Iranian Journal of Learning and Memory

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

By Subject

Author Index

Keyword Index

About Journal

Aims and Scope

Peer Review Process

Publication Ethics

Indexing and Abstracting

Journal Metrics

FAQ

News

Related Links

Guide to Registration

Article Writing Guide

Manuscript Template

References Guideline

Forms

List of Reviewers in 2019

List of Reviewers in 2020

List of Reviewers in 2021

List of Reviewers in 2022

How Task Types and Cognitive Styles Make a Difference: Metadiscourse Units and EFL Learners' Oral Production Linguistic Complexity

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of English Language, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran

2 Department of TEFL, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran

Abstract

Many scholars have long contributed to making the instruction of oral production more effectively. This study compared three task types (information-gap, reasoning-gap, and opinion-gap tasks) and two cognitive styles (field-independence and field-dependence) regarding their effects on English as a foreign language (EFL( learners’ oral production linguistic complexity. The current study was quantitative in research methodology and followed the comparison group design. Initially, 230 Iranian learners were selected using convenience sampling. After the participants sat the proficiency test, the number of participants was reduced to 180 BA students at the university of Mohaghegh Ardabili and Islamic Azad University, Ardabil Branch. They were randomly divided into six experimental groups. Two groups were randomly assigned to field-independent (FI) and field-dependent (FD) information-gap tasks, the next two groups to FI and FD reasoning-gap tasks, and the other two groups to FI and FD opinion-gap task types. Each group consisted of 30 advanced EFL learners and was taught oral production using one of the above-mentioned task types. Michigan test of English Language Proficiency test (Phakiti, 2003) and group embedded figures test (Witkin et al., 1971) were used to determine proficiency level and measure cognitive styles. A two-way ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) procedure was run to examine the data. The results revealed significant differences among task types and cognitive styles, with FD learners and opinion-gap task being the most effective on EFL Learners' oral production linguistic complexity. The interaction between cognitive styles and task types is more likely to account for language learners’ oral performance.

Keywords

References
Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. John Benjamins.
Aguilar, M. (2008). Metadiscourse in academic speech: A relevance-theoretic approach. Peter Lang.
Ahmadian, M. J., & Long, M. H. (Eds) (2021). The Cambridge handbook of task-based language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Al-Subhi, A. S. (2022). Metadiscourse in online advertising: Exploring linguistic and visual metadiscourse in social media advertisements, Journal of Pragmatics, 187, 24-40.
Aryadoust, V., & Raquel, M. (2019). Quantitative data analysis for language assessment volume II. Routledge.
Brown, H. D., & Abeywickraa,  P. (2010). Language assessment: Principles and practices (2nd ed.). Pearson.
Brown, H. D. (2014). Principles of language learning and teaching (6th ed.) Prentice Hall.
Corrigan, A., Dobson, B., Kellman, E., Palmer, A., Peterson, J., & Spaan, M., … (1978). English placement test. University of Michigan English Language Institute.
Crismore, A., & Abdollahzadeh, E. (2010). A review of recent metadiscourse studies: The Iranian context. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 1-25.
Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1807-1825.
Denis, J. D. (2020). Univariate, bivariate, and multivariate. Statistics using R: Quantitative tools for data analysis and data science. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221–246. doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231.x
Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. Routledge.
Ellis, R. (2018). Reflections on task-based language teaching. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2020). Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
Erlam, R., & Tolosa, C. (2022). Pedagogical Realities of Implementing Task-Based Language Teaching. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (3rd ed.). Routledge.
George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference. Pearson.
Grant, K.W. (2020) Metaphors in Psychotherapy: Exploring the Cognitive Components of Metaphor Production. Toronto: SmartAir Media.
Herriman, J. (2022). Metadiscourse in English instruction manuals. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, 65, 120-132.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2010). Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 116-127.
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English-and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), 2795-2809.
Ifantidou, E. (2005). The semantics and pragmatics of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(9), 1325-1353.
Jalilifar, A., & Alipour, M. (2014). How explicit instruction makes a difference: Metadiscourse markers and EFL learners’ reading comprehension skill. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 38(1), 35–52.
Kashiha, H. (2022). Academic lectures versus political speeches: Metadiscourse functions affected by the role of the audience, Journal of Pragmatics, 190, 60-72.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Teaching and learning in the “age of reform”: The problem of the verb. In S. Gieve & I. Miller (Eds.), Understanding the language classroom (pp. 239–262). Palgrave Macmillan.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
Loewen, S. (2014). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. Routledge.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). Academic Press.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2021). Second language research: Methodology and design (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS program (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at gender and strategy use in L2 reading. Language Learning, 53(4), 649-702.
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford University press.
Saville-Troike. M. (2012). Introducing second language acquisition.  Cambridge University Press.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510-532.
Sudharshana, N. P. & Mukhopadhyay, L. (2022). Task-Based Language Teaching and Assessment: Contemporary Reflections from Across the World. Springer Singapore.
Tabachnick B. G., & Fidell L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
Tavakoli, P., & Wright, C. (2020). Second language speech fluency: From research to practice. Cambridge University Press.
Triki, N. (2021). Exemplification in research articles: Structural, semantic and metadiscursive properties across disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 54, 56-67.
Witkin, H., Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S. A. (1971). A manual for the embedded figures test. Consulting Psychologists Press.
Yoo, W. S. (2006). Group embedded figures test. Retrieved from http://www.mendeley.com/research-papers
Iranian Journal of Learning and Memory
Volume 4, Issue 16
January 2022
Pages 29-41
Files
Share
How to cite
Statistics