Effects of Collaborative and Individual Output Tasks on ......Phrasal verbs are defined as “a verb...

International Journal of Informatics, Technology & Computers

ISSN: 2317-3793, Volume 1, Issue 1, page 79 - 90 Zambrut

Zambrut.com

Barati, H. Effects of Collaborative and Individual Output Tasks ..................... 79

Effects of Collaborative and

Individual Output Tasks on

Iranian EFL Learners' Phrasal

Verbs Acquisition

Hasan Barati

Hasan Barati

MA Student, Islamic Azad University

Isfahan Branch (Khurasgan), Iran

1. INTRODUCTION

Findings of the recent second language acquisition research have confirmed a need for classroom

activities that encourage both communicative interaction and attention to form in second language

classrooms (Ellis, 2005). One way to help such opportunities is by pedagogical tasks that encourage

negotiation of meaning, as well as providing chances for feedback and attention to form (Yuan & Ellis,

2003). In this regard, in order to provide effective opportunities for peer feedback and scaffolding, in the

Abstract: The study investigated output task effects (collaborative and individual) on Persian-speaking EFL

learners’ phrasal verbs acquisition. Therefore, a group of 60 low intermediate EFL learners were put in three

groups of Collaborative Task (N=20), Individual Task (N=20), and Control (N=20). The groups all received

the same materials and treatment, except for the control group. In the experimental groups, participants were

asked to complete the close tasks collaboratively and individually. Starting by a pretest given to all groups, we

made sure that all of them were at the same level of knowledge of phrasal verbs which were supposed to be

taught during the course. After presenting the phrasal verbs to the three groups, control group did not receive

any task, but the individual group were asked to do the tasks individually and the other group collaboratively.

Subsequently, all the groups took the post-test. The data were analyzed using ANCOVAs to examine the effects

of output tasks. The results indicated that that completing the tasks collaboratively led to a greater accuracy of

task completion than completing them individually. The study has practical implications for classroom

practices and language teachers, and theoretical implications for a better understanding of sociocultural

theories of second language learning.

Keywords: Cloze Task, Collaborative Output Task, Individual Output Task, Phrasal Verbs



Zambrut.com


sense used by Vygotsky (1986), classroom tasks that make learners work together and produce output

collaboratively have been proposed by a group of researchers (Lapkin & Swain, 2000; Swain, 2005).

It has been claimed by Swain (1985) that in comparison with input, there is more mental endeavor

involved when learners are engaged in output processing; thus, output is part of the learning process

rather than the outcome of it. The rationale behind using output-based tasks in language classrooms is that

learners mostly process input for meaning. But when they are pushed to produce output and subsequently

provided with the relevant input, their attention is most likely drawn to the forms.

Phrasal verbs are defined as “a verb + particle combination that functions as a single verb, both

parts giving up meaning in order to form a new lexical item” (Darwin & Gray, 1999,p. 65). White (2012)

contends that phrasal verbs are difficult for ESL learners because they are unpredictable, polysemous,

frequent, and non-universal. According to Gardner and Davies (2007), “learners will encounter, on

average, one [phrasal verb construction] in every 150 words of English they are exposed to” (p. 347).

Adding to the frequency problem is the knack English speakers possess for coining new phrasal verbs.

Phrasal verbs are called the “most prolific source” of new words in English (Bolinger, 1971, p. xiii).

However, phrasal verbs are often considered to be one of the most challenging features of the

English language. Firstly, they may be seen as an unnatural structure for some learners whose L1 lacks

such a construction. Their syntactic distinctiveness (some phrasal verbs allow for particle movement,

others do not) and semantic complexity (some phrasal verbs have meanings that are highly idiomatic and

opaque) make them particularly difficult to learn, and they are prone to avoidance (Dagut & Laufer,

1985; Hulstijn & Marchena, 1989; Laufer & Eliasson, 1993). In addition, they are composed of two or

more orthographic words, which means that instead of distinguishing them as single semantic units,

unaware learners may attempt to decode the meanings of their individual components, and therefore

misinterpret them. Examining the literature, different classifications of phrasal verbs can be found. For

example, Dagut and Laufer (1985) classified phrasal verbs into three categories; (1) literal phrasal verbs

(e.g., go out) whose meaning can be directly induced from their components, (2) figurative phrasal verbs

(e.g., turn up) which have undergone a metaphorical shift of meaning and (3) completive phrasal verbs

(e.g., burn down) in which the particle is linked to the result of the action involved. In the same vein,

Laufer and Eliasson (1993) presented three types of phrasal verbs; (1) semantically transparent (that is,

the meaning of the phrasal verb can be deduced from its components), (2) semitransparent (i.e., the

meaning of the phrasal verbs may not be clear in isolation but is disambiguated in context) and (3)

semantically opaque (whose meaning cannot be induced from its components and must be processed as

an idiom). It was found that semantically opaque or idiomatic phrasal verbs are generally the most

difficult for language learners, and hence, are the most recurrent type for avoidance (e.g., Kamarudin,

2013; Sara & Mohammadreza, 2013; You, 1999).

Oe and Alam (2013), from Hosei University in Japan, developed a study to find a way to teach

phrasal verbs while negating the interference from the learner‟s L1. They chose to instruct “…directly

through nonverbal media such as pictures and sound. A web application was developed for the picture-

based e-learning of phrasal verbs”. They suggest focusing on only 20 instead of 30 phrasal verbs, using 10

new phrasal verbs each exercise and repeating 10 from the previous one. The authors also recommend

integrating the exercise into coursework to increase student motivation.

Nassaji & Tian (2010) conducted a study in Canada with 26 students engaging in collaborative pair

work with 16 English phrasal verbs. The students‟ existing knowledge of phrasal verbs was measured in a

pretest. Then the students completed reconstruction cloze tasks and reconstruction edit tasks; one of each

individually, and one of each collaboratively. After a posttest and data analysis, it was concluded that

collaborative work has higher results with either task than does individual work, but the difference in

learning is not statistically significant. The authors claim, however, that the addition of a training session

for the students to work collaboratively would lead to better performance in pairs. The difference in type of

tasks, cloze vs. edit, however, showed a significant difference. The analysis of transcripts from the

collaborative work shows that sometimes the interaction on cloze tasks was too short. Students working in



Zambrut.com


pairs experienced a larger gain with the edit tasks, somewhat owing to the nature of the task lending itself

to more talk and feedback.

Liao and Fukuya (2004) studied avoidance of English phrasal verbs by Chinese learners. They first

reviewed three previous studies in which L1 speakers of Hebrew, Dutch, and Swedish were measured for

avoidance of English phrasal verbs. The Hebrew-speaking students, who don‟t have phrasal verbs in their

native language, inclined to avoid phrasal verbs, and most frequently those with an idiomatic meaning

(Dagut and Laufer, 1985). Hulstijn and Marchena (1989) studied Dutch learners of English, expecting that

they would not avoid phrasal verbs because they have them in their own native language. Their results

recommend that the Dutch students did not avoid phrasal verbs categorically but tended to avoid idiomatic

phrasal verbs that seemed too Dutch-like. Strangely, phrasal verbs that had a similar counterpart in the L1

were avoided.

2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW

A review of the literature on the role of input and output reveals that there has always been a

disagreement over the effectiveness of providing learners with comprehensible input, input enhancement,

output, and whether one or a combination of some is more beneficial in the process of learning language

components (Izumi, 2002; Maftoon & Sharifi, 2012).

2.1 The Rationale for Task-based Courses The inevitability for task-based courses appeared after the shortcomings of the earlier approaches

in language teaching. The previous approaches known as traditional that had a linguistic/structural

syllabus focused on „what‟ in language teaching and learning rather than the needs of the learners. Such

syllabi contained a graded list of grammatical structures (Ellis, 2003). In response to failure of the

traditional methods, CLT was born. CLT is based on the theories of communicative competence (Hymes

1971 and Widdowson 1978, argued in Larsen-Freeman, 2003) and functional grammar (see Halliday,

1985). This is known as the notional/functional approach. This approach is fundamentally a linguistic

based syllabus because it defines the „what‟ of the language teaching. Therefore, there is not much

difference between the structural and the notional/functional syllabi. Yet, the notional/functional syllabus

takes the learners‟ needs into account (Li, 1998) while the structural syllabus does not.

One significant fact that the structural and the notional/functional syllabi were ignored is that there

is no guarantee that the learners select whatever is at hand in the classroom. It would be better to say, it is

impossible to foresee what learners have achieved at the end of a language course. The belief that we are

able to predict what learners have learnt at the end of a course is perfectionist or interventionist.

Fascinatingly, research indicates that such an intervention is ineffective and has little impact on learners

owing to learner‟s use of second language based on their own interlanguage.

Previous studies have also compared tasks completed in pairs with those completed individually

(Kim 2008; Storch 2005; Wigglesworth and Storch 2009). One common finding in those studies was that

work done in pairs was more likely to produce linguistically accurate sentences than individual work. For

example, Storch (2007) showed that the learners who worked in pairs increasingly used target words

during interaction and reflected on the word forms. However, concerning the aspect of the accuracy of the

task, no significant difference was noticed between the learners who completed the tasks in pairs and

those who worked individually. The use of articles and word forms in the task might have contributed to

task accuracy in both groups. Learners might not be able to solve such problems in work done in pairs.

Consequently, due to both theoretical and pedagogical considerations, it had been concluded that

learners should be encouraged to participate in activities that increase collaboration in the L2 classroom.

2.2 Collaborative Work in Learning Phrasal Verbs Mark Feng Teng (2017) studied the effectiveness of three tasks (cloze, editing, writing) on the

acquisition of phrasal verbs for students learning English as a foreign language (EFL). A total of 72 low-



Zambrut.com


to-intermediate EFL learners were selected. The study employed pre- and post-test designs. The

performance of the learners who accomplished the three tasks individually was compared with that of the

learners who completed the same tasks in pairs or in groups. The results showed that the learners who

participated in group work attained a larger gain of the knowledge of the phrasal verbs than doing the

tasks in a pair; nevertheless, tasks completed in pairs led to better performances than individual work. The

writing task produced the best learning scores, followed by the editing task and finally, the cloze task.

Moreover, the writing task resulted in the greatest number of instances of metalinguistic or form-focused

feedback.

Badri Ahmadi (2016) in her study found out that output-based language teaching outperformed

input-based language teaching and led to better learning of the English phrasal verbs. The results

suggested that there was no significant difference between male and female Iranian EFL learners in

output-based teaching of English phrasal verbs. The study also showed no significant difference between

both genders in input-based teaching of English phrasal verbs. That is, input- and output-based

instructions had no effect on genders in learning phrasal verbs.

2.3 Empirical Studies on Output Tasks and Second Language Acquisition

A number of studies have empirically investigated the effect of various output tasks on L2 learning.

For example, Izumi (2002) investigated the role of output and the relative efficacy of reconstruction task

and picture-cued writing task in noticing and learning of the English past counterfactual conditional.

Results indicated that more noticing occurred overall for learners who had the opportunity to produce

output compared to those who did not, although none of the tasks led to greater noticing of the target

forms in the second input than in the first input. Also, the participants who received output opportunities

during the treatments performed significantly better than those in the non-output condition on the

production posttest, but no difference was found in the relative efficacy of the two output tasks.

In light of the above theoretical arguments, several studies have empirically examined the role of

collaborative output tasks in L2 learning (Kowal & Swain, 1994; Kuiken & Vedder, 2002; Storch, 2007;

Swain & Lapkin, 2002). For example, Kowal and Swain (1994) investigated a particular type of

collaborative output task called dictogloss. Their results showed that when learners were involved in the

co-production of language through such tasks, they noticed gaps in their knowledge of language, their

attention was drawn to the link between form and meaning, and they benefited feedback from their peers.

Kuiken and Vedder (2002) examined the effects of collaborative pair work by comparing the

learners‟ performance on completing a dictogloss on learning English passive forms. The results of the

qualitative analyses showed many instances where the interaction drew learners‟ attention to form.

However, their results did not show a significant effect for collaborative interaction.

Storch (2007) examined the effectiveness of pair work by comparing learners‟ performance on

completing an editing task individually or in pairs. The results showed that when the students completed

the tasks in pairs they were actively engaged in interaction and reflection about language forms. Again, no

significant difference was found between the accuracy of the task when completed collaboratively versus

individually. Nassaji & Tian (2010) compared the relative effectiveness of reconstruction cloze tasks and

reconstruction editing tasks for learning English phrasal verbs in individual and collaborative conditions.

The results showed that completing the tasks collaboratively led to a greater accuracy of task completion

than completing them individually. However, collaborative tasks did not lead to significantly greater gains

of vocabulary knowledge than individual tasks. The results, however, showed that the editing tasks were

more effective than the cloze tasks in promoting negotiation and learning.

2.4 The Present Study

One conclusion that may be drawn from the above studies is that collaborative pair work may

facilitate learners‟ interaction and attention to the target forms, but it may not necessarily lead to superior

learning in comparison to individual work. Although several studies (Storch, 2007; Swain & Lapkin,



Zambrut.com


1995, Nassaji & Tian, 2010) have provided valuable insights regarding the effectiveness of collaborative

tasks, very few of them investigated the output tasks in individual and collaborative setting

comparatively. Moreover, most studies in the related literature have dealt with language structure,

grammar, writing, or vocabulary in general, data is still thin in the related area as very few of them have

included phrasal verbs as a subcategory of vocabulary (Nassaji & Tian, 2010). However, as Hare (2010),

Kuiken and Vedder (2002), Nassaji & Tian (2010) and Storch (2007) stressed, studies in this area are still

very limited, and hence there is a need for further research in this area. Research is needed to examine not

only the effects of individual versus pair work on language tasks but also the possible effects of task

types.

2.5 Research Questions

The research questions were based on the consideration of the results of the prior theoretical and

empirical research discussed above. Consequently, the following research questions have been examined

in this study.

a. Do collaborative output tasks have a statistically significant effect on Iranian EFL learners' acquisition

of phrasal verbs?

b. Do individual output tasks have a statistically significant effect on Iranian EFL learners' acquisition of

phrasal verbs?

c. Is there a significant difference between collaborative output tasks and individual output tasks in terms

of their effects on EFL learners' acquisition of phrasal verbs?

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Method

This study is a quasi-experimental. It is quasi-experimental in that the participants were not

randomly selected but chosen from intact classes. The participants, however, took part in a pretest to

check the homogeneity of the group. The study was conducted during two months in three intact

intermediate adult ESL classrooms in an English learning in Isfahan.

3.2 Participants

The participants of the study were 60 Iranian EFL adult learners who were learning English in a

language institute in Isfahan. These participants were selected based on their availability and were placed

in experimental and control groups after taking the placement test, i.e., Oxford Placement Test (Allen,

2004). Both male and female learners participated in the study. Attempts were made to include an equal

number of each gender, so that gender could be controlled, although gender was not a variable in the

study. Since the study was planned to investigate the effect of collaborative and individual output tasks on

low- intermediate proficiency Iranian EFL learners, it was essential to conduct a placement test to make

sure that the participants were homogenous. After the placement test, the 60 participants who were low-

intermediate were randomly placed in three groups; 8 male and 12 female learners in collaborative group,

9 male and 11 female learners in individual group, and 7 male and 13 female learners in one control

group. Their ages ranged from 25 to 40.

In one of the experimental groups, Collaborative Tasks, participants (N=20) were supposed to work

together to do the output tasks i.e. close task. In the second experimental group, Individual group,

participants (N=20) did the tasks individually. Finally, in the Control group, participants (N=20) were not

asked to do any tasks (although they were taught phrasal verbs as a part of their instruction, but no

emphasis was made).

3.2 Materials

The target words were 16 English phrasal verbs. Phrasal verbs are two or three word idiomatic

expressions, consisting of a verb and a particle or a combination of a particle and a preposition (Lewis,



Zambrut.com


1993; Darwin & Gray, 1999). The first reason for focusing on phrasal verbs was that these verbs are a

subgroup of English vocabulary that is widely used by native speakers of English but they have been

found to be difficult for L2 learners to master (Hulstijn & Marchena, 1989; Moon, 1997; Kao, 2001). The

difficulty of learning phrasal verbs stems from the fact that they consist of different combinations of verbs

and particles and often the meaning of the phrase is different from the meanings of its parts (Side, 1990).

Pretest and Posttest

In order to examine the impact of tasks, i.e., the independent variable, on Iranian EFL learners‟

phrasal acquisition, the dependent variable, participants of the study had to complete 4 close tasks during

the course.

A pretest containing 20 tests of phrasal verbs that were selected from the learners' textbook was

taken by the three groups to see if the all groups had the same level of knowledge of the given phrasal

verbs. Four close tasks were prepared. Each task contained randomly four of the 16 target phrasal verbs.

Each cloze text contained some missing parts, four of which were related to the target phrasal verbs and

the other eight were not (see Appendix B). The learners had to restore the missing parts as correctly and as

possible. In the individual group, the learners were asked to complete the tasks individually. In the

collaborative group, the learners were asked to complete the close tasks collaboratively. In control group,

the learners just did the exercises about the given phrasal words in their books, they did not receive any

tasks. All the four texts were constructed by the teacher and were also judged by him to be suitable for his

class levels. They were made in the form of short paragraphs, and the reason was that the teacher was

using such texts during the semester for practicing language forms. Therefore, they were relevant and

consistent with what was going on in the classroom. When designing the tasks, the teacher made sure that

they were as similar as possible in terms of format, length, content, and the nature of information needed to

complete the tasks.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In order to answer the research questions of the study, the mean scores were analyzed using SPSS

16. Descriptive statistics including frequencies, means, standard deviations, and percentages were

obtained. First of all, to make sure that participants of the study were homogenous, an ANOVA was used.

It should be noted that the homogeneity would be confirmed if there were no statistically significant

difference between the groups. In addition, to see if there was a statistically significant difference

between control and experimental groups in the pretests and posttests, the researcher used ANCOVAs for

each of the tests.

4.1 Gender Distribution of Participants

As Table 4.1 shows, the total number of the participants in study was 60 (23 male and 37 female).

The percentages of female and male participants were 61.7 and 38.3 respectively (Figure 1). Due to the

high number of the participants, gender distribution was normal for the study.

Table 4.1 Gender Distribution of Participants

Information Frequency Percent

Female 37 61.7

Male 23 38.3

Total 60 100.0



Zambrut.com


Figure 4. 1. Gender distribution of participants.

For pretest and posttest in Table 4.2 and Figure 4.2 descriptive statistics for groups of control,

individual and collaborative measures of central tendency and dispersion are displayed.

Table 4.2 Group Statistics

Group N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Pretest

control 20 21.25 8.717

individual 20 17.75 4.435

collaborative 20 17.50 4.443

Total 60 18.83 6.336

posttest

control 20 30.25 10.572

individual 20 68.50 7.964

collaborative 20 78.75 6.664

Total 60 59.17 22.665

Figure 4.2. Means of groups

Female 62%

Male 38%

GENDER

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

control individual collaborative

pre test post test



Zambrut.com


4.1 The Normality Test

To apply parametric statistical tests, the data had to be checked for normality and normal

distribution. According to Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for goodness of fit results, the data gained were

normally distributed for all variables because (p > 0.05).

Table 4.4 normality test for variables

Information Control individual collaborative

Pre test Post test Pre test Post test Pre test Post test

Kolmogorov Smirnov Z 0.860 0.599 1.039 0.582 1.177 0.953

Asymp. Sig. 0.451 0.866 0.230 0.887 0.125 0.323

4.2 Results of Comparing Between Control and Collaborative

In order to see whether collaborative output tasks have a statistically significant effect on Iranian

EFL learners' acquisition of phrasal verbs, the means of two groups were compared.


Group Mean Std. Deviation

Pre test Control 21.25 8.717

Collaborative 17.50 4.443

post

test

Control 30.25 10.572

Collaborative 78.75 6.664

To measure the homogeneity of variances, the Levene test was run. The results, presented in

Table 4.5 show that the difference was not significant and that the participants were quite homogeneous.

This helps the researcher to conduct the inferential statistic ANOVA to see if there was a significant

difference among the participants.

Table 4.6 Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

3.795 1 38 0.059

Table 4.6 shows that Levene Test in comparing control and collaborative is 3.795 and the sig.

value is 0.059 which is above 0.05 substantiating the equality of variance assumption.

Table 4.7 depicts Tests of Between-Subjects Effects ANCOVA for control and Collaborative

groups. The Sig. value is 0.000 which is above 0.05 and F= 312.578. Therefore there is a significant

difference between the two groups. That is, Collaborative group outperformed the control group.



Zambrut.com


Table 4.7 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects ANCOVA for control and Collaborative

Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 23759.291 2 11879.646 160.964 0.000

Intercept 9754.121 1 9754.121 132.164 0.000

Pre test 236.791 1 236.791 3.208 0.081

groups 23069.578 1 23069.578 312.583 0.000

Error 2730.709 37 73.803

Total 145300.000 40

Corrected Total 26490.000 39

Table 4.8 Normality test for Residuals

Residuals

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z 0.526

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.945

4.5. Results of Comparing Between Control and Individual

In order to see whether collaborative output tasks have a statistically significant effect on Iranian

EFL learners' acquisition of phrasal verbs, the means of two groups were compared which is presented in

Table 4.9 .


group Mean Std. Deviation

Pre test control 21.25 8.717

individual 17.75 4.435

post

test

control 30.25 10.572

individual 68.50 7.964




difference among the participants



1.835 1 38 0.184

Table 4.10 shows that Levene Test in comparing control and collaborative is 3.795 and the sig.

value is 0.059 which is above 0.05 substantiating the equality of variance assumption.

Table 4.11 shows Tests of Between-Subjects Effects ANCOVA for control and individual groups. The

Sig. value is 0.000 which is above 0.05 and F= 176.226. Therefore, there is a significant difference

between the two groups. That is, individual group outperformed the control group.



Zambrut.com


Table 4.11 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects ANCOVA for control and individual

Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 14882.242 2 7441.121 89.473 0.000

Intercept 7574.429 1 7574.429 91.076 0.000

Pre test 251.617 1 251.617 3.025 0.090

groups 14656.002 1 14656.002 176.226 0.000

Error 3077.133 37 83.166

Total 115475.000 40


Table 4.12 normality test for Residuals

Residuals



4.6 Results of Comparing Between Collaborative and Individual

In order to see whether there is a difference in the effectiveness of the two types of doing tasks

(collaboratively vs. individually) , the means of two groups were compared which is presented in Table

4.9 .


group Mean Std. Deviation

pretest individual 17.75 4.435

collaborative 17.50 4.443

posttest individual 68.50 7.964

collaborative 78.75 6.664




difference among the participants.

Table 4.14 shows that Levene Test in comparing individual and collaborative is 3.795 and the sig.

value is 0. 629which is above 0.05 substantiating the equality of variance assumption.



0.237 1 38 0.629

Table 4.15 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects ANCOVA for Individual and Collaborative

Sum of

Squares Df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 1130.792 2 565.396 10.627 0.000

Intercept 10468.091 1 10468.091 196.750 0.000

Pre test 80.167 1 80.167 1.507 0.227

Groups 1066.571 1 1066.571 20.046 0.000

Error 1968.583 37 53.205

Total 219925.000 40




Zambrut.com


Table 4.15 shows Tests of Between-Subjects Effects ANCOVA for collaborative and individual

groups. The Sig. value is 0.000 which is above 0.05 and F= 20.046. Therefore, there is a significant

difference between the two groups. That is, collaborative group outperformed the individual group.

Table 4.16 Normality test for Residuals

Residuals



5. CONCLUSSION

The purpose of this research was to investigate the impact of collaborative and individual task

planning on writing performance of Iranian EFL learners. As one of the few studies on the topic, the

study, more specifically, was aimed to compare the role task planning plays in Iranian EFL learners‟

writing performance taking Brown and Bailey‟s (1984) rating scale. The scale takes into account

components, such as Organization, Content, Grammar, Mechanics, and Style. In other words, the study

tried to compare two methods of planning writing, namely collaborative and individual to see which one

was more effective and which one resulted in better writing among Iranian EFL learners at upper-

intermediate and advanced levels. Results indicated that planning was effective in some aspects of

writing, namely Organization and Style, but not in certain others, namely Content, Grammar, and

Mechanics. However, results of this study revealed that there were improvements over time in writing

performance for the experimental groups.

This has been supported by Doboa (2012) who indicated that pair and small group activities

constitute one of the most common practices in communicative second language (L2) classrooms,

theoretically backed up by both psycholinguistic and sociocultural perspectives on L2 acquisition. In

writing classes, group work has tended to be limited to brainstorming and peer review activities. But in

recent years, a number of studies have called attention to the benefits of collaborative writing tasks, which

require learners to work in pairs throughout the entire writing process (e.g., Storch, 2005; Wigglesworth

& Storch, 2009).

Research from a sociocultural perspective suggests that collaborative writing activities push

learners to reflect on their language use and work together in the solution of their language-related

problems (Swain, 2001). By pooling their linguistic resources to solve the problems encountered, learners

engage in language-mediated cognitive activities that are thought to facilitate the co-construction of

language knowledge and a higher level of performance (Donato, 1994; Ohta, 2001; Swain, 2000; Swain

& Lapkin, 1998). Doboa provided evidence that collaborative dialogue, the dialogue that occurs between

learners as they collaborate to solve linguistic problems, mediates L2 learning (e.g., Kim, 2008; Swain,

Brooks, & Tocalli-Beller, 2002; Swain & Lapkin, 2002).

It can also be stated that the learners‟ interaction and collaboration about what they are producing

or writing may be a source and sign of second language learning. Thus, it is in accordance with the results

of a study conducted by Swain and Lapkin (1998), in which they discussed what they termed

"collaborative dialogues" in "language-related episodes". They proposed that such “language-related

episodes provide evidence of language use as both an enactment of mental process and as an occasion for

L2 learning” (p. 320). These results are also in favor of Vygotsky's (1978, 1986) sociocultural theory of

mind, in which language learning is essentially social and collaborative interaction is the main component

in the process of language learning. So, this study supports this claim that new knowledge begins in

interaction and also becomes internalized and consolidated through collaboration with others (Vygotsky,

1978, 1986).

Findings related to collaborative output tasks revealed that they were very effective in completing

output tasks. The results provide some grounds for their potential use in creating negotiation of ideas

while doing group work in classroom. The findings were not consistent with some of the previous



Zambrut.com


research, which found positive effects for collaborative pair work on L2 learners‟ acquisition of target

forms. This shows that, as asserted by Nassaji & Tian (2010), the presumed effectiveness of collaborative

task on learning linguistic forms should be taken with more caution. Therefore, further investigation in the

related area is needed to find out if collaborative output tasks are really influential in this regard or, if not,

what the possible causes are.

6. REFERENCES 1. Ellis R (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition 27 141-72.

2. Hare A (2010). Incidental phrasal verb acquisition through second language reading, MA Thesis, Concordia

University. Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

3. Izumi S (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL

relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(4) 451-577.

4. Izumi S and Bigelow M (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly 34

239-278.

5. Kao R (2001). Where have the prepositions gone? A study of English prepositional verbs and input enhancement in

instructed SLA. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 39 195-215.

6. Kuiken F and Vedder I (2002). The effect of interaction in acquiring the grammar of a second language.

7. International Journal of Educational Research 37 343-58.

8. Lapkin S and Swain M (2000). Task outcomes: a focus on immersion students‟ use of pronominal verbs in their

writing. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 3 7-22.

9. Lapkin S, Swain M and Smith M (2002). Reformulation and the learning of French pronominal verbs in a Canadian

French immersion context. Modern Language Journal 86 485-507.

10. Laufer B and Hulstijn JH (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: the construct of task nduced

involvement. Applied Linguistics 22(1) 1-26.

11. Lewis M (1993). The Lexical Approach (Hove: Teacher Training Publications).

12. Maftoon P and Sharifi S (2012). The relative effectiveness of input and output-oriented tasks with different

involvement loads on the receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge of Iranian EFL learners. The Journal of

Teaching Language Skills 4(2) 27-52.

13. McCarthy M and O‟Dell F (2004). English Phrasal Verbs in Use (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

14. Moon R (1997). Vocabulary connections: Multi-word items in English. In: Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and

Pedagogy, edited by McCarthy M (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 40- 63. Nassaji H and 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 34-51.

15. Nassaji H and Tian J (2010). Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal

verbs. Language Teaching Research 14(4) 397-41.

16. Neo M (2003). Developing a collaborative learning environment using a web-based de sign. Journal of Computer

Assisted Learning 19(4) 462-473.

17. Side R (1990). Phrasal verbs: Sorting them out. ELT Journal 44 144-152.

18. Storch N (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching

Research 2 143-59.

19. Swain M (1993). The output hypothesis: just speaking and writing aren‟t enough. The Canadian Modern Language

Review 50 158-164.

20. Swain M (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In:

Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning, edited by Lantolf JP (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 97-114.

21. Swain M (2001). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. Canadian Modern Language

Review 58 44-63.

22. Swain M (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In: Handbook of Research in Second Language

Teaching and Learning, edited by Hinkel E (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates) 47183.

23. Swain M and Lapkin S (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second

language learning. Applied Linguistics 16 371-391.

24. Swain M and Lapkin S (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In: Researching

Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing, edited by Bygate M, Skehan P and Swain M

(Harlow: Pearson Education) 99-118.

25. Swain M and Lapkin S (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners‟ response to reformulation.

International Journal of Educational Research 37 285-304.

26. Trask RL (1993). A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics (London: Routhledge).

© Copyright 2018 International Journal of Zambrut | Scientific Researcher Group

Effects of Collaborative and Individual Output Tasks on ......Phrasal verbs are defined as “a verb...

Documents

Transcript of Effects of Collaborative and Individual Output Tasks on ......Phrasal verbs are defined as “a verb...