Mode in Theoretical and Empirical TBLT Research: Advancing Research Agendas

Gilabert, Roger; Manchón, Rosa M.; Vasylets, Olena

doi:10.1017/s0267190515000112

Cited by 75 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 84 publications

(90 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Alternatively, it is possible to argue that the result implies that a more demanding task at the C1 level may be necessary in order to distinguish the speed and composite fluency of B2 and C1 levels. The latter speculation, already confirmed in SLA studies investigating task complexity and fluency (e.g., Gilabert, Manchón, & Vasylets, ; Michel, ; Révész et al., ), warrants further investigation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

Aspects of Fluency Across Assessed Levels of Speaking Proficiency

Tavakoli

Nakatsuhara

Hunter

2020

The Modern Language Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research in second language acquisition suggests that a number of speed, breakdown, repair, and composite measures reliably assess fluency and predict proficiency. However, there is little research evidence to indicate which measures best characterize fluency at each assessed level of proficiency and which can consistently distinguish one level from the next. This study investigated fluency in 32 speakers’ performing 4 tasks of the British Council's Aptis Speaking Test, which were awarded 4 different levels of proficiency (Common European Framework of Reference for Language levels A2–C1). Using PRAAT, the performances were analyzed for various aspects of utterance fluency across different levels of proficiency. The results suggest that speed and composite measures consistently distinguish fluency from the lowest to upper‐intermediate levels (A2–B2), and many breakdown measures differentiate between the lowest level (A2) and the rest of the proficiency groups, with a few differentiating between lower (A2, B1) and higher levels (B2, C1). The varied use of repair measures at different levels suggests that a more complex process is at play. The findings imply that a detailed micro‐analysis of fluency offers a more reliable understanding of the construct and its relationship with assessment of proficiency.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

Aspects of Fluency Across Assessed Levels of Speaking Proficiency

Tavakoli

Nakatsuhara

Hunter

2020

The Modern Language Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In task-based language teaching (TBLT), for instance, researchers ask how the presentation mode of tasks (either written or spoken) mediates L2 learning opportunities and task performance (for reviews, see Gilabert, Manchón, & Vasylets, 2016;Kuiken & Vedder, 2012). Questions of interest include how task modality impacts linguistic output (e.g., Kormos, 2014;Tavakoli, 2014;Vasylets, Gilabert, & Manchón, 2017), perception of task features (e.g., Cho, 2018), and outcomes of language-related episodes and level of engagement (e.g., García Mayo & Azkarai, 2016).…”

Section: Modality Effects In Slamentioning

confidence: 99%

Should We Listen or Read? Modality Effects in Implicit and Explicit Knowledge

Kim

Godfroid

2019

The Modern Language Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined the role of modality in learning second language (L2) grammar and forming implicit (unconscious) and explicit (conscious) knowledge. To this end, we isolated the effects of the physical medium of input (i.e., aural or visual) from those of the presentation method (i.e., word‐by‐word or simultaneous). We also explored the role of test modality in L2 performance, by including L2 knowledge tests in both aural and visual modes. Native English speakers engaged in meaning‐focused integrated practice of 3 German syntactic rules. In Experiment 1, learners were given aural or visual word‐by‐word (rapid serial visual presentation; RSVP) input and in Experiment 2, they were given aural or natural written input. We found evidence of learning across all 4 groups, but different types of resultant knowledge. In particular, learners gained explicit knowledge in all input modalities, yet only those trained with natural written input also developed robust implicit knowledge. We conclude that the permanence of visual input may be a critical advantage for beginning learners to develop implicit knowledge of word order rules. Support in the form of written materials can ease the cognitive burden on beginning learners, with better outcomes as a result.

show abstract

“…In addition, both oral and written language use represent potential language learning opportunities (Byrnes & Manchón, , ; Manchón, ; Manchón & Williams, ; Ortega, ; Williams, ), hence the relevance of looking into language learning associated with both speaking and writing tasks (Bygate, Van den Branden, & Norris, ; Kuiken & Vedder, ). In line with these ideas, recent positions in TBLT (see Gilabert, Manchón, & Vasylets, ) have stressed the need for more mode‐sensitive and integrative TBLT research and for a deeper understanding of the unique learning benefits that each mode can offer separately or in mutual interaction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…More precisely, we envisaged the contribution of our study as being theoretical, empirical, and methodological. From the theoretical and empirical perspectives, the potential contribution of our study is linked to the disciplinary debates on (1) the already mentioned need for more mode‐integrative TBLT research agenda (Gilabert et al., ), (2) the distinctive nature of the language learning potential of L2 writing (Manchón, ; Manchón & Williams, ), and (3) the relevance of putting TBLT tenets to the empirical test across modalities (Byrnes & Manchón, , ; Manchón, ). The methodological contribution of our study is closely linked to the analysis of learners’ production for propositional complexity, a performance dimension that has been partially neglected in L2 research (see Bulté & Housen, ) but that, nevertheless, is crucial to uncovering mode‐related differences and idiosyncrasies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

The Effects of Mode and Task Complexity on Second Language Production

2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Taking a psycholinguistic orientation within task‐based language teaching scholarship, this study investigated the effects of mode (oral vs. written) and task complexity on second language (L2) performance. The participants were 78 Catalan/Spanish learners of English as a foreign language. Half of the participants performed the simple and complex versions of an argumentative, instruction‐giving task orally, the other half did it in writing. The comparison of the participants’ oral and written performance revealed that speakers produced more idea units but that writers achieved higher scores for subordination, mean length of analysis‐of‐speech units, lexical diversity, extended idea units, and time on task. As for the effects of task complexity, the participants’ written production showed more variation between the complex and the simple versions of the task. These findings are interpreted in light of task modality effects in L2 learning and discussed in relation to task complexity theory and research.

show abstract

Mode in Theoretical and Empirical TBLT Research: Advancing Research Agendas

Cited by 75 publications

References 84 publications

Aspects of Fluency Across Assessed Levels of Speaking Proficiency

Aspects of Fluency Across Assessed Levels of Speaking Proficiency

Should We Listen or Read? Modality Effects in Implicit and Explicit Knowledge

The Effects of Mode and Task Complexity on Second Language Production

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About