Document Type: Research Paper

Authors

1 English Teaching Department, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, English Translation Department, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran

Abstract

This study aimed at investigating the potential of different learning tasks in creating a medium for production of discourse markers (DMs). 60 Iranian female EFL (English as a foreign language) students with intermediate level of proficiency rated on Oxford placement test were randomly selected to participate in this study. They were randomly assigned into two groups of students performing optional information exchange task types (OIE) such as problem solving, decision making and opinion exchange tasks and required information exchange task types (RIE) such as storytelling, information gap and spot the differences. Students were instructed to perform the tasks for eight sessions and their performance was audio recorded and transcribed for further analysis. The results of chi-square and crosstabs analysis on frequency and types of DMs indicated that optional information tasks were significantly more potential in providing a medium for production of DMs. In addition, three types of required information exchange task types and three optional information exchange task types had significantly different potential in creating a medium for the occurrence of different types of DMs. Teachers, materials developers and researchers should make principled decisions about language learning task since tasks mediate attending discursive features of language differently. Suggestions for further study were discussed in the light of the limitations of the study.

Keywords

Article Title [Persian]

قابلیت تمارین انتقال اطلاعات به صورت اجباری و اختیاری : بررسی نوع و تعداد نمایه های کلامی و گفتمان

Authors [Persian]

  • آسیه اسماعیل بیگی 1
  • زهره محمدی 2

Abstract [Persian]

هدف مطالعه ی حاضر بررسی تاثیر انواع تکلیف درسی و هم چنین بررسی رابطه بین انواع تکلیف درسی در تولید نشانگر گفتمان می باشد. برای رسیدن به این هدف˛محقق شصت نفر دانش اموز زبان ˛ دو پرششنامه˛ یک مصاحبه˛و یک کلاز تست استفاده کرده و همچنین بعد از تدریس نشانگرهای گفتمان از هر نوع تکلیف درسی پنج مورد مختلف را انتخاب گرده و درحین انجام تکالیف صدای دانش اموزان را ضبط کرده و تحلیل های مورد نیاز را با استفاده از نرم افزار تحلیل گر اماری انجام داده است . برای اطمینان از فرضیه ی نرمال بودن داده ها تحلیل مقدماتی انجام شد. سپس˓ اطلاعات جمع اوری شده و تحلیل شدند. نتایج مطالعه نشان داد که تکالیف درسی تاثیر مستقیمی روی تولید نشانگر گفتمان ˛ایجاد انگیزه در صحبت˛ و تفاوت معنا داری بین انواع تکالیف درسی در تولید نشانگر گفتمان و جود دارد. با توجه به یافته های این مطالعه˓ نتایج به دست امده می تواند به معلمین زبان انگلیسی و زبان اموزان انگلیسی˓ مربیان˓ طراحان مطالب درسی˓ و سیاست اموزشی کمک کند تا دید گسترده تری از دانش نسبت به اموزش به دست اورند و به طور عملی قدمهایی به سمت اهداف مطلوب این حرفه بردارند

Keywords [Persian]

  • نوع تمارین
  • نمارین انتقال اطلاعات به صورت اجباری و اختیاری
  • نمایه های گفتمان و کلام

Abdollahzadeh, S., & Fard Kashani, A. (2011). The effect of task complexity on EFL learners' narrative writing task performance. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 1-28.

Adams, R., Alwi, N. A. N. M., & Newton, J. (2015). Task complexity effects on the complexity and accuracy of writing via text chat. Journal of second language writing, 29, 64-81.

Ahmed, R. Z., & Bidin, S. J. B. (2016). The efect of task based language teaching on writing skills of EFL learners in Malaysia. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 6(03), 207.

Ahour, T., & Dogolsara, S. A. (2015). The effect of task type on Iranian advanced EFL learners' vocabulary learning. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(3), 657.

Al-Qahtani, A. A. (2015). The effect of explicit instruction of textual discourse markers on Saudi EFL learners’ reading comprehension. English Language Teaching, 8(4), 57.

Alraddadi, B. M. (2016). The effect of teaching structural discourse markers in an EFL classroom setting. English Language Teaching, 9(7), 16-31.

Alt, D. (2017). Constructivist learning and openness to diversity and challenge in higher education environments. Learning Environments Research, 20(1), 99-119.

Ansarin, A. A., & Mohamadi, Z. (2013a). Language engagement at the level of syntax: Assessing metatalk and task types in SLA. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 2(4), 142-154.

Ansarin, A. A., & Mohamadi, Z. (2013b). Language engagement in task-based interaction: Focus on intonation. The Iranian EFL Journal, 12(2), 152.

Asik, A., & Cephe, P. T. (2013). Discourse markers and spoken English: Nonnative use in the Turkish EFL setting. English Language Teaching, 6(12), 144.

Bao, G. (2015). Task type effects on English as a foreign Language learners' acquisition of receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge. System, 53, 84-95.

Batstone, R. (2016). Rethinking TBLT in context: The negotiation of form. The Language Learning Journal, 44(4), 506-518.

Bolden, G. B. (2006). Little words that matter: Discourse markers “so” and “oh” and the doing of other‐attentiveness in social interaction. Journal of Communication, 56(4), 661-688.

Broady, E. (2006). Learning and interaction: Developing through talk. Language Learning Journal, 34(1), 62-66.

Castro, C., & Marcela, C. (2009). The use and functions of discourse markers in EFL classroom interaction. Profile Issues in Teachers Professional Development, 11, 57-78.

Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dastjerdi, H. V., & Farshid, M. (2011). The role of input enhancement in teaching compliments. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(2), 460-466.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching: Oxford University Press.

Eslami, Z., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Quiroz, B. (2007). Needs analysis of Iranian EAP students. ESP across Cultures, 4, 21-37.

Fatalaki, J. A., Amini, E., & Mirzaee, M. (2014). The role of explicit interactive metadiscourse markers’ instruction in Iranian EAP learners’ reading comprehension. East European Journal of Psycholinguistics, 1(2), 14-24.

Foucart, A., Romero-Rivas, C., Gort, B. L., & Costa, A. (2016). Discourse comprehension in L2: Making sense of what is not explicitly said. Brain and language, 163, 32-41.

Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of pragmatics, 31(7), 931-952.

Geldenhuys, C. M. (2011). Task-based course design for campus communication in ISIXHOSA. Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch.  

Ghari, A., & Moinzadeh, A. (2011). The effects of output task types on noticing and learning of English past modals: A case of intermediate Persian adult learners of English. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(5), 1180-1191.

Hernandez, T., & Rodríguez-González, E. (2012). Impact of instruction on the use of L2 discourse markers. Journal of Second Language Teaching & Research, 2(1), 3-31.

Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis. Studies in second language acquisition, 24(04), 541-577.

Juan-Garau, M., & Jacob, K. (2015). Developing English learners' transcultural skills through content-and task-based lessons. System, 54, 55-68.

Kamali, F., & Noori, H. (2015). The impact of discourse markers instruction on improving writing of intermediate EFL learners. Cumhuriyet Science Journal, 36(3), 944-949.

Lee, L. (2016). Autonomous learning through task-based instruction in fully online language courses. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 81-97.

Llinares, A., & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2015). The role of different tasks in CLIL students' use of evaluative language. System, 54, 69-79.

Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second‐language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379(1), 259-278.

Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied linguistics, 27(3), 405-430.

Mayo, M. d. P. G., & Ibarrola, A. L. (2015). Do children negotiate for meaning in task-based interaction? Evidence from CLIL and EFL settings. System, 54, 40-54.

Millward, C. (2005). Applying discourse analysis in the classroom with a specific focus on teaching discourse markers. Retrived from http://www.developingteachers.com/

Mirzaee, A., Domakani, M. R., & Roshani, N. (2010). L2 discourse co-construction within the Learner’s ZPD. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 2(1), 91-115.

Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., & Almond, R. G. (2002). Design and analysis in task-based language assessment. Language testing, 19(4), 477-496.

Mohamadi, Z. (2015). Negotiation of meaning in required and optional information exchange tasks: Discourse issues. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 4(1), 95-105.

Mohamadi, Z. (2017). Task engagement: a potential criterion for quality assessment of language learning tasks. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 2(1), 3.

Mohamadi, Z., & Rahimpour, M. (2018). Task types and discursive features: Mediating role of meta-talk in focus. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 17-40.

Müller, S. (2004). ‘Wellyouknowthattypeofperson’: Functions of well in the speech of American and German students. Journal of pragmatics, 36(6), 1157-1182.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom: Cambridge University Press.

Pérez, M. A., & Macià, E. A. (2002). Metadiscourse in lecture comprehension: Does it really help foreign language learners? Atlantis, 14(2), 3-21.

Peters, E., & Pauwels, P. (2015). Learning academic formulaic sequences. Journal of English for academic purposes, 20, 28-39.

Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy (Vol. 20). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43(1), 1-32.

Rymes, B. (2015). Classroom discourse analysis: A tool for critical reflection. Routledge.

Sadeghi, K., & Mosalli, Z. (2013). The effect of task complexity on the quality of EFL learners’ argumentative writing. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 1(2), 115-134.

Soleimani, M., & Ahangari, S. (2017).  The effect of explicit teaching of discourse markers vs. input enhancement on Iranian EFL leraners’ imeedidaite and delayed writing perfromnace. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 7(3), 354-366.

Tabar, N. A., & Alavi, S. M. (2013). A comparative study of the effects of task-based writing under different pre-task planning conditions on Intermediate EFL learners’ written performance in personal and decision-making tasks. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 5(8), 970-978.

Taboada, M. (2004). Rhetorical relations in dialogue. Discourse across languages and cultures, 68, 75.

Takahashi, S. (2005). Noticing in task performance and learning outcomes: A qualitative analysis of instructional effects in interlanguage pragmatics. System, 33(3), 437-461.

Trillo, J. R. (2002). The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of English. Journal of pragmatics, 34(6), 769-784.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes: Harvard university press.

Weinert, R. (1998). Discourse organisation in the spoken language of L2 learners of German. Linguistische Berichte, 176, 459-488.

Wu, X., Lowyck, J., Sercu, L., & Elen, J. (2012). Self-efficacy, task complexity and task performance: Exploring interactions in two versions of vocabulary learning tasks. Learning Environments Research, 15(1), 17-35.

Yadollahi, H., & Rahimi, A. (2015). The effects of different task types on learners’ performance in collaborative virtual learning environment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 526-533.

Yan, L., & Kember, D. (2003). Influence of the curriculum and learning environment on group learning approaches outside the classroom. Learning Environments Research, 6(3), 285-307.