Efficacy of Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Pushed Negotiations in Boosting Speaking
محورهای موضوعی : English Language Teaching (ELT)پرویز قاصدی 1 , حبیب الله مشهدی 2 , فریده اکاتی 3 , ناصر فلاح 4
1 - English Department, University of Zabol, Iran
2 - English Department, University of Zabol, Iran
3 - English Department, University of Zabol, Iran
4 - English Department, University of Zabol, Iran
کلید واژه: speaking, pushed negotiation, symmetrical, asymmetrical,
چکیده مقاله :
This study was set out to shed light on the efficacy of pushed output directed by scaffolding on 41 (24 female and 17 male) upper-intermediate EFL learners’ speaking fluency and accuracy. A public version of IELTS speaking test was held to measure learners’ entrance behavior. Then, they were randomly assigned into symmetrical, asymmetrical, and control group. The experimental and control groups covered 7 lessons of New Interchange 2 during 15 sessions, twice a week for about 45 minutes each session. Control group received placebo while symmetrical and asymmetrical groups worked on pushed output tasks. The data were audio recorded and transcribed for statistical analyses. The results indicated the efficacy of pushed output in boosting speaking. However, tests of between-subjects effects revealed that the mean score of the control group was not significantly different from that of experimental groups concerning speaking fluency. Furthermore, the results of Tukey's HSD post-hoc tests showed that asymmetrically pushed output activities were more effective in enhancing learners speaking accuracy. In sum, the results suggested that the implementation of pushed out put strategies in student centered contexts could be considered as an effective way in the development of learners’ oral output.
هدف از پزوهش حاضر بررسی کارایی تکیهگاه سازی متقارن و نامتقارن بر اساس فرضیهی برون دادی تحریک شده بر دقت و روانی گفتار زبان آموزان بود. بدین منظور بر اساس آزمون تعیین سطح آکسفورد 41 (17 مرد و 24 زن) زبان آموز سطح متوسط به بالا از میان 80 نفر انتخاب شدند. نسخه عمومی آزمون زبان آیلتس (نسخه 2) برای اندازهگیری میزان توانایی گفتاری زبان آموزان مورد استفاده قرار گرفت. سپس شرکت کنندگان به سه گروه کنترل، بروندادی تحریک شدهی متقارن، و بروندادی تحریک شدهی نامتقارن تقسیم شدند. گروههای مورد آزمایش و کنترل طی 15 جلسه، دو بار در هفته به مدت 45 دقیقه در هر جلسه، 7 درس از کتاب نیو اینترچنج 2 را مطالعه کردند. کلاسهای گروه کنترل به صورت کلاسهای عادی گفتار برگزار شد در حالی که در تدریس گروههای آزمایشی از فعالیت های بازگویی مطالب و تصمیم گیری استفاده شد. مصاحبههای انجام شده، ضبط سپس رونویسی و برای تجزیه و تحلیل آماری کد گذاری شدند. نتایج حاصل از انالیز اماری داده ها بیانگر کارایی فعالیت های برون دادی تحریک شده در بهبود دقت و روانی گفتاز زبان آموزان بود. با این وجود، نتایج آزمون تست توکی نشان داد که فعالیت های بروندادی تحریک شدهی نامتقارن تاثیرات بهتری بر دقت گفتاری زبان آموزان دارد. همچین میانگین روانی گفتار گروه بروندادی تحریک شدهی نامتقارن بیشتر از گروه بروندادی تحریک شدهی متقارن بود. در مجموع، نتایج حاصل از پژوهش حاضر از فرضیه برون دادی تحریک شده و نظریه ی اجتماعی-فرهنگی حمایت و پیشنهاد می کند که برای تقویت گفتاری زبان آموزان از فعالیت های برون دادی تحریک شده در کلاسهای دانش آموز محور استفاده شود.
References
Abdi, M., Eslami, H., & Zahedi, Y. (2012). The impact of pre-task planning on the fluency and accuracy of Iranian EFL learners’ oral performance, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 2281–2288. Available online at www.sciencedirect.com.
Ableeva, R. (2010). Dynamic Assessment of listening comprehension in second language learning. Unpublished PhD dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Ahangari, S., Hejazi, M., & Razmjou, L.(2014). The impact of scaffolding on content retention of Iranian post elementary EFL learners’ summary writing. Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 83-89.
Aljaafreh, A., & J. P. Lantolf. (1994) Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465-483.
Allan, D. (1992). Oxford placement test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Alonso, A. R. (2014). Teaching speaking: An exploratory study in two academic contexts. Porta Linguarum, 22, 145-160.
Al-Shareef, S.Y. (2016). The impact of task repetition on fluency, accuracy, and complexity. International Journal of English Language Teaching, 4 (2), 30-49.
An, Y. J. (2010). Scaffolding wiki-based, ill-structured problem solving in an online environment. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(4), 723-734.
Bailey, S., & Savage, M. (1994). Second language learners. Language Arts, 9 (2), 32-40.
Baleghizadeh, S., Timcheh-Memar, H., & Timcheh-Memar, A. (2010). The effect of symmetrical versus asymmetrical scaffolding on English reading comprehension of EFL learners. Studies in Literatureand Language Journal, 1 (7), 104-111.
Barnard, R., & Campbell, L. (2005). Sociocultural theory and the teaching of process writing: The scaffolding of learning in a university context. The TESOLANZ Journal, 13, 76-88.
Basterrechea, M., Mayo, M.P.G., & Leeser, M.J. (2014). Pushed output and noticing in a dictogloss: task implementation in the CLIL classroom. A case study on teachers’ insights into their students’ mother tongue, Porta Linguarum 22(22), 7-22.
Birjandi, P., & Jafarpour-Mamaghani, H. (2014). The impact of immediate and delayed written pushed output produced by pre-intermediate EFL learners in Iran on their acquisition of English verb tenses. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Academy Publisher, 5(6), 1340-1347.
Brown, C., & Yule, C. (1983). Teaching the spoken language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, H.D. (1994). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Brown, H.D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). New York: Pearson Longman.
Brumfit, C. (1984). Communicative methodology in language teaching: The roles of fluency and accuracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Byrne, S. M. (2012). A study into the effectiveness of pushed/nonpushed spoken output tasks focusing on upper intermediate students in the EFL classroom. Unpublished MA Dissertation, University of Central Lancashire, 1-73.
Byrne,S.,& Jones, C. (2014). Pushed and non-pushed speaking tasks in an EAP context: What are the benefits for linguistic processing and accuracy? Studies about languages, cross ref, 24(4), 87-97.
Cooper, J. L., & Robinson, P. (2014). Using classroom assessment and cognitive scaffolding to enhance the power of small-group learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25(3&4), 149-161.
Dahmardeh, M. (2009). Communicative textbooks: English language textbooks Iranian secondary school. Linguistik Online, 40(4), 45-61.
De Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, S. O. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual Scaffolding in L2 Peer Revision. Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51-68.
Egan, K. B. (1999). Speaking: A critical skill and a challenge. CALICO Journal, 16(3), 277-294.
Ellis, R. (1987) Interlanguage Variability in Narrative Discourse: Style Shifting in the Use of the Past Tense. Studies in Second Language acquisition, 9(1), 1-20.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. Asian EFL Journal, 7(3), 1-16.
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in second Language acquisition, 26, 59–84.
Ertürk, N.O. (2013). Effects of Visually Enhanced Input, Input Processing and Pushed Output on Grammar Teaching. Porta Linguarum, 20, 153-167.
Eun, B., & Lim, H. (2009). A sociocultural view of language learning: The importance of meaning-based instruction. TESL Canada Journal, 27(1), 13–26.
Fillmore, C. J. (1979). On fluency. In D. Kempler & W. S. Y. Wang (Eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior (pp.85-102). New York: Academic Press.
Foster, P., &Skehan, P. (1996).The influence of planning on performance in task- Based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 229-324.
Fulcher, G. (2003). Testing Second Language Speaking. London: Longman/Pearson Education.
Gass,S.M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19, 3-17.
Gholami, J., Rafsanjani- Nejad, S., & Looragi- Pour, J. (2014). Metadiscourse markers misuses; a study of EFL learners’ Argumentative Essays, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 98, 580 – 589.Available online at www.sciencedirect.com.
Gibbons, Pauline. 2002. Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Goh, C. C. M., & Burns, A. (2012). Teaching speaking: A holistic approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Guerrero, M.C.M.. & Villamil, O.S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 51-68.
Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching. Essex, England: Longman.
Hawkes, M. L. (2012). Using task to direct learner attention and focus on form. ELT Journal, 66(3), 327-336.
Housen A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 30 (4): 461–473.
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: Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA (pp. 1-20). Amsterdam: Benjamins
Huitt, W., & Dawson, C. (2011). Social development: Why it is important and how to impact it. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University, 1-27. Retrieved from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/papers/socdev.pdf.
Izanlu, M., & Feyli, M. (2015). The effects of symmetrical and asymmetrical scaffolding on university students' grammar acquisition. Journal of Advances in English Language Teaching. 3 (6), 106-115.
Izumi, S., & M. Bigelow. 2000. Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly 34 (2), 239-278.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 541-577.
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the noticing hypothesis. Applied Linguistics 24 (2), 168-196.
Jahanbin, M., Kazemi, S.A., & Omidvari, A. (2015). The Effect of Scaffolding on Improvement of Iranian EFL Learners' Linguistic Accuracy in the Productive use of English Tenses. International Journal of Review in Life Sciences, 5(8), 1151-1161.
Khaliliaqdam, S. (2014). ZPD, Scaffolding and Basic Speech Development in EFL Context. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 891 – 897.
Krashen, D.S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. England: Longman Group Limited.
Lee, J.F. (2000). Tasks and communicating in language classrooms. Boston: McGraw- Hill Companies.
Littleton, K., & Light, P. (Eds). (1999) Learning with computers: analyzing productive interaction, Routledge, London.
Mackey, A., & Oliver, R. (2002). Interactional feedback and children’s L2 development. System, 30, 459–477.
Maftoon P., & Ghafoori, G. (2009). A comparative study of the effect of homogeneous and heterogeneous collaborative interaction on the development of EFL learners’ writing skill. The Journalof Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 128–158.
McCarthy, M. (1998). Spoken language and applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 83-108.
Munby, J. (1978). Communicative syllabus design: A sociolinguistic model for defining the content of purpose-specific language programs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nation, I. S. P. (2011). Second language speaking. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, 2, 444-454. New York: Routledge.
Noora, A. (2008). Iranian Undergraduates Non-English Majors' Language Learning. Journal of Language Studies. 8(2), 33-49.
Obeiah, S.F. & Bataineh, R.F. (2015). Does scaffolding-based instruction improve writing performance? The case of Jordanian EFL Learners. Lublin Studies in Modern Languages and Literature, 39(2), 106-123.
Osada, N. (2004). Listening comprehension research: A brief review of the past thirty years. Dialogue, 3, 53-66.
Pishghadam R., & Ghardiri, S. (2011). Symmetrical or asymmetrical scaffolding: Piagetian vs. Vygotskian views to reading comprehension. Journal of Language and Literacy Education 7(1), 49–64.
Qin, J. (2008). The effect of processing instruction and dictogloss tasks on acquisition of the English passive voice. Language Teaching Research, 12(1), 61- 82.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1992). The use of scaffolds for teaching higher-level cognitive strategies. Educational Leadership, 49(7), 26-33.
Roth, W.-M., & Middleton, D. (2006). The making of asymmetries of knowing, identity, and accountability in the sequential organization of graph interpretation. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1, 11–81.
Roth, W.-M., & Radford, L. (2010). Re/thinking the zone of proximal development (symmetrically). Mind, Culture, and Activity, 17, 299–307.
Sadeghi-Beniss. A.R., & Edalati-Bazzaz, V.(2014). The impact of pushed output on accuracy and fluency of Iranian EFL learners’ speaking. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research 2(2), 51-72.
Schmidt, R. W., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation and second language acquisition (pp. 237-326). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
Schwieter, J. (2010). Developing second language writing through scaffolding in the zone of proximal development: A magazine project for an authentic audience. Journal of College Teaching & Learning , (7)10, 31-45.
Shabani, K. (2012). Dynamic assessment of L2 learners' reading comprehension processes: A Vygotskian perspective. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 32, 321 – 328. Available online at www.sciencedirect.com.
Sidek, H. M. (2011). ZPD, scaffolding and syntax development. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(6), Retrieved from www.ijhssnet.com.
Skehan P., & Foster, P. (1999).The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49 (1), 93–120.
Skehan, P. (1996). Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp.17-30). Oxford: Heinemann.
Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). The influence of planning and post-task activities on accuracy and complexity in task based learning. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49, 93–120.
Smit,J., Eerde. H.A., & Bakker, A. (2012). A conceptualization of whole-class scaffolding., British Educational Research Journal, 5(3), 1-18.
Soleimani, H., & Rezazadeh, M. (2013). The effect of increase in task cognitive complexity on Iranian EFL learners’ accuracy and linguistic complexity: A test of Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis. Applied Research on English Language: 3(1), 41-54.
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.235-256). New York: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning”. In G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer (Eds), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honour of H.G. Widdowson(pp.125-44). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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 towards second language learning. Applied linguistics, 16, 371-391.
Tabatabaei, O., & Yakhabi, M. (2009). The effect of comprehensible input and comprehensible output on the accuracy and complexity of Iranian EFL learners’ oral speech. The Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 218-248.
Taherkhani, R., & Mahmoodi, M. H. (2015). The Effect of Collaborative Peer- and Teacher Scaffolding on Iranian EFL Learners’ Intentional and Incidental Grammar Learning. International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 20-27.
Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.238-273) . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Thwaites, T. (2014). Research metrics: Calling science to account. Nature, 511(7510), 57- 60. doi: 10.1038/511S5.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wachyunni, S. (2015).Scaffolding and cooperative learning effects on reading comprehension and vocabulary knowledge in English as a foreign language. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Groningen.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.
Zhang, S. (2009). The role of input, interaction, and output in the development of oral fluency. English Language Teaching, 2(4), 91–100.
Zuckerman, G. (2007). Child-adult interaction that creates a zone of proximal development. Journal of Russian & East European Psychology, 45 (3), 43–69.
