1487 USING DICTOGLOSS TO ENHANCE STUDENTS'' GRAMMAR COMPETENCE

Trang 1

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY

I8?

USING DICTOGLOSS TO ENHANCE STUDENTS’ GRAMMAR COMPETENCE TRUONG DAI HOC MO TP.HCM THU VIEN

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (TESOL)

Submitted by TRINH VUONG KHOI

Supervisor

LUU TRONG TUAN (PhD)

Ho Chi Minh City, May 2014

Trang 2

ABSTRACT

Grammar teaching has always been given a place in research, and recently more attention has been paid to an innovative grammar instruction known as Focus-on-form (FonF) approach in which students acquire grammar through working collaboratively on the combination of form and meaning “Dictogloss method”, one of the collaborative output task which functions as realizing FonF approach, has been introduced to help students enhance their grammar competence However, few studies have been conducted to see if “the dictogloss method” can be applied effectively in grammar teaching This study attempts to find out whether teaching grammar through “dictogloss method” could significantly help students enhance their grammar competence 50 students aging from 15 to 17 at Galaxy Center for Foreign Language participated in the study The quantitative analysis indicated that “dictogloss method” applied in the experimental group did affect the students in terms of improving their grammar competence Moreover, the students expressed their positive attitudes towards using this method in classrooms

Trang 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Statement Of authorshÏip co s co 0 H0 T000 0000 0000506080806.9000609006 60809008 i Acknowledgeme€nfS co <0 Go lọ 0 19000000 660099400669980940688900066999000568 ii ASTAC o-o co co c0 HT 0000004 0000001.01009.030600090606990909.90006000.03609090.0506090008 8000 iii 'TablÌe 0Ÿ COTf€TIÉS 0c 0 họ 9 0 0095.090009 09050609690.000688090500609866668 iv

List Of fIGUIeS .csccccccsscsssccscescccccsssscrsssssscsscesoosssssccssssccsesssonsessssssesssssesessesscestes ix LLiSC OŸ (aDÌ€S 5G nọ T0 90 100804 700008 950006 000906 8009005000906 x Chapter 1: INTRODUCTTOƠNN Go on Hán 09008 ngvø 1 1.1 Background of the SfUdYy .- HH HH ky 1 1.2 Statement of the problem .- - s1 ng ng 3 1.3 Aims Of the 0 4 1.4 Research Questions .- - St ng ng su 5 1.5 Significance of the SfUỦY HH ng ng ng sư 5 1.6 THeS1S SÍTUCẨUTC - Á G HT 6 1.7 Summary of chapter Ì - . HH HH ng ng kg 6 Chapter 2: LITERA TURE REV TỒN co 01001 am 8 2.1 Defining grammar n 8 2.2 Types of 2ramimar .cceccsssccsssessecsssecssseseseceeseesseceeseecsseeessecsaeeeeeesaes 9 2.3 Defining grammar teaching «<1 HH ng ve 10 2.4 Approaches to grammar teachÏng - - s21 1135198155 s I1

2.4.1 Focus-on-grammar approach to grammar teaching 11 2.4.2 Focus-on-meaning approach to grammar teaching 13 2.4.3 Focus-on-form approach to grammar teaching (FonF) 14

Trang 4

2.4.3.1 Defining focus on form (EonF) LH triết 14

2.4.3.2 The need for focus on form VẤN tk 15

2.5 Form-focused collaborative output taSK ni, 16

2.5.1 Defining form-focused collaborative output task 16

2.5.2 Effects of collaborative output tasKS -«+s«++-s<2 17 2.6 Dictogloss task: one of collaborative output task . - -«« 19 2.6.1 Defining diCtOgÏOSS SH ng, 19 2.6.2 The stages of dictÒÏOSS ng ng, 20 2.6.3 The theoretical underpinning of dictogÏOSs - 22

2.6.3.1 Output hypothesis «+ mm 22

2.6.3.2 Interaction hypothes1s -. - sex eeerke 25 2.6.4 Effectss of dictogÏOss †aSĂK - ST ng ng 26 2.6.4.1 Creating incidental learning -«<<s«<<«2 26 2.6.4.2 Creating group interaCfiO s««ssksxsseeeee 27 2.6.4.3 Creating contextualized grammar . -ssss++ 28 2.6.5 Empirical studies concentrating on dictogloss task 28 2.7 Summary Of Chapf€T 2 .- - Ác SH ng ng ng re 33 Chapter 3: METHODOLUOOY on HH Hy g0 g006 6 56 35 SN an cố .e 35

Cu nh ố 36

3.3 Subjecfs of the StUdyy - Ác HH nu KH ng 37

3.4 Materials used in the StUỦY HH HH ng ng ng 38 3.5 Procedures of the stUdy - SH ng HH nu rry 40

Trang 5

3.5.2.2 Teaching grammar to the experimental group 42 Teaching procedures .cccccscccsssssessssseesssseennesesseseeses 42 DicfogÏ0SS Í€.XẾS SH nh ng ven 45 3.5.3 Posttest administrafiOT - ngư 46 3.5.4 Questionnaire €ÏÏV€TY . c- HHngnnnH nHykn 47

3.6 ÏTSITUITTIES - Ă Gì vi 47 4.6.] T€SES HH nọ HT V 47

:EằnN án 48

3.6.1.2 Tesf COT€TI ĂẶ So sex H41 111111011 xrreo 48

3.6.1.3 Test technnique€ ng ng rưưm 49

4.6.1.4 Test valldlẨY HH TH ng ng 49 3.6.1.5 Test reliablÏity .- c Ăn HH ng xế 50 :N V9) 0i 070 51

3.6.2.1 Questionnaire €sig1 - ch say 52

3.6.2.2 Questionnaire vaÌidItY ẶccSc essssssrerrrss 53

Trang 6

4.1.1 Students” grammar compefence « kg ke 59

4.1.1.1 Distribution of the test sCOF€S c5 2c cccccccesecsscs2 59 4.1.1.2 Comparison of the mean SCOF€S . - «+: 61

4.1.1.3 Test of normail distribution - «««« «<< sa 65

4.1.2 Students’ attitudes towards learning grammar with dictogloss 68

4.1.2.1 Students’ overall satisfaction with dictogloss task 69 4.1.2.2 Students” attitudes towards dictogloss texfs 71 4.1.2.3 Students’ attitudes towards dictogloss procedures 73 4.2 Discussion of the findings .essesessecesseceesseeeseneesssneecssaeesestenesanees 75 4.2.1 Findings on the students’ achievement 75 4.2.2 Findings on the studenfs” aftitudes - - s-+c se esees 77

Trang 10

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the study

For many years, language teaching put the great focus on grammar teaching It was believed that “language was mainly composed of grammar rules and that knowing those rules would be sufficient for learners to acquire the language” (Nassaji & Fotos, 2011, p 2) However, when teachers have begun to adapt communication-based approach to second language teaching, the role of grammar tends to be downplayed It has been believed that teaching grammar is unhelpful for the development of grammar competence and thus it should not exist in L2 classrooms (Krashen, 1993)

However, current research in second language acquisition (SLA) has reconsidered the role of grammar in language teaching and learning Nassaji & Fotos, (2011) stated the following reasons owing to the reconsideration of the role of grammar

“First, the hypothesis that language can be learnt without some degree of consciousness has been found to be theoretically problematic (e.g., Schmidt

1993, 1995, 2001; Sharwood Smith, 1993) In addition, there is ample empirical

evidence that teaching approaches that focus primarily on meaning with no

Trang 11

instructed language learning has major effects on both the rate and the ultimate level of L2 acquisition” (Preface section, § 3)

Researchers now agree that grammar is too significant in L2 to be ignored and that without a good knowledge of grammar, learners’ language development will be severely affected (Rashtchi, 2009) Indeed, grammar is crucial to language because it determines the language existence However, in terms of language pedagogy grammar teaching has been the most controversial issue According to Nassaji & Fottos (2011), the focus of controversy has been “whether grammar should be taught explicitly through a formal presentation of grammar rules or implicitly through natural exposure to meaningful language use” (p 1) The explicit grammar teaching certainly lays an exclusive concentration on grammar while the implicit grammar teaching directs students to use grammar in meaningful communication Recently, there has been a grammar teaching approach that calls for the focus on both grammar and meaning This comes to be known as focus on form (FonF) approach in which learners’ grammar competence could be significantly improved thanks to the integration of language accuracy and fluency The main focus of this approach is that grammar instruction

should take place within communicative contexts; in other words, FonF draws

students’ attention to forms in the meaningful contexts However, the question is that how FonF is realized or how language accuracy and fluency can be integrated According to Nassaji (1999) to integrate language accuracy and fluency it is necessary to apply classroom collaborative activities which encourage students to have explicit

focus on form within contexts

Trang 12

students work collaboratively to produce the output can help integrate form and meaning And one of the tasks that involve grammar decision making and information exchange is dictogloss task Under his view, dictogloss is a pedagogically collaborative task in which students interact with one another to produce a written reconstructed version of a text that has been read to them by the teacher It is noted that dictogloss enhances the negotiation of meaning as well as promotes negotiation of form and also gives students an opportunity to reflect on their output Alsibai (2008) stated that the interaction process between pairs or small groups during the task provides students with opportunities to talk about the grammar in order to complete the task Dictogloss is described as a useful task under FonF instruction, a contemporary approach to grammar teaching; that is “language forms, structures and patterns are treated from the perspectives of their particular contextual meaning” (Wajnryb, 1990, p 13) Hence, from a pedagogical perspective, dictogloss tasks should be given a position in every grammar lesson as completing the task will force students to notice any aspects of grammar the teacher may want to concentrate on, which will lead to a greater opportunity for promoting second language grammar competence

1.2 Statement of the problem

Trang 13

With the recognition of the limitations of this grammar instruction and the influence of communicative approach the teacher working in the context have been trying to change the setting by laying more emphasis on meaning conveyed by grammar structures in their grammar instruction However, when putting more focus on meaning or language functions the teachers have found a numbers of anxieties occurring First, they have worried that the students will reduce their accuracy on producing the language as well as their proficiency level as little focus is put on the form accuracy Their second worry is that the students will repeatedly make the same mistakes as they are not corrected in a communicative activity Third, not all of the teachers have been trained to use communicative activities effectively

In this situation, clearly it is necessary to apply a simple but effective task-based grammar activity such as dictogloss task which has been found motivating students to improve their grammar competence by giving them the opportunity to achieve the two simultaneous goals: accuracy and fluency According to Alsibai (2008), hopefully this task is able to motivate students to notice their grammar learning

1.3 Aims of the study

Trang 14

1 The first aim of the study is to determine the effectiveness of dictogloss grammar lessons on improving the grammar competence for the students who are learning English at the foreign language center

2 Moreover, the second aim is to explore the students’ attitudes towards dictogloss task which functions as the treatment in the study

L.4 Research questions

Through this study the effectiveness of and the students’ attitudes toward dictogloss ask are investigated Therefore, the study consists of the following questions:

1 To what extent do the students enhance their grammar competence after learning grammar with dictogloss task?

2 What are students’ attitudes toward learning grammar with dictogloss task?

1.5 Significance of the study

Trang 15

teachers will know how to enhance students’ both language accuracy and fluency Thanks to dictogloss task teachers can motivate students to learn grammar lessons which have been considered dry and tough Moreover, the treatment of the study will give students an opportunity to work collaboratively and interact with each other to produce the output Therefore, they will not only notice the gaps in their grammar knowledge but also get assistance from their peers and the teacher to fulfill the gaps And finally, this task will help students become independent learners in the learner-

centered classrooms in which teachers function as facilitators

1.6 Thesis structure

The study is organized into 5 chapters Chapter 1, entitled “Introduction”, provides the

study’s background, the statement of the problem, the aims, the research questions, and

the significance of the study Chapter 2, entitled Literature Review, reviews the theoretical underpinnings of FonF approach, collaborative output task and dictogloss task; moreover, this chapter presents the empirical research focusing on dictogloss task and research gap Chapter 3, entitled Methodology, describes the methodology in which the study is conducted Chapter 4, entitled Results and Discussion, launches the findings and discussion of the data analysis Chapter 5, entitled Conclusion, Limitations, and Implications, gives the conclusion of the study, states the limitations of the study, launches theoretical and practical implications, and finally offers some remarks to further study related to teaching and integrating grammar into L2 classrooms effectively

Trang 17

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

As mentioned in chapter 1, dictogloss following FonF instruction serves as a teaching task that assists students to improve their grammar competence as it helps incorporate forms in meaningful contexts in which their fluency as well as accuracy is better This task forces students to produce the output; therefore, students can notice their mistakes and improve their accuracy in using the language However, so far there still has not been a reasoned argument and critical evaluation of it Hence, this chapter plays a role in providing a literature relevant to the study including the following issues: defining grammar, types of grammar, defining grammar teaching, approaches to grammar teaching, the focus on form (FonF) approach to grammar teaching, collaborative output tasks, dictogloss task: one of collaborative output tasks, and the empirical research concentrating on dictogloss task

2.1 Defining grammar

Trang 18

Cobbett (1984) considered grammar as rules and principals that help make use of words and combine words to give meaning in a proper manner Also focusing on the combination of form and meaning, Ur (1996) mentioned that grammar does not only affect how units of language are combined in order to make sentences correct but also affects meaning Obviously, it is no use in knowing how to construct sentences without knowing what differences they make when they are used Consequently, the grammar of a language will emphasize the importance of both forms and meaning

2.2 Types of grammar

Trang 19

2.3 Defining grammar teaching

Traditionally, grammar teaching was considered as the presentation and practice of grammar structures According to Ellis (2006), this makes the grammar teaching become an overtly narrow definition It is certainly true that grammar teaching can consist of the presentation and practice of grammatical items However, the inadequacy will be found in grammar teaching if the focus is just laid on the two elements This grammar teaching does not deal with the contexts for an exposure to the new language Hence, recently teacher handbooks and textbooks have met the demand by both offering the aspects of structures and providing contexts In these books, the activities which aim to provide situational contexts for grammar aspects are considered important

To argue with the view that grammar teaching merely consists of the presentations and the practices of grammatical structures Ellis (2006) mentioned the following reasons:

“First, some grammar lessons might consist of presentation by itself (i.e., without any practice), while others might entail only practice (i.e., no presentation) Second, grammar teaching can involve learners in discovering grammatical rules for themselves (i.e., no presentation and no practice) Third, grammar teaching can be conducted simply by exposing learners to input contrived to provide multiple exemplars of the target structure Here, too, there is nO presentation and no practice, at least in the sense of eliciting production of the structure Finally, grammar teaching can be conducted by means of corrective feedback on learner errors when these arise in the context of performing some communicative tasks” (p 84)

Trang 20

It is apparent that grammar teaching does not merely involve presenting and practicing the grammatical forms Consequently, the following broader definition of grammar teaching of Ellis should be addressed

“Grammar teaching involves any instructional technique that draws learners’ attention to some specific grammatical form in such a way that it helps them either to understand it meta-linguistically and/or process it in comprehension and/or production so that they can internalize it” (p.84)

2.4 Approaches to grammar teaching

Historically, approaches to grammar teaching have undergone many changes Nassaji & Fotos (2011) noted that these changes can be viewed under three general instructional approaches, beginning with those that “conceptualized teaching in terms of methods with an exclusive focus on grammar, continuing later as types of exposure to meaningful language use, and emerging more recently as a set of instructional options with a focus on both grammar and meaning” (p 1)

2.4.1 Focus-on-grammar approach to grammar teaching

This approach emphasizes the teaching of forms over meaning since it is believed that language merely consists of grammar rules and that knowing those grammar rules is adequate for learners to master the language A very popular form of this approach is PPP (presentation-practice-production) model of grammar instruction The PPP is what many teachers consider as a basic grammar lesson structure in many L2 classrooms

Trang 21

(Crookes & Chaudron, 2001) In this model, grammar instruction consists of three

structured stages including a presentation stage, a practice stage and a production stage Usually, in the first stage, new grammatical forms are introduced through a sequence of examples and then the formulas are drawn The next stage provides the students with a lot of written exercises to help them repeat and manipulate the new forms The final stage often begins with controlled practice which focuses students on specific linguistic features and then move to more open practice with more open activities This model can help students understand the new forms by enabling them to internalize the rules Under this instruction, practice determines the language acquisition as “it is through the practice that the material is most thoroughly and permanently learnt” (Ur, 1988, p 10)

One major claim of focus-on-grammar approach is that language includes a series of grammatical forms that can be acquired successively Grammar teaching is viewed as deductive and linear presentation of these rules It is believed that through such presentations of grammatical forms, learners are able to acquire the kind of knowledge they need for spontaneous language use However, Widowson (1978, as cited in Larsen-Freeman, 2000) stated that “with these methods students could produce sentences accurately but could not use them appropriately when genuinely communicating outside of the classroom” (p 121) Students just know the grammar tules of language; however, they find it difficult to use them appropriately in communication In fact, communication asked that students perform certain functions as well such as promising, inviting, and complimenting and so on within social contexts (Wilkins, 1976 as cited in Larsen-Freeman, 2000) Therefore, this approach has been found inadiquate in meeting learners’ communicative needs

Trang 22

2.4.2 Focus-on-meaning approach to grammar teaching

The fact that an exchusive focus on the presentations and practice of grammar rules is not sufficient and the one that knowing a language does not simply mean knowing its grammar has led to a change from a concentration on forms to a focus on the meanings performed by grammatical forms In this approach, a lot of forms are presented for each function and only the simpler forms are introduced at the beginning; however, when students become more proficient in the target language, the functions are repeated in more complicated ways At that time, “more complex forms are learnt” (Larsen-Freeman, 2000, p 131) She also illustrated this with an example that on learning to make requests, at the beginning students will learn simple structures; however, highly proficient students might learn more complicated ones Ellis (2006) clarified this approach through the notion that in this approach, less emphasis is placed on such aspects of grammar and more on the meanings conveyed by different grammatical forms in communication

This approach puts a focus on meanings or functions rather than grammatical forms However, as mentioned in chapter | recent research has been done to confirm the importance of grammatical forms in language teaching and learning and thus grammatical forms should not be weakened in second language classrooms Wilkins (1981 as cited in Littlewood, 1992) stated that the notion that “an individual can develop anything rather than rudimentary communication ability without an extensive mastery of the grammatical system is absurd” (p 1) It means in speaking and listening, forms play an important part in grasping and expressing spoken language (Corder, 1988) Littlewood (1992) pointed out that “the more concretely a learner masters the grammar of the language, the more effectively he or she can use this language for

Trang 23

communication” (p 1) He also added that “even when functional communication could take place without grammar; it is appropriate control of grammar that makes the forms of communication socially acceptable” (p 4) In fact, as Nassaji & Fotos (2011) stated, forms play an important part in helping students to produce language more accurately and reaching the level of proficiency

2.4.3 Focus-on-Form (FonF) approach to grammar teaching

2.4.3.1 Defining FonF

Due to the inadequacies of both focus-on-grammar approach and focus-on-meaning approach there has been a revival of grammar teaching and this revival has led to an effort to strike the balance between the traditional approach focusing on grammar forms and the focus-on-meaning or function approach emphasizing the functions of grammatical forms The result of this effort comes to be known as Focus-on-Form (FonF) proposed by Long (1991) Long differentiated FonF with focus-on-grammar approach and focus-on-meaning approach Focus-on-grammar approach is a traditional approach which focuses on an analytic syllabus and is based on the hypothesis that language consists of “‘a series of grammatical forms that can be acquired sequentially and additively” (Nassaji & Fotos, 2011, p 10) Conversely, Focus-on-meaning approach is updated and is based on the hypothesis that “learners are able to analyze the language inductively and arrive at its underlying grammar” (Nassaji & Fotos, 2011,

p 10) Therefore, in this approach, pure function-focused activities are truly

emphasized and no attention to forms is paid Long (2000) claimed that the former is problematic because it makes lessons dry and uninteresting and is not concerned with

Trang 24

bommunicative use So is the latter because it does not lead to desired level of proficiency development FonF, on the contrary, “is a kind of grammar instruction that draws the learners’ attention to linguistic forms in the contexts of meaningful communication” (Nassaji & Fotos, 2011, p 10)

2.4.3.2 The need for focus on form

The concern for focus on form was motivated on both theoratical and pedagogical perspectives (Ellis, 2001) As for the theoretical perspective, the aim is to consider the claim made by Krashen (1981) that “grammar could only be effectively taught implicitly to affect the learners’ acquired language” (as cited in Stockwell, 2010, p 111) Krashen claimed that comprehensible input was adequate and teaching or correcting learners’ errors didn’t lay any effects on their interlanguage development As discussed later, the noticing function of output proposed by Swain (1993) contradicts Krashen’s claim that the process of language acquisition is unconcious As for the pedagogical perspective, research was conducted to explore whether the concentration on form could help learners acquire structures that they couldn’t achieve through the focus-on-meaning approach (Ellis, 2001) These studies mentioned by Doughty & Williams (1998) found that when second language learning is purely meaning-focused, learners are not able to acquire some linguistic forms with the expected proficiency For the pedagogical application of a focus on form there has been strong claim and weak claim noted by Doughty & Williams (1998) as follows:

“The strong claim is that focus on form may be necessary to push learners beyond communicatively effective language toward target-like second language ability The weaker claim is that even if such a focus may not be absolutely

Trang 25

necessary, it may be part of a more efficient language learning experience in that it can speed up natural acquisition process (p 2)”

Ecent research has demonstrated the need for focus on form as for achieving higher el of accuracy in any L2 educational settings in which learners are provided with the L portunity to become more proficient language users Learners will also have chances

b encounter, reflect on, and use instructed forms in a variety of form-meaning

kistionships under contexts so that the forms can become part of their interlanguage behaviors (Swain & Lapkin, 2001)

5 Form-focused collaborative output tasks

lARer the consideration of FonF in grammar teaching the question posted is how to put

i

the theory into practice It means how teachers can apply FonF in their teaching This ‘question can be answered by using form-focused collaborative output tasks

2.5.1 Defining Form-focused collaborative output tasks

Form-focused collaborative output tasks are “activities designed to push learners to produce output collaboratively and also reflect on and negotiate the accuracy of their language production Such activities are beneficial to L2 learners because when output is produced collaboratively, learners are not only pushed to use the target structure, but they can also get help from their peers when trying to make their meaning precise” (Kowal & Swain, 1994; Swain & Lapkin, 2001; Swain, 2005 as quoted in Nassaji &

Fotos, 2011, p 104) With collaborative output tasks learners will be provided with

opportunities to reflect on language conciously Moreover, completing the task will

Trang 26

require learners to work together to debate the forms and thus their awareness about the forms which they find problematic will be enhanced

2.5.2 Effects of Form-focused collaborative output tasks

The effects of collaborative output tasks have been found under a lot of investigations The investigation conducted by Long & Porter (1985) which was discussed in McCafferty, Jacobs, & Iddings (2006) found that in a class of 30 students under the procedures given by the teacher, the average time that a student working individually spoke was only 30 seconds per a 50-minute lesson However, when the students work in group of 3 for just % of a 50-minute period, the amount of students’ talking time increased more than 500 per cent The conclusion was that the group-work activity provided a setting in which students were given an opportunity to practice a variety of language functions and purposes with their peers”

While Long & Porter focused on the oral tasks, Storch (1998) investigate the effectiveness of collaboration in written tasks to examine whether the students working cooperatively could provide each other with the necessary feedbacks, and whether such feedbacks could better their language learning In this study, to measure the students’ progress grammar tasks including text reconstruction tasks or short compositions were employed The students in his class were required to complete these tasks individually and in group and then the results were compared Storch found that collaboration was effective in terms of enhancing the grammatical accuracy in their writings

Also taking notice of the effects of collaborative tasks, Foster (1998 as cited in Ellis,

Trang 27

the tasks in pairs and in groups She noted that these tasks forced students to negotiate and debate the form of their output so that the students can raise their awareness of the forms It came to the conclusion that the pair and group collaboration happening in an output-production task were the most effective for language learning

Mayo (2002) suggested the three potential roles of output which helps raise awareness of forms These three roles were mentioned as follows:

1 “Noticing: producing output is an opportunity for language learners to notice the gaps in their knowledge and notice that they do not know how to convey the meaning they need”

2 “Hypothesis formulation and testing: the learners may use their output as a way to try out hypotheses about how structures and forms of a second language work”

3 “Metalinguistic function: learners may reflect on their own language use, and their output serves a metalinguistic function enabling them to control and internalize linguistic knowledge (p 158)”

Based on the roles of output Ghaith (2003) conducted the study in reading skill upon 45 students in grade 7 and recognized that collaborative instruction is more effective than individualistic instruction in increasing the linguistic form comprehension of an ESL student He stated that cooperation was good for both low achievers and high achievers since for the former they could get supported help form their peers and for the latter, through interaction, their understanding could be enhanced as they explained concepts to others

Jacobs & Young (2004) agreed that collaborative learning made learning and teaching more effective However, they noted that collaborative learning was not just organizing

Trang 28

the students into groups and asking them to work together Instead, the success of the collaborative learning depended on the two important collaborative learning principles; namely, individual accountability and positive interdependence:

“Individual accountability is the feeling among group members that each has the responsibility for group’s success Positive interdependence means that the group members feel that what helps one group member helps them all, and anything that hurts one group member hurts them all Individual accountability puts pressure on group members to learn and to help others learn, while positive interdependence provides support to group members as they take the risks inherent in the learning process” (pp 118-119)

In fact, the usefulness of collaborative output tasks is to require students to get involved in cooperative comprehension and the production of language Through these tasks students can pay much more attention to the forms they find problematic and interact with each other to solve the linguistic problems and produce the language accurately However, for these kinds of tasks to be used effectively in second language classrooms, according to Jacobs & Young (2004), “researchers and teachers need to pay careful consideration to the choice of tasks and to pay attention to how subjects themselves interpret and complete it” (p 156)

2.6 Dictogloss task: one of the collaborative output tasks

There are a variety of the collaborative output tasks that promote interaction among linguistic forms One of them which helps create collaborative situation in L2 classroom is dictogloss

2.6.1 Defining dictogloss

Trang 29

) ajnryb (1990) defined dictogloss as follows:

“Dictogloss is a task-based procedure designed to help language learning students toward a better understanding of how grammar works on a text basis It

is designed to expose where their language-learner shortcomings (and needs)

L : :

: are, so that teaching can be directed more precisely towards these areas” (p.6) In dictogloss, a short grammar-focused text is read twice to the students at a normal pace While listening to the text read by the teacher the students jot down the key words and phrases Then the students will work in small groups, discuss and endeavor to reconstruct a version of the text from their shared sources After the text reconstruction, each group of students has to produce its own reconstructed version, concentrating on grammatical accuracy and textual cohesion but not on producing the original text And finally, the various versions of the text are analyzed and compared and the students “refine their own texts in the light of the shared scrutiny and discussion” (Wajnryb, 1990, p 6)

2.6.2 The stages of dictogloss

Nassaji & Fottos (2011) has summarized the four stages mentioned by Wajnryb (1990)

as follows:

1 Preparation: “this includes informing students the aim of the task and what they are expected to do It also involves a warm-up discussion of the topic and presentation and explanation of unknown vocabulary in the text At this stage, students are also organized into groups before they begin the task”

Trang 30

2 The dictation stage: “the teacher reads the text twice at natural speed The first time, students listen to the text very carefully The second time, they listen and take notes of important words or ideas related to the content” 3 The reconstruction stage: “students work together in small groups and use

their notes to reconstruct the text as accurately as possible Students use

target language to discuss the accuracy of their language use During this stage the teacher’s role is to monitor students’ activities and provide i feedbacks or language input”

4 The analysis and correction stage: “the reconstructed text is analyzed, compared with the original, and corrected by students and teachers together

At this stage, students discuss the choices they have made to become aware

of their different hypotheses and solutions The teacher will help the students understand their linguistic problem and how to fix them” In this stage, students should be encouraged to compare the various versions and discuss the language options they made In this way errors are exposed and negotiated so that students can understand the false and correct it Ideally, the original text should not be handed to students until their reconstructed text versions are analyzed” (pp 108-109)

After the various versions of the text are analyzed and corrected, some notes on the

zrammatical points of the text will be designed to help students consolidate the zrammar knowledge which is conveyed in the text

"rom the standardized dictogloss mentioned above, Jacobs & Small (2003) listed 8 variations of dictogloss, which are somehow partially different from the standardized ye Variation 1 is dictogloss negotiation in which students discuss after each section of the text has been read rather than group members discussing what they heard when

Trang 31

the teacher has completed reading Variation 2 is student-controlled dictation in which students use the tape recorder and the teacher just control the tape However, students are reminded that the aim of dictogloss is the creation of an appropriate reconstruction, not a copy Variation 3 is student-student dictation in which students take turns to read to each other rather than the teacher being the one to read the text Variation 4 is called dictogloss summaries in which students merely concentrate on the key ideas of the original text and visual cues can be provided to help the students with their reconstruction Variation 5 is scrambled sentence dictogloss employed to raise the difficulty level of the dictogloss and to focus students’ attention on how the texts fits together Variation 6 is named elaboration dictogloss in which in stage 3 students can invent elaborations based on what they know about the topic of the text Variation 7 is i ldictogloss opinion in which the students give opinions on the writer’s ideas And the

f al one is picture dictation in which students can do other activities such as h ompleting a graphic organizer or drawing a picture rather than just reconstructing the

b iginal text

2.6.3 The theoretical underpinning of dictogloss

in this section, the two hypotheses that bear directly on dictogloss task, one of bollaborative output tasks, will be discussed One is Swain & Lapkin (1995) output bpothesis, which claims that learners need to engage in output production in order to ' crease their L2 proficiency and the other is interaction hypothesis, which claims that

follaborative interaction is the important component in second language classroom

6.3.1 Output hypothesis

Trang 32

bntioned in the part titled “the need for focus on form”, the output hypothesis

dicts Krashen (1981)’s argument that language acquisition is mainly driven by

: ehensible input; that is, target language can be understood by a learner and he or

; actually acquire an L2 with no need to produce it However, Swain & Lapkin ) argued that the roles of output in L2 acquisition are significant and \ ehensible input is essential but not sufficient for L2 acquisition In fact, “output

b the learners to move from semantic processing involved in comprehension to

b etic processing needed for production” (Nassaji & Fotos, 2011, p 104)

ke of content-based and language immersion classes in Canada were conducted to

pr ine the role of output The findings proved that the only exposure to meaningful k t was inadequate for the acquisition of L2 grammatical accuracy (Harley & 1984; Lapkin, Hart & Swain, 1991; Swain 1985, 1993 as cited in Nassaji & bs, 2011) These studies found that even though the students spent many hours k ding to comprehensible input, their language performance was measured with È uracy in terms of certain aspects of the target language One reason for this is that students in these programs did not spend enough time for producing the language : out language production as Swain mentioned that they could not find out the gap k een their existing knowledge and the new knowledge and could not go beyond the

fel of their interlanguage

‘ ain (1993) noted the three functions of output in L2 acquisition including a noticing h ction, a hypothesis testing function and a metalinguistic function The noticing ction is that when students are involved in producing L2 output they will become ware of the hole or the gap in their linguistic ability When noticing a hole or a gap in the output production, they will become more aware of the knowledge provided in input; consequently, they may get benefits from it more effectively Such noticing

Trang 33

k an important part in L2 learning because “it triggers a certain cognitive processes

Ì icated in L2 learning, such as searching for new information or consolidating * g knowledge” (Swain, 1995 as cited in Nassaji & Fotos, 2011, p 104) In fogloss tasks, according to Stockwell (2010), studentss need to work cooperatively : o-construct the text in the target language The co-construction will require them to b beyond what they can truly memorize in their existing knowledge Working paboratively to reconstruct the text actually forces the students to concentrate on : istic rules It is necessary for the students to go beyond what they can memorize in

} dictation stage to reconstruct the text Stockwell noted that “the reconstruction

kc requires them to access their morpho-synthetic knowledge of the L2 When dents have trouble achieving this they are likely to notice the gap in their lexical or h thetical knowledge” (p 114)

he second function of output is hypothesis testing function which proposes that h ording to Swain (1993), when students are engaged in output production they are povided with opportunities for trying and testing out their hypothesis about how to bpress their meaning in the target language When students want to convey their Kssages to others, they have to try out different ways of saying the same thing If they fe not able to express their intended meaning they may ask for assistance from their

kisting linguistic resources to find out solutions; hence, the searching process can help

lodify their original output

t

he third function of the output is meta-linguistic function which “encourages learners » consciously reflect on language, thinking about what to say and how to say it” Nassaji & Fotos, 2011, p 105) Swain & Lapkin (1995) stated that output not only

takes students become conscious of their linguistic problems, it also makes them

pcognize what they need to learn about their L2 Swain (1998) explained that with the

Trang 34

put production, “learners’ own language indicates an awareness of something about kí own, or their interlocutors’ use of language” (p 68).- Such reflective uses of incuage mediate L2 development by helping students control over language use and bo internalize their linguistic knowledge (Mayo, 2002)

With the foundation set from the three above-mentioned functions dictogloss tasks are

esigned to help students produce the output collabortively, reflect on their language b e, raise their awareness of their own grammar knowledge and generate new linguistic h owledge

È6.3.2 Interaction hypothesis

becent studies in second language pedagogy have given the support to the use of

| ivities that require the learners to produce output collaboratively (Mayo, 2002) In

b t, many students have found it difficult to learn grammar alone; however, when they h ork together much more can be achieved Swain emphasized the importance of the

bint construction of language by two or more individual as “it is what allows

k ormance to outstrip competence; it is where language use and language learning

k co-occur” (Swain, 1997, p 115) Within the dictogloss procedure it is apparent that

working with other students a Zone of Proximal Development proposed by on (1962) is created where upper students are in the position to help lower ' dents By doing so, the upper ones can strengthen their own understanding of the brpct language while the lower ones can improve their linguistic knowledge thanks to he assistance According to Stockwell (2010) research has shown that in classroom

asks students frequently perform better while working together, rather than alone In lictogloss task, according to Long (1996) not only do students are provided bpportunities for mutual interaction, it is also geared to enhance the interaction

Trang 35

wen students and the instructor This interaction mostly takes place at the final , of dictogloss task in which the instructor will analyze the mistakes and compare

various versions the students have reconstructed

short, dictogloss tasks are beneficial to L2 learners in terms of enhancing the ar knowledge as well as grammar use because when the output is produced : boratively students are not only pushed to use the target structure but also get fstance from their peers to make their meaning precise Students should reconstruct text as accurately as possible This requires them to participate in extensive ussion about the appropriate lexical and grammatical ‘forms Consequently,

k ents will raise their awareness of problematic forms and search for the solutions; as

Fesullt, their specific aspects of language will be significantly improved Indeed in Btogloss task, according to Nassaji & Fotos (2011), “new knowledge begins in k action and also becomes internalized and consolidated through collaborations with

hers” (p 107)

6.4 Effects of dictogloss task

6.4.1 Creating incidental learning

hmidt (1995) defined incidental learning as “learning of one thing (e.g grammar) khen the learner’s primary object is to do something else (e.g communicate)” (p 116) Hulstijn (2003) mentioned two reasons why incidental learning should be valued First, tudents in academic programs often pay attention to materials if they feel that the naterials will be beneficial to tests Hence, the materials are memorized without any mdeavor to reconstruct meaning, use, and form relationship within their interlanguage ind obviously the knowledge will be easily forgotten after they complete the tests

Trang 36

k d, creating incidental learning allows teachers to maintain communicative

: cach in classrooms although students will be still able to attend to forms bording to Stockwell (2010), in dictogloss task incidental learning will be created in

E way that students are directed to focus on meaning of the text and to convey the k ing on the condition that it should be grammatically correct The thing that they

' attention to is the meaning of the text; however, they are forced to use the

atical points correctly

: 4.2 Creating group interaction

bejnryb (1990) mention the key effect of dictogloss as follows:

f “The method requires the learners in the classroom to interact with each other in small groups so as to reconstruct the text as a co-operative endeavor Working in this way, learners are actively engaged in the learning process Through active learner involvement students come to confront their own strengths and weaknesses in English language use In doing so they find out what they do not know, then they find out what they need to know” (p 10)

fowal & Swain (1994) emphasized the importance of meta-talk or meta-linguistic h ction in dictogloss They found that dictogloss task has elicited meta-linguistic talks

hm students; which means students talk about form-function relations in their target

Inguage Storch (2002) stated the procedures of dictogloss task are interactive and bamer-centered When students work in a small group reconstructing the text they tend b feel more confident and together they tend to be conscious of their individual esponsibility and positive collaboration Working in groups they will realize that by kiine another member of a group they are actually consolidating their existing mowledge Nassaji & Fotos (2011) noted that “since the task is collaborative, it

Trang 37

p ages students to pool their knowledge together and learn from each other” (p

' As a result, it creates a high level of interaction 4.3 Creating contextualized grammar

bmryb (1990) pointed out that the issue of grammar is contextually approached in : reconstruction stage and error analysis stage In the reconstruction stage students ' required to perform a very specific, context-based task By using their collaborative powledge and their existing knowledge of language they reconstruct the “text whose bic, point of view and parameters are already known” (p 13) In the final stage, the : versions that groups of students produce are analyzed in terms of the context ined in the preparation stage In this stage, “the options are then considered, pated and selected totally within the framework of their linguistic and situational

pntext” (p 13)

k‹ Empirical studies concentrating on dictogloss task

: lot of investigations have been conducted to determine the effectiveness of Äctogloss task Kowal & Swain (1994) tried applying dictogloss task in teaching grade band 8 French immersion classes The researchers found that dictogloss task elicited i about the language of the text they were reconstructing, which was called meta- blk or interaction However, they didn’t determine the effectiveness of meta-talk or teraction in terms of supporting second language learning

Pierre (1994) addressed this matter in her MA research on grade 8 French immersion tudents over a month In her study, the hypothesis was that the interaction which is the anguage the students produce to complete dictogloss task may be a source of second

Trang 38

iguage learning The results indicated that when solutions the students arrived at bough the interaction were incorrect, approximately 70% of the answers on the TT were incorrect; conversely, when the solutions were correct approximately

B04 of posttest answers were correct Therefore, the researcher concluded that the

kta-talk the students produced was a source of second language learning The study st determined the relationship of interaction and second language learning but failed ) investigate the nature of interaction created in dictogloss task

Habei (1996) carried out a research which investigated the interaction in dictogloss Ì k in comparison to interaction in jigsaw task The subjects in this study were four kilt students who were put in an experimental environment After the experiment he boncluded that the interaction created in dictogloss was different from the interaction in igsaw whose content is not grammar The dictogloss task forced students to engage in nore language form related processes than the jigsaw did He added that “while teraction in the jigsaw requires only meaning-based communication, in dictogloss oth meaning-based and grammar-based communication is expected” (p 71)

Several studies were conducted focusing on the significance of interaction in dictogloss asks Swain & Lapkin (1998) conducted a research which compared the effectiveness of the two tasks including a dictogloss task and a jigsaw story construction task and the yrammatical point they concentrated on was reflexive verbs One aim of the study was 0 see whether one type of task led students to focus on form with greater frequency han the other The researcher found that the meta-talk the students produced were the same for both tasks Moreover, approximately 60% of the reflexive verbs used by igsaw students were correct while as for dictogloss task students the percent of correction was up to 90% The researcher determined the significance of interaction in lictogloss task in terms of providing the accuracy of language use Swain & Lapkin

Trang 39

(2000) continued to explore the effectiveness of task choice on second language learning 22 pairs of grade 8 immersion class students were: involved in the study Working in pairs students wrote a short narrative based either on a jigsaw or a

dictogloss task under the two conditions, with or without a mini-lesson on French

pronominal verbs Finally, the researcher found that the dictogloss task outperformed in its power to improve the accuracy in the use of pronominal verbs They explained that the improved use and accuracy of these forms are easily recognized in the students even in the absence of the mini-lesson The concentration of the two above-mentioned

studies is in French verb use

Kuiken & Vedder (2002a) conducted a study investigating the effect of interaction on the acquisition of passive form This interaction was created among ESL learners when they completed dictogloss task The researchers focused on whether the acquisition would be more effective if students worked individually or in small groups during the reconstruction stage The quantitative analysis of their data could not prove that the interaction in groups affected the recognition and frequency of use of the passive; however, the qualitative analysis revealed that interaction in dictogloss task contributed to enhance noticing which led to the formulation of new linguistic forms

Motivated by the claim that interaction during dictogloss task stimulated noticing which led to the formulation of new linguistic structures, Alsibai (2008) conducted a study upon 116 students at King Saud University to investigate whether dictogloss task could help enhance the students’ verb tense use In the study she formed two experimental groups including one which received dictogloss in pairs and one which received dictogloss in small groups The results showed that the two experimental groups outperformed the control group, which meant both groups improved their verb tense use thanks to the interaction and output production in dictogloss task The verb

Trang 40

tense use enhancement thanks to dictogloss task was also the topic in the study conducted by Akbari (2009) In this study he investigated the effectiveness of dictogloss task upon two intact classes including 60 Iranian EFL students at Puyesh Language Institute The findings indicated that the experimental group received the better results than the control group and thus the findings determined the significance of dictogloss task in terms of enhancing the grammar competence

Qin (2008) conducted a study to compare the processing instruction (PI), an input- based focus-on-form techniques to dictogloss task (DG), an output-based task in terms of the acquisition of passive voice This study involved 110 students who were assigned to two groups including group A and group B Group A was subjected to PI and group B was assigned to DG The students’ ability to comprehend and produce the target forms was measured in the pretest and posttest The results indicated that both groups improved significantly from the pretest to the posttest and the performances were similar as for the comprehension and production on the posttest This study contributes to the significance of dictogloss task in terms of helping students improving their grammar knowledge and use

Motivated by the conclusion of the study conducted by Kuiken & Vedder (2002a), Han (2011) conducted a study to investigate whether students notice the target form when performing dictogloss task The subjects for the study were 16 L2 students with different L1 background The dictogloss procedure was employed to collect and analyze the noticing data The transcripts of language-related episodes of each pair of students were examined to capture the moments when their attention was drawn to form for their L2 output when performing a dictogloss The results showed that the students noticed the target forms and attended to it, even though its student varied in the extent of noticing These studies significantly determined there was interaction and