ÖDEV TEKRARLARININ TÜRK ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN KONUŞMASINDAKİ AKICILIK DOĞRULUK VE KOMPLEKSLİĞİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ
Author :
Abstract
İkinci dil edimini üzerinde yapılan son araştırmada en önemli nokta, format üzerindeki dikkat düzeyimin dil ediminin kazanılması için bir koşul olmasıdır. (Radwan, 2005, p.70). Bu süreç ödev dizaynı(Fotos & Ellis, 1991), ödev öncesi (Doughty, 1991) ve ödev sonrası (Willis, 1996). aktiviteleri doğrultuları uygulanabilir. Bu çalışma dilin kullanımında ikinci dil bilgisinin dil öğrenenler tarafından kullanılabilme yetisini araştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. . Bu çalışma Atatürk Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi ve İngilizce Öğretmenliği bölümünde okuyan altmış yabancı dil öğrencisi (baylar ve bayanlar) ile birlikte yürütülmüştür. Konu tekrarı öğrencilerin akıcılık, doğruluk ve güçlük düzeyleri üzerine olan etkilerini ölçmek için katılımcılarin performansları aralıklarla ikişer kez kaydedildi ve puanlandırıldı. Çalışmanın bulguları ödev tekrar akıcı ve doğru gelişimi üzerinde önemli bir etkiye sahip olduğunu göstermektedir.
Keywords
Abstract
This study aims to investigate the learners’ ability in using their L2 knowledge in production. We investigated if there is a native like production when the need to focus on meaning has been decreased through task repetition, thus learners are free to attend to form, not from input which they receive but from their own internal system. Thus, the main concern of this research was to explore the impacts of task repetition on accuracy, fluency and complexity of EFL learners’ oral production. We tried to investigate if learners were more accurate, more fluent or more complex as we repeated the same tasks for the second time after one week. This study was conducted with 60 EFL students (males and females) who were ELT students and medicine students at Ataturk University .To examine the effects of task repetition on fluency, accuracy, and complexity of learners, participants’ performances on the first attempt and second attempt of the same task were recorded and scored. In order to answer research questions the data were submitted to statistical analysis including paired t-test. The results of t-test indicate that task repetition has a significant impact on the development of learners’ oral production in terms of fluency and accuracy.
Keywords
- Ahmadian,M. and Tavakoli, M. (2010).The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and
- Ahmadian,M. and Tavakoli, M. (2010).The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning andtask repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral production. Oxford University Press. 15(1) 35–59.
- Brown, C., & Yule, C. (1983). Teaching the spoken language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Brumt, C.J., (1984). Communicative Methodology in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
- Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising the development of second languagelearners. In J. Willis and D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 136-146) London: Macmillan.
- Bygate, M. (1999). Task as the context for the framing, re-framing and un-framing of language. System, 27, 33-48.
- Bygate, M. (1999). ‘Quality of language and purpose of task: Patterns of learners’ language on two oral communication tasks,’ Language Teaching Research 3: 185–214.
- Carter, R. (2001). The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
- DeKeyser, R. (2008). ‘The complexities of defining complexity’. Paper presented at AAAL 2008, 1 April 2008, Washington D.C
- Derwing, M. and J. Rossiter. (2003). ‘The effects of pronunciation instruction on the accuracy fluency, and complexity of L2 accented speech,’ Applied Language Learning 13: 1–18.
- Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4, 193- 220.
- Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Ellis, R. (2006). The methodology of task-based teaching. Paper presented at the 2006 Asian EFL Journal Conference, Pusan, Korea.
- Farch, C., & Kasper, G. (1986). Cognitive dimensions of language transfer. In E. Kellerman & M.S.Smith (Eds.), Cross linguistic influence in second language acquisition (pp.49-65). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
- Fotos, S. & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 605-628.
- Foster, P. (1999). Task-based learning and pedagogy. ELT Journal, 53(1), 69-70.
- Foster, P., & Skehan, P. 1996. The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299-324.
- Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M., & Fernandez, M. (1999). The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49, 549-581.
- Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1985). Task variation and non-native/non-native negotiation of meaning. InS. Cass and C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
- Gass, S. M., & Madden, C. G. (Eds.). (1985). Input in second language acquisition. Row-ley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.
- Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (1994). An integrated view of second language acquisition. In S.M. Gass& L. Selinker, Second language acquisition: An introductory course (pp. 295-308). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Heaton, J.B. (1975). Beginning composition through pictures. London: Longman.Housen, A. and Kuiken, F. (2006) Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency in Second Language Acquisition. Applied Linguistics .461–473.
- Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Lantolf, J. (1996). Second language theory building: Letting all the flowers bloom! Language Learning, 46, 713-749.
- Long, M.H., & Crooks, G. (1991). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26(1), 27-56.
- Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2000). Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research, 4, 221-250.
- Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 677-703.
- McAllister, J., Cato-Symonds,S. and Johnson, B. (2001). Listeners’ ERP responses to false starts and repetitions in spontaneous speech.
- Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Nunan, D. (2005). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Nunan, D. (2006). Task-based language teaching in the Asia context: Defining ‘task’. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3) 12-18.
- Nunn, R. (2006). Designing holistic units for task-based teaching. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3), 69-93.
- Oxford, R.L. (2006). Task-based language teaching and learning: An overview. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3), 94-121.
- Pica, T. (1997). Second language teaching and research relationships: A North American view. Language Teaching Research, 1, 48-72.
- Prabhu, N.S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Rieger, C. (2003). Disfluencies and hesitation strategies in oral L2 tests. pp. 41–44.
- Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 17-46.
- Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38-61.
- Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing condition on narrative retelling. Language Learning, 49(1), 93-120.
- Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. pp. 185-211.
- Skehan, P. (2003) Focus on form, tasks and methodology. Computer assisted language learning. Vol, 16. Pp.391-416
- Willis, J. (1996). A flexible framework for task-based learning. In J. Willis, & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 52-62). Oxford: Heinemann.
