EFL Textbooks, L2 Contacts, and Teacher Self-Efficacy: Impact on Learners’ Development of Oral Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency
محورهای موضوعی : نشریه زبان و ترجمه
Manoochehr Jafarigohar
1
(
Associate Professor of TEFL, Department of Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL), Payame Noor University,
Tehran, Iran
)
Mehdi Karami
2
(
PhD Candidate of TEFL, Payame Noor University (PNU), Tehran, Iran
)
zia Tajeddin
3
(
Professor of Applied Linguistics, Department of English Language Teaching, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
)
Afsar Rouhi
4
(
Associate Professor of TEFL, Department of Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL), Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
)
کلید واژه: Textbook, Accuracy, Complexity, Fluency, Teacher self-efficacy, L2 contact, Oral production,
چکیده مقاله :
Researchers have extensively compared different L2 learning contexts, such as EFL versus study-abroad, for their impacts on oral production; however, scant attention, if any, has been paid to comparing EFL settings in terms of input factors such as textbooks, amount of contacts in L2, and teachers. Accordingly, the effects of these factors on the oral production skills were investigated in this study. To this end, in a longitudinal study that spanned nearly three months, speech samples were elicited from three groups of Persian speaking advanced learners of English (N = 72) through oral narrative tasks and were scored for complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF). A one-way MANOVA was used to compare the means. The average number of subordinate clauses per AS-unit was used to measure grammatical complexity, “D” was a measure of lexical complexity, the percentage of error-free clauses was an index of accuracy, and the number of dysfluencies was calculated to be an indicator of fluency. After a period of time, the results provided strong evidence for the significantly different rates of progress among the learners of the three EFL settings on lexical complexity, accuracy, and fluency. Evaluation of course materials, amount of learners’ contact in L2, and teachers’ self-efficacy revealed that these different rates of progress might well be attributed to the characteristics of the speaking tasks in the textbooks. One important implication is that gains in a special dimension of oral production can be produced if EFL curriculum developers provide target learners with speaking tasks bearing particular features.
Collentine, J., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Learning context and its effects on second language acquisition: Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(2), 153-171. doi:
10.1017/S0272263104262015
Czwenar, I. (2014). Analysing spoken language for complexity, accuracy and fluency: Some methodological considerations. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2005). Second language acquisition: An advanced resource book. London: Routledge.
Dods, A. (2017). Changes in complexity, accuracy and fluency in a Japanese first year university student’s oral production after study abroad. Bulletin of Toyo Gakuen University, 25, 279-295.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474-509. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp042
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Faul, F. (2014). G*Power (Version 3.1.9.2). Germany: University of Kiel.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The Influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299-323. doi: 10.1017/s0272263100015047
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354-375. doi: 10.1093/applin/21.3.354
Freed, B. F., Dewey, D. P., Segalowitz, N., & Halter, R. (2004). The language contact profile. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(2). doi: 10.1017/s027226310426209x
Fulcher, G. (2003). Testing second language speaking. London: Longman.
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461-473. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp048
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Complexity, accuracy and fluency: Definitions, measurement and research. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency (pp. 1-20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.
Latham-Koenig, C., & Oxenden, C. (2014). American English file (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lee, J.-A. (2009). Teachers’ sense of efficacy in teaching English, perceived English language proficiency, and attitudes toward the English language: A case of Korean public elementary school teachers. (Doctoral dissertation), The Ohio State University. Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
McKee, G., Malvern, D., & Richards, B. (2000). Measuring vocabulary diversity using dedicated software. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 15(3), 323-338. doi: 10.1093/llc/15.3.323
Mora, J. C., & Valls-Ferrer, M. (2012). Oral fluency, accuracy, and complexity in formal instruction and study abroad learning contexts. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 610-641. doi: 10.1002/tesq.34
Munoz, C. (2014). Contrasting effects of starting age and input on the oral performance of foreign language learners. Applied Linguistics, 35(4), 463-482. doi: 10.1093/applin/amu024
Newton, J., & Kennedy, G. (1996). Effects of communication tasks on the grammatical relations marked by second language learners. System, 24(3), 309-322. doi: 10.1016/0346-251x(96)00024-3
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in istructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555-578. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp044
Pérez-Vidal, C., & Juan-Garau, M. (2011). The effect of context and input conditions on oral and written development: A Study abroad perspective. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 49(2), 157-185. doi: 10.1515/iral.2011.008
Richards, J. C. (2014). The ELT textbook. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Saslow, J. M., & Ascher, A. (2012). Summit 2 (2nd ed.). White Plains NY: Pearson Education.
Skehan, P. (1998). Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 268-286. doi: 10.1017/s0267190500003585
Skehan, P. (2001). Tasks and language performance assessment. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 167-185). London: Longman.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185-211. doi: 10.1177/136216889700100302
Soars, L., Soars, J., Hancock, P., & Williamson, M. (2015). New Headway English course (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58(2), 479-473. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00446.x
Thornbury, S. (2014). English language teaching textbooks: Content, consumption, production. ELT Journal, 69(1), 100-102. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccu066
Towell, R., & Hawkins, R. (1994). Approaches to second language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., & van Dijk, M. (2008). Variability in second language development from a dynamic systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 214-231. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00715.x
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The Effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1-27. doi: 10.1093/applin/24.1.1
Zedeck, S. (2014). APA dictionary of statistics and research methods. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
