Shiva Kaivanpanah; Seyed Mohammad Alavi; Sara Rafsanjani Nejad
Abstract
The idea of encouraging awareness in classrooms is not new, but research into awareness is beginning to encourage those involved in language teaching to think more systematically about how language presentation facilitate language awareness. Awareness can be promoted through focus on form activities ...
Read More
The idea of encouraging awareness in classrooms is not new, but research into awareness is beginning to encourage those involved in language teaching to think more systematically about how language presentation facilitate language awareness. Awareness can be promoted through focus on form activities as it triggers important cognitive processes in L2 acquisition. The effectiveness of various input- and output-based focus on form instructions on the acquisition of different grammatical structures and the role of awareness in each type is a matter for debate. The present study qualitatively investigated the effects of Processing instruction, Textual enhancement, and Text editing on L2 learners’ cognitive processes and the relationship between the learners’ level of awareness and their abilities to interpret English inversion structures. To do this, learners’ think-aloud verbalizations during instruction were recorded, transcribed, and coded. Criteria to decide which level of awareness they would fall into were slightly adapted from Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno (2008) to fit with the type of tasks employed in the study. Pretest-posttests design was also employed to measure learners’ interpretive abilities. The findings indicated that each instructional technique promoted different levels of awareness and depth of processing. The findings also provided explanations for the non-significant differences in performances between the Processing instruction and Text editing groups on an immediate posttest and outperformance of the Processing instruction group on a delayed posttest. Given the benefits that Processing instruction and Text editing brought about in the present study, both might be incorporated into a curriculum and serve as complementary tools for language teachers.
Behnam Ghasemi; Mehdi Vaez-Dalili
Abstract
Morphological awareness is currently receiving an increasing amount of attention in the literature on second language learning. This study investigated the effect of three methods of morphological awareness (i.e. Textual Enhancement (TE), Metalinguistic Explanation (ME), and Morpheme Recognition Task ...
Read More
Morphological awareness is currently receiving an increasing amount of attention in the literature on second language learning. This study investigated the effect of three methods of morphological awareness (i.e. Textual Enhancement (TE), Metalinguistic Explanation (ME), and Morpheme Recognition Task (MRT)) on Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge. The participants of the study included 90 intermediate EFL students selected based on their scores on the Oxford Quick Placement Test (OQPT). They were divided into three groups (i.e. TE, ME, MRT), each including 30 participants. Each group was taught 60 English derivational affixes including prefixes, suffixes and roots through three different methods of morphological awareness. In order to examine the participants’ depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge, they were asked to respectively take Word Associates Test (WAT) and Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT) as both pretests and posttests. In order to examine the difference between the pretest and posttest scores of the participants’ VLT and WAT, a paired-samples t-test was run for each group. In order to explore if there were any significant differences among the posttest scores of the three groups on the VLT and WAT, two separate one-way ANOVAs were conducted. Results indicated that (i) all three methods of morphological awareness have significant effects on improving EFL learners’ depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge, and (ii) that there was no significant difference among the three groups in terms of their depth of vocabulary knowledge, but there were significant differences between the ME group and the other two groups (i.e. TE and MRT) regarding their breadth of vocabulary knowledge. Considering the implications, teachers should raise students’ awareness to utilize affixes. Syllabus designers and lexicographers should also take account of different techniques and tasks for raising EFL/ESL learners’ morphological awareness.
