International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science (IJMECS)
IJMECS Vol. 4, No. 5, 8 May 2012
Cover page and Table of Contents: PDF (size: 165KB)
The Effect of Different Types of Repeated Performance (Private Vs Public) as Post-Task Activities on The English Students’ Accuracy and Fluency in L2 Oral Production
Full Text (PDF, 165KB), PP.53-62
Views: 0 Downloads: 0
Author(s)
Index Terms
Post-task, Fluency, accuracy
Abstract
This study aims at investigating the effect of post-task activities on the TEFL students' fluency and accuracy in oral production. In particular, the study seeks to discover the effect of different types of repeated performance (i.e., public and private) as post-task activities on fluency and accuracy of oral production. Our premise is in line with Ellis's (1994) idea that these types of activities can promote learning. The participants were all TEFL students studying at Iranian universities and institutes. They were assigned into four groups. They all participated in pre and post interview sessions. The students in group A repeated their performance in private. The students in group B repeated their performance in front of the class and the students in group C as the last experimental group repeated their performance both in public and private. The students in group D as the control group didn't have any repeated performance. The results indicated that group B outperformed all other groups in fluency. Concerning accuracy, the students in group C outperformed the students in all other groups.
Cite This Paper
Hossein Khodabakhshzadeh, Bi Bi Simin Mousavi, "The Effect of Different Types of Repeated Performance (Private Vs Public) as Post-Task Activities on The English Students' Accuracy and Fluency in L2 Oral Production", International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science (IJMECS), vol.4, no.5, pp.53-62, 2012. DOI:10.5815/ijmecs.2012.05.08
Reference
[1]Adolphs, S. & Schmitt, N. (2004). Vocabulary coverage according to spoken context. In: P. Bogaards, P., Laufer, B. (Eds.), Vocabulary in a Second Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, pp. 39–49.
[2]Binnenporte, D., Van Bael, C., den Os, E., Boves, L. (2005). Gender in everyday speech and language: A corpus-based study. Interspeech, 1-4.
[3]Bresnihan, B., & Stoops, B. (1996). Three ways that work! Oral fluency practice in the EFL classroom (Electronic version). English Teaching Forum, 34(3), 30.
[4]Brown, H.D. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
[5]Brumfit, C. J. (1984). Communicative methodology in language teaching: The roles of fluency and accuracy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
[6]Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of learners' in J. Willis and D. Willis (Eds.): Challenges and change s in language teaching. Heinemann.
[7]Bygate, M., Skehan, P., and Swain, M., (Eds.). (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks, second language lerning, teaching and testing. Longman.
[8]Careless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers' reinterpretation of a task-based innovation in primary schools. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 662-693.
[9]Chafe, W. L. (1980). Some reasons for hesitating. In H. W. Dechert & Raupach (Eds.). Temporal variables in speech, 169-180.
[10]Dechert, H. W. (1980). Pauses and intonation of verbal planning in second language speech productions: Two examples from a case study. In H. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Temporal variables in speech (pp.271-285).
[11]Derwing, T., Rossiter, M., Munro, M., and Thomson, R. (2004). Second language fluency: Judgments on different tasks. Language Learning, 54, 655-679.
[12]Ellis, N. (2001). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.
[13]Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning. Oxford University Press.
[14]Ellis, R. (2006). The methodology of task-based learning. Asian EFL journal, 8 (3), 19-45.
[15]Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics,19(3), 221-245.
[16]Freed, B. F., Segalowitz, N., & Dewey, D. (2004). Context of learning and second language fluency in French: Comparing regular classroom, study abroad, and intensive domestic immersion programs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 275-301.
[17]Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[18]Lewis, M. (2002). Implementing the Lexical Approach: Putting Theory into Practice. Boston, MA: Heinle.
[19]Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: some questions and suggestions. ELT Journal, 58,(4), 319-326.
[20]Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language Teaching, 40 (3), 243-249.
[21]Lynch, T. & McLean, J. (2001). 'A case of exercising': Effects of immediate task repetition on learners' performance. In Bygate, Skehan & Swain (Eds.).
[22]McLaughlin, B. (1990). Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11, pp. 113–128.
[23]Munro, M. J., and Derwing, T. M. (1998). The effects of speaking rate on listener evaluations of native and foreign accented speech (electronic version). Language Learning, 48 (2), 159-182.
[24]Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[25]Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asian-Pacific region.
[26]Porter, P., and Grant, M. (1992). Communicating effectively in English: Oral communication for non-native speakers (electronic version). Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
[27]Prabhu, N.S., (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford University Press.
[28]Raupach, M. (1980). Temporal variables in first and secomd language speech production. In H.W. Dechert and M. Raupach (Eds.) Temporal variables in speech (pp. 49-60).
[29]Schegloff, E. & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotics, 7, 289–327.
[30]Schmitt, N. & Carter, R. (2004). Formulaic sequences in action: An introduction. In Schmitt, N. (Ed.). (2004). Formulaic Sequences, pp. 1–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[31]Schneider, P. (1997). Using Pair Taping. The Internet TESL Journal, III (2). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Schneider-PairTaping.html
[32]Schumann, J. (1999) Neurobiological perspective on affect and methodology in second language learning. In Arnold, J. (Ed.) Affect in Language Learning, pp. 28–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[33]Tam, M. (1997). Building Fluency: A Course for Non-native Speakers of English. English Teaching Forum, 35 (1), 26.
[34]Temple, L. (1992). Disfluencies in learner speech. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 29-44.
[35]Towell, R. Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. Applied Linguistics, 17, 84-110.
[36]Turk, C. (1995). Effective speaking: Communicating in Speech. London: Chapman & Hall.
[37]Wood, D. (2001, June). In Search of Fluency: What Is It and How Can We Teach It?. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57 (4), 573-589.