Effects of Content Support on Integrated Reading-writing Task Performance and Incidental Vocabulary Learning
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54691/fsd.v3i8.5515Keywords:
Incidental Vocabulary Learning; Integrated Reading-writing; Content Support; TBLT.Abstract
Over the past few decades, task-based language teaching (TBLT) has spawned a series of studies on how various task features affect the way second language (L2) learners use the target language (TL)(e.g., Rostamian, Fazilatfar, & Jabbari, 2018) and acquire TL constructions by carrying out the task (e.g., Solon, Long, & Gurzynski-Weiss, 2017). The theoretical rationale for this strand of research is that task, a meaningful activity that entails TL use to achieve a specified objective (Bygate, Skehan, & Swain, 2001), can engage L2 learners in TL use and hence serve as a viable unit of L2 instruction. As the area has matured with accumulated empirical findings, researchers have commonly identified the near-exclusive attention paid to output-based tasks that entail productive skills such as speaking or writing (Gilabert, Manchón, & Vasylets, 2016). Receptive skills, however, play an important role in task-based instruction, creating opportunities for exposure to new TL features contained in the task input. Shintani (2012) aptly pinpoints the need for more research into input-based tasks that push learners to use the TL to respond to task input, and further asserts that outcome-oriented component can heighten learners’ sensitivity towards new TL features contained in the input and, in doing so, cater for incidental L2 learning. This is an important gap, considering the pervasive use of input-based tasks in many L2 instructional and naturalistic settings (e.g., responding to literature, replying to emails, or filling out a form following an instruction). Another gap in the literature is only marginal attention paid to the effects of task complexity on vocabulary learning. Thus far, target linguistic constructions in the TBLT studies have predominantly been L2 grammatical structures (e.g., Kim, 2012; Révész, Sachs, & Hama, 2014), while the applicability of the task-based approach to L2 vocabulary learning has largely been unattended. Against this background, the present study aimed at filling the gaps in the literature, i.e., the effects of task complexity on L2 learners’ performance in an integrated reading-writing task and learning of vocabulary contained in the task input.
Downloads
References
Rostamian, M., Fazilatfar, A. M., & Jabbari, A. A. (2018). The effect of planning time on cognitive processes, monitoring behavior, and quality of L2 writing. Language Teaching Research, 22(4), 418-438.
Solon, M., Long, A. Y., & Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2017). Task complexity, language-related episodes, and production of L2 Spanish vowels. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 347-380.
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Longman.
Gilabert, R., Manchón, R., & Vasylets, O. (2016). Mode in theoretical and empirical TBLT research: Advancing research agendas. Annual Review of Applied linguistics, 36, 117-135.
Shintani, N. (2012). Input-based tasks and the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar: A process-product study. Language Teaching Research, 16(2), 253-279.
Kim, Y-J. (2012). Task complexity, learning opportunities and Korean EFL learners’ question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 627-658.
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Schilperoord, J. (1996). It’s about time: Temporal aspects of cognitive processes in text production. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Rodopi.
Kormos, J. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 148–161.
Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2010). Effects of task complexity on fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 218–233.
Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51(3), 539-558.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.




