published_or_final_version / abstract / Education / Doctoral / Doctor of Philosophy

Kong, Ying Yuk. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 135-142). / Abstracts in English and Chinese. / Chapter CHAPTER ONE: --- INTRODUCTION --- p.1 / Chapter CHAPTER TWO: --- LITERATURE REVIEW --- p.4 / Chapter 2.1 --- Introduction --- p.4 / Chapter 2.2 --- Corrective Feedback --- p.5 / Chapter 2.2.1 --- Focus on Form (FonF) --- p.5 / Chapter 2.2.2 --- Different Forms of Corrective Feedback --- p.7 / Chapter 2.2.3 --- The Role of Corrective Feedback in SLA --- p.8 / Chapter 2.2.4 --- Summary --- p.16 / Chapter 2.3 --- Interaction and Language Development --- p.16 / Chapter 2.3.1 --- Input during Interaction and SLA --- p.17 / Chapter 2.3.2 --- Output during Interaction and SLA --- p.17 / Chapter 2.4 --- Definition(s) of Recasts --- p.19 / Chapter 2.4.1 --- Long's Definition of Recasts (2007) --- p.19 / Chapter 2.4.2 --- Other Forms of Recasts in Classroom Settings --- p.20 / Chapter 2.4.3 --- Summary --- p.21 / Chapter 2.5 --- The Supporting Side FOR the Role of Recasts --- p.21 / Chapter 2.5.1 --- High Frequency of Occurrence --- p.21 / Chapter 2.5.2 --- Increase Learners' Noticing --- p.22 / Chapter 2.5.3 --- Empirical Support --- p.23 / Chapter 2.6 --- The Opposing Side AGAINST the Role of Recasts in SLA --- p.23 / Chapter 2.6.1 --- Recasts and its Ambiguity --- p.23 / Chapter 2.6.2 --- Recasts， Repair and Uptake --- p.24 / Chapter 2.6.3 --- Summary --- p.28 / Chapter 2.7 --- Recasts and its Saliency --- p.29 / Chapter 2.7.1 --- General Overview of the Forms of Recasts in Previous Studies --- p.29 / Chapter 2.7.2 --- : Doughty and Varela (1998) --- p.30 / Chapter 2.7.3 --- Leeman (2003) --- p.31 / Chapter 2.7.4 --- Lowen and Philp's Study (2006) --- p.34 / Chapter 2.7.5 --- Summary --- p.35 / Chapter 2.8 --- Noticing and SLA --- p.35 / Chapter 2.8.1 --- Attention，Noticing and Understanding --- p.36 / Chapter 2.8.2 --- Difficulty in Operationalizing 'Noticing' --- p.38 / Chapter 2.8.3 --- Summary: Saliency of Recasts，Noticing and Uptake --- p.40 / Chapter 2.9 --- The Notion of Learnability --- p.41 / Chapter 2.9.1 --- Processability Theory (PT) --- p.41 / Chapter 2.9.2 --- Relationship between Learnability and Provision of Feedback --- p.44 / Chapter 2.10 --- Pilot Study (2007) --- p.45 / Chapter 2.10.1 --- The Aim of the Pilot Study --- p.45 / Chapter 2.10.2 --- Methods --- p.45 / Chapter 2.10.3 --- General Results and Discussions --- p.47 / Chapter 2.10.4 --- Modification of the Instrumentation --- p.49 / Chapter 2.10.5 --- Summary --- p.50 / Chapter 2.11 --- Research Questions --- p.51 / Chapter CHAPTER THREE --- METHODOLOGY --- p.54 / Chapter 3.1 --- Introduction --- p.54 / Chapter 3.2 --- Participants --- p.54 / Chapter 3.3 --- Target Structure --- p.55 / Chapter 3.4 --- Materials --- p.56 / Chapter 3.4.1 --- Testing Tasks --- p.56 / Chapter 3.4.2 --- Treatment Tasks --- p.57 / Chapter 3.4.3. --- Others --- p.58 / Chapter 3.5 --- Design --- p.58 / Chapter 3.5.1 --- Salient Recasts vs. Non-Salient Recasts --- p.58 / Chapter 3.5.2 --- Participants ´ة Developmental Level --- p.59 / Chapter 3.5.3 --- Participants ' Responses to Recasts --- p.60 / Chapter 3.6 --- Procedures --- p.61 / Chapter 3.6.1 --- Pre-Test --- p.62 / Chapter 3.6.2 --- Treatments --- p.63 / Chapter 3.6.3 --- Post-Test and Delayed Post-Test --- p.63 / Chapter 3.7 --- Data Processing --- p.64 / Chapter 3.8 --- Data Analysis --- p.65 / Chapter CHAPTER FOUR --- GENERAL STATISTICAL RESULTS FROM SPSS --- p.66 / Chapter 4.1 --- Introduction --- p.66 / Chapter 4.2 --- General Results --- p.67 / Chapter 4.2.1 --- General Mean Scores of the Testing Tasks --- p.67 / Chapter 4.2.2 --- Participants ' Responses to Recasts --- p.70 / Chapter 4.3 --- Answer to Research Question 1 --- p.77 / Chapter 4.4 --- Answer to Research Question 2 --- p.84 / Chapter 4.5 --- Answer to Research Question 3 --- p.89 / Chapter 4.6 --- Answer to Research Question 4 --- p.97 / Chapter 4.7 --- Conclusion --- p.100 / Chapter CHAPTER FIVE --- DISCUSSION --- p.103 / Chapter 5.1 --- Introduction --- p.103 / Chapter 5.2 --- Discussion about Each Research Question --- p.103 / Chapter 5.2.1 --- Discussion about Research Question 1 --- p.104 / Chapter 5.2.2 --- Discussion about Research Question 2 --- p.108 / Chapter 5.2.3 --- Discussion about Research Question 3 --- p.111 / Chapter 5.2.4 --- Discussion about Research Question 4 --- p.116 / Chapter 5.3 --- "Input Saliency, Uptake, Noticing and Long-term Memory" --- p.119 / Chapter 5.3.1 --- Input Saliency vs. Noticing --- p.120 / Chapter 5.3.2 --- Input Saliency vs. Uptake vs. Noticing --- p.123 / Chapter 5.3.3 --- Input Saliency vs. Input´ةs Long-term Memory --- p.124 / Chapter 5.4 --- Conclusion --- p.126 / Chapter CHAPTER SIX --- "PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH" --- p.127 / Chapter 6.1 --- Introduction --- p.127 / Chapter 6.2 --- Pedagogical Implications --- p.127 / Chapter 6.3 --- Limitations of the Current Study --- p.131 / Chapter 6.4 --- Suggestions for Future Research --- p.133 / REFERENCES --- p.135 / APPENDIX I TESTINF TASK / APPENDIX II TREATMENT TASK / APPENDEX III-VIII SPSS Outputs

Dissertation (Ph.D.)--The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 2009. / Directed by Gerald G. Duffy; submitted to the Dept. of Curriculum and Instruction. Title from PDF t.p. (viewed May 17, 2010). Includes bibliographical references (p. 133-145).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Hong Kong, 2006.

No description available.

Given the small body of existing research concerning focus on form at post-task stage in task-based language teaching, the present study adopts post-task transcribing as a focus on form activity and explores the effects of transcribing under various conditions. In addition, two task types are adopted in multiple task sessions to explore task effects and task practice effects on learners' oral performance. / Ninety-six participants, divided into five experimental groups and one control group completed four tasks with a one-week interval between each task. Different experimental groups were assigned various post-task activities respectively. No post-task activity was adopted in the control group. Task performance was measured in terms of complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexical performance. / The findings are multifaceted. First of all, the adoption of post-task transcribing was found to be efficient for different formal aspects of task performance. In the second place, the pair-based transcribing brought about more syntactically complicated language, whereas the individual condition at the post-task stage led to an improvement in lexical sophistication. Thirdly, further revision after transcribing had complex effects on accuracy and complexity. Fourthly, interactive tasks proved to be more promising for a better overall task performance. Last but not least, multiple task practices were found to be beneficial for learners' lexical performance. / The findings were discussed in light of the concept of noticing and attention, Levelt's speaking model, socio-cultural theory and other related SLA theories. Based on the theoretical discussion, pedagogical implications have been proposed. / This research argues that in task-based language teaching, more attention should be paid to the post-task stage regarding its effect on focus on form. Specifically, it suggests that (a) a post-task transcribing activity can be adopted as a feasible focus on form activity in L2 classrooms; (b) different conditions for the operation of post-task transcribing may bring about distinct effects on various aspects of task performance; (c) different task types have different effects on learners' performance; (d) multiple task sessions are necessary for L2 language improvement. Further, the present study calls for a process-product approach in further studies concerning the effects of post-task focus on form activities. / Li, Qian. / Adviser: Peter Skehan. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 73-03, Section: A, page: . / Thesis (Ph.D.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2010. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 254-278). / Electronic reproduction. Hong Kong : Chinese University of Hong Kong, [2012] System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. Available via World Wide Web. / Electronic reproduction. [Ann Arbor, MI] : ProQuest Information and Learning, [201-] System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. Available via World Wide Web. / Abstract also in Chinese; appendix III also in Chinese.

As Carless (2007) and Johnson (2001) have pointed out, task-based language teaching (TBLT) has been a subject of immense interest within contemporary English language teaching. However, little is known about TBLT in the context of English as a foreign language such as Cambodia. Recognizing this gap, this study was initiated in order to investigate the feasibility of adopting TBLT in a university setting in Cambodia. The research method for this study involved semi-structured interviews with six university lecturers and a questionnaire survey with 143 third-year students at that same university. It also analyzed the current textbook and some supplementary teaching materials the six teachers used. The study found that a genuine task-based approach was not viable in this particular context due to several such constraints as students’ demands for direct grammar instruction; teachers’ insufficient knowledge of TBLT; teachers’ overriding use of an analytical P-P-P approach; the nature of the textbook; norm-referenced, knowledge-based examinations; etc. Rather, the findings suggested that task-supported language teaching might be more likely to be feasible in this setting. Based on these findings, pedagogic implications and the future research are discussed in the Cambodian context. / published_or_final_version / Education / Master / Master of Education

Thesis (MA)--University of Stellenbosch, 2006. / Bibliography. Also available via the Internet.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Georgetown University, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references.

Task-based language teaching (TBLT), a research-informed pedagogy for fostering second language (L2) learning through functional language use, advocates the use of tasks for organizing instructional content and the sequencing of tasks based on task complexity. While the focus of much research has been on the complexity of speaking and writing tasks, to date, scant research has been directed at the impact of reading task complexity, especially when aimed at the learning of subject matter (i.e., content learning). With increasing numbers of multinational learner classrooms, the effectiveness of such instruction constitutes an ever more indispensable factor in all levels of education, exerting a profound impact on the lives of millions of L2 learners as well as on the cultivation of skilled bilingual and multilingual citizens capable of applying content area knowledge to tackle society’s wider challenges such as pandemics. Adopting a within-subject design, this dissertation zeroed in on a specific type of reading task—read to summarize—examining the degree to which the manipulation of reading task complexity affected L2 learners’ reading processes (i.e., attention allocation and depth of processing) and reading outcomes (i.e., content learning and language use). 30 international students enrolled in graduate programs in the U.S. were recruited to complete three read-to-summarize tasks online while their eye and mouse movements were recorded. Follow-up stimulated recall interviews based on the eye-tracking heatmaps and mouse-tracking recordings were conducted to probe depth of processing. Written summaries served as measures of content learning and language use; additionally, familiarity ratings and short-answer responses were included to gauge learning of main ideas and specific details, respectively. Screening and exit surveys were also administered to collect participants’ demographic information and task perception ratings. Data analyses were performed in Python 3.9 and R Studio 2021.9.1. Findings from the language use measures show that the most complex task, in general, elicited greater phrasal complexity and the least complex task engendered greater amounts of subordination and coordination. As for content learning, the task of medium complexity yielded more correct major and minor idea units. These findings collectively suggest that while the most complex task was more facilitative of advanced language use, the task of medium complexity was more conducive to content learning. Regarding the results of the process measures, more complex tasks generally led to longer dwell time and more fixation counts than less complex ones. However, when disaggregating the results, the high-performing group had shorter dwell time and produced more main ideas in the most complex task than its low-performing counterpart. Results from the interview data further reveal that the high-performing group strategically engaged in efficient higher- and lower-level processing, whereas the low-performing group tended to demonstrate inefficient lower-level processing. Furthermore, focused analyses of four participants uncover a great deal of individual variability both in online processing and in the resulting learning outcomes. These findings are discussed in relation to the comprehension and production processes as encapsulated within one pedagogic task; theoretical, methodological, and pedagogical implications are expounded.