The Effect of the Oral Production on Grammatical Accuracy and Task-based Fluency in Speach of Iranian EFL Learners
Subject Areas : Educational PsychologyZohreh Seifoori 1 , Soghra Goudarzi 2
1 - Department of English Language, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
2 - Department of English Language, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran.
Keywords: Accuracy, Fluency, task- based, pedagogical, Utterance,
Abstract :
One of the major issues for many teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL) is finding a way of helping foreign language learners to produce acute and fluent utterances. According to the research finding the oral drill has a significant effect on producing accurate and fluent speech in second language instruction. Experts believe that English learners’ oral utterances enable them to gain more profound recognition of English sentence structure, and it will facilitate subsequent acquisitions. This study set out to investigate the effect of educational production- oriented program on increasing grammatical accuracy and task- based fluency in speech. The statistical population of the study was fifty Iranian sophomore students at Islamic Azad University of Tabriz. They were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. Initial homogeneity of the groups was verified using a general proficiency test and an oral pre-test. Both groups received instruction for six sessions and were taught how to use different fluency and accuracy strategies to produce more fluent and accurate speech, the experimental group, however, was required to produce oral utterances based on a picture strip at the end of each session. The results showed that there was a significant difference between the experimental and control group. The experimental group produced more accurate and fluent speech utterances than the control group on the post-test. The findings have significant pedagogical implications for (EFL) learners in highly limited contexts.
Anderson, J.R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skills. Psychological Review, 89, 369-406.
Anderson, J.R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Anderson, J.R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Anderson, J. R. (2000). Learning and memory: An integrated approach. NewYork: John Wiley and Sons.
Bialystock, E. (1982). On the relationship between knowing and using forms. Applied Linguistics, 3, 181-206.
Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication strategies: A psychological analysis of second-Language use. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
de Bot, K. (1996). Review article the psycholinguistics of the Output Hypothesis. LanguageLearning, 46:3, 529-555.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heaton, J.B. (1978). Beginning composition through pictures. London: Longman Group Limited.
Izumi, S. (2000). The effects of output and input enhancement on the noticing and learning of relativization in English as a second language. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation,Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541-577.
Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34, 239-278.
Izumi, S, Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the output hypothesis: Effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 421-452.
Larsen Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language Acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141-165.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Logan, G. (1988). Towards an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 429-527.
Muranoi, H. (2005). Output practice in the classroom. In R. M. Dekeyser (ed.), Practice in a second language perspectives from applied linguistics and Cognitive psychology. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.
Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. ELT Journal, 47, 203-210.
Richards, J. C.,Platt, J., & Platt, H. (1992). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. England: Longman.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N., & Celce-Murcia, M. (2002). In Schmitt, N. (ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 1-16). London: Arnold.
Seifoori, Z., & Vahidi, Z. (2010). The impact of fluency strategy training on Iranian EFL learners' speech under on-line planning condition. Retrieved July 28, 2010, from (www.uni-kassel.de/~msmasal/ALA2010-Programme.pdf)
Shehadeh, A. (2002). Comprehensible output, from occurrence to acquisition: A Agenda for acquisitional research. Language Learning, 52(3), 597-647.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retelling. Language Learning, 49(1), 93-120.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren't enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158-164.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J.P. Lantolf (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second Language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step toward second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-391.
