scores on the Oxford Placement Test (2004). The groups were then randomly assigned to instructional conditions namely, the DIG and CR tasks. The instructional treatment continued for 8 sessions. The results revealed that neither the effects of instructional treatment nor the effects of time were significant between the groups on pragmatic measures. The findings also demonstrated that participants in both tasks preformed significantly better in the immediate and delayed posttests than in the pretest. Similarly, participants in both groups maintained the positive effects of the treatment in the delayed posttest on the production and perception measures. For the recognition measure, however, the participants in the DIG condition significantly fell to a lower level in the delayed posttest.
, ,
Volume 17, Issue 2 (9-2014)
Abstract
This study investigated the role of interactive output tasks in developing EFL learners’ vocabulary knowledge. The participants were 103 elementary female Iranian EFL learners who were randomly divided into three groups: input-only, input-output-no-interaction, and input-output-interaction. After all participants took a placement test and a vocabulary pretest, the input-only group was exposed to input tasks, while the other two groups received both input and output tasks with or without interaction. Then, all the participants took a vocabulary posttest. The results of ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests showed that the participants in both the input-output-no-interaction group and the input-output-interaction group outperformed the ones in the input-only group in the vocabulary posttest (in both the overall vocabulary test and in the productive vocabulary section). Moreover, the results of the t-test and the Mann-Whitney test revealed that the participants in the interaction and no-interaction groups performed similarly on both the overall vocabulary posttest and the productive vocabulary section. The findings of this study support the idea that output is a facilitative factor for the acquisition of L2 vocabulary and, specifically, productive vocabulary development. The results also suggest that both interactive and non-interactive output-plus-input tasks can lead to higher achievement in vocabulary knowledge compared to the input-only condition lacking output tasks.
, ,
Volume 17, Issue 2 (9-2014)
Abstract
The current second language (L2) instruction research has raised great motivation for the use of both processing instruction and meaningful output instruction tasks in L2 classrooms as the two focus-on-form (FonF) instructional tasks. The present study investigated the effect of structured input tasks (represented by referential and affective tasks) compared with meaningful output tasks (implemented through text reconstruction cloze tasks) on the acquisition of English nominal clauses (NCs). The study sought to investigate if (1) both input and output instruction would lead to significant gains of knowledge in acquiring NCs, and (2) there were any significant differences between learners' receptive and productive knowledge of nominal clauses. First-year undergraduate students studying at four intact university classrooms participated in the study. The effectiveness of the tasks was determined by a noun-clause recognition test and a sentence combination production test administered both as the pretest and posttest. The results revealed that both processing instruction and meaningful output instruction helped the learners improve their receptive knowledge of grammar effectively nevertheless, the processing instruction group did not significantly outperform the meaningful output group in their gains of receptive knowledge of grammar. The findings further illustrated that meaningful output instruction group significantly outperformed processing instruction group in their productive knowledge of grammar.
, ,
Volume 18, Issue 1 (4-2015)
Abstract
This study compared the effects of two types of form-focused tasks on proceduralization and transfer of linguistics knowledge in case of English modals. All participants of the study attended pretests, posttests and delayed posttests. The procedural comprehension and production knowledge were measured through the groups’ performance on a timed dual task test that resembled the context of practice. The transfer of knowledge was measured by evaluating the performance of participants on a timed dual task test in a context dissimilar from or reverse to the practice context. Three intact classes of intermediate EFL learners were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. The output group (n= 27) received explicit grammar instruction and a combination of three output practice, while the input group (n=25) received explicit instruction and a combination of three input practice. Identical texts were exposed to the control group (n=25) through listening and reading tasks. The texts were followed by some questions irrelevant to English modals. On the procedural knowledge posttests, the experimental groups outperformed the control group. The participants were able to transfer the knowledge to dissimilar contexts. The results may help language teachers design more effective activities for the learners considering the institutional constraints.
Hossein Ahmadi, Farid Ghaemi, Parviz Birjandi,
Volume 19, Issue 2 (9-2016)
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of different output-based task repetition conditions on EFL learners’ speech act production. Three intact classes of English-major students constituted three instructional groups: (1) the explicit task-repetition (ETR) group, (2) the implicit task-repetition (ITR) group, and (3) the no-input task repetition (NTR) group. All the three groups engaged in the repetition of output-generation tasks. However, before the second performance of the task, the ETR group received input coupled with metapragmatic information, the ITR group received visually enhanced input coupled with a consciousness raising task, and the NTR group received no input. The results of a written discourse completion test (WDCT) revealed statistically significant gains in the learners’ performance from the pretest to the posttest in the ETR and ITR groups, but not in the NTR group. Moreover, the analysis of differences across the groups in the posttest revealed the superiority of the ETR over the ITR and NTR groups. The results suggest that output-based task repetition cannot enhance EFL learners’ speech act production ability unless learners are provided with input before the second performance of the task. Also when explicit and implicit instructional methods are integrated with output-based task repetition, the explicit approach is more effective than its implicit counterpart.
Jamileh Rahemi,
Volume 21, Issue 2 (9-2018)
Abstract
| The studies on the merits of processing instruction (PI) and output-based instruction (OI) have mostly treated the two approaches as mutually exclusive. To address the potentials of combining interpretation and production activities, this research compared the two isolated approaches of PI and OI with two combined approaches in which processing and output tasks were used in two opposite orders suggested by the researcher, i.e. processing-output-based instruction (POI) and output-processing-based instruction (OPI). The target structure was English passives. Participants included 185 Iranian EFL students from five intact classes, with four assigned to each treatment and one comprising a control group. Results on sentence-level interpretation and production tests administered before, immediately after, and one month following instruction indicated similar improvement for the treatment groups on the first interpretation posttest, and the superiority of POI over OPI and PI over the delayed posttest. On the first production test, POI, OPI, and OI performed equally well and better than PI, while more accurate uses of the target form were observed by POI and OPI on the delayed posttest. It was concluded that the combined approaches, particularly POI, could produce more persistent outcomes by giving learners the opportunity to both process a form and produce it. |
Muhamad Alii Rahimi, Javad Gholami, Zhila Mohammadnia,
Volume 21, Issue 2 (9-2018)
Abstract
| The present study was undertaken to investigate the effects of varying frequency patterns (FPs) of words on the productive acquisition of a young EFL learner in a home setting. Target words were presented to the learner using games and role plays. They were subsequently traced for their frequencies in input and output. Eighteen immediate tests and delayed tests were administered to measure the oral production following the treatments. To examine the efficacy of varying FPs, target words were grouped into four sets: High Input/High Output (HIHO), Low Input/Low Output (LILO), High Input/Low Output (HILO), and Low Input/High Output (LIHO). The findings revealed that the differences among the FPs were statistically significant. Meanwhile, Wilcoxon signed-rank test identified a significant discrepancy between the words with LILO and HIHO frequency patterns. The findings demonstrated that the differences in FPs led to different productive gains, and higher word production cropped up when words occurred very frequently both in input and output. This study shows that higher teacher talk in tandem with higher learner talk could boost lexical production by a young learner in meaning-focused instructions. |
|
|
