Volume 7, Issue 4 (12-2022)
IJREE 2022, 7(4): 1-13 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Ghadiri N, Mashhadi Heidar D. The Impact of Collaborative Output Tasks-based Instruction on Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners’ Knowledge of Active/Passive Voice. IJREE 2022; 7 (4)
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-679-en.html
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-679-en.html
Department of English Language, Tonekabon Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tonekabon, Iran
Abstract: (1434 Views)
Abstract
The present study was conducted to investigate the impact of collaborative output tasks on Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ knowledge of active/passive voice. The main question this study tried to investigate was whether there would be any significant difference between the means of the two participant groups in a grammar posttest if the groups were taught with two different teaching methods. The participants of the study comprised 40 EFL learners. They were divided into two experimental and control groups. Each group consists of 20 participants. The control group received the traditional treatment while the experimental group was taught active/passive voice through collaborative output tasks. Two similar tests were prepared as the pretest and posttest to measure the students’ active/passive voice knowledge at the beginning and end of the study. To analyze the data, a series of paired sample t-tests and independent sample t-tests were run. The results showed that participants in the experimental group had a better performance than the control group. Consequently, it was concluded that the utilization of collaborative output tasks in teaching active/passive voice led to a higher level of knowledge improvement.
The present study was conducted to investigate the impact of collaborative output tasks on Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ knowledge of active/passive voice. The main question this study tried to investigate was whether there would be any significant difference between the means of the two participant groups in a grammar posttest if the groups were taught with two different teaching methods. The participants of the study comprised 40 EFL learners. They were divided into two experimental and control groups. Each group consists of 20 participants. The control group received the traditional treatment while the experimental group was taught active/passive voice through collaborative output tasks. Two similar tests were prepared as the pretest and posttest to measure the students’ active/passive voice knowledge at the beginning and end of the study. To analyze the data, a series of paired sample t-tests and independent sample t-tests were run. The results showed that participants in the experimental group had a better performance than the control group. Consequently, it was concluded that the utilization of collaborative output tasks in teaching active/passive voice led to a higher level of knowledge improvement.
References
1. Abassy Delvand, S., & Mashhadi Heidar, D. (2022). The impact of computerized group dynamic assessment on Iranian EFL learners' listening comprehension across gender. Journal of Language Horizons, 6(1), 205-224. doi:10.22051/LGHOR.2021.34839.1440 [DOI:10.17323/jle.2020.9834]
2. Abdollahi-Guilani, M., & Tan, K. H. (2016). English Passive and the Function of Shodan in Persian. Asian Social Science, 12(9), 162-175. doi: 10.5539/ass.v12n9p162 [DOI:10.5539/ass.v12n9p162]
3. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
4. Dehghan, M., & Mohammad-Amiri, M. (2017). Collaborative output tasks and their effects on learning English comparative adjectives. Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 36(1), 1-26 doi:10.22099/jtls.2017.22369.2030
5. Ding, D. D. (2002). The passive voice and social values in science. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 32(2), 137-154. [DOI:10.2190/EFMR-BJF3-CE41-84KK]
6. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf, & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygostkian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). New Jersey: Ablex. https://www.scirp.org/(S(i43dyn45teexjx455qlt3d2q))/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=933171
7. Habok, A., & Magyar, A. (2018). The effect of language learning strategies on proficiency, attitudes and school achievement. Front. Psycho, 8(2358), 1-8. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02358 [DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02358]
8. Hardan, A. A. (2013). Language learning strategies: A general overview. Procedia-social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 1712-1726. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.194]
9. Harmon, J. E. (1992). An analysis of fifty citation superstars from the scientific literature. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 22(1), 17-37. [DOI:10.2190/ELYK-PFL1-GLFA-ALAD]
10. Jabbarpoor, S., & Tajeddin, Z. (2013). Enhanced input, individual output, and Collaborative output; Effects on the acquisition of the English subjunctive mood. Revista signos. Estudios De Lingüística, 46(82), 213-235. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342013000200003 [DOI:10.4067/S0718-09342013000200003]
11. Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students' language awareness. Language Awareness, 3(2), 73-93. [DOI:10.1080/09658416.1994.9959845]
12. Krashen, S. (1993). The effect of formal grammar teaching: Still peripheral. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 722-725. [DOI:10.2307/3587405]
13. Leeser, M. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55-81. [DOI:10.1191/1362168804lr134oa]
14. 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. [DOI:10.1075/z.96.11lon]
15. MacIntyre, P., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15(1), 3-26. doi:10.1177/0261927X960151001 [DOI:10.1177/0261927X960151001]
16. Mansouri, S., & Mashhadi Heidar, D. (2019). Peer/teacher technology-enhanced scaffolding through process approach and Iranian EFL learners' vocabulary knowledge: A probe into self-regulation. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 38(3), 189-223. doi: 10.22099/jtls.2020.34379.2717
17. Mashhadi Heidar, D., & Afghari, A. (2015). The effect of dynamic assessment in synchronous computer-mediated communication on Iranian EFL learners' listening comprehension ability at upper-intermediate level. English Language Teaching, 8(4), 14-23. doi:10.5539/elt. v8n4p14 [DOI:10.5539/elt.v8n4p14]
18. MacIntyre, P., Clement, R., Dornyei, 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. [DOI:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb05543.x]
19. Nabei, T. (1996). Dictogloss: Is it an effective language learning task? Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 12(1), 59-74. doi: https://repository.upenn.edu/wpel/vol12/iss1/4
20. Nassaji, H., & Tian, J. (2010). Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs. Language Teaching, 14(4). doi:10.1177/1362168810375364 [DOI:10.1177/1362168810375364]
21. Nassaji, H. (1999). Towards integrating form-focused instruction and communicative interaction in the second language classroom: Some pedagogical possibilities. The Modern Language Journal, 84(2), 241-250. https://www.jstor.org/stable/330489 [DOI:10.1111/0026-7902.00065]
22. Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126-145. doi:10.1017/S0267190504000066 [DOI:10.1017/S0267190504000066]
23. Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304202756_Teaching_grammar_in_second_language_classrooms_Integrating_form-focused_instruction_in_communicative_context_ESL_Applied_Linguistics_Professional_Series_Hossein_Nassaji_and_Sandra_Fotos_Publisher_Rout
24. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
25. Pullum, G. K. (2014). Fear and loathing of the English passive. Language and Communication, 37, 60-74. doi.:10.1016/j.lang.com.2013.08.009 [DOI:10.1016/j.langcom.2013.08.009]
26. Rashtchi. M. (2018). Learning the English passive voice: A comparative study on input flooding and input enhancement techniques. International Linguistics Research, 1(1), 67-79. https://j.ideasspread.org/index.php/ilr/article/view/80/24 [DOI:10.30560/ilr.v1n1p67]
27. Rodman, L. (1994). The active voice in scientific articles: Frequency and discourse functions. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 24(3), 309-331. [DOI:10.2190/D9BR-CAP2-LW5N-LCRP]
28. Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230596429 [DOI:10.1057/9780230596429]
29. Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. [DOI:10.1057/9780230293977]
30. Shen, D., & Lu, G. J. (2019). Research on the effect of "output" based on UNIPUS autonomous learning platform on students' English vocabulary acquisition in applied undergraduate colleges. Journal of Jishou University (Social Science Edition), 40(1), 170-177.
31. Storch, N. (1998). A classroom-based study: Insights from a collaborative text reconstruction task. ELT Journal, 52(4), 291-300. [DOI:10.1093/elt/52.4.291]
32. Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: product, process, and students' reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153-173. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002]
33. Storch, N. (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research, 11(2). [DOI:10.1177/1362168807074600]
34. 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. 235-256). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
35. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In: Lantolf, J. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 97-114.
36. Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook on research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471-83). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
37. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99-118). Harlow: Pearson Education.
38. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners' response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3-4), 285-304. [DOI:10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00006-5]
39. Vahedi-Langroodi, M. M. (1996). The syntax, semantics and argument structure of complex predicates in modern Farsi. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Ottawa, Canada. http://hdl.handle.net/10393/9801 https://ruor.uottawa.ca/bitstream/10393/9801/1/NN20026.PDF
40. Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Canadian Modern Language Review, 48(1), 189-190. [DOI:10.3138/cmlr.48.1.189]
41. Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second
42. language learning: collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121-142. doi:10.1177/136216880607074599 [DOI:10.1177/136216880607074599]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
