Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Volume 11. Number1 March 2020 Pp.79 -90
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol11no1.7
Analysis of Lexical and Cohesive Ties usage in Undergraduate Students’ Writing by
Applying Task-Based Language Learning Methodology
Mufleh Salem M. Alqahtani
Department of English Language and Literature
Faculty of English, College of Arts, King Saud University
Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Kesavan Vadakalur Elumalai
Department of English Language and Literature
Faculty of English, College of Arts, King Saud University
Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Abstract:
The present scenario fact that the English is a language of modern technological and scientific developments, text is a primary tool for students to gain the knowledge in writing skills. However, most male Saudi students show minimum efficient in L2 writing skill and do not have sufficient competence for writing the authentic English passages. To enhance this various study were undergone to cope up the gap between the student’s use of lexical and cohesive ties by applying task-oriented teaching. However, the immediate need to fill the gap, the researchers made pioneer study on this filed. The present study investigates analysis of lexical and cohesive ties usage in undergraduate students’ writing by applying task-based language learning methodology. The study was performed by thirty-five students from an advanced ESL Reading class at King Saud University, Arts College in Riyadh for 15 weeks. This study has been investigated by Four English passages including behavioral psychology, scientific and two general passages throughout the semester respectively. The analysis of the obtained data proved that the students’ language abilities in grammar and vocabulary significantly improved especially in the discourse analysis passages. In addition, the results of the study evidenced that students are more engaged and motivated during group work activities, and learn more about structure, identifying, cause and effect, purpose and function and if clause of analyzing passages. Proficiency of grammatical category results concluded among the 35 students, average 60% of the students were prefect in tenses, passive structures, if clause, cause and effect, purpose and function, documented 37.14,57.14,54.28 and 77.14% respectively. Overall, the present study concludes with pedagogical implications that ESL teachers might consider a task in their ESL classrooms.
Keywords: ESL learning, lexical and cohesive ties, task-based language learning, passage analysis, undergraduate students, vocabulary acquisition
Cite as: Alqahtani, M. S., & Elumalai, K. V. (2020). Analysis of Lexical and Cohesive Ties usage in Undergraduate Students’ Writing by Applying Task-Based Language Learning Methodology. Arab World English Journal, 11 (1) 79 -90.
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol11no1.7
References
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based Language Teaching: Sorting out the Misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221-246.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
González-Lloret, M. (2003). Designing task-based CALL to promote interaction: En busca de Esmeraldas. Language Learning and Technology, 7(1), 86-104. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num1/ gonzalez/default.html
Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 183-210.
Kern, R., Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2004). Crossing frontiers: New directions in online pedagogy and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 243-260.
Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestions. ELT journal, 58(4), 319-326
Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: task-based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam, & M. Pienemann, M. (eds.), Modeling and Assessing Second Language Development (pp. 77-99). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and Task-Based Language Teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reinders, H., & White, C. (2010). The theory and practice of technology in materials development and task design. In N. Harwood (Ed.), Materials in ELT: Theory and practice (pp. 58-80). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2005). Communicative language teaching today (RELC portfolio Series
13). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Center.
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sadler, R. (2009). Can you build this? Virtual construction for language learning in Second Life. In L. Stone & C. Wilson-Duffy (Eds.), Task-based III: Expanding the range of tasks with online resources. International Association for Language Learning and Technology (IALLT).
Shehadeh, A. (2005). Task-based language learning and teaching: Theories and applications. In Edwards, C and J. Willis (Eds), Teachers Exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching (pp. 13-30). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Skehan, P. (2003). Focus on form, tasks and technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(5), 391-411.
Stone, L., & Wilson-Duffy, C. (2009). Task-based III: Expanding the range of tasks through the web. International Association for Language Learning and Technology (IALLT).
Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning Harlow, Essex, U.K.: Longman/Addison-Wesley.
Willis, D & Willis, J. (2007) Doing Task-Based Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ziegler, N. (2016). Taking technology to task: technology-mediated TBLT, performance, and production. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 136–63.