Cover not available
Article published In:
Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 8:2 (2019) ► pp.270–290

The effect of task modality and discourse mode on EFL learners’ narrative task performance

| Islamic Azad University of Hidaj
| Islamic Azad University of Zanjan

This study examined the effect of task mode (written vs. spoken) and discourse mode (pair vs. individual) on advanced Iranian EFL learners’ task performance. Participants, four groups of advanced learners, performed a narrative task in four conditions: the first group of participants performed the task individually in a spoken mode, the second group performed the task individually in a written mode, the third group performed the task in pairs in a spoken mode, and the participants in the fourth group performed the task in pairs in a written mode. The results indicated that the participants’ performances, in terms of complexity, accuracy, and fluency improved greatly among learners who worked in pairs rather than individually, and those who performed written tasks rather than oral ones.

Keywords: accuracy, complexity, discourse mode, fluency, task mode, task performance
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Review of the literature
    • 2.1Collaborative vs. individual task performance
    • 2.2Written vs. spoken task performance
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Materials
    • 3.3Measures
    • 3.4Procedure
  • 4.Results
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • 7.Pedagogical implications
  • 8.Limitations of the study
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 13 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.17031.asg
References
Abram, Z. I., & Byrd, D. R.
(2016) The effects of pre-task planning on L2 writing: Mind-mapping and chronological sequencing in a 1st-year German class. System, 631, 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Achmad, D., & Yusuf, U. Q.
(2014) Observing pair-work task in an English speaking class. International Journal of Education, 7(1), 151–164.Google Scholar
Ahmadian, M. J.
(2012) The effects of guided careful online planning on complexity, accuracy and fluency in intermediate EFL learners’ oral production: The case of English articles. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 129–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J.
(1994) Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, H. D.
(2001) Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Brumfit, C. J., & Johnson, K.
(1979) The communicative approach to language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bygate, M., & Samuda, V.
(2005) Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Byrnes, H., & Manchón, R. M.
(Eds.) (2014) Task-based language learning – Insights from and for L2 writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bulté, B., & Housen, A.
(2012) Defining and operationalizing L2 complexity. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 21–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Candlin, C.
(1987) Towards task-based language learning. In C. Candlin, & D. F. Murphy (Ed.), Language learning tasks (pp. 5–22). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Choong, K. P.
(2011) Task complexity and linguistic complexity: An exploratory study. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics , 11(1), 1–28.
Dobao, A. F.
(2012) Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 40–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donato, R.
(1994) Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf, & A. Gabriela (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–59). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Ellis, R.
(1987) Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9(1), 12–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2017) Moving task-based language teaching forward. Language Teaching, 50(4), 507–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., & Yuan, F.
(2004) The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 59–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., & Skehan, P.
(1996) The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999) The effect of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3(3), 185–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G.
(2000) Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., & Wigglesworth, G.
(2016) Capturing accuracy in second language performance: The case for a weighted clause ratio. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 361, 98–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fukunta
(2015) Effects of task repetition on learners’ attention orientation in L2 oral production. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 321–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fukuta, J., & Yamashita, J.
(2015) Effects of cognitive demands on attention orientation in L2 oral production. System, 531, 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. P.
(2002a) The effectiveness of two form-focused tasks in advanced EFL pedagogy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 156–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002b) Interaction in advanced EFL pedagogy: A comparison of form-focused activities. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3), 323–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geddes, M., & Sturtridge, G.
(1979) Listening links, London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B.
(1996) Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Harmer, J.
(2007) The practice of English language teaching (4th ed.). Essex: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. F., Lane, H. B., & Mercer, P. C.
(2005) Reading fluency assessment and instruction: What, why, and how? The Reading Teacher, 58(8), 702–714. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kellogg, R. T.
(1996) A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy, & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57–71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kim, Y.
(2013) Effects of pre task modelling on attention to form and question development. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 8–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., Nam, J., & Lee, Y.
(2016) Correlation of Proficiency with Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency in Spoken and Written Production: Evidence from L2 Korean. Journal of the National Council of Less Commonly Taught Languages, 191, 147–181.Google Scholar
Kormos, J., & Trebits, A.
(2012) The role of task complexity, modality, and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 62(2), 439–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kowal, M., & Swain, M.
(1994) Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3(2), 73–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
(2002) The effect of interaction in acquiring the grammar of a second language. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3–4), 343–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(1), 48–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Speaking and writing tasks and their effects on second language performance. In S. Gass, & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 364–379). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P.
(2000) Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leeser, M.
(2004) Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M.
(1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mehnert, U.
(1998) The effects of different length of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 83–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morrow, K.
(1979) Communicative language testing: Revolution or evolution? In C. J. Brumfit, & K. Johnson (Eds.), The communicative approach to language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Also in J. C. Alderson, & A. Hughes (Eds.) Issues in Language Testing (pp. 9–25).Google Scholar
Nabei, T.
(1996) Dictogloss: Is it an effective language learning task? Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 12(1), 59–74.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H., & Swain, M.
(2000) Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random vs. negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nassaji, H., & Tian, J.
(2010) Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 397–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L.
(2009) Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J.
(2010) Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26(1), 27–56.Google Scholar
Park, S.
(2010) The influence of pre-task instructions and pre-task planning on focus on form during Korean EFL task-based interaction. Language Teaching Research, 14(1), 9–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Payant, C., & Kim, Y.
(2017) Impact of task modality on collaborative dialogue among plurilingual learners: A classroom-based study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7(1), 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Philp, J., Oliver, R., & Mackey, A.
(2006) The impact of planning time on children’s task-based interactions. System, 34(4), 547–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polio, C., & Shea, M. C.
(2014) An investigation into current measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 261, 10–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R.
(2002) Longman dictionary of applied linguistics and language teaching. Harlow, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Robinson, P.
(2001) Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 43(1), 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45(3), 193–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saeedi, M., & Rahimi Kazerooni, S.
(2014) The influence of task repetition and task structure on EFL learners’ oral narrative retellings. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 8(2), 116–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sangarun, J.
(2005) The effects of focusing on meaning and form in strategic planning. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saslow, J., & Ascher, A.
(2012) Top Notch Fundamentals teacher’s edition and lesson planner (2nd ed.). New York: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Shiau, Y. S., & Adams, R.
(2011) The effects of increasing reasoning demands on accuracy and complexity in L2 oral production. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 61, 121–146.Google Scholar
Skehan, P.
(1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. & Foster, P.
(2002) The effects of post-task activities on the accuracy of language during task performance. London: King’s College.Google Scholar
Skehan, P.
(2003) Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36(1), 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 281, 510–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P.
(1997) The influence of planning and post-task activities on accuracy and complexity in task based learning. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. & Foster, P.
(1999) The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N.
(1998) A classroom-based study: Insights from a collaborative text reconstruction task. ELT Journal, 52(4), 291–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research, 21, 143–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) The nature of pair interaction. Learners’ interaction in an ESL class: Its nature and impact on grammatical development. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N.
(1996) The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 84–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ur, P.
(1991) Teaching listening comprehension. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vasylets, O., Gilabert, R., & Manchón, R. M.
(2017) The effects of mode and task complexity on second language production. Language Learning, 67(2), 394–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S.
(1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(1986) Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Weisburg, R.
(2000) Developing relationship in the acquisition of English syntax: Writing vs speech. Learning and Instruction, 101, 37–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, H. G.
(1978) Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N.
(2009) Pairs versus individual writing: Effects of fluency, complexity, and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, J.
(2012) The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yu, R.
(2008) Interaction in EFL classes. Asian Social Science, 4(4), 48–50.Google Scholar
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R.
(2003) The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, accuracy, and complexity in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zalbidea, J.
(2017) ‘One task fits all’? The roles of task complexity, modality, and working memory capacity in L2 performance. The Modern Language Journal, 101(2), 335–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar