An Output-oriented Approach to the Impact of Online Written Languaging on Form-Focused Writing Tasks

IF 1 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Language and Education Pub Date : 2023-03-31 DOI:10.17323/jle.2023.13801
Natasha Pourdana
{"title":"An Output-oriented Approach to the Impact of Online Written Languaging on Form-Focused Writing Tasks","authors":"Natasha Pourdana","doi":"10.17323/jle.2023.13801","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background. Despite the growing interest of second language acquisition (SLA) researchers in the languaging process, a few studies have been done on its dynamic attributes in various writing tasks. \nPurpose. This study investigated how online written languaging (WL) might impact English-as-a-Foreign-Language (EFL) learners’ performance on form-focused writing tasks with production-based and comprehension-based output orientation in Google Docs, and how the output orientation of form-focused writing tasks could determine the WL attributes of quantity and focus. \nMethods. To do so, 112 Iranian EFL university students were selected and assigned to four parallel groups. In an eight-week experiment, two groups worked on gap-filling tasks (production-based) and two groups on error-identification tasks (comprehension-based) in parallel ±WL conditions. \nResults. Statistical analysis indicated a significant interaction between task output orientation and WL production. So, on both production-based and comprehension-based tasks, the +WL groups outperformed the ˗WL groups. Moreover, in the +WL condition, the task output orientation determined the quantity of WL episodes, but not their focus on grammar (G-WL) and lexis (L-WL) in production-based and comprehension-based tasks. As such, the +WL group who completed the production-based tasks produced much more WL episodes than the +WL group who completed the comprehension-based tasks. Yet, both groups equally produced more L-WL episodes than G-WL episodes. \nСonclusion. The study had several implications for language teachers to maximize learning opportunities by teaching how to language in various writing tasks on online platforms. The L2 teachers are also recommended to adopt an alternative approach to translation as a form-focused writing task.","PeriodicalId":37020,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Language and Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Language and Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2023.13801","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background. Despite the growing interest of second language acquisition (SLA) researchers in the languaging process, a few studies have been done on its dynamic attributes in various writing tasks. Purpose. This study investigated how online written languaging (WL) might impact English-as-a-Foreign-Language (EFL) learners’ performance on form-focused writing tasks with production-based and comprehension-based output orientation in Google Docs, and how the output orientation of form-focused writing tasks could determine the WL attributes of quantity and focus. Methods. To do so, 112 Iranian EFL university students were selected and assigned to four parallel groups. In an eight-week experiment, two groups worked on gap-filling tasks (production-based) and two groups on error-identification tasks (comprehension-based) in parallel ±WL conditions. Results. Statistical analysis indicated a significant interaction between task output orientation and WL production. So, on both production-based and comprehension-based tasks, the +WL groups outperformed the ˗WL groups. Moreover, in the +WL condition, the task output orientation determined the quantity of WL episodes, but not their focus on grammar (G-WL) and lexis (L-WL) in production-based and comprehension-based tasks. As such, the +WL group who completed the production-based tasks produced much more WL episodes than the +WL group who completed the comprehension-based tasks. Yet, both groups equally produced more L-WL episodes than G-WL episodes. Сonclusion. The study had several implications for language teachers to maximize learning opportunities by teaching how to language in various writing tasks on online platforms. The L2 teachers are also recommended to adopt an alternative approach to translation as a form-focused writing task.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
以产出为导向的方法研究网络写作语言对以形式为中心的写作任务的影响
背景尽管第二语言习得(SLA)研究者对语言过程越来越感兴趣,但很少有人对其在各种写作任务中的动态属性进行研究。意图本研究调查了在线书面语言(WL)如何影响英语即外语(EFL)学习者在谷歌文档中以产出为基础和以理解为基础的以形式为中心的写作任务中的表现,以及以形式为重点的写作任务的输出方向如何决定WL的数量和重点属性。方法。为了做到这一点,112名伊朗EFL大学生被选入四个平行小组。在一项为期八周的实验中,两组在平行±WL条件下进行填空任务(基于生产),两组进行错误识别任务(基于理解)。后果统计分析表明,任务输出定向与WL产生之间存在显著的交互作用。因此,在基于生产和理解的任务中,+WL组的表现优于-WL组。此外,在+WL条件下,任务输出取向决定了WL事件的数量,但在基于生产和理解的任务中,它们对语法(G-WL)和词汇(L-WL)的关注程度不同。因此,完成基于生产的任务的+WL组比完成基于理解的任务的+WL组产生更多的WL发作。然而,两组患者的L-WL发作次数均多于G-WL发作。结论。这项研究对语言教师通过在在线平台上教授如何在各种写作任务中使用语言来最大限度地增加学习机会有几点启示。二语教师还被建议采用另一种翻译方法,将其作为一项以形式为中心的写作任务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Language and Education
Journal of Language and Education Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
14.30%
发文量
33
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Scrutinizing the Relationship between Vietnamese English Majors’ Intrinsic Motivation and Perceptions Towards Five Components of the 5Ts Framework Examining the Evolution and Components of the Culture of Learning in University Education: A Systematic Scoping Review Predictive Effects of English Classroom Anxiety and Motivation on Chinese Undergraduate EFL Learners’ English Achievement Literary Works and Technology Aids Inclusion in Foreign Language Learning: Case of Kosovo Students’ Approach Teacher Development in Technology-Enhanced Language Teaching: Book Review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1