آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 5 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 108 |
| تعداد مقالات | 1,228 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 1,147,644 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 1,007,028 |
The Effects of Task Complexity on Input-Driven Uptake of Salient Linguistic Features | ||
| Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances | ||
| مقاله 4، دوره 8، شماره 1، تیر 2020، صفحه 33-49 اصل مقاله (111.41 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Article | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22049/jalda.2020.26733.1161 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Mohammad Hossein Yousefi* 1؛ Farzad Rostami2؛ Davoud Amini3 | ||
| 1Assistant Professor of TEFL, Department of English Language, Bonab Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bonab, Iran | ||
| 2PhD candidate in Applied Linguistics, Department of English Language, Bonab Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bonab, Iran | ||
| 3Assistant Professor of TEFL, Department of English Language and Literature, Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University, Tabriz, Iran | ||
| چکیده | ||
| The present study investigated the effects of cognitive complexity of pedagogical tasks on the learners’ uptake of salient features in the input. For the purpose of data collection, three versions of a decision-making task (simple, mid, and complex) were employed. Three intact classes (each 20 language learners) were randomly assigned to three groups. Each group transacted a version of a decision-making task in dyadic condition. The results of the statistical analysis (one-way ANOVA) revealed significant differences among the groups. The participants in complex group tended to produce more uptakes. The results of the present study revealed that manipulating cognitive complexity of pedagogical tasks led to more uptake of the linguistic items made salient by the teacher and triggered much interaction between the participants. The study, also, has a number of theoretical and pedagogical implications for SLA researchers and syllabus designers. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Task Complexity؛ The Cognition Hypothesis؛ Learner Uptake؛ Interlanguage Development | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Ahmadpour, L., & Yousefi, M. H. (2016). Group collaboration, scaffolding instruction, and peer assessment of Iranian EFL learners oral tasks. The Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances, 4(1), 31-44. doi: 10.22049/jalda.2018.26138.1046.
Ahmadpour, L., & Yousefi, M. H. (2018). The Effects of Task complexity on the Amount of learner Talk and Task performance Time. 2nd National Conference on English language Studies: Applied Linguistics Perspectives on EFL. Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University, Tabriz, Iran. 29-30, April.
Albert, A., & Kormos, J. (2004). Creativity and narrative task performance: An explanatory study. Language Learning, 54(2), 227-310.
Baralt, M. (2010). Task complexity, the cognition hypothesis, and interaction in CMC and FTF environments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University. U.S.
Byrnes, H. (2014). Theorizing language development at the intersection of "task" and L2 writing: Reconsidering complexity. In H. Byrnes, & R. M. Manchon (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 79-103). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Crabbe, D. (2007). Learning opportunities: Adding learning value to tasks. ELT Journal, 61(2), 117-125.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL Lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281-326.
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005) Analyzing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Farrahi, S., & Yousefi, M. H. (2018). Language related episodes in Task-based interaction: The case of cognitive complexity . 3rd conference on New trends in English language
Teaching and Testing. Allameh University, 4-5 September, Tehran, Iran.
Gilabert, R. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repair during L2 oral production. IRAL, (45), 215-240.
Givon, T. (1989). Mind, code, and context: Essays in pragmatics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Godfroid, A., & Michel, M. (2015). Eye-movements during task-based performance: What can we learn? Colloquium at the 6th International Conference of TBLT, September 16–18, Leuven, Belgium.
Hadley, G. (2013). Review of task-based language teaching from the teachers’ perspective. System, 41, 194-196.
Kuiken, M. F., & Vedder, I. (2007). The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. IRAL, 45, 241-259.
Loewen, S. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. Language Learning, 54, 153-188.
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 361-386.
Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modeling and assessing second language acquisition (pp.77-99). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.). Handbook of second language acquisition (pp.413-463). San Diego: Academic Press.
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design, TESOL Quarterly, 26(1), 27-56.
Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183-218.
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Studies, 28, 269-300.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Mayo, M. P., & Azkarai, A. (2016). EFL task-based interaction: Does task modality impact on language-related episodes? In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 241–266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mohammadi, G. M., Yousefi, M. H., & Afghari, A. (2012). Task-based learning research and the cognition hypothesis: The case of task complexity. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(12), 2593-2602.
Norris, J. (2015). Thinking and acting programmatically in task-based language teaching. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT (pp. 27–57). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: A review of studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43(1), 1-33.
Robinson, P. (2007). Criteria for grading and sequencing pedagogic tasks. InM. D. P. Garcia Mayo (Ed.) Investigating tasks in formal language learning, (PP. 2-27). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language learning and performance. IRAL, 45, 161-176.
Salimi, A., & Yousefi , M. H. (2009). The Effect of Task Complexity on the Success of Learners’ Uptake. The 7TH International TELLSI Conference: New Horizons in Language Education, 20-22 October. Yazd, Iran.
Samuda, V. (2015). Tasks, design, and the architecture of pedagogical spaces. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (pp. 271–302). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (PP. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skehan, P. (1998). Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 268-286.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensive input and comprehensive output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language. In H. G. Widdowson, G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp.125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183-205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tavakoli, P. (2014). Storyline complexity and syntactic complexity in writing and speaking tasks. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning—Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 17–236). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Van den Branden, K. (Ed.) (2006). Task-based language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van den Branden, K. (2015). Task-based language education: From theory to practice... and back again. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT (pp. 303–320). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287-301.
Widdowson, H. G. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yaghoubi Notash, M., & Yousefi , M. H. (2011). Uptake in task-elicited L2 performance: Can task complexity matter?Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(3), 508-516.
Yousefi, M. H. (2008). The effect of task complexity on learner uptake, Unpublished M.A thesis. Tabriz University, Tabriz, Iran.
Yousefi, M. H., & Afghari, A. (2012). Task-generated interaction, cognitive complexity and self-repair. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(2), 75-81.
Yousefi, M. H., & Biria, R. (2011). Interactional feedback, task-based interaction and learner uptake. COLEJ, 1(1), 1-19.
Yousefi, M. H., Mohammadi, G. E., Koosha, M. (2012). Task complexity and its implication for Pedagogy. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(7), 1436-1444. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,409 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 385 |
||