Impact of Consciousness-raising via Input Flooding vs. Vocabulary Input Enhancement on Reading Fluency of Iranian EFL Intermediate Learners
محورهای موضوعی : نشریه زبان و ترجمهSaeideh Sadat Fatahzadeh 1 , Sajad Shafiee 2 , Fariba Rahimi Esfahani 3
1 - Department of English, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran
2 - Department of English, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran
3 - Department of English, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran
کلید واژه: input enhancement, Vocabulary, Consciousness-raising, Input Flooding, Reading Fluency,
چکیده مقاله :
The current study was set to examine whether input flooding and input enhancement of vocabulary affected reading fluency of Iranian EFL learners. It also evaluated whether there was any substantial difference between the impacts of input flooding and input enhancement of vocabulary on reading of Iranian EFL learners. To this end, 120 out of 150 Iranian EFL intermediate learners at three language schools in Iran were randomly selected and divided into three groups, each consisting of 40 learners. The first experimental group received input flooding as treatment. To this aim, the frequency of the vocabulary items in the reading texts used during the course was increased. In other words, learners were flooded with the vocabulary items via different examples and using the words several times in the reading texts. The participants in the Input Enhancement (IE) group received IE through underlining, boldfacing, italicization, capitalization, and other strategies such as color coding, using different fonts, and diverse forms of vocabulary. To this end, in this experimental group, the vocabulary items appeared in the texts through using underlining, boldfacing, italicization and capitalization. In order to do so, the researcher retyped the selected materials and carried out the required modifications on them. control group received traditional method for teaching reading. The findings revealed that both input flooding and input enhancement of vocabulary had positively significant impacts on Iranian EFL learners’ reading fluency. Input flooding of vocabulary was more effective than input enhancement of vocabulary regarding their impacts on Iranian EFL learners’ reading fluency.
مطالعه حاضر با هدف بررسی اینکه آیا سیل ورودی و افزایش ورودی واژگان بر روانی خواندن زبان آموزان ایرانی تأثیر می گذارد یا خیر، انجام شد. همچنین بررسی کرد که آیا تفاوت معناداری بین تأثیر سیل ورودی و افزایش ورودی واژگان بر خواندن زبان آموزان ایرانی زبان انگلیسی وجود دارد یا خیر. به این منظور، از بین 150 زبان آموز ایرانی زبان انگلیسی، 120 نفر از زبان آموزان سطح متوسط در سه موسسه زبان در ایران انتخاب و به سه گروه 40 نفری تقسیم شدند. اولین گروه آزمایشی سیل ورودی را به عنوان درمان مطابق با فرضیه اشمیت (2000) و تعریف پیشنهادی اشمیت (2002) برای سیل ورودی دریافت کردند. برای این منظور فراوانی اقلام واژگانی در متون خواندنی مورد استفاده در دوره افزایش یافت. به عبارت دیگر، زبان آموزان از طریق مثال های مختلف و استفاده از کلمات چندین بار در متون خواندنی، مملو از آیتم های واژگانی شدند. شرکت کنندگان در گروه افزایش ورودی (IE) اینترنت اکسپلورر را مطابق با فرضیه اشمیت (1994) دریافت کردند که توسط نوریس و اورتگا (2000) با خط کشی، پررنگ، مورب، حروف بزرگ و استراتژی های دیگر مانند کدگذاری رنگ یا استفاده از فونت های مختلف پیشنهاد شده بود. اندازه یا انواع واژگان بدین منظور، در این گروه آزمایشی، آیتم های واژگانی با استفاده از خط کشی، پررنگ، مورب و حروف بزرگ در متون ظاهر شدند. برای انجام این کار، محقق مطالب انتخاب شده را مجدداً تایپ کرده و اصلاحات لازم را روی آنها انجام داد. در مقابل، گروه کنترل روش سنتی آموزش خواندن را دریافت کردند. نتایج از طریق ANCOVA مورد تجزیه و تحلیل قرار گرفت. یافته‌ها نشان داد که هم سیل ورودی و هم افزایش ورودی واژگان تأثیر مثبت معناداری بر روانی خواندن زبان آموزان ایرانی زبان انگلیسی دارند. سیل ورودی واژگان با توجه به تأثیر آن بر روان خواندن زبان آموزان ایرانی زبان انگلیسی مؤثرتر از افزایش ورودی واژگان بود. برخی مفاهیم آموزشی و نظری نیز ارائه شده است
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Balcom, P., & Bouffard, P. (2015). The effect of input flooding and explicit instruction on learning adverb placement in L3 French. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(2),1-27.
Bastone, R. (1996). Key Concepts in ELT: Noticing. ELT Journal, 50 (3), 273.
Bialystok, E. (1993). Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.) Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 43- 57). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blevins, R. (2005). The effects of focus on form in the teaching of Spanish- English false friends. RESLA, 17-18, 65-79.
Cook, N. (2001). Fostering creativity and innovation without encouraging unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 97-115.
Ellis, R. (1995). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18.
Fotos, T. (1993). Attention and effort. Prentice Hall Publishing.
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gass, S. & Toress, W. (2005). Introduction: The universalization of creativity. In A. Craft, B. Jefferey, & M. Leibling (Eds.), Creativity in Education (pp. 1-16). London, England: Continuum.
Hasbrouck, S. & Tindal, S. (2006), The importance of input in second language acquisition studies. Language Learning Journal, 25(2), 297-308.
Hernandez, T.A. (2008). The effect of explicit instruction and input flood on students’ use of discourse markers on a simulated oral proficiency interview. Hispania, 91, 665-75.
Howatt, A. P. R. (1984). A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Ideka, S. & Fong, L. (2015). The use of consciousness-raising techniques in teaching the verb ‘be’ to students of vocational colleges. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(8), 110 –121.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, Input Enhancement, and the Noticing Hypothesis: An Experimental Study on ESL Relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541-577.
Jailani, A, I., Mohamad, N, A., Rzali, N, A., Yatim, A, I, A. &, Yusuf, A, H, S, M., (2016). Input enhancement on teaching parts of speech: Action research using #SLIPPAWORD; a part of speech game. National Conference of Research on Language Education.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York, NY: Longman.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. (1991). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 590-619.
Lee, J.F. (2002). The incidental acquisition of Spanish future morphology through reading in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(1), 55- 80.
Leow, R. P. (1997). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 51(1), 113-155.
Long, M. (1983). Mothers’ and fathers’ speech to their young children: Similar or different? Journal of Child Language, 10(1), 245-252.
Long, M. (1988). Long-term effects of noticing on oral output. Language Teaching Research, 11(3), 265-280.
Martinez, D. Roser, E. & Strecker, R. (1999). The generality–specificity of creativity: A multivariate approach. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 43-56). Washington, DC: American Psychological Associa tion.
McLaughlin, B., White, D., McDevitt, T., & Raskin, R. (1983). Mothers’ and fathers’ speech to their young children: Similar or different? Journal of Child Language, 10(1), 245 – 252.
Nassaji, A. & Fotos, S. (2011). Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237-326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Nemati, W. & Motallebzadeh, Kh., (2013). The Effect of Short Message Service on the Retention of Collocations among Iranian Lower Intermediate EFL Learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(11), 1514-1520.
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000) Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analy sis. La nguage Learning, 50, 417–528.
Osborne, R. J. and Wittrock, M. C. (1983). Learning Science: A Generative Process. Science Education, 67/4: 489-508.
Rasinski, F. (2004). Vocabulary and Comprehension: Two Portraits. In Coady, J. and T Huckin (eds.) Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition: A Rationale for Pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reinders, H., & Ellis, R. (2009). The effects of two types of input to intake and the acquisition of implicit and explicit knowledge. In R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Phlip, & H. Reinders (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp.281-302). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Reutzel, S. (2006). Classroom Instruction and Second Language Acquisition: The effect of explicit form-focused instruction on L2 learners‟ linguistic competence. A doctoral dissertation presented to the University of Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi.
Rikhtegar, O., & Gholami, J. (2015). The effect of preverses post -presentation input flooding via reading on the young EFL learners’ acquisition of simple past tense. English Language Teaching, 8(3), 80-88.
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory and noticing hypothesis. Language Learning, 45(2), 283-331.
Samuels, D. (2006). A new measure of an individual's tolerance for ambiguity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 183-189.
Skehan, P. (1998). Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In J. Willis, & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and Change in Language Teaching (pp. 17-30). Oxford: Heinemann. English Language Teaching, 7(2), 97-115.
Skehan, P. 2002. Theorizing and updating aptitude in P. Robinson (ed.). Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129 –158.
Schmidt, R. W. (1992). Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 423-41.
Schmidt, R. W. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206 – 226.
Schmidt, R. W. (1994). Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: Of artificial grammars and SLA. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 165-209). London: Academic Press.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.) Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. N. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237-326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Shaby, D. & Joy, L. (2020). The Effectiveness of Speaking Instruction through Task-Based Language Teaching, PJAEE, 17(12), 1621-1625.
Simard, Daphnée. (2009). Differential effects of textual enhancement formats on intake. System. 37. 124-135.
Tabatabaei, O., & Yakhabi, M. (2009). The effect of comprehensible input and comprehensible output on the accuracy and complexity of Iranian EFL learner’s oral speech. The Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2, 218-248.
Tomlin, R., & Villa, U. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183 - 203.
Trahey, M., & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181-204.
White, P. (2015). The effects of input-based instructions on the acquisition of Spanish accusative clitics. Hispania, 98(2), 264-284
Wong, W. (2005). Input enhancement: From theory and research to the classroom. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
