LANGUAGE

TEACHING
RESEARCH

Language Teaching Research

Collaborative and individual 14(4) 397–419

© The Author(s) 2010

output tasks and their effects

Reprints and permissions: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1362168810375364
on learning English phrasal http://ltr.sagepub.com

verbs

Hossein Nassaji and Jun Tian

University of Victoria

Abstract
Current second language (L2) instruction research has encouraged the use of collaborative output
tasks in L2 classrooms. This study examined and compared the effectiveness of two types of output
tasks (reconstruction cloze tasks and reconstruction editing tasks) for learning English phrasal
verbs. Of interest was whether doing the tasks collaboratively led to greater gains of knowledge
of the target verbs than doing the tasks individually, and also whether the type of task made
a difference. The study was conducted in two intact low-intermediate adult English-as-a-second-
language (ESL) classrooms. The effectiveness of the tasks was determined by how successfully
learners completed the tasks and also by means of a vocabulary knowledge test administered before
and after the treatment. The results showed that completing the tasks collaboratively (in pairs) led
to a greater accuracy of task completion than completing them individually. However, collaborative
tasks did not lead to significantly greater gains of vocabulary knowledge than individual tasks. The
results, however, showed an effect of task type, with the editing tasks being more effective than the
cloze tasks in promoting negotiation and learning. The findings contribute to the research that has
examined the effectiveness of pedagogical tasks in L2 classrooms.

Keywords
collaborative output, task-based interaction, vocabulary acquisition, feedback and scaffolding,
classroom research

I  Introduction
Recent second language acquisition (SLA) research has demonstrated a need for classroom
activities that promote both communicative interaction and attention to form in second
language (L2) classrooms (e.g. Doughty & Williams, 1998 ; Lightbown, 1998; Ellis, 2003,

Corresponding author:
Hossein Nassaji, University of Victoria, PO Box 3045, Victoria, BC V8W 3P4, Canada
Email: nassaji@uvic.ca
398 Language Teaching Research 14(4)

2005 ; Williams, 2005; Long, 2006; Nassaji & Fotos, 2007; Pica, 2007). One way of pro-
moting such opportunities is through pedagogical tasks that encourage negotiation of
meaning, while at the same time providing opportunities for feedback and attention to form
(e.g. Ellis, 2003; Yuan & Ellis, 2003; Pica, 2005; Pica et al., 2006; Van den Branden, 2006;
Samuda & Bygate, 2008). In this relation, classroom tasks that require learners to work
together and produce output collaboratively have been suggested to provide effective
opportunities for peer feedback and scaffolding (Kowal & Swain, 1994, 1997; Lapkin &
Swain, 2000; Swain, 2001a, 2001b, 2005; Lapkin et al., 2002; Swain et al., 2002).
Arguments for the role of output have grown out of studies of immersion and content-
based classrooms that have shown that exposure to input-based communication is not
enough to develop targetlike accuracy. These studies have suggested that despite ample
exposure to meaning-based interaction and comprehensible input, learners are still inac-
curate with respect to certain aspects of the L2 grammar (Harley & Swain, 1984; Lapkin
et al., 1990, 1991; Swain, 1995). This is suggested to be due to the fact that learners in
such contexts do not have enough opportunities for language production and focus on
form (Swain, 1993, 1995, 1998).
Swain (1995, 2005) has identified three functions for output: a noticing function, a
hypothesis-testing function, and a metalinguistic function. The noticing function holds
that when learners produce output, they may notice gaps in their knowledge because
through output they may realize that they cannot say what they want to say. Producing
output also provides learners with opportunities for hypothesis testing; that is, when talk-
ing to others, learners may try out different ways of saying the same thing and may also
come to realize whether their utterances are comprehensible and well formed. When
learners cannot express their intended meanings, they may search their existing linguistic
knowledge to find solutions to the problem. If they cannot find a solution, they might
seek help from others and/or pay closer attention to the subsequent input. Another func-
tion of output is its metalinguistic function. That is, output may encourage learners to
consciously reflect upon language and consciously think about what to say and what not
to say. Swain (1998) has stated that ‘the learners’ own language indicates an awareness
of something about their own, or their interlocutor’s, use of language’ (p. 68).
Early characterization of the role of output has been within an information processing
perspective, with an emphasis on how individual learners notice and process form (Swain
& Lapkin, 2002). More recently, using a sociocultural perspective (Vygotsky, 1978, 1986),
Swain has argued for the use of classroom tasks that encourage learners to work and pro-
duce output together. Swain has argued that such activities not only push learners to pro-
duce output but also provide important opportunities for scaffolding and peer feedback.
From a sociocultural perspective (Vygotsky, 1978, 1986), social interaction and collabo-
ration are important requirements for learning. According to Vygotsky, individual cogni-
tive development cannot be achieved by isolated learning and that learning is in essence a
social enterprise. Central to the Vygotskian sociocultural theory is the notion of ZPD (zone
of proximal development), which refers to ‘the distance between the actual developmental
level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development
as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more
capable peers’ (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). The notion of ZPD highlights the importance of
collaborative work because it is believed that when learners collaborate within their ZPD,
Nassaji and Tian 399

they use their existing knowledge to develop what they have not yet mastered indepen-
dently (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994; Donato, 1994; Nassaji & Swain, 2000). Also, when
learners interact, particularly with a more knowledgeable learner, a supportive environ-
ment can be created in which the less capable participant can be helped to expand and
elevate his or her language skills to higher levels of competence (Appel & Lantolf, 1994;
Donato, 1994). Meanwhile, the more capable participant is likely to consolidate his or her
existing knowledge when using it to provide help and assistance.
The sociocultural framework provides a strong basis for using pedagogical activities
that encourage learners to work together and produce language collaboratively. Swain
and her colleagues have argued that such activities are effective because when learners
collaborate to produce output, they use language not only to convey meaning, but also to
develop meaning (Swain, 2005). These activities are also beneficial because when learn-
ers attempt to produce language through collaboration, they will not only produce out-
put, but they may get help from their peers while they try to make their meaning precise
(Kowal & Swain, 1994; Swain, 2005). Such tasks also help learners internalize and con-
solidate L2 knowledge and provide opportunities for problem-solving and negotiation of
meaning (Swain & Lapkin, 2001).
In light of the above theoretical arguments, several studies have empirically examined
the role of collaborative output tasks in L2 learning (e.g. Kowal & Swain, 1994; Nabei,
1996; Storch, 1998, 2005, 2007; Swain & Lapkin, 2001, 2002; García Mayo, 2002a,
2002b; Kuiken & Vedder, 2002; Lapkin et al., 2002; Leeser, 2004). One of the first stud-
ies of this kind was Kowal and Swain (1994), which investigated a particular type of
collaborative output task called dictogloss: a pedagogical task in which learners are
encouraged to work together to reconstruct a text after it is presented to them orally
(Wajnryb, 1990). The researchers collected data from intermediate and advanced French
learners. Their results showed that when learners were involved in the co-production of
language through such tasks, they noticed gaps in their knowledge of language, their
attention was drawn to the link between form and meaning, and they obtained feedback
from their peers. Nabei (1996) conducted a similar study with four adult ESL learners
who worked in pairs to complete a dictogloss, and found similar results. She found many
instances where the activity promoted opportunities for attention to form, scaffolding,
and corrective feedback.
Swain and Lapkin (2001) compared the effectiveness of a dictogloss with a jigsaw
task (in which pairs of students created a written story based on a series of pictures).
Participants were two grade 8 French immersion classes. Each class completed one of
the tasks. The learners’ interactions during the tasks were analysed in terms of language
related episodes (LREs), defined as episodes in which learners talked about, questioned,
or self-corrected the language they produced. The results showed that both tasks gener-
ated a similar and substantial amount of language related episodes. However, there was
no significant difference between the two types of tasks in terms of the overall degree of
the learners’ attention to form as reflected in their LREs. No significant difference was
found between the two groups’ posttest scores either, suggesting that the two types of
task produced comparable degrees of language gains.
García Mayo (2002a) compared the effectiveness of a dictogloss with a text recon-
struction task (a text that had certain grammatical words missing, such as articles,
400 Language Teaching Research 14(4)

prepositions and function words, and the learners had to supply them). Participants were
seven pairs of high intermediate to advanced EFL (English as a foreign language) learn-
ers. The data were analysed both quantitatively in terms of the frequency of LREs and
qualitatively in terms of learners’ focused attention on forms. The results indicated that
the text-reconstruction task generated more LREs than the dictogloss. García Mayo con-
cluded that the text-reconstruction task was an effective form-focused task in her study,
but she stressed the need for further research in this area.
A few studies have also compared the effectiveness of individual versus collabora-
tive pair work. Storch (2005) for example, examined the effectiveness of collaborative
pair work when students produced a written text either in pairs or individually. The
study examined both the product of their writings (in terms of accuracy, fluency and
complexity) as well as the nature of interaction during collaboration. The results
showed that the collaborative pair work led to many opportunities for exchanging
ideas and peer feedback. The results also showed that students who produced the text
collaboratively wrote shorter but grammatically more accurate and more complex texts
in comparison to those who produced them individually. But the difference between
the individual and pair work was not statistically significant. Storch suggested that the
reason for this lack of significance might have to do with the short length of the text
and the small sample size, and then called for further research in this area. In another
study, Storch (2007) examined the effectiveness of pair work by comparing learners’
performance on completing an editing task. The learners were asked to correct a short
text as a regular classroom activity. The text contained errors on the use of language
forms such as verbs, articles and word forms, and was based on a text produced by a
previous ESL student. Four intact ESL classes participated in the study. One of the
classes completed the task in pairs, another individually, and the other two classes had
the choice of completing the tasks either in pairs or individually. The results showed
that when the students completed the tasks in pairs they were actively engaged in inter-
action and reflection about language forms. Again, no significant difference was found
between the accuracy of the task when completed collaboratively versus individually.
The researcher suggested that one reason may have been related to the nature of the
errors targeted. She argued that the majority of the editing items in the tasks were
related to the use of articles and word forms, and hence the learners were not able to
resolve such problems collaboratively.
Kuiken and Vedder (2002) examined the effects of collaborative pair work by com-
paring the learners’ performance on completing a dictogloss. Participants were 34 Dutch
high school ESL students. The focus was on learning English passive forms. The learn-
ers’ knowledge of the passive was measured by means of a pretest administered before
the task and a posttest administered after. The results of the qualitative analyses showed
many instances where the interaction drew learners’ attention to form. However, their
results did not show a significant effect for collaborative interaction.
One conclusion that may be drawn from the above studies is that collaborative pair
work may facilitate learners’ interaction and attention to the target forms, but it may
not necessarily lead to superior learning in comparison to individual work. However,
as both Storch (2005, 2007) and Kuiken and Vedder (2002) stressed, studies in this
area are still very limited, and hence there is a need for further research in this area.
Nassaji and Tian 401

Research is needed to examine not only the effects of individual versus pair work on
language tasks but also the possible effects of task types. The purpose of the present
study was to examine and compare the effectiveness of two types of classroom output
tasks (reconstruction cloze and reconstruction editing tasks). Using a pretest–posttest
classroom-based study, the study examined whether there was any difference between
the two types of tasks when the learners performed them collaboratively versus
individually.
The reason for choosing the above tasks was that recent classroom studies seem
to advocate the use of both cloze and editing tasks (e.g. Storch, 1997, 2007; García
Mayo, 2002a, 2002b, 2007; de la Colina & García Mayo, 2007). As noted above,
García Mayo (2002a) found that tasks that required learners to fill in missing words
in texts generated more attention to form than a dictogloss. Studies by Pica (2005)
and Pica et al. (2006) have also suggested that cloze tasks are useful information gap
tasks that can provide effective contexts for pushed output and negotiation about
language forms. Furthermore, editing tasks are frequently used in L2 classrooms
(e.g. Storch, 2007), but few studies have examined their effectiveness for L2 learn-
ing. The study focused on learning English phrasal verbs, a subgroup of English
vocabulary that is generally considered challenging for L2 learners to master, but is
little investigated in task-based research. The following four research questions were
examined.

1. What are the effects of the output tasks (cloze and editing) on learning English
phrasal verbs?
2. Does performing the output tasks collaboratively have any greater effects on
learners’ success in completing the tasks than performing the tasks individually?
3. Does performing the output tasks collaboratively lead to greater gains of vocabu-
lary knowledge than performing the tasks individually?
4. Is there a difference in the effectiveness of the two types of tasks?

II  Methods
1  Participants
The study was conducted during a 13-week semester in two intact low-intermediate adult
ESL classrooms in an intensive adult ESL programme in a university in Canada. The two
classes were taught by the same instructor, who followed the same instructional goals
and curriculum for the two classes. Learners attended these classes five days a week,
receiving 20 hours of instruction each week. There were 12 students in one of the classes
and 14 students in the other one. The students had been placed at this level based on a
four-skill language placement test administered by the programme. Of the 26 students,
10 were male and 16 were female. Their ages ranged from 18 to 32. They were from a
variety of language backgrounds including Chinese (n = 8), Japanese (n = 9), Korean
(n = 4), Portuguese (n = 1), Spanish (n = 3) and Turkish (n = 1). By the time of the study,
the participants had been in Canada for 2 to 6 months.
402 Language Teaching Research 14(4)

2  Target words
The target words were 16 English phrasal verbs. Phrasal verbs are two- or three-word
idiomatic expressions, consisting of a verb and a particle or a combination of a particle and
a preposition (Lewis, 1993; Darwin & Gray, 1999). The first reason for focusing on phrasal
verbs was that these verbs are a subgroup of English vocabulary that is widely used by
native speakers of English but they have been found to be difficult for L2 learners to master
(Hulstijn & Marchena, 1989; Moon, 1997; Kao, 2001). The difficulty of learning phrasal
verbs stems from the fact that they consist of different combinations of verbs and particles
and often the meaning of the phrase is different from the meanings of its parts (Side, 1990).
The second reason was that they were part of the teachers’ plan for the classes that we
observed. The phrasal verbs selected for the study were those that the teacher recom-
mended, and believed her students had difficulty with (for a list, see Appendix 1).

3  Research design and tasks

The study involved a pretest, a treatment, and a four-day delayed posttest. It used two
types of tasks: a reconstruction cloze task and a reconstruction editing task. To eliminate
the effects of individual differences, it used a within-subject design, in which all students
performed both kinds of tasks both collaboratively and individually. To eliminate task
effects, the order of the tasks and conditions was counterbalanced.
Four tasks were prepared: two cloze tasks (one of which students completed collab-
oratively and the other one individually), and two editing tasks (one collaborative and
one individual). Each task contained randomly four of the 16 target phrasal verbs. The
cloze and the editing tasks were prepared from four original texts. Each cloze text con-
tained 12 missing parts, four of which were related to the target phrasal verbs and the
other eight were not (see Appendix 2). The learners had to restore the missing parts as
correctly and closely as possible to the original. Each editing task contained 10 erroneous
sections, four of which were related to the target phrasal verbs, and the others were not
(see Appendix 3). The learners had to identify the erroneous parts and correct them.
All the four texts were constructed by the teacher, and were also judged by her to be
appropriate for her class levels. They were constructed in the form of conversational
dialogues, and the reason was that the teacher was using such dialogues throughout the
semester for practising language forms. Therefore, they were relevant and consistent
with what was going on in the classroom. When designing the tasks, the teacher made
sure that they were as similar as possible in terms of format, length, content, and the
nature of information required to complete the tasks.

4  Data collection procedures

Data were collected during regular class time and in two cycles over a period of two
weeks from Thursday of week 4 to Tuesday of week 6 in a 13-week semester. The rea-
sons for collecting data during these weeks and not right at the beginning of the semester
were to ensure that the researchers were familiar with the class and the teacher’s teaching
Nassaji and Tian 403

styles, that the learners became adjusted to the classroom atmosphere and routines, and
that the learners knew each other well and felt comfortable to work on collaborative
activities. In class 1, three pairs (formed randomly) worked collaboratively and six stu-
dents individually in both week 1 and week 2. In class 2, four pairs worked collabora-
tively and six students individually in week 1, and three pairs worked collaboratively and
eight students individually in week 2. So all students in both classes completed the tasks
both collaboratively and individually.
The procedures for each week cycle were as follows. One day before the treatment,
learners’ initial knowledge of the target phrasal verbs that were supposed to be used in the
treatment in that week was pretested. Then they received the treatment. Four days after the
treatment, the students were posttested on the phrasal verbs covered in that cycle. During the
treatment, the learners were first introduced to the target phrasal verbs (eight in each cycle
and four per task) through an input-based mini lesson. The purpose of the mini lesson was
to familiarize the students with the task and the target words before they were asked to com-
plete the output tasks. The mini lesson was deemed necessary by the teacher who felt that
the learners needed to get familiar with the target verbs before they were asked to do the
output tasks. Previous research has also shown that students need to be familiar and have
some receptive knowledge of the language forms before they are asked to engage in any
output activities (Swain & Lapkin, 2007b). For the input-based mini lesson, the teacher read
a dialogue that contained the phrasal verbs and the students listened to it. Then the learners
completed a vocabulary-matching task in which they tried to match a series of phrasal verbs
including the target verbs in one column with their definitions in another column. The mini
lesson was held constant for all learners in both cycles and before each task. During the mini
lesson, the learners were not involved in any output-based activities.
After the initial introduction, in week 1 the students completed one cloze task and one
editing task. For the cloze task, the teacher first read the original dialogue that the cloze
task was based on at a normal pace twice, and the students were asked to listen to the text
carefully for meaning and jot down notes related to the content. Then the students
received the cloze version of the dialogue and were asked to restore the missing sections
as correctly and as closely as possible to the original dialogue. Half of the students com-
pleted the task collaboratively (in pairs) and half individually. After the cloze task, the
student completed the editing task. Again, the teacher read the original dialogue that the
editing task was based on and the students were asked to pay attention to the content and
jot down notes. Then, they received the editing version and were asked to correct any
erroneous section as correctly and closely as possible to the original dialogue. Again half
of the students completed the task in pairs and half individually. In the second week, the
same procedure was repeated for both the cloze and the editing tasks. But the order of the
collaborative and individual tasks as well as the order of the task type (cloze vs. editing)
was counterbalanced. That is, those learners who had completed the cloze task individu-
ally in the first week completed the task collaboratively in the second week. Also, those
learners who had completed the editing task before the cloze task in the first week com-
pleted the editing task after the cloze task in the second week. The time on task was
controlled by giving students 8 minutes to complete the tasks. The amount of time was
suggested by the teacher and was based on the average amount of time students had
404 Language Teaching Research 14(4)

Pretest (Thursday)

Week 1
Cycle 1 Treatment (Friday)

Output tasks

Collaborative Individual

Edit Cloze Edit Cloze

Posttest (next Tuesday)

Figure 1  A graphic depiction of the research design

taken to complete similar tasks before. No feedback was provided after the students
completed the tasks. A graphic representation of the study design is shown in Figure 1
(week 1, cycle 1).
While the students were completing the tasks collaboratively, their verbal interactions
were audio-recorded, with a mini-disk recorder being used for each pair. The recorded
interaction was transcribed and analysed. To maintain consistency in the treatments, the
teacher was well informed of the procedure before each session. While the treatment was
in progress, one of the researchers sat in the classroom as an observer. Her observations
confirmed that the procedures were followed as planned.

5  Pretests and posttests

One day before the treatment in each week, the learners’ initial knowledge of the phrasal
verbs was pretested, and four days after, their knowledge was posttested. The learners
were tested on each of the phrasal verbs using a vocabulary knowledge scale (VKS) (Pari-
bakht & Wesche, 1993, 1996). The VKS is a five-point scale self-report test that measures
lexical knowledge on a continuum from no knowledge to the ability to produce the tar-
get word accurately in a sentence. This test was used because it has been used in previous
research for that purpose (Paribakht & Wesche, 1996; Read & Chapelle, 2001; Folse,
2006; Kim, 2008) and has also been claimed to provide an effective measure of increase
in vocabulary knowledge as a result of instruction (Read & Chapelle, 2001). For the test,
each item appeared at the top followed by the word knowledge scale as in Table 1.
The pretests and posttests were scored according to the VKS scoring system proposed
by Paribakht and Wesche (1996) (see Table 2). That is, a score of 1 was given if the
learner indicated that he or she was not familiar with the target phrasal verb. A score of
Nassaji and Tian 405

Table 1  An example of the vocabulary knowledge scale used for testing the phrasal verbs
Hang out

1. I don’t remember having seen this word before.

2. I have seen this word before, but I don’t know what it means.
3. I have seen this word before, and I think it means __________________________ (synonym
or translation).
4. I know this word. It means ______________________ (synonym or translation).
5. I can use this word in a sentence (write a sentence): _______________________________.
__________________________________________________________________________

Table 2  Scoring categories: Meaning of scores

Self-report Possible Meaning of scores

categories scores
I. 1 The word is not familiar at all.
II. 2 The word is familiar but its meaning is not known.
III. 3 A correct synonym or translation is given.
IV. 4 The word is used with semantic appropriateness in a sentence.
V. 5 The word is used with semantic appropriateness and
grammatical accuracy in a sentence.

Source: Wesche and Paribakht (1996)

2 was given when a learner indicated that he or she was familiar with the word (had seen
it) but did not know its meaning or, if the learner provided a meaning (a synonym or a
translation), the meaning was wrong. A score of 3 was given when a learner provided an
acceptable synonym or translation (the learners were also given the option of providing
a translation of the word meaning in their L1 if they wished). A score of 4 was given
when the learner used the word in a sentence, which was semantically accurate but syn-
tactically inaccurate (for example, the learner produced a meaningful sentence but the
sentence had the problem of particle misplacement in relation to the direct object). A
score of 5 was awarded when the sentence provided was both semantically and syntacti-
cally accurate. The reliability of the scoring of the VKS was checked by asking a second
trained scorer to mark a random sample of 25% of the pretest items and 25% of the post-
test items. An inter-rater reliability of 97% was obtained.

6  Data analysis
Data were analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively. For the quantitative analyses,
mean scores were calculated for the learners’ performance on tasks (editing and cloze)
and conditions (collaborative and individual) and also on the pretests and posttests. The
means were then compared, using a repeated measure ANOVA. For the qualitative
406 Language Teaching Research 14(4)

Table 3  Means and standard deviations of individual vs. collaborative output for cloze and
editing tasks (task completion)

Minimum Maximum M SD

Individual:
   Cloze 4 8 6.5 1.43
   Editing 4 8 5.5 1.43
Collaborative:
   Cloze 5 8 7.0 1.02
   Editing 4 8 6.85 1.53

analyses, the written transcriptions of the learners’ audio-recorded interactions were

examined to see whether there were any differences between the cloze and the editing
tasks in the nature of interaction and opportunities for attention to form.

III  Results
The analyses first compared the learners’ success in completing the two output tasks col-
laboratively and individually. To this end, learners’ performance in each task was exam-
ined in terms of the accuracy of producing the target items when they completed the
tasks. Learners’ responses to the target items were scored as either accurate or inaccurate.
A response was scored as accurate if the learners correctly supplied the target phrasal
verb in the cloze tasks or if they both spotted and corrected the error in the editing tasks.
Mean scores were calculated for the accurate responses on each task (editing vs. cloze)
and each condition (collaborative vs. individual), and then were compared, using a
repeated measure ANOVA. The results are presented in Table 3.
The ANOVA showed a significant main effect for task type: F (1, 19) = 10.351,
p < .01, showing that the learners were more successful in completing the cloze tasks
than the editing tasks. The analysis also showed a significant main effect for condition
(individual vs. collaborative): F (1, 19) = 12.68, p < .01, suggesting that when the learn-
ers performed the tasks collaboratively, they produced significantly more accurate
instances of the phrasal verbs than when they performed the tasks individually. The
result also showed a significant interaction between task and condition: F (1, 19) = 4.53,
p < .05, suggesting that the effect of collaboration was more pronounced in the case of
the editing tasks than the cloze tasks (see Figure 2).
The analyses then examined learners’ actual gains of knowledge of the target phrasal
verbs. For that purpose, the learners’ pretest and posttest scores for tasks (editing and
cloze) and conditions (collaborative and individual) were calculated and compared,
using a repeated measure ANOVA (Table 4). The ANOVA showed a significant main
effect for time (pretest vs. posttest): F (1, 19) = 76.697, p < .001, suggesting that learners
increase their knowledge of the phrasal verbs significantly from the pretest to the post-
test. The analysis, however, showed no significant main effect for condition (collabora-
tive vs. individual): F (1, 19) = .063, p = .804, nor a significant interaction effect between
Nassaji and Tian 407

8
7 7
6.5
6.85
Mean scores 6
5 5.5
Cloze task
4
Edit task
3
2
1
0
Individual Collaborative
Conditions

Figure 2  The means of collaborative vs. individual output for cloze and editing tasks (task
completion)

Table 4  Means and standard deviations for conditions and task types in the pretest and posttest

Minimum Maximum M SD

Pretest: Individual:
Editing task 5 12   8.45 2.04
Cloze task 7 15 10.75 2.17
Pretest: Collaborative:
Editing task 4 13   8.10 2.24
Cloze task 7 15 10.05 2.28
Posttest: Individual:
Editing task 8 16 11.50 2.56
Cloze task 7 20 12.65 3.01
Posttest: Collaborative:
Editing task 8 17 12.00 2.61
Cloze task 8 18 12.75 3.24

time and condition: F (1, 19) = 1.053, p = .318, suggesting that the two conditions led to
comparable degrees of learning. The collaborative learners had a slightly lower mean of
knowledge of the target words in the pretest than the individual learners and then ended
up with a slightly higher mean in the posttest, but the gain was not statistically significant
(Figure 3). The results, however, showed a significant main effect for task type: F (1, 19)
= 8.492, p < .01, as well as a significant interaction between time and task: F (1, 19) =
7.534, p < .05. The interaction effect showed that the editing tasks led to significantly
more gains of vocabulary knowledge than the cloze tasks from the pretest to the posttest
(Figure 4).
For the actual gains, another set of analyses was also conducted. This time, single gain
scores were calculated for each task (editing and cloze) and each condition (collaborative
408 Language Teaching Research 14(4)

13 12.38

12 12.07

11
Scores

Individual

10 9.6 Collaborative

9 9.08

8
Pretest Posttest
Tests

Figure 3  Interaction between time and condition

13
12.7
12
11.75
11
Scores

Cloze task
10.4
10 Edit task

9
8.27
8
Pretest Posttest
Tests

Figure 4 Interaction between time and task type

and individual), by subtracting the learners’ pretest scores from their posttest scores. For
example, if a learner scored 10 on a pretest and 14 on a posttest for a given task, the gain
score was 4 (14 – 10 = 4). The means and standard deviations of the learners’ gain scores
for tasks and conditions were compared using a repeated measure ANOVA (Table 5). The
result of these analyses confirmed the findings of the previous analyses. Again, there was
no significant main effect for condition: F (1, 19) = 1.05, p = .31, nor was there an inter-
action between task and condition, although the mean gain was slightly higher in col-
laborative than in the individual conditions. But there was a significant main effect for
task: F (1, 19) = 7.53, p < .05, with the editing tasks leading to significantly greater gains
than the cloze tasks (see Figure 5).

1  Qualitative analysis
For the qualitative analyses, we examined the written transcriptions of the learners’
audio-recorded interactions. For these analyses we examined the students’ turns in
each collaborative task and coded them in terms of the nature of talk. We distinguished
Nassaji and Tian 409

Table 5  Means and standard deviations of gains of knowledge from pretest to posttest

Mean gain scores SD

Individual:
   Editing task 3.05 2.41
   Cloze task 1.90 2.10
Collaborative:
   Editing task 3.90 3.00
   Cloze task 2.70 3.11

3.9
4
Mean gain scores

3.05
3 2.7
Individual

1.9 Collaborative
2

0
Cloze task Edit task
Task type

Figure 5 The effects of task types

between the talk that involved some kind of form-focused (e.g. metalinguistic or
corrective) feedback and explanation and the talk that simply involved one learner
confirming or repeating the other learners’ suggestions (see the examples below).
These analyses showed that overall the majority of the students’ turns in both the edit-
ing and the cloze tasks consisted of confirming or repeating each other’s contributions.
However, it also showed that the editing tasks led to greater instances of metalinguistic
and form-focused feedback about the target verbs than the cloze tasks (Table 6).
Whereas only 12% of the turns in the cloze tasks involved some kind of form-focused
feedback and explanation, about 30% of the turns in the cloze tasks included such
kinds of negotiations.
The extracts below from the transcriptions show examples of students’ interactions in the
two types of tasks. Examples 1 and 2 come from a cloze task and examples 3 and 4 come
from an editing task. In example 1, the task requires the students to supply the missing phrasal
verb grow up in the cloze utterance ‘It sounds like he needs to ____________.’ As can be
seen, there is not much interaction going on between the two students during the cloze task,
410 Language Teaching Research 14(4)

Table 6  Student turns in cloze and editing collaborative tasks

Edit Cloze Total

Form-focused feedback and explanation 18 (29%) 10 (12%)   28 (19%)

Confirmation and repetition 44 (71%) 76 (88%) 120 (81%)
Total 62 (42%) 86 (58%) 148 (100%)

and the students’ responses are mainly in the form of repeating or acknowledging each other’s
suggestions. In example 2, the task requires the provision of the missing phrasal verb get
along in the cloze utterance ‘I think they would like each other and _______________. He
likes golf, too.’ In this example, we see some interaction going on between the two students,
but still the contributions are mainly in terms of pausing and confirming.

(1) Cloze task: ‘I agree. It sounds like he needs to _____________.’

1 S1: I agree. It sounds like he [need] to …

2 S2: grow up?
3 S1: Yeah.
4 S2: Grow up.

(2) Cloze task: ‘I think they would like each other and _______________. He likes golf, too.’

1 S1: Get along, here or here?

2 S2: What?
3 S1: Get along. That’s not get along. + Can I see?
4 S2: XX
5 S1: Um?
6 S2: See what?
7 S1: Um?
8 S2: Get along.
9 S1: Here?
10 S2: Um.
11 S1: They would like each other and get along.

Examples 3 and 4 come from an editing task, in which two pairs of learners are attempt-
ing to correct the erroneous verb paid for (the correct phrasal verb is paid off). As can be
seen, in both examples, students go back and forth a number of times discussing and
providing form-focused and corrective feedback about their choice before they decide
whether it is correct or wrong. For instance, in example 3, in line 2, student 2 suggests
‘pay off’, but she is not sure and asks for confirmation. In line 3, student 1 confirms but
attempts to think of a reason why this should be correct. She then provides a metalinguis-
tic reason by suggesting that the phrase does not need ‘to’. She also modifies and corrects
the tense and suggests ‘paid off’ instead of ‘pay off’. In example 4, we see similar form-
focused negotiations about the target form. The students here do not arrive at an accurate
Nassaji and Tian 411

decision, but there are several instances of form-focused negotiation, questions, and
answers about the target form in lines 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.

(3) Editing task: ‘Wow. So it paid for to study French at school. I had no trouble getting job.’

1 S1: Ok. So it paid for to study French at school.

2 S2: Pay off?
3 S1: Yeah, maybe this don’t need ‘to’. Paid off study.
4 S2: Paid …
5 S1: I think this don’t need …
6 S2: Um.
7 S1: Maybe, Maybe.
8 S1: I had no trouble getting job.

(4) Editing task: ‘Wow. So it paid for to study French at school. I had no trouble
getting job.’

1 S1: So I decided to move to Paris. Decided to move, to Paris. Wow. So it … paid
for, paid for? PAY for.
2 S2: Pay for. Yeah.
3 S1: Pay for?, yeah? Pay off, or pay for?
4 S2: ‘It’? Do we use ‘it’?
5 S1: Huh. So it paid for? It?
6 S2: I …
7 S1: is … ‘I’ pay for? I pay for to study French at school.
8 S1: Yeah.

IV  Discussion and conclusion

The results showed that when learners carried out the two output tasks collaboratively,
they were more successful at completing the tasks than when they carried them out indi-
vidually. However, the comparison of the learners’ pretest and posttest scores showed no
significant difference between the collaborative and the individual tasks in terms of their
effects on learning the phrasal verbs. The collaborative tasks led to a slightly more
improved knowledge of the phrasal verbs than the individual tasks, but the difference
was not statistically significant. Thus, although the learners completed the tasks more
successfully when they worked collaboratively, this during-task success did not translate
into significantly greater gains of vocabulary knowledge.
The above findings regarding the effects of pair work are consistent with the results
of some previous studies that have shown that engagement in joint activities may improve
task performance in terms of the accurate production of the target forms (Kowal & Swain
1994, 1997; Nabei, 1996; Swain 1998; Lapkin & Swain 2000; Lapkin et al., 2002).
However, they also suggest that although collaboration may lead to better task
412 Language Teaching Research 14(4)

performance, it may not necessarily lead to subsequent learning of the targeted forms
(for similar findings, see also Storch, 1997, 2005; Kuiken & Vedder, 2002). Thus, the
findings do not support the presumed advantage of collaborative pair work over indi-
vidual work or the idea that collaborative tasks are necessarily more effective than indi-
vidual tasks.
However, there might be several reasons for such findings. One reason might be
related to the nature of the interaction that took place during pair work. As noted before,
analyses of the written transcriptions of learners’ interaction showed that although there
were interactions among learners, there were many cases where these interactions were
brief and limited. Thus, although the learners were fairly successful in completing the
tasks during interaction by inserting or correcting the target words, the interactions may
not have been rich enough to lead to the appropriation and internalization of the word
knowledge.
Another reason could be related to the type of the target form and the learners’ previ-
ous knowledge of those forms. Since the target forms were phrasal verbs (which are by
nature difficult for learners to learn) and also because they were mostly new to the learn-
ers, it might have been difficult for the learners to provide each other with constructive
scaffolding and peer feedback during the tasks. Another reason could be related to the
learners’ limited skills of how to collaborate effectively with peers. Previous research has
shown that the effectiveness of learner collaboration depends on learners’ ability to work
and solve language-related problems collaboratively. Berg (1999), for example, found
that training learners prior to collaborative activities made a substantial difference in the
effectiveness of collaborative work in promoting scaffolding and learning. In our study,
we made efforts so that learners had adequate direction and instruction about how to
complete the tasks. But we did not have a training session. We, therefore, suggest that
future research should make sure that learners know how to collaborate or consider
including a training session before implementing the collaborative task. This can be done
in different ways, such as by showing students video-tapes of learners working collab-
oratively on similar tasks (e.g. Swain & Lapkin, 2001), explaining to and discussing with
the learners how to participate in collaborative tasks and collectively solve linguistic
problems, or going through a collaborative session together with students. There are
other factors that can affect the nature of interaction such as the composition of the
group (Bennett & Cass, 1988; Tocalli-Beller, 2003), participants’ shared goals and
assumptions, learners’ strategies, and their cognitive and developmental readiness (Nas-
saji & Cumming, 2000; Leeser, 2004). These factors may all mediate the effectiveness
of collaborative pair works and hence should be considered when designing, research-
ing, and using collaborative tasks in L2 learning. All these suggest that it is not the pair
work (or the individual work) itself, but how and under what conditions it is conducted
that determines its beneficial effects for language learning.
However, although collaborative pair work did not have a significant effect on learning
the phrasal verbs, the type of task did. The results of the ANOVA showed that the editing
tasks led to a significantly higher gain of knowledge of the phrasal verbs than the cloze
tasks, despite the fact that the learners had completed the cloze tasks more successfully
than the editing tasks. This could have been perhaps due to the higher degree of negotiation
Nassaji and Tian 413

and scaffolding generated by the editing tasks than the cloze task when learners completed
them collaboratively. As noted earlier, an analysis of the transcriptions of the learners’
interaction during collaboration showed that the editing tasks generated more instances of
form-focused talk and feedback than the cloze tasks. Such negotiations in the editing task
could have oriented the learners’ attention to the phrasal verbs more effectively and hence
could have resulted in deeper understanding and knowledge of the target items. Similar
results about more interaction in the case of editing tasks were also reported in studies by
García Mayo (2002a) and Storch (2007). García Mayo, for example, found that the text-
editing tasks she used in her study were better able to promote effective talk and attention
to form during collaborative group work than other tasks, including multiple choice, text-
reconstruction and even cloze tasks. These findings – along with the findings of the present
study – point to the potential value of collaborative editing tasks for promoting language
learning and focus on form. Therefore, they could be considered as useful form-focused
tasks in L2 classrooms.
The advantage of editing tasks over cloze tasks in promoting interaction may be
related to their characteristics. In our study, for example, in the editing tasks, some of the
components of the target phrasal verbs were present in the text. The fact that aspects of
the target words were present in the task might have drawn the learners’ attention to the
target phrasal verbs more directly. This might have then triggered more interaction and
negotiation about the target phrasal verbs. In the cloze tasks, the target verbs were absent;
therefore, there were no elements of the verbs that could have drawn learners’ attention
to the target form or triggered discussion and interaction. These reasons, however, are
speculative and the possible differences between the two tasks and their effects need
further investigation.
Further investigation is also needed to find out how both editing and cloze tasks could
be designed or implemented more effectively. There may be several possibilities here.
One could be designing the tasks in the form of jigsaw tasks (e.g. Pica et al., 2006). For
example, in the case of cloze tasks, pairs of learners can first hear the content of the task
(a story or a dialogue). Then each can receive only part of the tasks (e.g. different seg-
ments of a text or scrambled sentences), and be asked to work together to reconstruct the
text by ordering the segments correctly and also by filling in any missing parts with
appropriate words. The same jigsaw format can also be applied to editing tasks. After
receiving different segments of an erroneous text, learners can be asked to work together
to reconstruct the text and at the same time correct any possible errors. Such jigsaw for-
mats may be effective in promoting interaction and attention to form because each learner
holds part of the task and hence is required to contribute his or her own share in order for
the task to be completed. However, the effectiveness of such formats for both editing and
cloze tasks could be investigated in empirical research.
Opportunities for interaction and attention to form may also be enhanced by including
post-task activities. For example, after completing the editing or the cloze tasks, learners
can be asked to compare their completed or corrected versions with the original versions
to identify the discrepancies and discuss and justify their choices. Such posttask activi-
ties have been used in previous research (e.g. Lapkin et al., 2002; Pica et al., 2006; Swain
& Lapkin, 2007a), and have been shown to be effective in enhancing interaction and
414 Language Teaching Research 14(4)

negotiation of form. Thus, they could be considered as possible follow-up activities

when implementing collaborative output tasks in language classrooms.
In conclusion, the findings of this study contributed to the research that has examined
the effectiveness of pedagogical tasks. The findings showed that collaborative pair work
led to better task completion but not necessarily better learning of the target phrasal
verbs. The results, however, showed a significant effect for task type. In this study, of the
two types of output tasks examined, the editing task was more effective in promoting
learning and also generating opportunities for form-focused interaction. In light of the
need for pedagogical tasks that can promote focus on form in L2 classrooms, these find-
ings are important and suggest that editing tasks may be well suited to providing such
opportunities, particularly for learning vocabulary and phrasal verbs. However, more
research is needed to examine the effectiveness of these tasks along with other tasks for
learning vocabulary and also other language forms.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the ESL students and their teacher who participated in this study. This
research was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada (SSHRCC) to the first author.

References
Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning
in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–83.
Appel, G. & Lantolf, J. (1994). Speaking as mediation: A study of L1 and L2 text recall tasks.
Modern Language Journal, 78, 437–52.
Bennett, N. & Cass, A. (1988). The effects of group composition on group interactive processes
and pupil understanding. British Educational Research Journal, 15, 19–32.
Berg, E.C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing
quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 215–41.
Darwin, C.M. & Gray, L.S. (1999). Going after the phrasal verbs: An alternative approach to clas-
sification. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 65–83.
de la Colina, A.A. & García Mayo, M.P. (2007). Attention to form across collaborative tasks by
low-proficiency learners in an EFL setting. In M.P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in
formal language learning (pp. 91–116). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J.P. Lantolf & A. Gabriela.
(Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–59). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric
study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–72.
Folse, K. (2006). The effect of type of written exercise on L2 vocabulary retention. TESOL Quar-
terly, 40, 273–93.
García Mayo, M.P. (2002a). The effectiveness of two form-focused tasks in advanced EFL peda-
gogy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12, 156–75.
Nassaji and Tian 415

García Mayo, M.P. (2002b). Interaction in advanced EFL pedagogy: A comparison of form-focused
activities. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 323–41.
García Mayo, M.P. (Ed.) (2007). Investigating tasks in formal language learning: Volume 2.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Harley, B. & Swain, M. (1984). The interlanguage of immersion students and its implications for
second language teaching. In A.P.R. Howatt (Ed.), Interlanguage (pp. 291–311). Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Hulstijn, J. & Marchena, E. (1989). Avoidance: Grammatical or semantic causes. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 11, 241–55.
Kao, R. (2001). Where have the prepositions gone? A study of English prepositional verbs and
input enhancement in instructed SLA. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching, 39, 195–215.
Kim, Y. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2
vocabulary. Modern Language Journal, 92, 114–30.
Kowal, M. & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote stu-
dents’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3, 73–93.
Kowal, M. & Swain, M. (1997). From semantic to syntactic processing: How can we promote it
in the immersion classroom? In M. Swain (Ed.), Immersion education: International perspec-
tives (pp. 284–309). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kuiken, F. & Vedder, I. (2002). The effect of interaction in acquiring the grammar of a second
language. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 343–58.
Lapkin, S., Swain, M., & Shapson, S. (1990). French immersion research agenda for the 90s.
Canadian Modern Language Review, 46, 638–74.
Lapkin, S., Hart, D., & Swain, M. (1991). Early and middle French immersion programs: French
language outcomes. Canadian Modern Language Review, 48, 11–40.
Lapkin, S. & Swain, M. (2000). Task outcomes: A focus on immersion students’ use of pronominal
verbs in their writing. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3, 7–22.
Lapkin, S., Swain, M., & Smith, M. (2002). Reformulation and the learning of French pronominal
verbs in a Canadian French immersion context. Modern Language Journal, 86, 485–507.
Leeser, M. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language
Teaching Research, 8, 55–81.
Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach. Hove/London: Language Teaching Publications.
Lightbown, P. (1998). The importance of timing on focus on form. In J. Williams (Ed.), Focus on form
in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 177–98). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Long, M. (Ed.) (2006). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Moon, R. (1997). Vocabulary connections: Multi-word items in English. In M. McCarthy (Ed.),
Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 40–63). Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Nabei, T. (1996). Dictogloss: Is it an effective language learning task? Working Papers in Educa-
tional Linguistics, 12, 59–74.
Nassaji, H. & Cumming, A. (2000). What’s in a ZPD? A case study of a young ESL student and
teacher interacting through dialogue journals. Language Teaching Research, 4, 95–121.
Nassaji, H. & Fotos, S. (2007). Current issues in form-focused instruction. In S. Fotos & H. Nassaji
(Eds.), Form-focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honour of Rod Ellis
(pp. 7–15). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
416 Language Teaching Research 14(4)

Nassaji, H. & Swain, M. (2000). Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of
random vs. negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9, 34–51.
Paribakht, S. & Wesche, M. (1993). Reading comprehension and second language development in
a comprehension-based ESL program. TESL Canada Journal, 11, 9–29.
Paribakht, S. & Wesche, M. (1996). Enhancing vocabulary acquisition through reading: A hierarchy
of text-related exercise types. Canadian Modern Language Review, 52, 155–78.
Pica, T. (2005). Classroom learning, teaching, and research: A task-based perspective. Modern
Language Journal, 89, 339–59.
Pica, T. (2007). Time, teachers, and task in focus on form instruction. In H. Nassaji (Ed.), Form
focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honour of Rod Ellis (pp. 161–75).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pica, T., Kang, H., & Sauro, S. (2006). Information gap tasks: Their multiple roles and contributions
to interaction research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 301–38.
Read, J. & Chapelle, C. (2001). A framework for second language assessment. Language Testing,
18, 1–32.
Samuda, V. & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. London: Palgrave.
Side, R. (1990). Phrasal verbs: Sorting them out. ELT Journal, 44, 144–52.
Storch, N. (1997). The editing talk of adult ESL learners. Language Awareness, 6, 221–32.
Storch, N. (1998). A classroom-based study: Insights from a collaborative text reconstruction task.
ELT Journal, 52, 291–300.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 14, 153–73.
Storch, N. (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes.
Language Teaching Research, 2, 143–59.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. Canadian
Modern Language Review, 50, 158–64.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In B. Seidlhofer (Ed.),
Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125–
44). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams
(Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. (2001a). Examining dialogue: Another approach to content specification and to validat-
ing inferences drawn from test scores. Language Testing, 18, 275–302.
Swain, M. (2001b). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. Canadian
Modern Language Review, 58, 44–63.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook on
research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–83). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task
effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second
language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99–118). Harlow: Pearson Education.
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to
reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285–304.
Nassaji and Tian 417

Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2007a). The distributed nature of second language learning: Neil’s
perspective. In H. Nassaji (Ed.), Form focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in
honour of Rod Ellis (pp. 73–86). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2007b). ‘Oh, I get it now!’ From production to comprehension in second
language learning. In D.M. Brinton & O. Kagan (Eds.), Heritage language acquisition: A new
field emerging (pp. 301–19). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Swain, M., Brooks, L., & Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002). Peer-peer dialogue as a means of second
language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 171–85.
Tocalli-Beller, A. (2003). Cognitive conflict, disagreement and repetition in collaborative groups:
Affective and social dimensions from an insider’s perspective. Canadian Modern Language
Review, 60, 143–71.
Van den Branden, K. (Ed.) (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, J. (2005). Form-focused instruction. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook on research in second
language teaching and learning (pp. 673–91). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Yuan, F.Y. & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on flu-
ency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24,
1–27.

Appendix 1  The 16 phrasal verbs used in this study

  1. move on
  2. pay off
  3. blow away
  4. be into something
  5. get behind
  6. hang out
  7. catch up
  8. take off
  9. run into
10. ask out
11. freak out
12. kick out
13. work out
14. get along
15. break up
16. grow up
418 Language Teaching Research 14(4)

Appendix 2  Cloze task

Directions: Please work in pairs and reconstruct the dialogue based on the one you just
heard. Insert all the missing words and phrases needed.
Characters:
Mom
Daughter

Daughter: Hi, Mom. How are you?

Mom: Great. ____________? I went to the mall yesterday and I met
__________________. I haven’t seen her since high school.
Daughter: Is she nice?
Mom: Yes, she is. We went to Starbucks for a latte. She’s into golf, so we are going
to _______________ sometime.
Daughter: What does she do?
Mom: She’s a lawyer and she’s ___________. She got divorced years ago. Last
year she met a nice man, but unfortunately they ________________.
Daughter: Oh, that’s too bad it didn’t _______________.
Mom: Yeah. She said he never wanted to do anything. He just liked to
_______________with his friends.
Daughter: He sounds immature.
Mom: I agree. It sounds like he needs to _______________.
Daughter: You should get Uncle Mike to send her ____________. I think they would
like each other and _______________. He likes golf, too.
Mom: That’s not __________.
Daughter: Well, I’ve got to go; otherwise, I will be ________________.

Appendix 3  Editing task

Directions: There are ten errors in the following dialogue. Please work in pairs, find the
errors, underline and correct them based on the dialogue you just heard.

Characters:
Cathy
Melissa

Cathy: Hi, Melissa, Long time no see.

Melissa: Wow, I haven’t seen you for like three year. What have you doing?
Cathy: Well, you know that George and I fed up. I was really heart broken about it.
So I decided to move to Paris.
Melissa: Wow, so it paid for to study French at school.
Nassaji and Tian 419

Cathy: Yeah, I had no trouble getting job. After we broke up, I knew I had to forget
the past and keep on. I had a great time at Paris.
Melissa: What did you do there?
Cathy: I worked in a bank and I met some people who are up to sky surfing. That’s
my hobby now.
Melissa: You’re kidding. I wouldn’t jump out of airplane. The idea of sky surfing just
blows me crazy.
Cathy: It’s so exciting.