Improving language production using subtitled similar task videos

Abstract

This study examines the effects of subtitled similar task videos on language production by nonnative speakers (NNSs) in an online task-based language learning (TBLL) environment. Ten NNS—NNS dyads collaboratively completed four communicative tasks, using an online TBLL environment specifically designed for this study and a chat tool in WebCT-Vista. Five dyads were provided with subtitled similar task videos and the remaining five dyads were not. Language production was investigated in terms of fluency, accuracy, and complexity, including lexical and syntactic complexity. The data from the chat-scripts showed that NNSs produced more fluent and more accurate language when provided with the subtitled similar task videos than when they were not provided with them.

An investigation into current measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research

“…The reliability coefficient of .88 on the error-free T-units is also higher than was found in Polio (1997) but lower than in Arslanyilmaz and Pedersen (2010), who used error-free T-units, and lower than in Evans et al (2010), who used error-free clauses. The reliability of the number of errors count was very similar to the error-free counts at .89 and was quite a bit higher than the studies listed in Table 1.…”

“…The types of measures included holistic scales (e.g., Barkaoui, 2010), error-free units (e.g., Arslanyilmaz & Pedersen, 2010), number of errors (e.g., Ashwell, 2000), number of specific error types (e.g., Bitchener, 2008), and measures that take into account error severity (e.g., Kuiken & Vedder, 2008). As shown in Table 1, intra-or interrater reliability was not reported for 20 of the 44 measures from the 35 studies.…”

Computer‐assisted foreign language instruction: task based vs. form focused

“…These features may not be replicated in a traditional face‐to‐face classroom setting. Accordingly, several researchers showed that computer‐assisted task‐based language instruction (CATBI) was effective in terms of production of comprehensible output (Chen, Belkada, & Okamoto, ), fluency and lexical complexity of language produced (Arslanyilmaz & Pedersen, ), preventing learners from reflecting on accuracy, concentrating instead on fluency and expressing meaning (Lee, ), de‐prioritizing metalinguistic processing in favour of conveying meaning fluently and efficiently (Collentine, ), and considerable high‐quality output (González‐Lloret, ).…”

The effects of communication mode on negotiation of meaning and its noticing

“…The first area of interest was the existence of instances of negotiation of meaning in SCMC. A growing body of studies confirmed that negotiation of meaning also occurs during SCMC (Arslanyilmaz, 2007; Blake, 2000, 2005; Cho, 2011; de la Fuente, 2003; Fernandez-Garcia & Arbelaiz, 2003; Jepson, 2005; Lee, 2002; Smith 2003, 2009a, 2009b; O’Rourke, 2005; Wang, 2006). Another line of research sought to identify the differences in the occurrences of negotiation of meaning in two different mediums of communication, F2F and SCMC (Fernandez-Garcia & Arbelaiz, 2003; Kaneko, 2009).…”