Cover not available
Part of
Writing and Language Learning: Advancing research agendas
Edited by Rosa M. Manchón
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 56] 2020
► pp. 207–230

Chapter 9
A mixed-methods approach to exploring the L2 learning potential of writing versus speaking

 | Temple University
The study reported in this chapter investigated the extent to which task modality can impact L2 learners’ (a) noticing of the target form, (b) target form incorporation, and (c) perceptions of task-induced demands in a grammar-focused task. Using a mixed-methods approach, three sources of information were examined: (a) stimulated recall protocols, (b) learners’ task performance, and (c) subjective post-task questionnaires. Although both task modality conditions led to substantial noticing and form incorporation, along with similar ratings of task demands, participants in the writing condition were more accurate in incorporating the target form into their own output. Findings are discussed in terms of their implications for the L2 learning potential of writing versus speaking and the contributions of mixed-methods approaches to the study of task modality in SLA.
Article outline
  • Introduction
    • Task modality and L2 learning potential
    • Prior empirical research on task modality and SLA
    • Indicators of L2 learning potential: Noticing, incorporation, and task perception
  • The study
    • Research question
  • Method
    • Participants
    • Target structure
    • Procedure
    • Materials
      • Focused task
      • Stimulated recall protocols
      • Posttask questionnaire
    • Coding and scoring
    • Analyses
  • Results
    • Stimulated recall protocols: Noticing
    • Focused task: Form incorporation
    • Post-task questionnaire: Perceptions of task demands
  • Discussion
  • Conclusions and limitations
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 20 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.56.09zal
References (48)
References
Adams, R. (2006). L2 tasks and orientation to form. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 152, 7–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Adams, R., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2008). Does writing influence learner attention to form? In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), The oral-literate connection: Perspectives on L2 speaking, writing, and other media interactions (pp. 243–266). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F. (2002). Some reflections on task-based language performance assessment. Language Testing, 19, 453–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baralt, M. (2013). The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 689–725. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cho, M. (2018). Task complexity and modality: Exploring learners’ experience from the perspective of flow. Modern Language Journal, 102, 162–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cleland, A. A., & Pickering, M. J. (2006). Do writing and speaking employ the same syntactic representations? Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 185–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2017). Stimulated recall methodology in applied linguistics and L2 research (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R., Manchón, R. M., & Vasylets, L. (2016). Mode in theoretical and empirical TBLT research: Advancing research agendas. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 117–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Explaining the “Natural Order of L2 Morpheme Acquisition” in English: A Meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 1–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Baralt, M. (2014). Exploring learner perception and use of task-based interactional feedback in FTF and CMC modes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Does type of modified output correspond to learner noticing of feedback? A closer look in face-to-face and computer-mediated task-based interaction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 1393–1420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the Noticing Hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57–71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kormos, J., & Trebits, A. (2012). The role of task complexity, modality, and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 62, 439–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Speaking and writing tasks and their effects on second language performance. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 364–377). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lai, C., & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10, 102–120.Google Scholar
Laver, J. (1994). Principles of phonetics. Cambridge, MA: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press.Google Scholar
Liceras, J., Maxwell, D., Laguardia, B., Fernández, Z., Fernández, R., & Díaz, L. (1997). A longitudinal study of Spanish non-native grammars: Beyond parameters. In A. T. Pérez-Leroux & W. R. Glass (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the acquisition of Spanish, Vol. 1: Developing grammars (pp. 99–132). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Manchón, R. M. (2014). The internal dimension of tasks: The interaction between task factors and learner factors in bringing about learning through writing. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning. Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 27–53). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32, 207–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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
McLaughlin, B. (1990). Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11, 113–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Niu, R. (2009). Effect of task-inherent production modes on EFL learners’ focus on form. Language Awareness, 18, 384–402. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (2012). Epilogue: Exploring L2 writing–SLA interfaces. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 404–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L., & Long, M. H. (1997). The effects of models and recasts on the acquisition of object topicalization and adverb placement in L2 Spanish. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 1, 65–86.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., Michel, M., & Gilabert, R. (2016). Measuring cognitive task demands using dual-task methodology, subjective self-ratings, and expert judgments: A validation study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 703–737. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riazi, A. M. (2016). Innovative mixed-methods research: Moving beyond design technicalities to epistemological and methodological realizations. Applied Linguistics, 37, 33–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). The Cognition Hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21(Spring), 45–105. University of Hawaii, Dept. of Second Language Studies.Google Scholar
Rouhshad, A., Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2016). The nature of negotiations in face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication in pair interactions. Language Teaching Research, 20, 514–534. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sagarra, N., & Abbuhl, R. (2013). Optimizing the noticing of recasts via computer-delivered feedback: Evidence that oral input enhancement and working memory help second language learning. Modern Language Journal, 97, 196–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasayama, S. (2016). Is a ‘complex’ task really complex? Validating the assumption of cognitive task complexity. Modern Language Journal, 100, 231–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, UK: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 203–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1984). Learners’ comprehension of clitic pronouns: More evidence for a word order strategy. Hispanic Linguistics, 1, 57–68.Google Scholar
Vasylets, O., Gilabert, R., & Manchón, R. M. (2017). The effects of mode and task complexity on second language production. Language Learning, 67, 394–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 321–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62, 1134–1169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y., & Yuksel, D. (2011). Effects of communication mode and salience on recasts: A first exposure study. Language Teaching Research, 15, 457–477. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yuksel, D., & Inan, B. (2014). The effects of communication mode on negotiation of meaning and its noticing. ReCALL, 26, 333–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zalbidea, J. (2017). ‘One task fits all’? The roles of task complexity, modality, and working memory capacity in L2 performance. Modern Language Journal, 101, 335–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Output, task modality, and target form salience in learner noticing of form and L2 development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2017). Task modality, noticing, and the contingency of recasts: Insights on salience from multiple modalities. In S. M. Gass, P. Spinner, & J. Behney (Eds.), Salience in second language acquisition (pp. 269–290). New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Manchón, Rosa M. & Julio Roca de Larios
2023. The study of L2 writing processes. In Research Methods in the Study of L2 Writing Processes [Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 5], ► pp. 6 ff. DOI logo
Leow, Ronald P., Rosa M. Manchón & Charlene Polio
2022. Writing. In Research methods in instructed second language acquisition [Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 3], ► pp. 305 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 december 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.