IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v10y2020i2p2158244020919505.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing Accuracy and Durability Effects of Jigsaw Versus Input Flood Tasks on the Recognition of Regular Past Tense /-ed/

Author

Listed:
  • Soheil Rahimi
  • Moussa Ahmadian
  • Majid Amerian
  • Hamid Reza Dowlatabadi

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of input flood tasks, as focused tasks, and Jigsaw tasks, as unfocused tasks, on promoting Iranian English as Foreign Language (EFL) learners’ recognition of regular past tense /-ed/ in terms of accuracy and durability. Accordingly, using a quasi-experimental study, two intact university classes including 62 participants were randomly designated to experimental and comparison groups. The participants were homogenized regarding their language and grammar proficiency levels. The experimental group was instructed through input flood tasks and the comparison group through Jigsaw tasks. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) analysis showed that although both groups’ mean accuracy scores were improved on the immediate posttest, the experimental group outscored the comparison group. However, the results of the delayed posttest demonstrated that whereas the comparison group maintained their accuracy level over time, the experimental group’s accuracy mean score dropped. It can be postulated that input flood tasks may promote learners’ recognition accuracy of second language forms immediately, but this effect may gradually diminish. Hence, it can be tentatively concluded that Jigsaw tasks result in more durable gains than input flood tasks. The findings imply that when the goal of grammar instruction is to achieve durable effects, unfocused tasks should be integrated with focused tasks in the syllabus.

Suggested Citation

  • Soheil Rahimi & Moussa Ahmadian & Majid Amerian & Hamid Reza Dowlatabadi, 2020. "Comparing Accuracy and Durability Effects of Jigsaw Versus Input Flood Tasks on the Recognition of Regular Past Tense /-ed/," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(2), pages 21582440209, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:10:y:2020:i:2:p:2158244020919505
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244020919505
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244020919505
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244020919505?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:10:y:2020:i:2:p:2158244020919505. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.