The Impact of Proactive and Reactive Focus on Form in Multimodal Settings on EFL Learners' Comprehension and Production of Modal Auxiliaries

Mahsa Adloo, Gholamreza Rohani
{"title":"The Impact of Proactive and Reactive Focus on Form in Multimodal Settings on EFL Learners' Comprehension and Production of Modal Auxiliaries","authors":"Mahsa Adloo, Gholamreza Rohani","doi":"10.22099/JTLS.2019.32320.2639","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The major objective of this experimental research was to assess the differences between two varieties of focus on form instruction, namely proactive and reactive across multimodal vs. traditional input settings in both comprehension and production of modal auxiliaries. The participants of the study were 75 Iranian English as a foreign language (EFL) high school students at the elementary level in three classes. The students in each class took part in a pre-test including both comprehension and production items. Then, they were randomly exposed to one of the three types of grammar instruction, i.e. proactive focus on form in which students were exposed to multimodal input through preplanned techniques of input enhancement and input flood, reactive focus on form in which the tasks occurred in multimodal episodes including negotiation and correction by the instructor through recasts, clarification requests, and repetition techniques. Lastly, in the control group, the students were provided with a pamphlet and their teacher’s explanations. The post-test was then administered to the three groups, and the results were analyzed by conducting a one-way-analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) which revealed a significant difference among these three groups. The results showed that the proactive group outperformed the reactive and control groups both in the comprehension and production of modal auxiliaries. At the end of the experiment, a brief survey which was accomplished through an interview revealed that the majority of the students highly favored PowerPoint presentations, teacher's explanations, and video clips respectively.","PeriodicalId":150431,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Teaching Language Skills","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Teaching Language Skills","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22099/JTLS.2019.32320.2639","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The major objective of this experimental research was to assess the differences between two varieties of focus on form instruction, namely proactive and reactive across multimodal vs. traditional input settings in both comprehension and production of modal auxiliaries. The participants of the study were 75 Iranian English as a foreign language (EFL) high school students at the elementary level in three classes. The students in each class took part in a pre-test including both comprehension and production items. Then, they were randomly exposed to one of the three types of grammar instruction, i.e. proactive focus on form in which students were exposed to multimodal input through preplanned techniques of input enhancement and input flood, reactive focus on form in which the tasks occurred in multimodal episodes including negotiation and correction by the instructor through recasts, clarification requests, and repetition techniques. Lastly, in the control group, the students were provided with a pamphlet and their teacher’s explanations. The post-test was then administered to the three groups, and the results were analyzed by conducting a one-way-analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) which revealed a significant difference among these three groups. The results showed that the proactive group outperformed the reactive and control groups both in the comprehension and production of modal auxiliaries. At the end of the experiment, a brief survey which was accomplished through an interview revealed that the majority of the students highly favored PowerPoint presentations, teacher's explanations, and video clips respectively.
多情态环境下对形式的主动关注和被动关注对英语学习者理解和产生情态助动词的影响
本实验研究的主要目的是评估两种关注形式教学的差异,即在多模态输入设置中主动和被动与传统输入设置在理解和产生模态助词方面的差异。该研究的参与者是75名伊朗英语作为外语(EFL)高中学生在三个班的小学水平。每个班的学生都参加了一个预测试,包括理解和制作项目。然后,他们随机接受三种类型的语法教学中的一种,即主动关注形式,学生通过预先计划的输入增强和输入洪水技术接触多模态输入,反应性关注形式,任务发生在多模态情节中,包括教师通过重铸、澄清要求和重复技术进行协商和纠正。最后,在对照组,学生们得到了一本小册子和老师的解释。然后对三组进行后验,并通过单向协方差分析(ANCOVA)对结果进行分析,结果显示三组之间存在显著差异。结果表明,主动组在模态助词的理解和产生方面优于被动组和对照组。在实验结束时,通过访谈完成的简短调查显示,大多数学生分别非常喜欢ppt演示,老师的解释和视频剪辑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信