The Effect of Output on Subsequent Input in EFL Contexts
محورهای موضوعی : نشریه تخصصی زبان، فرهنگ، و ترجمه (دوفصلنامه)مینا کاظم زاده 1 , سعید تاکی 2
1 - مربی گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه شیخ بهایی، اصفهان، ایران
2 - دانشیار گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد شهرضا، شهرضا، ایران
کلید واژه: Input processing, recall, EFL learning, Output processing,
چکیده مقاله :
This study sought to investigate the effect of output processing on subsequent input processing. To this end, a recall task was used to measure the effect of output on subsequent input processing. The participants were selected from learners of English as a foreign language (EFL). They were homogeneous in terms of their language proficiency. The participants were assigned to two treatment groups: one output and one non-output. The output group went through three phases beginning with writing a story in English based on four cartoon pictures. Then, they read a model story describing these cartoon pictures. Finally, they were asked to recall the story in as much detail as possible. While the non-output group went through only the last two steps (input and recall). The results showed that when the participants produced the output and then received the input, they could recall the subsequent input better.
This study sought to investigate the effect of output processing on subsequent input processing. To this end, a recall task was used to measure the effect of output on subsequent input processing. The participants were selected from learners of English as a foreign language (EFL). They were homogeneous in terms of their language proficiency. The participants were assigned to two treatment groups: one output and one non-output. The output group went through three phases beginning with writing a story in English based on four cartoon pictures. Then, they read a model story describing these cartoon pictures. Finally, they were asked to recall the story in as much detail as possible. While the non-output group went through only the last two steps (input and recall). The results showed that when the participants produced the output and then received the input, they could recall the subsequent input better.
References
Abadikhah, S. (2012). The effect of mechanical and meaningful
production of output on learning English relative clauses. System, 20,
1-15.
Anderson, R. (2005). Cognitive pschology and its implications (6th ed.).
New York: Worth Publishers.
Brown, C. (1993). Factors affecting the acquisition of vocabulary:
Frequency and sailency of words. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes & J. Coady
(Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 263-
286). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
De Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis.
Language Learning, 46, 529-555.
Dornyei, Z. (2010). Researching motivation: From integrativeness to the
ideal L2 self. In S. Hunston & D. Oakey (Eds.), Introducing applied
linguistics: Concepts and skills (pp. 74-83). London: Routledge.
Ellis, R. (1981). The role of input in language acquisition: Some
implications for second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 11(1),
70-82.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., & Wells, G. (1980). Enabling factors in adult-child discourse.
First Language, 1, 46-82.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1986). The role of comprehension in second
language learning. Applied linguistics, 7 (3), 257-274.
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In C.J. Doughty & M. H. Long
(Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224-255).
Oxford: Blackwell.
Gass, S. M., & Alvarez Torres, M. J. (2005). Attention when? An
investigation of the ordering effect of input and interaction. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 27, 1-31.
Kazemzadeh, M. & Taki, S. / Journal of Language, Culture, and Translation 3(1) (2015), 33–52
49
Gass, S. M., & Madden, C. (1985). Input in second language acquisition.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Gass, S. M., Svetics, I., & Lemelin, S. (2003). Differential effects of
attention. Language Learning, 53, 495-543.
Hanaoka, O. (2007). Output, noticing, and learning: an investigation into
the role of spontaneous attention to form in a four-stage writing task.
Language Teaching Research, 11, 459-479.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis:
An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 24, 541-577.
Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and
second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34, 239-278.
Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing
the output hypothesis: Effects of output on noticing and second
language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21,
421-452.
Keck, C. M., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracey-Ventura, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S.
(2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction
and acquisition: A meta-analysis. In J.M. Norris & L. Kim, Y. (2008).
The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the
acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 114-
130.
Krashen, S. D. (1980). The input hypothesis. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Current
issues in bilingual education (pp. 144-158). Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and Implications.
London: longman.
Loschky, L. (1994). Comprehensible input and second language
acquisition: what is the relationship? Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 16 (3), 303-323.
Mackey, A. (2002). Beyond production: Learnersʼ perceptions about
interactional processes. International Journal of Educational
Research, 37, 379-394.
Muranoi, H. (2007). Output practice in the L2 classroom. In R. M.
Dekeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from
applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 51-84). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nabei, T. (1996). Dictogloss: Is it an effective language learning task?
Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 12, 59-74.
Kazemzadeh, M. & Taki, S. / Journal of Language, Culture, and Translation 3(1) (2015), 33–52
50
Nagata, N. (1998). Input vs. output practice in educational software for
second language acquisition. Language Learning and Teaching, 1(2),
23-40.
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.
Noels, K., Pelletier, L., Clement, R., & Vallerand, R. (2000). Why are you
learning a second language? Motivational orientations and selfditermination theory. Language learning, 50, 57-85.
Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a threestage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 10, 277-303.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language
learning. Applied linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A
tutorial on the role of attention and awereness in learning. In R.
Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning
(pp. 1-63). Honolulu: University of Hawaiʼi Press.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and
second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Combridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Schmidt, R. (2010). Attention, awareness and individual differences in
language learning. In W. M. Chan, S. Chi, K. N. Cin, J. Istanto, M.
Nagami, J. W. Sew, T. Suthiwan & I. Walker (Eds.), Proceeding of
CLaSIC (pp. 721-737). Singapore: National University: Center for
Language Studies.
Schmitt, N. (2002). An introduction to applied linguistics. London:
Arnold.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15 (2), 165-179.
Song, M . J., & Suh, B. R. (2008). The effects of output task types on
noticing and learning of the English past counterfactual conditional.
System, 36, 295-312.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and studentsʼ
reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153-173.
Storch, N. (2007). Investigating the mertis of pair work on a text editing
task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research, 2, 143-159.
Suzuki, W., Itagaki, M., Takagi, T., & Watanabe, T. (2009). The effect of
output processing on subsequent input processing: A free recall study.
Applied linguistics, 9 (1), 1-17.
Kazemzadeh, M. & Taki, S. / Journal of Language, Culture, and Translation 3(1) (2015), 33–52
51
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of
comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development.
In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition
(pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C.
Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second
language acquisition (pp. 64-81). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning.
In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied
linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1997). Colloborative dialogue: Its contribution to second
language learning. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 34, 115-132.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E.
Hinkel (Ed.), The handbook of research in second language teaching
and learning (pp.471-483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
VanPattern, B. (1994). Evaluating the role of consciousness in second
language acquisition: Terms, linguistic features, and research
methodology. AILA Review, 11, 27-36.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory
and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
VanPatten, B. (2007). Input processing in adult second language
acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second
language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 115-135). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Vygotsky, L. S., (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and
the development of second language competence. Applied linguistics,
8(2), 95-110.
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language
learning, 49, 583-625.
Zhang, S. (2009). The role of input, interaction and output in the
development of oral fluency. English Language Teaching, 2, 91-100.
