On the Impact of Two Input-Oriented Techniques and Perceptual Learning Styles on Causative Construction Development: The Case of Iranian Learners of English
Subject Areas : All areas of language and translationMotahar Tavakoly 1 , Gholamreza Kiany 2 , Mohammad R. Hashemi 3
1 - PhD Student of Teaching English as a Foreign Language, Department of Foreign Languages, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2 - Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics, Department of English Language Teaching,
Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
3 - Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics Applied Linguistics, Department of Foreign Languages, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
Keywords: Textual input enhancement, Causative Construction, Interactionally modified input, VAK learning style,
Abstract :
This study sought to investigate the effect of the two input types interactionally modified input (IM) and textual input enhancement (TIE), the impact of a commonly used learning styles taxonomy as the Visual, Auditory and Kinesthetic learning styles (VAK) by itself as well as the interactional effect of perceptual learning styles and input types on the causative construction development of EFL learners. To this end, 120 female Iranian EFL learners from three language schools in Tehran participated in this research and were divided into two experimental groups of 60. The study adopted a pretest-posttest design and learner’s grammar knowledge was measured before and after providing them with instructional treatment through IM input and TIE techniques. The data were analyzed through a two-way ANOVA. The results of the study indicated that IM input was significantly more effective than TIE in promoting the participants' knowledge of the target structure. The comparison of the posttest means scores also revealed that the VAK style was not an influential factor in second language learners’ target form knowledge, while a significant interaction between input type and learning styles turned out to have a beneficial effect if they synchronize in classrooms.
Abdollahi, S. H., &Tahriri, A. (2012). The relationship between learning styles and vocabulary recall of learners. Iranian EFL Journal, 8(6), 11-27.
Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In R. Schmidt, (Ed.), Attention and awareness in second language acquisition (pp. 259-99). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Aqel, F., & Mahmoud, S. (2006). Learning styles of An-Najah National University students in learning English as a foreign language. Humanities, 20(2), 597-624.
BagherShabani, M. (2012). Different learning style preferences of male and female Iranian non-academic EFL learners. ELT, 5(9), 65-87.
Bialystock, E. (1998). The competence of pro-cessing: Classifying theories of second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 635-648.
Bishka, A. (2010). Learning styles fray: Brilliant or batty? Performance Improvement, 49, 9-13.
Cano, J. (1999). The relationship between learning style, academic major, and academic performance of college students.Journal of Education, 40, 87-99.
Cassidy, S. (2004). Learning styles: An overview of the theories, models, and measures. Educational Psychology, 24, 419-444.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E.(1998).Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-138). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction.Language Learning, 51, 1-46.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., &Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus-on-form.System, 30, 419-432.
Fleming, N. D. (2001). Teaching and learning styles: VAK strategies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285-301.
Fotos, S. (2002). Structure-based interactive tasks for the EFL grammar learner. In E. Hinkel& S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in secondlanguage classrooms (pp. 135-155). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fridley, W. L., & Fridley, C.A. (2010).Some problems and peculiarities with the learning styles rhetoric and practice.Journal of Philosophy and History of Education, 32, 21-27.
Gappi, L. L. (2013). Relationships between learning style preference and academic performance of students. InternationalJournal of Educational Research and Technology, 4(2), 70-76.
García Mayo, M.P. (2002). Interaction in advanced EFL pedagogy: A comparison of form-focusedactivities. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 323-341.
Hall, E., & Moseley, D. (2005). Is there a role for learning styles in personalized education and training?International Journal of Lifelong Education, 24, 243-255.
Han, Z., Park, E., & Combs, C. (2008). Textual enhancement of input: Issues and possibilities. AppliedLinguistics, 29(4), 597-618.
Hatch, E. (1983).Simplification and second language acquisition. In R. W. Andersen (Ed.),Pidginizationand creolization as language acquisition (pp. 59-86). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Hollmann, W. (2006).Passive ability of English periphrastic causatives. In S. Th. Gries& A.Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches tosyntax and lexis (pp. 193-223). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESLrelativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541-577.
Kassaian, Z. (2007). Learning styles and lexical presentation modes.ELIA, 7, 53-78.
Kuiken, F. &Vedder, I. (2002).The effect of interaction in acquiring the grammar of a second language.International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 343-358.
Leow, R. (1997). The effects of input enhancement and text length on adult L2 readers’ comprehensionand intake in second language acquisition.Applied Language Learning, 8, 151-182.
Leow, R. P. (2001). Do learners notice enhanced forms while interacting with the L2? An online andoffline study of the role of written input enhancement in L2 reading.Hispania, 3(84), 496-509.
Lewis, N. (2008). The relationship between learning style and student success in a distance education Program. (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Athabasca, Canada.
Lipca, L. (1982). Causatives and inchoatives in English and their treatment in recent lexicographic practice. An international review of English Studies, 14, 1-15.
Liu, Z. (2009). On the influential factors for L2 learners’ oral language production. Foreign Languages and Teaching, 7, 26-28.
Long, M. (1982). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in the second lan-guage classroom. In M. Long & C. Rich-ards (Eds.), Methodology in TESOL: A book of readings (pp. 339-354). NewYork: Newbury House.
Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126-141.
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & L.Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Loschky, L. C. (1994). Comprehensible input and second language acquisition: What is the relationship? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 303-325.
Lotfi, A. R. (2008).Causative constructions in modern Persian, California Linguistic Notes, XXXIII(2),1-31.
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of questionformation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557-587.
Mackey, A., & Oliver, R. (2002).Interactional feedback and children’s L2 develop-ment.System, 30(4),459-477.
Mackey, A., &Philp, J. (1998). Conversational
interaction and second language development: Recasts,responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338-356.
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2000). Communicative tasks, conversational interaction and linguisticform: An empirical study of Thai. ForeignLanguageAnnals, 33(1), 82-92.
Murphy, R. (2004). Grammar in use.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nassaji, H. &Fotos, S. (2007). Current issues in form-focused instruction.In S. Fotos& H. Nassaji (Eds.), Form-focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honor of Rod Ellis (pp. 7-15).Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nilson, L. B. (2016). Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college instructors. Bolton:Heinle&Heinle.
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitativemeta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-428.
Oflaz, M., &Turunc, T. (2012). The effect of learning styles on group work activities. Social andBehavior Sciences, 8, 306-314.
Overstreet, M. (1998). Text enhancement and content familiarity: The focus of learner attention. SpanishApplied Linguistics, 2, 229-258.
Oxford, R. L. (2001). Language learning styles and strategies.In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), TeachingEnglish as a second of foreign language (pp. 350-367). Boston: Heinle&Heinle.
Pashler, H., McDaniel., M., & Rohrer, D. (2009). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. PsychologicalScience in the Public Interest, 9, 105-119.
Peacock, M. (2001). Match or mismatch? Learning style and teaching style in EFL. International Journalof Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 1-20.
Peterson, E, R., Rayner, S. G., & Armstrong, S. J. (2009).In search of definitions of cognitive styles andlearning styles.Learning and Individual differences, 19, 518-523.
Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C. (1986). Making input comprehensible: Do interactional modificationshelp? International Review of Applied Linguistics, 72, 1-25.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions,processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493-527.
Pinker, S. (1989).Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Reber, A. (1993).Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious. Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Reid, J. M. (1987). The learning style preferences of EFL students.TESOL Quarterly, 21(1), 87-111.
Reid, J.M. (1995). Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Bostom: Heinle&Heinle.
Riener, C., & Willingham, D. (2010).The myth of learning styles.Change, 42, 32-35.
Robinson, P. (2003). Attention and memory during SLA. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), Handbook ofsecond language acquisition (pp. 631-677). Oxford: Blackwell.
Sachs, R., &Suh, B. R. (2007).Textually en-hanced recasts, learner awareness, and L2 outcomes insynchronous computer-mediated interaction. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction insec-ondlanguage acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 197-227). New York: OxfordUniversity Press.
Schmidt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scott, C. (2010). The enduring appeal of learning styles.Australian Journal of Education, 54(10), 5-17.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of languageinformation for the L2 learner. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 17, 118-32.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition, 15, 165-179.
Shook, D. (1994).FL/L2 reading, grammatical information, and the input-to-intake phenomenon.AppliedLanguage Learning, 5, 57-93.
Stefanowitsch, A., &Gries, S. Th. (2003).Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between wordsand construc-tions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209-243.
Swan, M. (2005). Practical English usage (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Van den Branden, K. (2006). Task-based lan-guage education: From theory to practice. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
VanPatten, B. (2004). Processing instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wang, L. (2007). Variation in learning styles in a group of Chinese English as a foreign languagelearners. MLJ, 65, 43-65.
White, J. (1998). Getting the learners’ attention: A typographical input enhancement study.In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 85-113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (2000). The semantics of English causative constructions in a universal typological
perspective. In M. Tomasello (Ed.).The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functionaapproaches to language structure (pp. 113-153). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wong, W. (2003).Textual enhancement and simplified input: Effects on L2 comprehension and acquisition of non-meaningful grammatical form. Applied Language Learning, 13, 17-45.
Zarei, G.R., &Khazaie, S. (2011). L2 vocabulary learning through multimodal representations.Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 369-375.