Saudi EFL Learners’ Response to Different Grammar Tasks

  • Sami Alanazi University of Central Lancashire
Keywords: SLA, ELT, explicit instruction, grammar teaching

Abstract

This study examines intermediate level adult EFL students in Saudi Arabia, and the effectiveness of task-based learning in relation to their understanding of English grammar. The students were given three different tasks related to negative adverbs, designed to help them learn past-tense verb forms in English. There were three groups of 20 students, all of whom were learning at the same level. The groups were:
Selected response group (SRG, n=20)
Constrained constructed response group (CCR, n=20)
Storytelling group (FRG, n=20)
Each group was given a pre-test to determine their level before the tasks, a test immediately after, and a delayed test. The selected response group (SRG) performed best on the tests, demonstrating the effectiveness of task-based teaching in grammar acquisition. Students were chosen at random for an interview, in which their grammar knowledge was assessed. This produced results that mirrored those of the tests. It was also clear that the kinds of tasks chosen by teachers had an impact on the effectiveness of their lessons. This study provides EFL teachers with vital information they can use in learning design and lesson planning and gives EFL students information they can use to support their own learning

References

Brown, H. D. & Abeywickrama, P. (2010). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. (2nd Ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education, Inc.

Doughty, C. J. (2003). The handbook of second language acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

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

Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed Second Language Acquisition A Literature Review Report to The Ministry of Education. New Zealand: Auckland Uniservices Limited.

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J., & Reinders, H. (2009). Implicit and explicit knowledge in Second language learning, testing and teaching. United Kingdom: Channel View Publications.

Hickey, D. (2014). Selected response test items Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hnc0swrRX6A&nohtml5=False

Leeman, J. (2003). RECASTS AND SECOND LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT: Beyond Negative Evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 37-63. doi:10.1017/S0272263103000020

Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning (pp. 123–163). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–428.

Reinders, H. (2008). The what, why, and how of language advising. MexTESOL, 32(2).

Roediger, H. L., III, & Marsh, E. J. (2005). The positive and negative consequences of multiple-choice testing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(5), 1155–1159. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.31.5.1155

Rutherford, W. (1987). Second language grammar learning and teaching. New York: Longman.

Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task design and Second language performance: The effect of narrative type on Learner output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439–473. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00446.x

Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2011). Task design and Second language performance: The effect of narrative type on Learner output. Language Learning, 61, 37–72. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00642.x

Willis, J. (1996). A Framework for Task-based Learning. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.

Published
2018-06-13
Section
Articles