Cover not available
Part of
Expanding Individual Difference Research in the Interaction Approach: Investigating learners, instructors, and other interlocutors
Edited by Laura Gurzynski-Weiss
[AILA Applied Linguistics Series 16] 2017
► pp. 281–302

Chapter 12
Preservice instructors’ performance on a language learning task

Altering interlocutor task orientation

 | Michigan State University
 | Michigan State University
Previous research has shown that preservice instructors focus less on language while completing dyadic language learning tasks (Polio, Gass, & Chapin, 2006) and give less feedback than experienced instructors in a classroom setting (Mackey, Polio, & McDonough, 2004). Although most language teacher education programs provide some training in second language acquisition (SLA) to encourage, inter alia, preservice instructors’ understanding of the importance of focusing on language, it is not clear to what extent the information obtained in these courses or course modules is utilized in practice. This paper investigates the extent to which a short intervention based on SLA research findings is successful in modifying the awareness and behaviors of preservice instructors with respect to learners’ output and teachers’ task orientation (i.e., their perceptions of the purpose of the task). An experimental group (n = 17) of preservice teachers was given instruction on the role of output in SLA and training in ways to elicit output. They were then each paired with an English-as-a-second language (ESL) learner and participated in a dyadic interactive task. A control group (n = 14) did not have training prior to the interactive task. Six instructors from the experimental group and five from the control group participated in a stimulated recall session. The results demonstrated that the intervention was successful in raising preservice instructors’ awareness of how they should complete the task. However, with respect to behavioral change, their intended strategy did not always last through the entire interaction; these preservice instructors often reverted to tactics typically used by novice teachers. In light of these results, we argue that extended hands-on activities combined with discussions of SLA constructs can lead to behavior changes for preservice instructors.
Keywords: preservice instructors, learner output, task orientation
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Background
    • Output in second language acquisition: Test case
    • Task orientation
    • The present study
  • Method
    • Participants
    • Materials
    • Procedure
    • Intervention
  • Data analysis and results
    • Interactional strategies
    • Learner production
    • Task completion
    • Participant reflection
  • Discussion and conclusion
    • Implications
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 12 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.16.12pol
References (53)
References
Ames, C., (1992). Classrooms: Goal, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borg, S., (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what teachers, think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36, 81–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Language teacher research engagement. Language Teaching, 43, 391–429. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borg, S., & Liu, Y. (2013). Chinese college English teachers’ research engagement. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 270–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, D. M., Holten, C. A., Goodwin, J. M., (1993). Responding to dialogue journals in teacher preparation: What’s effective? TESOL Journal, 2, 15–19.Google Scholar
Coughlan, P., & Duff, P. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of a SLA task from an activity theory perspective. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 173–194). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Cumming, A., (2006). Introduction, purpose, and conceptual foundations. In A. Cumming (Ed.), Goals for academic writing: ESL students and their instructors (pp. 1–17). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Tseng, W. T., (2009). Motivational processing in interactional tasks in: A. Mackey & C. Polio, (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 117–134). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 397–417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction and output: An overview. In K. Bardovi-Harlig & Z. Dörnyei (Eds.). AILA Review, 19 (pp. 3–17). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2015). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams, (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 180–206). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2017). Stimulated recall methodology in applied linguistics and L2 research. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2011). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 61 s1, 189–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gebhard, J. (1990). Models of supervision: choices. In J. C. Richards & D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp. 156–166). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Révész, A. (2012). Tasks, teacher feedback, and learner modified output in naturally occurring classroom interaction. Language Learning, 62, 851–879. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
He, T. (2005). Effects of mastery and performance goals on the composition strategy use of adult EFL writers. Canadian Modern Language Review, 61, 407–431. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24, 168–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34, 239–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the output hypothesis: Effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 421–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Izumi, Y., & Izumi, S. (2004). Investigating the effects of oral output on the learning of relative clauses in English: Issues in the psycholinguistic requirements for effective output tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review, 60, 587–609. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K. E. (1992). Learning to teach: Instructional actions and decisions of preservice ESL teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 507–534. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996). The role of theory in L2 teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 765–770. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keck, C., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., Wa-Mbalaka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between interaction and acquisition: A quantitative meta-analysis. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91–131). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, M. (2005). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, D. (2000). Multiple-site practicum: Opportunities for diverse learning and teaching experiences. TESOL Journal, 9, 18–21.Google Scholar
Loucks-Horsley, S. (1996). Professional development for science education. In R. W. Bybee, (Ed.), National standards and the science curriculum (pp. 83–90). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Polio, C., & McDonough, K. (2004). The relationship between experience, education, and teachers’ use of incidental focus-on-form techniques. Language Teaching Research, 8, 301–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R., & Gass, S. M. (2012). Interactionist approaches. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 7–23). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Action research and the professional development of graduate teaching assistants. Modern Language Journal, 90, 33–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56, 693–720. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Syntactic priming and ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 31–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moersch, C. (1995). Level of technology implementation (LoTi): A framework for measuring classroom technology use. Learning and Leading with Technology, 22, 40–42.Google Scholar
Morgan-Short, K., & Bowden, H. (2006). Processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 31–65 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muranoi, H. (2007). Output practice in the L2 classroom. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 51–84). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murphy, J. (2003). Task-based learning: The interaction between tasks and learner. ELT Journal, 57, 352–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Musumeci, D. (1996). Teacher-learner negotiation in content-based instruction: Communication at cross purposes. Applied Linguistics, 17, 286–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Numrich, C. (1996). On becoming a language teacher: Insights from diary studies. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 131–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pennington, M. (1995). The teacher change cycle. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 705–731. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (2002). Subject matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic needs of classroom language learners? Modern Language Journal, 86, 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polio, C., Gass, S. M., & Chapin, L. (2006). Using stimulated recall to investigate native speaker perceptions in native-nonnative speaker interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 237–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosaen, C., Lundeberg, M., Cooper, M., Fritzen, A., Terpstra, M. (2008). Noticing noticing: How does investigation of video records change how teachers reflect on their experiences. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 347–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schleppegrell, M. J., Achugar, M., & Oteíza, T. (2004). The grammar of history: Enhancing content-based instruction through a functional focus on language. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 67–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input and second language acquisition (pp. 235–256). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
(1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing are not enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158–164.Google Scholar
(2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Uggen, M. (2012). Re-investigating the noticing function of output. Language Learning, 62, 506–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (2006). Introduction: Task-based language teaching in a nutshell. In K. Van den Branden (Ed.), Task-based language education (pp. 1–16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vásquez, C., & Harvey, J. (2010). Raising teachers’ awareness about corrective feedback through research replication. Language Teaching Research, 14, 421–443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willis, J. (2004). Perspectives on task-based instruction: Understanding our practices, acknowledging different practitioners. In B. Leaver & J. Willis (Eds.), Task-based instruction in foreign language education (pp. 3–46). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Zyzik, E., & Polio, C. (2008). Incidental focus on form in university Spanish literature classes. Modern Language Journal, 92, 53–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Bryfonski, Lara
2023. Collecting and AnalyzingL2Introspective Data. In Current Approaches in Second Language Acquisition Research, ► pp. 120 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.