| تعداد نشریات | 24 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 929 |
| تعداد مقالات | 8,346 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 16,803,846 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 14,117,960 |
The Combined Effects of Task Sequencing and Indirect Corrective Feedback on L2 Writing: Examining the SSARC Model | ||
| Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly | ||
| مقاله 3، دوره 44، شماره 1، 2025، صفحه 53-76 اصل مقاله (705.72 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22099/tesl.2024.51345.3333 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Sara Ziaei؛ Mansoor Tavakoli* ؛ Zahra Amirian | ||
| Faculty of Foreign Languages, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Task sequencing (TS) has been a focus of empirical investigations in task-based language teaching (TBLT). Previous studies on TS failed to represent classroom contexts because they did not provide learners with corrective feedback (CF). This study aimed to address this gap by examining the combined effects of TS and CF on writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF). To do so, 113 upper-intermediate EFL learners were selected and divided into two groups. Participants took a pretest at the beginning of the study. Each group performed two three-task sets in simple-to-complex(S-C) or complex-to-simple(C-S) order. In each group, the errors in the first set of tasks were given CF by error codes (ECs), while the errors in the second set were only underlined. Participants in both groups were asked to revise their texts based on the provided CF and take a posttest at the end of the study. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was run to analyze the pretest and posttest data. The results showed that the group performing tasks in S-C order and receiving ECs outperformed the others. Findings supported the SSARC (Stabilize, Simplify, Automatize, Reconstruct, Complexify) model. The study has implications for material development. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Task Sequencing؛ Error Codes؛ Underlining؛ The SSARC Model | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Abdi Tabari, M., & Cho, M. (2022). Task sequencing and L2 writing development: Exploring the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. Language Teaching Research, 0(0), 16-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221090922
Abdi Tabari, M., Khajavy, G. H., & Goetze, J. (2024). Mapping the interactions between task sequencing, anxiety, and enjoyment in L2 writing development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 65(2024), 101-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2024.101116
Abdi Tabari, M., Wang, Y. & Miller, M. (2024). Understanding the SSARC model of task sequencing: Assessing L2 writing development. Assessing Writing, 62(1), 23-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2024.100893.
Ahmadi, H., & Nazari, O. (2014). Grading and sequencing tasks in task-based syllabus: A critical look at criterion selection. International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 8(11), 337-334.
Allaw, E., & McDonough, K. (2019). The effect of task sequencing on second language written lexical complexity, accuracy, and fluency. System, 85(2019), 102-104. https://doi.org/ 10. 1016/j. system. 2019.06.008
Baralt M., Gilabert R., Robinson P. (2014). An introduction to theory and research in task sequencing and instructed second language learning. In Baralt M., Gilabert R., Robinson P. (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 1–37). Bloomsbury.
Barrot, J. S., & Agdeppa, J. Y. (2021). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency as indices of college-level L2 writers’ proficiency. Assessing Writing, 47(2021), 100510. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j. asw. 2020. 100510
Benson, S., & DeKeyser, R. (2019). Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense accuracy. Language Teaching Research, 23(6), 702-726. https://doi.org/ 10. 1177/ 1362 168818770921
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development (Vol. 96). Multilingual Matters.
Candlin, C. N. (1984). Syllabus design as a critical process. In C. J. Brumfit (Ed.), General English syllabus design (pp. 29-40). Oxford: Pergamon.
Candlin, C. (1987). Toward task-based learning. In C. Candlin & D. Murphy (Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp. 5-22). Prentice-Hall.
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9
Cho, M. (2021). English Learners’ Orientations Towards Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency: Learner Factors and L2 Writing Performance. Studies in English Education, 26(4), 507-531.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. OUP
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. P. (2005). Analyzing Learner Language. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
Fathi, J., & Rahimi, M. (2022). Examining the impact of flipped classroom on writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency: A case of EFL students. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(7), 1668-1706. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1825097
Ferris, D. R. (2007). Preparing teachers to respond to student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 165–193. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.003
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X
Fu, M., & Li, S. (2022). The effects of immediate and delayed corrective feedback on L2
development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44(1), 2-34. https://doi.org/ 10.1017 /S027 2263120000388
Gilabert, R. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 215-240. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.010
Ha, X. V., Murray, J. C., & Reynolds, B. L. (2024). “Without the video I wouldn't have known”: An experienced EFL teacher learning to provide oral corrective feedback. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34(3) 1148-1151 https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12556
Johnson, M. D. (2024). Task-based language teaching and L2 writing: The performance- development divide. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 39, 217-230. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq. 2024.39.15
Jin, C., & Yan, J. (2024). The effects of task complexity and task sequencing on L2 performance: a systematic review. The Language Learning Journal, 1-28. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/ 09571736.2024.2345911
Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2020). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 519-539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818802469
Kim, N. (2023). The effects of different task sequences on novice L2 learners’ oral performance in the classroom. Language Teaching Research, 27(2), 415-440. https://doi.org/10.1177 /1362 1688 20 937548
Kim, Y., & Emeliyanova, L. (2021). The effects of written corrective feedback on the accuracy of L2 writing: Comparing collaborative and individual revision behavior. Language Teaching Research, 25(2), 234-255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819831406
Lambert, C., & Robinson, P. (2014). Learning to perform narrative tasks: A semester-long classroom study of L2 task sequencing effects. Task Sequencing and Instructed Second Language Learning, 207-230.
Lee, I. (2018). Teachers’ frequently asked questions about focused written corrective feedback. TESOL Journal, 10(3), 43-61. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.427
Levkina, M., & Gilabert, R. (2014). Task sequencing in the L2 development of spatial expressions. Task Sequencing and Instructed Second Language Learning, 37-70.
Liu, Q., & Brown, D. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30(2015), 66-81. https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.jslw.2015.08.011
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. Foreign language Research in Cross-Cultural Perspective, 2(3) 239-252.
Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26(1), 27-56.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in second language acquisition, 19(1), 37-66. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034
Malicka, A. (2020). The role of task sequencing in fluency, accuracy, and complexity: Investigating the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. Language Teaching Research, 24(5), 642-665. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818813668
Manuel, R., (2022). Integrating project-based learning, Task-based Language Teaching Approach and Youtube in the ESP class: A study on students’ motivation. Teaching English with Technology, 22(1), 62-81.
Nassaji, H. (2015). The interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning.
Language Teaching Research, 19, 129-132. https://doi. org/10.1177/1362168815572747
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rahimi, M. (2021). A comparative study of the impact of focused vs. comprehensive corrective feedback and revision on ESL learners’ writing accuracy and quality. Language Teaching Research, 25(5), 687-710. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819879182
Ren, W., Wu, Y., & Peng, Y. (2023). Effects of task complexity, task sequence, and interlocutor familiarity on Chinese EFL learners’ self-repair in synchronous online interaction. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/ 10.1177 /13621688231176066
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied linguistics, 22(1), 27-57. https://doi.org /10. 1093/ applin /22. 1.27
Robinson, P. (2003). The cognitive hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21, 45-107
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43, 1–32 https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2005.43.1.1
Robinson, P. (2007a). 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 in Language Teaching, 45, 193-213.
Robinson P. (2010). Situating and distributing cognition across task demands: The SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In Pütz M., Sicola L. (Eds.), Cognitive processing in second language acquisition: Inside the learner’s mind (pp. 243–268). John Benjamins.
Robinson, P. (2011). Task-based language learning: A review of issues. Language Learning, 61, 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00641.x
Robinson, P. (2015). The Cognition Hypothesis, second language task demands, and the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In Domains and directions in the development of TBLT (pp. 87-122). John Benjamins.
Robinson, P. (2022). The cognition hypothesis, the triadic componential framework and the SSARC model: An instructional design theory of pedagogic task sequencing. The Cambridge handbook of task-based language teaching, 205-225.
Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language learning and performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 161-176. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.007
Shintani, N., & Aubrey, S. (2016). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer‐mediated environment. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 296-319. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12317
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (2009). Modeling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied linguistics, 30(4), 510-532. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ amp047
Tang, C., & Liu, Y. T. (2018). Effects of indirect coded corrective feedback with and without short affective teacher comments on L2 writing performance, learner uptake and motivation. Assessing Writing, 35, 26-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2017.12.002
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language learning, 46(2), 327-369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
Writing Correction Code. (2013). https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/teaching- resources/teaching-secondary/activities/beginner-a1/writing-correction-code | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 636 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 587 |
||