The Effect of Training and Task-Planning on the Complexity of Iranian Learners’ Oral Speech
Subject Areas : آموزش زبان انگلیسیپرویز بیرجندی 1 , زهره سیفوری 2
1 - Islamic Azad University Science and Research Branch
2 - Islamic Azad University Science and Research Branch
Keywords: Metacognitive Training, Oral Speech, Grammatical Complexity, Task planning,
Abstract :
The shift of emphasis away from written to oral skills has stimulated an incipient concern in second language research to investigate ways of helping second and foreign language learners achieve higher degrees of oral proficiency. Priority solely taken over accuracy, complexity, or fluency of speech might be justifiable with regard to the context in which learning takes place. Accuracy and complexity have been suggested as paramount concern in syntactic processing typical of instructional contexts. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of a training program on the grammatical complexity of 114 English Major Students at Islamic Azad University-Tabriz Branch at three different planning levels. A 2x3 factorial design was employed with two levels of metacognitive training, trained and untrained, and three levels of pre-task planning, on-line task planning, and pre/on-line task planning. It was hypothesized that the trained participants would produce more complex speech than the untrained ones, and that various planners would produce speech with varying degrees of complexity. Yet, the findings revealed no significant difference in terms of grammatical complexity among the trained and untrained participants. The findings suggest proficiency level and learners' attitudes and goals as main factors influencing the complexity of oral speech.
Anderson, J. R. (2000). Learning and memory: An integrated approach. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Bialystock, E. (1982). On the relationship between knowing and using forms. Applied Linguistics, 3, 181-206
Birjandi, P. & Ahangari, S. (2008) Effects of task repetition on the fluency, accuracy, and complexity of Iranian EFL students oral discourse. Asian EFL Journal, 10(3). Retrieved November16, 2008 from http://www.asian- efljournal.com/ November, 2008_dn.php.
Bygate, M. (1999) Task as the context for the framing, re-framing and un-framing of language. System 27, 33-48.
Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, J. M. (1987). A cognitive academic language learning approach: A bridge to the mainstream. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 227-49.
Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA Handbook: Implementing the cognitive language learning approach. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Harlow: Addison Wesley.
Crookes, G. (1989) Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11, 367-83.
Doughty, C. (1991) Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of second language relativisation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(4), 431-467.
Ellis, G., & Sinclair, B. (1989). Learning to learn English: A course in learner training.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Ellis, R. (1987) Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 1-20.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
Ellis, R. (2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1996) The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299-323.
Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1999) The influence of planning and focus of planning on task- based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3, 215-247.
Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991) Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 608-628.
Larsen Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141-165.
Lantolf, J. (2000) Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33, 79-96.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Littlewood, W. (1996). Autonomy: An anatomy and a framework. System,24(4), 427-435.
Logan, G. (1988). Towards and instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492-527.
McLaughlin, B. (1990) Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11, 113-28.
Nam, C., & Oxford, R. (1998). Portrait of a future teacher: Case study of learning styles, strategies, and language disabilities. System, 26, 51-63.
Nunan, D. (2005). Task-based language teaching.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Nunan, D., & Lamb, C. (2001). Managing the learning process. In D. R. Hall & Hewings (Eds.), Innovation in English language teaching (pp. 27-45).
O'Malley, J. M & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L. (1985) A new taxonomy of second language learning strategies. Washington, D. C.: Centre for Applied Linguistics.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Heinle and Heinle.
Oxford, R. L, Crookall, D., Lavine, R. Z. , Nyikos, M., & Sutter, W. (1990). Strategy training for language learners: Six situational case studies and a training model. Foreign Language
Annals, 22, 197-216.
Pearson, P. D., & Dole, J. A. (1987). Explicit comprehension instruction: A review of research and a new conceptualization of learning. Elementary School Journal, 88, 151-165.
Schmidt, R. (2001) Attention. In P. Robinson, (Ed.). (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a compositional framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27-57.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38-62.
Skehan, P. (1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (1997) Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185-211.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing condition on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49, 93-120.
Swain, M. (1985) Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cooke & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 245- 256). Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Wenden, A. (1987b). Incorporating learner training in the classroom. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 159-178). Cambridge: Prentice
Hall.
Wenden, A. L. (1995). Learner training in context: A knowledge-based approach. System, 23(2), 183-194.
Wenden, A. L. (2002). Learner development in language learning. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 32-55.
Willis, J. (1996). A flexible framework for task-based learning. In D. Willis & J. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 52-62). Oxford: Heinemann.
Yuan, F. & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1-27.