The effect of metalinguistic information in conjunction with dictogloss tasks on L2 learning

The effect of metalinguistic information in conjunction with dictogloss tasks on L2 learning

Sano, Fujiko　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　

April 19, 2023 1

Yokohama National University fsano@ynu.ac.jp

Research on the role of noticing

Research on how noticing can take place through different method types

Dictogloss activities have been used to investigate the effects of noticing

Positive effects of output-based instruction

April 19, 2023 2

However,

Combination of output-based instruction and input-based instruction has not been extensively carried out.

How noticing could affect the subsequent learning of the target feature has not yet been thoroughly investigated.

April 19, 2023 3

April 19, 2023 4

Needs to investigate the effects of follow-up instruction after dictogloss activities

This study

Background of the study

Noticing is prerequisite for learning.

Output promotes noticing.

April 19, 2023 5

Dictogloss activities

1) Students listen to a text twice.

2) They are allowed to write keywords or phrases only while listening.

3) Students form small groups and communicate about the content of the given story, occasionally pay attention to and discuss linguistically problematic forms.

4) Each group reconstruct the story.April 19, 2023 6

Focus on form

Attention to forms within the context of communicative activities (Long, 1990).

April 19, 2023 7

The key features of FFI:

An overall emphasis on the communication of meaning.

A brief diversion from the emphasis on communication to focus on language as object.

A problem-based trigger for the diversion.

⇒Form-Focused Instruction is best accommodated after communicative language learning.

April 19, 2023 8

Problematicity

Problematicity / Grammatical difficulty:

1) frequency,

2) saliency,

3) functional value,

4) regularity, and

5) processability (Ellis, 2006).

Thus, a problematic grammatical feature is feasibly targeted in FFI.

April 19, 2023 9

Types of focus on form (Ellis, Basterkmen, & Loewen, 2001)

a) Preemptive – attempt by the teacher to initiate explicit attention to a linguistic form because it is problematic at a particular moment in the discourse.

b) Reactive – occurs when a learner has said something that contains a real or perceived error and the teacher or another learner responds to this error,

April 19, 2023 10

The study

Preemptive focus on form

Conversational and didactic focus on form interactions

Explicit didactic instruction vs. enhanced inputApril 19, 2023 11

Research questions

1) What are the relative effects of enriched input (implicit) and provision of (explicit) didactic instruction on the learning of the past hypothetical conditional?

2) What are the learners’ proficiency effects on the learning of the past hypothetical conditional?

April 19, 2023 12

The target grammatical feature

The past hypothetical conditional in English:

Consists of two clauses:

(1) subordinate clause, (2) main clause.

Requires an accurate form of

(a) modal verb, and (b) past participle.

April 19, 2023 13

The participants

Japanese university students

Number: 135

Age: ranging from 18 to 20 years old,

Background: • enrolled in three first-year English classes in

the engineering department. • completed 6 years of study of English as a

foreign language before entering university. April 19, 2023 14

The number of each class for data analysis

Exclusion from the study:• the absentees of any one of the five sessions,• returnees, foreign students, • those students who scored more than 95% or less

than 5%

Class 1 (advanced) 41 22

Class 2 (intermediate) 46 36

Class 3 (intermediate) 48 30April 19, 2023 15

Three groups

Explicit didactic Enriched

instruction input

------------------------------------------------------

Advanced Class 1

(N=22)

Intermediate 　 Class 3 Class 2

(N=36) (N=30)

-------------------------------------------------------April 19, 2023 16

Research Design

a pretest, immediate and delayed post-tests design

involving:

1) Dictogloss + Didactic Grammar Instruction Group (high proficiency)

2) Dictogloss +Enriched Input Group (intermediate proficiency)

3) Dictogloss + Didactic Grammar Instruction Group (intermediate proficiency)

April 19, 2023 17

Procedure

carried out in 5 class sessions over a period of nine weeks

Week 1: Pretest

<2 weeks>

Week 3: Practice

Week 4: Treatment (1)

Week 5: Treatment (2) + Immediate post-test

<4 weeks>

Week 9: Delayed post-testApril 19, 2023 18

Dictogloss activity sequence

1) The participants listened to a short story twice. Two “if” clauses and two main clauses were included in a 78-word story.

2) The participants worked in groups of 3. They interacted in their L1 while they were reconstructing the story.

3) After the completion of the reconstruction task, the written text was provided for post-task instruction.

April 19, 2023 19

Tests

Pretest, immediate-post-test, and delayed post-test included:

(1) a recognition test to assess the participants’ receptive knowledge of the target feature

(2) a written production test to assess their language use.

April 19, 2023 20

Coding of production test

One point was given to each aspect that determines the past hypothetical conditional.

If … had + p.p. …, … would have + p.p.

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1

total=7

April 19, 2023 21

Results

1) To measure the effectiveness of different options of grammar teaching, improvements from pretests to posttests were compared across the groups with repeated measure ANOVAs.

2) The average difference level -- .05 for all analyses in this study.

3) No significant differences between the two groups at the starting point

4) Statistical significances between the scores of pretest and immediate post-test, and pretest and delayed post-test, and significant interaction effect

April 19, 2023 22

Grammar recognition test results: Classes 2 & 3

class Test average

2 Pretest 10.355

Immediate post-test 12.129

Delayed post-test 12.645

3 Pretest 9.963

Immediate post-test 14.926

Delayed post-test 14.556

April 19, 2023 23

Recognition tests: Classes 2 & 3 (F(1, 56)=37.797, p<.001)

April 19, 2023 24

Production test results —Classes 2 & 3

Class Test average

2 Pretest 27.833

Immediate post-test 41.389

Delayed post-test 40.611

3 Pretest 25.067

Immediate post-test 49.100

Delayed post-test 49.433

April 19, 2023 25

Production tests: Classes 2 and 3 (F(1, 64)=166.482, p<.001)

April 19, 2023 26

To sum

greater effects

metalinguistic instruction

> enriched input

April 19, 2023 27

Differences of proficiency level• Different proficiency levels groups (Classes 1 and 3)

• metalinguistic instruction

• the pretest to immediate and delayed post-tests

• The results of ANOVAs showed statistical

significance at the starting point

• no statistical significance between the scores of immediate and pretest of Class 1 and 3

April 19, 2023 28

Grammar recognition test results: Classes 1 & 3

class Test average

1 Pretest 12.000

Immediate post-test 15.455

Delayed post-test 14.318

3 Pretest 9.963

Immediate post-test 14.926

Delayed post-test 14.556

April 19, 2023 29

Recognition tests: Classes 1 & 3 (F(1, 47)=57.251, p<.001)

April 19, 2023 30

Production test results: Classes 1 & 3

class Test average

1 Pretest 36.864

Immediate post-test 46.727

Delayed post-test 49.182

3 Pretest 25.067

Immediate post-test 49.100

Delayed post-test 49.433

April 19, 2023 31

Production tests: Classes 1 & 3 (F(1, 50)=145.948, p<.001)

April 19, 2023 32

To sum:

The results of both recognition and production tests indicated that explicit metalinguistic instruction gave greater effects on Class 3, whose starting points were lower than the other class.

April 19, 2023 33

Discussion Explicit instruction served better to promote L2 learners’

use in a classroom setting. However, this does not necessarily mean that L2 learners

acquired the target feature by way of the combination of “noticing, collaborative reflection, collaborative language production, and follow-up form-focused instruction”.

The development shown in the results of this study may only indicate the development of L2 learners’ interlanguage which is based on metalinguistic knowledge, and not represent their acquired implicit knowledge.

To investigate the distinct nature of grammar knowledge, different types of grammar tests would be needed, such as oral imitation test.

April 19, 2023 34

Knowledge of the target feature

anomalous and inconsistent systematic

Out of the six characteristics of implicit and

explicit knowledge that Ellis (2008) classified, only one characteristic of implicit knowledge was gained though dictogloss and explicit FFI.

This may indicate that explicit teaching and learning can foster a part of implicit knowledge of the second language.

April 19, 2023 35

Language learning in EFL context:

Explicit knowledge: the most feasible and learnable Accumulating explicit knowledge + experiencing

opportunities to produce the language + explicit knowledge base automatic use of declarative knowledge procedural knowledge

Task-based language teaching should be deployed to foster L2 learners’ procedural knowledge of rules.

In order not to miss out on the target feature to be used in the task, dictogloss will provide more frequent opportunities to use the declarative knowledge that L2 learners gained in the context of instructed SLA.

April 19, 2023 36

Conclusion

(1) Greater effects by metalinguistic instruction than implicit enriched input for the development of grammatical recognition and grammatical knowledge use

(2) The effects maintained for a long term of at least four weeks

(3) Effects gained across the different levels of proficiency

(4) Interaction / collaborative dialogue in L1 was effective.

April 19, 2023 37

Limitations and future research

Future research might need to deploy two types of tests:

1) elicitation tests (performance-based tests) 2) unplanned communicative language use.

Thus, a battery of tests that measure both implicit and explicit L2 grammatical knowledge will be able to clarify interlanguage development.

April 19, 2023 38

Bibliography Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of explicit

knowledge. Language Learning 54, 227-275. Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed language learning and task-based teaching.

In E. Hinkel. (Ed.). Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, (pp. 713-728). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ellis, R. (2006). Modeling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: the differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics 27, 432-463.

Ellis, R. (2008). Investigating grammatical difficulty in second language learning: Implications for second language acquisition research and language testing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 18, 4-22.

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., and Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning 51, 281-318.

Qin, J. (2008). The effect of processing instruction and dictogloss tasks on acquisition of the English passive voice. Language Teaching Research 12, 61-82.

April 19, 2023 39

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, 295-321.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Maddeen. (Eds.). Input in second language acquisition, (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer. (Eds.). Principle and practice in applied linguistics, (pp. 125-144). Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty and J. Williams. (Eds.). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, (pp. 64-81). Cambridge University Press.

Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: theory and research. In E. Hinkel. (Ed.). Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, (pp. 471-483). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Williams, J. (2005). Form-focused instruction. In E. Hinkel. (Ed.). Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, (pp. 671-691). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

April 19, 2023 40