An Output-oriented Approach to the Impact of Online Written Languaging on Form-Focused Writing Tasks
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.
Downloads
References
Abe, M. (2020).Interactional practices for online collaborative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49, 100752. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100752
AL-Khikani, F. (2020). Surveillance 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) spreading: Is a terrifying pandemic outbreak is soon? Biomedical and Biotechnology Research Journal, 4(1), 81-82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/bbrj.bbrj_16_20
Ammar, A., & Hassan, R. M. (2018). Talking it through: Collaborative dialogue and second language learning. Language Learning, 68(1), 46-82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12254
Antón, M., & DiCamilla, F. (1999). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 314-342. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00018
Azkarai, A., & Kopinska, M. (2020). Young EFL learners and collaborative writing: A study on patterns of interaction, engagement in LREs, and task motivation. System, 94, 102338. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102338
Bataineh, R. F., Al-Qeyam, F. R. & Smadi, O. M. (2017). Does form-focused instruction really make a difference? Potential effectiveness in Jordanian EFL learners' linguistic and pragmatic knowledge acquisition. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 17(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-017-0040-0
Behbahani, S. M. K., Pourdana, N., Maleki, M., & Javanbakht, Z. (2011). EFL task-induced involvement and incidental vocabulary learning: succeeded or surrounded. In International Conference on Languages, Literature and Linguistics. IPEDR Proceedings, 26, 323-325.
Benati, A. (2017). The role of input and output tasks in grammar instruction: Theoretical, empirical and pedagogical considerations. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 7(3), 377-396. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2017.7.3.2
Best, J. W. & Kahn, J. V. (2006). Research in education (3rd ed.). Pearson Education Inc.
Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2018). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices (3rd ed.). Pearson Education.
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. Routledge.
Cerezo, L., González-Cruz, B. & Mercader, J. (2019). 11. English as a foreign language writing teacher education and development in Spain: The relevance of a focus on second language writing as a tool for second language development. In L. Seloni & S. Henderson Lee (Eds.), Second Language Writing Instruction in global contexts: English language teacher preparation and development (pp. 222-249). Multilingual Matters. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788925877-015
Chi, M. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in Instructional Psychology (pp. 161-238). Erlbaum.
Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2017). Exploring the impact of online peer-editing using Google Docs on EFL learners' academic writing skills: A mixed-methods study.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1363056
Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(1), 1-46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.2001.tb00013.x
Engerer, V. P. (2020). Temporality revisited: Dynamicity issues in collaborative digital writing research. Education and Information Technologies, 339-370. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10262-9
Esfandiari, R., & Noor, P. (2018). Iranian EFL raters' cognitive processes in rating IELTS speaking tasks: The effect of expertise. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 5(2), 41-76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30479/jmrels.2019.9383.1248
Falhasiri, M. (2021). Written languaging and engagement with written corrective feedback: The results of reflective teaching. TESL Canada Journal, 38(1),. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v38i1.1348
García Mayo, M. P. (2002). The effectiveness of two form-focused tasks in advanced ESL pedagogy.International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 156 - 175.
Greene Jr., B. B. (2001). Testing reading comprehension of theoretical discourse with cloze. Journal of Research in Reading, 24(1), 82-98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.00134
Heidari, S., Pourdana, N., & Khalili, G. F. (2019). Retrospective and introspective think-aloud protocols in translation quality assessment: A qual-quan mixed-method research. Language and Translation, 9(4), 1-16.
Ishikawa, M. (2013). Examining the effect of written languaging: The role of metanotes as a mediator of second language learning. Language Awareness, 22(3), 220-233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2012.683435
Ishikawa, M. (2018). Written languaging, learners' proficiency levels and L2 grammar learning. System, 74, 50-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.02.017
Ishikawa, M., & Suzuki, W. (2016). The effect of written languaging on learning the hypothetical conditional in English. System, 58, 97-111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.02.008
Izumi, S. & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing in second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34, 239-278. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3587952
Jang, Y., Lee, H., Kim, Y., & Min, K. (2020). The relationship between metacognitive ability and metacognitive accuracy. Metacognition Learning, 15, 411-434. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09232-w
Károly, K. (2014). Translation in foreign language teaching: A case study from a functional perspective. Linguistics and Education, 25, 90-107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2013.09.009
Karpov, V. (2013). A way to implement the neo-Vygotskian theoretical learning approach in the schools.International Journal of Pedagogical Innovations, 1(1), 25-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12785/ijpi/010104
Kazemi, P., Pourdana, N., Khalili, G. F. (2022). Microgenetic analysis of written languaging attributes on form-focused and content-focused e-collaborative writing tasks in Google Docs. Education and Information Technologies, 27, 10681-10704. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11039-y
Keshanchi, E., Pourdana, N. & Khalili, G. F. (2022). Differential impacts of pair and self-dynamics on written languaging attributes and translation task performance in EFL context. English Teaching & Learning. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-022-00117-6
Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2011). Using pretask modeling to encourage collaborative language learning opportunities. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 183-199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810388711
Knouzi, I., Swain, M., Lapkin, S., & Brooks, L. (2010). Self-scaffolding mediated by languaging: Microgenetic analysis of high and low performers.International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 23-49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00227.x
Lantolf, J., Thorne, S. L., & Poehner, M. (2015). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Development. In B. Van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 207-226). Routledge.
Lavasani, M., Latif, F., & Rahimi, A. (2021). Languaging in L1 as a mediating factor in EFL listening skill enhancement: Private vs. collaborative form. Research in English Language Pedagogy, 9(1), 215-234. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30486/RELP.2021.1909754.1222
Manchón, F., Nicolás-Conesa, F., Cerezo, L., & Criado, R. (2020). L2 writers' processing of written corrective feedback: Depth of processing via written languaging. In W. Suzuki & N. Storch (Eds.), Languaging in language learning: A collection of empirical studies. (pp. 242 - 265). John Benjamins.
Moradian, M. R., Miri, M., & Nasab, M. H. (2017). Contribution of written languaging to enhancing the efficiency of written corrective feedback.International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 406-421. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12138
Nguyen, L. (2020). A case study of Vietnamese EFL Teachers' conception of language output and interaction. Journal of Language and Education, 6(1), 55-71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2020.9777
Nicolás-Conesa, F., Manchón, R. M., & Cerezo, L. (2019). The effect of unfocused direct and indirect written corrective feedback on rewritten texts and new texts: Looking into feedback for accuracy and feedback for acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 103(4). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12592
Niu, R. (2009). Effect of task-inherent production modes on EFL learners' focus on form. Language Awareness, 18(3-4), 384-402. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410903197256
Nour, P., Esfandiari, R., & Zarei, A.A. (2021). Development and validation of a metamemory maturity questionnaire in the context of English as a foreign language. Language Testing in Asia, 11, 24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-021-00141-6
Nord, C. (2005). Text analysis in translation: Theory, methodology, and didactic application of a model for translation-oriented text analysis (2nd ed.). Rodopi.
Pennycook, A. (2008). English as a language always in translation. European Journal of English Studies, 12(1), 33-47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13825570801900521
Pica, T., Kang, H. S., & Sauro, S. (2006). Information gap tasks: Their multiple roles and contributions to interaction research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 301-338. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310606013X
Pym, A. (2003). Redefining translation competence in an electronic age: In defense of minimalist approach. Meta: Translators' Journal, 48(4), 481-497. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/008533ar
Pourdana, N. (2022). Impacts of computer-assisted diagnostic assessment on sustainability of L2 learners' collaborative writing improvement and their engagement modes. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 7, 11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-022-00139-4
Pourdana, N., Behbahani, S. M. K., & Safdari, M. (2011). The impact of task types on aspects of Iranian EFL learners' writing performance: Accuracy, fluency, and complexity. In Proceedings of International Conference on Humanities, Society and Culture. IACSIT Press.
Pourdana, N., Bornaki, F., Moayedi Fard, Z., & Sarkhosh, S. Z. (2012). Test-taking strategies and performance on reading comprehension tests by Iranian EFL learners.International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 1(2),138-153. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7575/ijalel.v.1n.2p.138
Pourdana, N., & Behbahani, S. M. K. (2013). Task types in EFL context: Accuracy, fluency, and complexity in assessing writing performance.International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 2(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.7763/IJSSH.2012.V2.73
Pourdana, N., Sahebalzamani, S., & Rajeski, J. S. (2014). Metaphorical awareness: A new horizon in vocabulary retention by Asian EFL learners.International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 3(4), 213-220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.4p.213
Pourdana, N., & Rad, S. M. (2017). Differentiated instructions: Implementing tiered listening tasks in mixed-ability EFL context. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 4(1), 87-69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30479/JMRELS.2017.1566
Pourdana, N., & Asghari, S. (2021). Different dimensions of teacher and peer assessment of EFL learners' writing: Descriptive and narrative genres in focus. Language Testing in Asia, 11(6). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-021-00122-9
Pourdana, N., Nour, P., & Yousefi, F. (2021). Investigating metalinguistic written corrective feedback focused on EFL learners' discourse markers accuracy in mobile-mediated context. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education.
(7). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-021-00111-8
Pourdana, N., & Tavassoli, K. (2022). Differential impacts of e-portfolio assessment on language learners' engagement modes and genre-based writing improvement. Language Testing in Asia, 12(7), 1-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-022-00156-7
Purpura, J. E. (2014). Assessing grammar. In A.J. Kunnan (Ed.), The companion to language assessment (vol. 1, pp. 100-124). John Wiley & sons.
Rafi, F., Pourdana, N., & Ghaemi, F. (2022).Computer-mediated diagnostic assessment of mixed-ability EFL learners' performance on tiered tasks: Differentiating mediation on Google Meet™. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 9(2), 1-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30479/jmrels.2021.16118.1950
Rafi, F., & Pourdana, N. (2023). E-diagnostic assessment of collaborative and individual oral tiered task performance in differentiated second language instruction framework. Language Testing in Asia, 13(1), 6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-023-00223-7
Rodrick Beiler, I. & Dewilde, J. (2020). Translation as translingual writing practice in English as an additional language. The Modern Language Journal, 104(3), 533-549. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12660
Saadatmandi, M., Modarres, K. S., & Pourdana, N. (2018). Teaching English pragmatic features in EFL context: A focus on request speech acts. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 8(7), 829-835. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0807.14
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge University Press.
Shekary, M., & Tahririan, M. H. (2006). Negotiation of meaning and noticing in text-based online chat. The Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 557-573. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00504.x
Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Multilingual Matters.
Suzuki, W. (2009). Improving Japanese university students' second language writing accuracy: Effects of languaging. Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan, 20, 81-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.057
Suzuki, W. (2012). Written languaging, direct correction, and second language writing revision. Language Learning, 62(4), 1110-1133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00720.x
Suzuki, W. (2017). The effect of quality of written languaging on second language learning. Writing & Pedagogy, 8(3), 461-482. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.27291
Suzuki, W., & Storch, N. (2020). Languaging in language learning and teaching: A collection of empirical studies. John Benjamins.
Suzuki, W., & Itagaki, N. (2009). Languaging in grammar exercises by Japanese EFL learners of differing proficiency. System, 37, 217-225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.10.001
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). Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seildlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford University Press.
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). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In B. Heidi (ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95-108). Continuum.
Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Knouzi, I., Suzuki, W., & Brooks, L. (2009). Languaging: University students learn the grammatical concept of voice in French. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 5-29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00825.x
Van Patten, B. (2015a). Input processing in adult SLA. In B. Van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (2nd ed.) (pp. 113-135). Routledge.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber, & A. S. Carton (eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 1: Problems of general psychology (pp. 39-285). Plenum.
Wang, Y. (2019). Calibration in multiple text use. Metacognition Learning, 14, 131-166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-019-09201-y
Yamashita, T. (2021). Corrective feedback in computer-mediated collaborative writing and revision contributions. Language Learning & Technology, 25(2), 75-93.
Yang, L. (2016). Languaging in story rewriting tasks by Chinese EFL students. Language Awareness, 25(3), 241-255. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2016.1197230
Yilmaz, M. (2016). Improving Turkish EFL learners' writing accuracy: Effects of written languaging and languaging types. Procedia - Social and Behavior Sciences, 232, 413-420. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.057
Zeng, G., & Takatsuka, S. (2009). Text-based peer-peer collaborative dialogue in a computer-mediated learning environment in the EFL context. System, 37(3), 434-446. https://. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.01.003
Zhang, M. (2021). Understanding L1 and L2 interaction in collaborative writing: A lexico- grammatical analysis. Language Teaching Research, 25(3),. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819859911
Copyright (c) 2023 National Research University Higher School of Economics
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the Copyright Notice.
