The Impressibility of Speaking Accuracy/Fluency among EFL Undergraduates: A Meta-Analysis

محورهای موضوعی : language teaching

آرمان تونی ¹ ( Department of English, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran )
ژاله حساس خواه ² ( Department of English, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran )
پرویز بیرجندی ³ ( Department of English, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran )

تاریخ دریافت : 1396/09/19 تاریخ پذیرش : 1396/09/19 تاریخ انتشار : 1396/09/01

کلید واژه: meta-analysis, Accuracy, Fluency, speaking, EFL undergraduates,

چکیده مقاله :

This meta-analysis is an investigation into the impressibility of two dimensions of the speaking skill, namely accuracy and fluency, in relation to the experimented treatments among Iranian EFL undergraduates. Having surveyed a collected bank of 74 research reports, the relationships among the variables in the 14 included studies were examined. More specifically, the analysis involved a statistical review of 67 effect sizes (at 95% CI) calculated from studies conducted between 2006 and 2016, including 890 participants. The analysis indicated that in 77% of the experimented treatments, the students performed as well as the students in the regular programs with no significant improvement in oral accuracy. The analysis also demonstrated that 63% of the treatments did not yield significant improvement in oral fluency in comparison with the regular instruction. Moreover, the synthesis of the effects of the contextual factors showed that low-level (i.e., elementary) learners experienced a better improvement in speaking performance. The analysis also revealed that, among the experimented treatments, dialogic tasks were most effective on oral accuracy while interviews were influential in promoting the students’ both oral accuracy and fluency. Finally, the quality of the study reports was analyzed and some directions for further research were suggested.

چکیده انگلیسی:

این مرور سیستماتیک میزان اثرپذیری دو بعد از مهارت کلامی-صحت و روانی-را در ارتباط با روشهای آزمون شده در بین دانشجویان زبان انگلیسی ارزیابی میکند. پس از بررسی مجموع 74 گزارش تحقیقاتی، این مرور روابط بین متغیرها را در 14 تحقیق مورد مطالعه قرار داد. بطور خاص، این تحقیق، مروری آماری از 67 اندازه اثر (با 95% حاشیه اطمینان) از مطالعاتی است که بین سالهای 2006 الی 2016 بر روی 890 دانشجو انجام شده بودند. تحلیل داده ها نشان میدهد که در 77% آزمایشات، شرکت کنندگان پیشرفت معناداری در صحت کلامی و در 63% آزمایشات، پیشرفت معناداری در روانی کلام نسبت به روشهای معمول نداشته اند. علاوه بر این، نتایج حاصل از اثرات عوال محیطی نشان میدهد که زبان آموزان سطح پایه پیشرفت بهتری در صحت و روانی نسبت به سطوح دیگر داشته اند. این تحلیل همچنین نشان میدهد، از بین روشهای آزمایش شده، مصاحبه و تمرینهای دوسویه بیشترین اثر را بر روی صحت داشته است و این در حالی است که مصاحبه بر روی روانی نیز اثر مثبت داشته است. علاوه بر این موارد، جزییات و توضیحاتی در خصوص متغیرهایی که نتیج معناداری نداشته اند و همچنین ارزیابی کیفی تحقیقات گذشته و پیشنهاداتی برای تحقیقات آتی ارائه شده است

منابع و مأخذ:

References

Note: Studies included in the meta-analysis are marked with an asterisk (*).

* 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.

* Ahangari, S., & Abdi, M. (2011). The effect of pre-task planning on the accuracy and complexity of Iranian EFL learners’ oral performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1950 – 1959.

* Akef, K., & Nossratpour, S. (2010). The impact of keeping oral dialogue journals on EFL learners’ oral fluency. Journal of English Language Studies, 1(2), 127-142.

Ansarian, A. A., & Chehrazad, M. H. (2015). Differential effects of focused and unfocused recasts on the EFL learners' oral accuracy. Colombia Applied Linguistics Journal, 17(1), 86-97.

* Asaadinezhad, N., & Gorjian , B. (2015). The effect of reconstruction podcast on pre-intermediate EFL learners’ speaking proficiency. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 8(3), 132‐145.

Askari, K., & Langroudi, J. (2014). The effectiveness of Ur model in developing Iranian EFL learners’ fluency and accuracy in speaking. Applied Linguistic and Language Research, 1(1), 75-86.

* Baradaran, A., & Khalili, A. (2009). The impact of online chatting on EFL learners’ oral fluency. Journal of English Language Studies, 1(1), 63-77.

Binder, C. (1988). Precision teaching: Measuring and attaining exemplary academic achievement. Youth Policy, 10(7), 12-15.

Binder, C. (1996). Behavioral fluency: Evolution of a new paradigm. The Behavior Analyst, 19(2), 163-197.

Binder, C., Haughton, E., & Bateman, B. (2002). Fluency: Achieving true mastery in the learning process. Professional Papers in Special Education, Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia. Retrieved May, 2016 from http://special.edschool.virginia.edu/resources/papers.html/Binder-et-al_Fluency.pdf

* Birjandi, P., & Ahangari, S. (2008). Effects of task repetition on the fluency, complexity and accuracy of Iranian EFL learners’ oral discourse. The Asian EFL Journal, 10(3), 28-52.

Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23-48). Harlow: Longman.

Cavanaugh, C., Gillan, K. J., Kromrey, J., Hess, M., & Blomeyer, R. (2004). The effects of distance education on K–12 student outcomes: A meta-analysis. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.

Chambers, F. (1997). What do we mean by fluency? System, 25(4), 535-544.

Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press: Cambridge.

Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (1^st ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 367-383.

Ebsworth, M. E. (1998). Accuracy & fluency: Which comes first in ESL instruction? ESL Magazine, 1(2), 24-26.

Effective Public Health Practice Project. (1998). Quality assessment tool for quantitative studies. Retrieved May, 2016 from http://www.ephpp.ca/index.html

Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

* Farrokhi, F., & Mahmoudi, A. (2014). A socio-cognitive approach to developing oral fluency and naturalness in Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 3(2), 1-15.

Ferris, D. (2004). The "grammar correction" debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 49-62.

Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299-323.

* Ghenaati, M. J., & Madani, D. (2015). The effect of exposure to TV and radio news on the improvement of Iranian EFL learners’ speaking fluency. Research Journal of English Language and Literature, 3(4), 398-411.

Goldberg, A., Russell, M., & Cook, A. (2003). The effect of computers on student writing: A metaanalysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2(1). Retrieved May, 2016, from http://www.bc.edu/research/intasc/jtla/journal/pdf/v2n1_jtla.pdf

* Hassaskhah, J., & Rahimizadeh Asli, S. (2015). Photomontage: A new task to change speaking into talking classrooms. Cogent Education, 2, 1-11. Retrieved May, 2016 from https://www.cogentoa.com/article/10.1080/2331186X.2015.1125333.pdf

Hazrativand, P. (2012). The Effect of Typographical Input Enhancement on Iranian EFL Learners’Accuracy in Oral Production of Narratives. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 1(4), 76-85

Hedges, L.V., & Olkin, I. (1985) Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. Orlando: Academic Press.

Hedges, L. V., Shymansky, J., & Woodworth, G. (1989). Practical guide to modern methods of meta-analysis. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.

Horowitz, D. (1986). Process not product: Less than meets the eye. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 141144

In’nami, Y., & Koizumi, R. (2010). Can structural equation models in second language testing and learning research be successfully replicated? International Journal of Testing, 10, 262-273.

Iwashita, N., Elder. C., & McNamara, T. (2001). Can we predict task difficulty in an oral proficiency test? Exploring the potential of an information-processing approach to task design. Language Learning, 51(3), 401– 436.

Johnson, K., & Johnson, H. (1999). Encyclopedic dictionary of applied linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Kormos, J., & Dénes, M. (2004). Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System, 32, 145–164.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. NY: Routledge.

Kung, J., Chiappelli, F., Cajulis, O. O., Avezova, R., Kossan, G., & Chew, L. (2010). From systematic reviews to clinical recommendations for evidence-based health care: validation of revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews (R-AMSTAR) for grading of clinical relevance. The Open Dentistry Journal, 4, 84–91.

Lambert, C.P., & Engler, S. (2007). Information distribution and goal orientation in second language task design. In M. P. G. Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 25-43). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Functional grammar: On the value and limitations of dependability, inference, and generalizability. In M. Chalhoub-Deville, C. Chapelle, & P. Duff (Eds), Inference and generalizability in applied linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Lin, W., Huang, H., & Liou, H. (2013). The effects of text-based SCMC on SLA: A Meta-Analysis. Language Learning & Technology, 17(2), 123–142.

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

* Maftoon, P., & Kolahi, S. (2009). The impact of recasts on the syntactic accuracy of Iranian EFL university students’ oral discourse. The Journal of Applied Linguistics, (2)2, 160-178.

Masgoret, A. M., & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second language learning: A meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates. Language Learning, 53, 123-163.

Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 83–108.

* Moradi, Z., & Talebi, S. H. (2014). The effect of pre-speaking strategies instruction in strategic planning on Iranian EFL students’ awareness as well as students’ fluency and lexical resources in speaking. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1224 – 1231.

Nation, I. S. P., & Newton, J. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking. NY: Routledge.

Nayar, P. B. (1997). ESL/EFL dichotomy today: Language politics or pragmatics? TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 9–37.

Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.

Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555-578.

Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109- 148.

Oxford, R. L. & Burry-Stock, J. A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). System, 23(1), 1-23.

Pienemann, M., & KeBler, J. (2011). Studying processability theory: An introductory textbook. US: John Benjamins Publishing.

Plonsky, L. (2011). The effectiveness of second language strategy instruction: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 61(4), 993-1038.

Pollock C. W. (1997). Communicate what you mean: A concise advanced grammar (2^nd ed.). NY: Prentice Hall.

Rafie, Z. F., Rahmany, R., & Sadeqi, B. (2015). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the accuracy of L2 oral production, Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(6), 1297-1304.

Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (4^th ed.). London: Pearson Longman.

Rivers, W. M. (1981). Teaching foreign language skills (2^nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283-331.

Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (2008). Conclusions: Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition and L2 instruction - Issues for research. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 489–545). NY: Routledge.

Rouhi, A. (2006). Striking an effective balance between accuracy and fluency in task-based teaching (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tehran University, Tehran.

* Rouhi, A., & Marefat. H. (2006). Planning time effect on fluency, complexity and accuracy of L2 output. Pazhuhesh-e Zabanha-ye Khareji, 27, 123-141.

* Safari Vesal, N., Safari Vesal, M., & Tavakoli, M. (2015). The effect of task type on complexity, accuracy, and fluency of Iranian EFL candidates' oral production: IELTS interview test in focus. Proceedings of The 2nd National Applied Research Conference on English Language Studies, Tehran, Iran. Retrieved May, 2016 from http://www.civilica.com/Paper-ELSCONF02-ELSCONF02_095.html

* Seifoori, Z. (2016). Metacognitive awareness and the fluency of task-based oral output across planning conditions: The case of Iranian TEFL students. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 4(1), 11-26

Semke, H. D. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annuals, 17, 195-202.

Shiriyan, Z., & Nejadansari, D. (2014). The effect of literature-response activities on the complexity, accuracy, and fluency of Iranian EFL learners’ L2 oral productions. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 1(2), 12-26

Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38‒62.

Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532.

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 conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93-120.

Tavakoli, P. (2011). Pausing patterns: Differences between L2 learners and native speakers, ELT Journal, 65, 71-79.

Thomas, B. H., Ciliska, D., Dobbins, M., & Micucci, S. (2004). A process for systematically reviewing the literature: Providing the research evidence for public health nursing interventions. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 1(3), 176-184.

Widdowson, H. G. (1997). EIL, ESL, EFL: Global issues and local interests. World Englished, 16(1), 135–146.

Yun, J. (2011). The effects of hypertext glosses on L2 vocabulary acquisition: a meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(1), 39-58.