tiffanyhe.weebly.com · web viewthroughout history there always existed two major approaches to...

Running head: TECHNOLOGY AS MOTIVATION TOOL TO MAXIMIZING CMPREHENSIBLE INPUT AND OUTPUT IN SECONDARY LANGUAGE CLASSROOM

Technology as Motivation Tool to Maximizing Comprehensible Input and Output in Secondary Language Classroom

Tiffany Taofeng He

Long Island University

EDD 1201, Dr. Feeley

October, 2017

1

TECHNOLOGY AS MOTIVATION TOOL TO MAXIMIZING CMPREHENSIBLE INPUT AND OUTPUT IN SECONDARY LANGUAGE CLASSROOM

LITERATURE REVIEW

Overview

As a Mandarin Instructor in US college, I feel a major challenge in Second Language

classroom teaching is to solve the "input" <> "intake” problem. Second Language Acquisition

（SLA）theory, including Input hypothesis, Interaction hypothesis and Output hypothesis, all

try to explain this from different perspective and give the solutions. I especially like to know

how to apply the input output hypothesis theories with emphasized on the effectiveness of the

output into classroom. I think maybe classroom interactive task should be on top choices list

from a classroom teachers’ point of view.

In order to teach a second/foreign language effectively, every teacher should be aware

how it is acquired by the learners. This chapter sough to offer a general picture of research trends

on second language acquisition (SLA) with a focus on classroom input and output in terms of

theoretical framework, the research approach and results.

Research Questions

Research Questions:

1) Is language acquisition process an automatic process which is taking place

unconsciously or an active participation on the part of a learner is necessary: a learner

must produce output, and without such output successful acquisition of secondary

language (L2) is not possible.

2) Regarding the role of output and feedback in L2 classroom, what is the most effective

classroom procedures for enhancing accuracy development of meta-discourse. (a.

explicit instruction; b. input enhancement and implicit feedback; c. the force of

learners to produce target-like output)

2


3) Regarding L2 vocabulary acquisition, is Pushed Output (writing words) better than

Input (extensive reading) and Task-based (activity-based) learning?

Theory: Comprehensible Input Versus Comprehensible Output

In this article, Končius, Vytenis (2012) clearly introduced two current twando major

views of the language acquisition process. According to the first view, language acquisition is

largely an automatic process, taking place unconsciously. Therefore, the most effective method

of language instruction is simply to create favorable conditions, which allow this automatic

acquisition process to take place. The most famous proponent of this theory is Stephen Krashen

with his Comprehensible Input hypothesis. There is also an opposing view, processes of

Krashenian acquisition. According to this view, an active participation on the part of a learner is

necessary: a learner must produce output - try to express their ideas in a second language - not

just passively understand the input. Without such output successful acquisition of a second

language is not possible. A famous proponent of this view is Merill Swain, who in contrast to

Krashen has put forward her Comprehensible Output hypothesis. Debate between the proponents

of these two language acquisition approaches is still continuing, often being reflected in language

classrooms: either by some teachers' relying too much on the automatic and unconscious

processes of acquisition, paying too little attention on developing speaking skills, or by others'

stressing early production too much, thus forcing students into psychologically uncomfortable

situations and possibly damaging their self-confidence. Both of these approaches have their

strong and weak sides. Therefore, the methodologically safest way seems to be to allow both of

these views be organically expressed in the teaching/learning process without dogmatically

overstressing any one of them.

3

Kathleen Feeley, 12/20/17,

Reference?


Reference?


Reference – take a look at this sentence – are these two opposing views? Or are you referring to the same viewpoint?


Throughout the history there always existed two major approaches to second language

acquisition: “naturalistic” and “academic”. Basically, the essence of the whole debate seems to

lie in the question of whether we can acquire a new language in an “easy way” – just by relaxing

and concentrating on the message rather than actively working with the language itself (Krashen)

or do we still have to work hard on it and without conscious efforts to produce language there

can be no acquisition – no pain no gain” (Swain).

Decades after this exchange between Krashen and Swain, the dispute does not seem to

have been settled one way or the other: the debate between the supporters of input and output as

the primary driving force in the successful SLA still continues.

Practical Implications : On the practical classroom level this dichotomy is most often

reflected by either some teachers’ forcing learners to speak while they are still not ready, making

them frustrated and uncomfortable, which may decrease their self-confidence and motivation; or,

on the other hand, by the others’ over-reliance on learners’ capacity to acquire a language just by

receiving interesting and comprehensible input, which attracts criticism from many colleagues,

fearing that learners will not learn to speak if they are not “pushed”.

Concerning the research of comprehensible input as a sole sufficient factor in successful

SLA, Ellis (2008) observes:

“it is perhaps not surprising that the results (of researching the role of comprehensible

input in SLA) have been inconsistent as what probably matters is not so much the input itself as

what learners do with the input they are exposed to” (Ellis, 2008, 251).

Concerning the role of Swain’s comprehensible output, Shehadeh (2002) observes:

After well over a decade of research into Swain’s (1985) comprehensible output

hypothesis, few definitive conclusions can be made, because the question of whether and how

4


Not in reference section


See apa how to cite direct quoates


Punctuation goes within quotation marks


learners’ output, or output modification, helps with L2 learning is still largely unanswered.

(Shehadeh, 2002, quoted in Ellis, 2008, 265)

Depending on one’s basic paradigm, teaching/learning methods and classroom activities

may vary enormously: from over-optimistic reliance on input as the sole sufficient factor for

successful SLA, to overstressing learners with (often unnecessary and even potentially

demotivating) forced early output.

Due to the ongoing debate it seems that the answer to this question must lie elsewhere:

rather than looking for prescriptive “universal” language acquisition models, teachers/learners

should rely more on their intuition and adapt various approaches which seem to work best for

individual learners. Instead of adopting Comprehensible Input or Comprehensible Output models

as some kind of absolute authority informing teaching/learning methods and techniques, what

seems to be needed is a sensitive and personalized adaptation to learners’ needs (i.e. “adapting,

not adopting). “Whatever works for you” still seems to remain the safest methodological

principle in the process of second language teaching and learning, ridden with so many doubts

and uncertainties.

Output and Feedback: implicit or explicit?

Donesch-Jezo, Ewa (2011) in this study aimeds on one of the issues related to SLA

(Second Language Acquisition), which has been finding the techniques which effectively focuses

the learners’ attention on the target form. A number of theories and methods have been

advocated for this purpose, ranging from implicit options to more explicit ones On the basis of

Swain’s output hypothesis, the study assumed that encouraging adult learners (university

students) to produce target-like output would promote their achievement of the grammatical

competence necessary for producing academic tests. The purpose of the article is to present the

5


If this is a direct quote, it is not indicated as such


evidence from a classroom-based, small-scale study of the effect of output on learner acquisition

of L2 modal verbs, adjectives and adverbs conveying the meanings of uncertainty, all of which

are parts of speech that are important meta discourse items. The results of the present study

suggest that an approach in which students are encouraged to produce comprehensible output,

combined with their being provided with learning reinforcement ensured by appropriate

feedback, can be an effective source of establishing long-lasting grammatical accuracy in the

students’ target language.

This search for the most effective methodology for SLA has resulted in a growing body

of empirical studies and theories based on them, and these have given rise to the implementation

of various pedagogical methods advocated by researchers. These methods range from 1) implicit

ones, that is, ones without any conscious instruction on the language system, such as input

flooding (Krashen 1985), and input enhancement (Lightbown and Spada 1990, Sharwood-Smith

1993, White 1991, 1998) to 2) explicit ones, based on providing conscious instruction on the

form, meaning and function of grammatical structures, which include direct rule explanations

(DeKeyser 1998, 2007), consciousness-raising procedures (Sharwood-Smith 1981, 1993), and

metalinguistic explanatory feedback (Pica et al. 1987, Gass and Mackey 2007).

This paper presents the evidence from a classroom-based, small-scale study of the effect

of output on the acquisition of L2, with special reference to modal auxiliary verbs, adjectives and

adverbs conveying the meaning of uncertainty.

Modal auxiliary verbs (e.g. may/might, can/could, would, should), adjectives of

uncertainty (e.g. likely, possible, probable) and adverbs of uncertainty (e.g. perhaps, possibly,

probably) are the “hedges” aim of the present study was to answer the following questions: (1)

Which of the three investigated methods for the presentation of the previously mentioned

6


These also


Need to be in reference section


grammatical structures is the most effective for adult learners (in this case university students in

medicine)? (2) Does the encouragement of learners to produce target-like output (by carrying out

special activities) promote the development of the grammatical and rhetorical competence

necessary for the learner to be able to create academic discourse of a quality conforming to the

recognized academic conventions?

Overall, five basic functions of output in L2 acquisition were suggested by Swain (1985,

1995, 2005). noticing function, hypothesis-testing function of output. metalinguistic output,

development of fluency, move from a semantic to a syntactic use of language

Feedback is an interaction that makes the learner aware of his or her incorrect use of

language, and provides the model for a correct L2 use. Explicit feedback (Birdsong 1989, Gass

1988, White 1991) may take the form of direct correction, e.g. telling the learner that he or she is

using the wrong word or the wrong grammatical structure, and following this up with

metalinguistic instruction and explanation in how to use the word correctly.

Implicit feedback (Doughty and Varela 1998, Oliver 1995) is a form of indirect

correction which includes strategies such as:

• Confirmation checks – the use of expressions to elicit a confirmation that the learner’s

sentence has been correctly heard or understood (e.g. Is that what you mean?).

• Clarification requests – the use of expressions to elicit a clarification of the utterance

(e.g. What did you say?).

• Comprehension checks – the use of expressions to check that an utterance has been

understood (e.g. Did you understand?).

• Recasts – the rephrasing of an incorrect utterance using the correct form while still

maintaining the original meaning.

7


The purpose of the study and study design: In order to find the most effective classroom

procedures for enhancing the development of accuracy in the use of some features of

metadiscourse (modal auxiliary verbs and some adjectives and adverbs), the study was designed

to compare and assess three methods that could be used for the promoting of the acquisition of

the target structures. These methods were:

(1) explicit instruction provision (DeKeyser 1998, Doughty 1991, Ellis 1991, Lightbown and

Pienemann 1993),

(2) input enhancement and implicit feedback provision (Lightbown and Spada 1990, White

1991, 1998), and

(3) the forcing of learners to produce target-like output (Kowal and Swain 1994, 1997, Swain

1985, 1995, 1998, 2005).

Material and method: The study was carried out over a 4-week period in a regular 2-hour-

per-week schedule. The study group included a total of 45 students in the 3rd year of medicine

(their mother tongue was Polish). They were the participants of three classes of their obligatory

EMP (English for Medical Purposes) course in the Medical College at Jagiellonian University in

Krakow. The students represented a B2 level of proficiency in English. These three classes,

which constituted three study groups (A, B and C), comprised 14-16 persons each. The linguistic

features in focus were elements of metadiscourse whose function in academic discourse was

problematic for the students.

Group A received the input in a form in which the target metadiscourse elements (hedges)

were typographically enhanced by underlining and highlighting them with colour marker-pens.

No explicit grammar rule was given. But the students were provided with positive and negative

feedback by the teacher, in the form of error correction and metalinguistic explanations.

8


Group B was provided with the input enhanced in the same manner as for Group A. Explicit

rule explanation on the form and function of the target linguistic items was given to the students

prior to reading the text and to doing the language- learning tasks. The feedback obtained from

the teacher was in the form of error correction, no metalinguistic explanations were provided

during the students’ reading the text and doing the tasks that were assigned to them after the

reading had been finished.

Group C received non-enhanced input, and before reading the text and doing the tasks the

students performed a dictogloss (overall four dictogloss sessions). In the dictogloss activity

(Swain 1998, Wajnryb 1989), a short, specially adapted research article, dense with target forms

was read twice to the students. When it was read for the first time, the students were asked to lis-

ten to the passage. During the second reading the students were allowed to take notes to help

them reconstruct the text. Then the students worked in pairs or small groups to reconstruct a dic-

togloss text (for 25–30 minutes) from their shared notes.

The results presented in Figure 1 show the total score obtained in the tasks performed at these

tests, expressed in the percentage of the maximum score.

9


Figure 1. Results of the tests.Pre-test: Group A: 62%; Group B: 64%, Group C: 60%

Immediate post-test: Group A: 91%; Group B: 78%, Group C: 95% Remote post-test: Group A:

86%; Group B: 74%, Group C: 93%

Discussion: The research that has been carried out into the role of “pushed” output in second

language vocabulary acquisition seems to show benefits more clearly than in the case of second

language grammar acquisition

Conclusion: The result of this study suggest that the procedure of “forcing” students to produce

meaningful output can be an effective source of long-lasting grammatical and rhetorical

accuracy. Also, the results seem to indicate the potential role of the combination of three factors

in the promotion of long-term second language grammar competence. These factors are:

1. Comprehensible output production stimulated by dictogloss, which allows students to check

their hypotheses about the L2, notice the gap in their current linguistic knowledge, and acquire

fluency in target language production;

2. Explicit awareness-raising tasks, which develop the grammatical and rhetorical competence

necessary for language production;

3. Teacher’s explicit feedback during dictogloss activity and language-learning tasks, which

provided error correction and metalinguistic explanations on the structure and function of the

linguistic items in question.

To Push or Not Push

In this experiment, Browne, C. (2002) taughtuse 122 university students in 4 intact

classes learned 10 new vocabulary words via three different methods representing strong

theoretical perspectives on second language vocabulary acquisition; extensive reading (Input-

10


Hypothesis), activity-based (Task-based learning), and writing words in original sentences

(Pushed Output Theory and Depth of Processing Theory). Results indicate that regardless of the

language level of the learner, significantly more words were learned by the Pushed-Output

condition. Pedagogic implications are discussed.

The current studyauthors discusseds the theoretical and methodological underpinnings of

these two widely used techniques for teaching vocabulary, and then compares their effectiveness,

with a third technique, learning vocabulary via simple writing tasks, which, although not widely

used in the classroom for the past few decades, may actually be more representative of current

thinking about the second language acquisition process, including Depth of Processing Theory

(Craik and Lockhart, 1972), and the Pushed Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1985).

The net result of Krashen’s claims regarding the need for large amounts of

comprehensible input, and the positive benefits of extensive reading, was that since the 1980s,

extensive reading has become one of the most widely used methods for developing reading and

vocabulary skills.

Despite a general agreement among researchers that comprehensible input is an essential

element of SLA, most now maintain that it is not sufficient. Swain’s observational data of the

French immersion program in Canada (Allen, Swain, Harley & Cummins, 1990) notes that

although students received large amounts of “comprehensible input” over a period of many

years, with many corresponding opportunities for “interaction” as Long defines it, few ever

exhibited a full mastery of French.

According to Swain, negotiating meaning needs to incorporate the notion of being

‘pushed’ toward the delivery of a message that is not only conveyed, but conveyed precisely,

coherently, and appropriately. This act of “pushing”, Swain (1995) argues, leads learners to

11


make more of an effort, to “stretch” their interlangauge resources, which forces them to process

language more deeply, and helps them to move beyond their current stage of language

development.

Since Swain first proposed the Pushed Output Hypothesis in 1985, several studies have

given it qualified support. Pica, Holliday, Lewis and Morgenthaler (1989), for example, found

that in response to requests for clarification or confirmation, learners tended to modify their

output. Although the study did not show that these conversational modifications specifically led

to acquisition, one of the assumptions of the Output Hypothesis is that such modifications

contribute to the process of SLA.

Kowal and& Swain (1997), observed students working on three different types of

collaborative tasks (dictagloss, cloze, and proof-reading) in a French immersion program, and

found evidence of students “noticing the gap” between what they wanted to say and what they

were able to say. As predicted by the Output Hypothesis, this happened primarily as students

were “pushed” to produce the target language.

Research Questions: The specific research questions for this study were as follows:

• 1) Do vocabulary learning activities which require pushed output help students to learn

more new words than input-based or activity-based vocabulary learning activities?

• 2) Is there a differential effect for the vocabulary size of the learner as to which type of

vocabulary learning activity is most effective?

Stated in terms of variables, the dependent variable in this design will be short term

vocabulary learning (as measured by a post-treatment vocabulary quiz), while the independent

variables will be task type (input, output or task-based), and learner level (large or small

vocabulary size).

12


These research questions were tested through a quasi-experimental research experiment

using a nonrandomized control group, pretest-posttest design. which was conducted over a three-

week period between January and February of 1999, follows in the next section.

Subjects: The subjects for the study were 122 students in four intact classes (two

freshman oral English classes, one sophomore reading skills class and one junior reading skills

class) at Aoyama Gakuin University, a four-year, private, Christian university in Tokyo, Japan.

treatment 1 (reading) , treatments 2 (activities) , treatment 3 (writing), treatment 4

(writing with example sentence given)

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out to compare the four

treatments (learning conditions) with respect to the outcome variable (post-test score). As can be

seen in Table 5, significant difference among means was found (p = 0.021).

This study investigates the effectiveness of two teaching techniques that are commonly

used in the ESL classroom to teach new vocabulary words, that is via reading-based and activity-

based tasks, and compares them with a third approach, via writing-based tasks. The results were

fairly clear cut.

Students learned significantly more new vocabulary words from the pushed-output

technique (writing), than they did from either input or activity-based techniques, thus, the

answers to research question 1 is affirmative.

A secondary finding was that regardless of the method used, it is possible in even a

relatively brief period of time, for learners to make substantial gains in their understanding of

new vocabulary words.

Conclusion: Until now, most evidence supporting Swain’s (1985) Pushed Output

Hypothesis has been qualitative in nature. This study has added quantitative knowledge to our

13


understanding of how pushed output contributes to the acquisition of new vocabulary words in

an L2. It has also provided further support for Craik and Lockhart’s (1972) Depth of Processing

Theory, by providing evidence that learning techniques which require deeper levels of processing

lead to better learning, even when time on task is held constant.

In terms of pedagogy, it was found that the most effective technique for helping students

to learn the meaning of new vocabulary words is also one that requires very little extra

preparation time - asking students to use the new words generatively, in original sentences. For

teachers who prefer input-based methods such as extensive reading, it was also found that simple

techniques such as underlining, highlighting, and glossing the target words can greatly enhance

the chance that those words will be learned.

Summary

In sum, learning a second language has always been a passion of many people around the

globe. What ever works both from teaching and learning side should be applied to SL classroom.

Technology can be used to facilitate teaching and learning foreign languages in efficient and

effective ways. Technology tools also works well for more effective classroom which helps

learner’s motivation.

14


Following are the three Reform Action Plans which I have implement at my colleges:1 ) Email flyer of extra-curricular activities

2 ) Survey :Technology tool and College Chinese learningGoogle Form:https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1NuEq6p5KTVMYCQmobXIZFGSF53RxlNuaeZK9EQAT-WE/edit

3 ) workshop grand application:

15

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1NuEq6p5KTVMYCQmobXIZFGSF53RxlNuaeZK9EQAT-WE/edit

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1NuEq6p5KTVMYCQmobXIZFGSF53RxlNuaeZK9EQAT-WE/edit


16


17


18


References

Donesch-Jezo, Ewa (2011) The Role of Output and Feedback in Second Language Acquisition:

A Classroom-based Study of Grammar Acquisition by Adult English Language Learners

ESUKA – JEFUL 2011, 2 – 2: 9 – 28.

http://journaldatabase.info/articles/role_output_feedback_second_language.html

Browne, C. (2002). To push or not to push: A vocabulary research question. Aoyama Ronshu:

Aoyama Gakuin University Press ,43, 93-120.

http://aeon.wordengine.jp/research/pdf/To_push_or_not_to_push.pdf

Končius, Vytenis (2012). Comprehensible Input Versus Comprehensible Output – Have we

Given them their Chance? Language in Different Contexts / Kalba ir Kontekstai . 2012,

Vol. 5 Issue 1, p207-212. 6p.

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/99823568/comprehensible-input-versus-

comprehensible-output-have-we-given-them-their-chance

19

http://aeon.wordengine.jp/research/pdf/To_push_or_not_to_push.pdf

tiffanyhe.weebly.com · web viewthroughout history there always existed two major approaches to...

Documents