Volume 7, Issue 3 (9-2022)
IJREE 2022, 7(3): 76-93 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Abbasi Dogolsara S, Ahangari S, Seifoori Z. Improving the Fluency of the Iranian EFL Learners’ Oral Performance through Task Variation. IJREE 2022; 7 (3)
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-687-en.html
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-687-en.html
Department of English Language, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
Abstract: (2366 Views)
Researchers have extensively studied factors that impact the development of fluency in L2 oral production while there is scant evidence regarding task variation-related effects. Therefore, this study sought to investigate the effects of task variation involving group dialogue, dialogue unscrambling, and dialogue completion on Iranian EFL learners’ oral speech fluency. To this end, 80 EFL learners were assigned to three experimental groups (EXG1, EXG2, and EXG3) and one control group shown as CONG. The EXG1 was treated by three tasks, i. e., dialogue completion, dialogue unscrambling, and group dialogue, the EXG2 through two tasks involving dialogue completion and dialogue unscrambling, the EXG3 by dialogue unscrambling task, and the CONG was instructed by teacher conventional method. The groups were pretested and posttested through the speaking section of Preliminary English Test (PET). The participants’ interview transcriptions were then coded for scoring and statistical analysis of fluency to show the effects of treatment for each group. The four groups received their required instructions for ten sessions. The findings revealed that task variation made significant differences in the learners’ oral fluency achievement. The analyses made through running ANOVA and Post Hoc yielded to the conclusion that EXG1, instructed through a combination of the three tasks, outperformed the other groups regarding fluency achievement. The findings of this study have pedagogical implications for teachers, EFL learners, and syllabus designers.
References
1. Abdollahzadeh, E. (2010). Applicability issues with TBLT in EFL contexts. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 28-49. https://rals.scu.ac.ir/article_10413_b1bec154f4b08ed1d8732bc86312030f.pdf
2. Achmad, D., & Yusuf, Y. Q. (2014). Observing pair-work task in an English speaking class. International Journal of Instruction, 7(1), 151-164. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1085253.pdf
3. Aikaterini, T. A., & Makrina, Z. (2022). Differentiated instruction and portfolio assessment: Motivating young Greek-Romani students in the English class. World Journal of English Language, 12(1), 258-274. [DOI:10.5430/wjel.v12n1p258]
4. doi: [DOI:10.5430/wjel.v12n1p258]
5. Albino, G. (2017). Improving speaking fluency in a task-based language teaching approach: The case of EFL learners at PUNIV-Cazenga. SAGE Open, 7(2), 2158244017691077. [DOI:10.1177/2158244017691077]
6. Askari, K., & Langroudi, J. (2014). The effectiveness of Ur model in developing Iranian EFL learners' fluency and accuracy in speaking. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 1(1), 75-86. http://www.jallr.com/index.php/JALLR/article/view/6/pdf_7
7. Bohn, H. (2015). Assessing spoken EFL without a common rating scale: Norwegian EFL teachers' conceptions of construct. Sage Open, 5 (4), 1-12. doi: 10.1177/2158244015621956 [DOI:10.1177/2158244015621956]
8. Bravo Aburto, J. W., Alemán Ampie, G. E., & Munguia Molina, F. G. (2019). Sentences unscramble to help students to create sentences using simple present tense with students from eighth grade (Doctoral dissertation), Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Nicaragua.
9. Browne, K., & Fulcher, G. (2017). Pronunciation and intelligibility in assessing spoken fluency. In T. Isaacs & P. Trofimovich (Eds.), Second Language Pronunciation Assessment: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (pp. 57-71). Multilingual Matters, Channel View Publications. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.21832/j.ctt1xp3wcc
10. Bygate, M. (2010). Speaking. The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. Chapelle, C. A., Chung, Y. R., Hegelheimer, V., Pendar, N., & Xu, J. (2010). Towards a computer-delivered test of productive grammatical ability. Language Testing, 27(4), 443-469. [DOI:10.1177/0265532210367633]
12. Chen, K. T. C. (2021). The effects of technology-mediated TBLT on enhancing the speaking abilities of university students in a collaborative EFL learning environment. Applied Linguistics Review, 12(2), 331-352. [DOI:10.1515/applirev-2018-0126]
13. Chun, C. W. (2006). Commentary: An analysis of a language test for employment: The authenticity of the PhonePass test. Language Assessment Quarterly: An International Journal, 3(3), 295-306. [DOI:10.1207/s15434311laq0303_4]
14. Crowther, D., Trofimovich, P., Isaacs, T., & Saito, K. (2015). Does a speaking task affect second language comprehensibility? The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 80-95. [DOI:10.1111/modl.12185]
15. Darrashiri, A., & Mazdayasna, G. (2021). Exploring EFL learners' attitudes and beliefs of task-based language teaching: The case of EFL learners' development of speaking and writing skills. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Translation Studies, 6(3), 45-70. doi: 10.22034/efl.2021.302991.1119
16. De Jong, N. H., Groenhout, R., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2015). Second language fluency: Speaking style or proficiency? Correcting measures of second language fluency for first language behavior. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(2), 223-243. doi: [DOI:10.1017/S0142716413000210]
17. Dolati, R., & Seliman, S. (2011). An investigation of Iranian students' weaknesses in spoken English. Journal of Edupres, 1(1), 94-99. http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/15930/
18. Donald, R. H. (2010). Spectrum. A communicative course in English. USA: Prentice Hall Regents. https://www.amazon.com/Spectrum-Communicative-Course-English-Level/dp/0138301670
19. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1080/09571736.2016.1236523 [DOI:10.1080/09571736.2016.1236523]
20. Ellis, R. (2017). Task-based language teaching. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition (pp. 108-125). Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/The-Routledge-Handbook-of-Instructed-Second-Language-Acquisition/Loewen-Sato/p/book/9780367141387 [DOI:10.4324/9781315676968-7]
21. Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://www.amazon.com/Analysing-Learner-Language-Applied-Linguistics/dp/0194316343
22. Feneey, A. (2006). Task-based language teaching. ELT Journal, 60(2), 199-201. [DOI:10.1093/elt/cci108]
23. Freed, B. F., Segalowitz, N., & Dewey, D. P. (2004). Context of learning and second language fluency in French: Comparing regular classroom, study abroad, and intensive domestic immersion programs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(2), 275-301. doi: [DOI:10.1017/S0272263104262064]
24. Fujii, A., & Mackey, A. (2009). Interactional feedback in learner-learner interactions in a task-based EFL classroom. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(3-4), 267-301. [DOI:10.1515/iral.2009.012]
25. Garcia-Ponce, E. E. (2017). Effects of task characteristics on learners' fluency, complexity and accuracy during EFL interactions: Implications for speaking practice. The Journal of Language Learning and Teaching, 7(2), 70-89. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318380154_Effects_of_Task_Characteristics_on_Learners%27_Fluency_Complexity_and_Accuracy_during_EFL_Interactions_Implications_for_Speaking_Practice
26. Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Ross‐Feldman, L. (2005). Task‐based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55(4), 575-611. [DOI:10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00318.x]
27. Gathumbi, A. W., & Masembe, S. C. (2005). Principles and techniques in language teaching: A text for teacher educators, teachers, and pre-service teachers. Jomo Kenyatta Foundation. http://catalog.seku.ac.ke/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=3198
28. Gindo, Z. R., & Kawo, K. N. (2019). The effectiveness of task-based instruction in improving learners' speaking skills: The case of Micha Preparatory School. Journal of Education and Practice, 10(34), 9-20.
https://doi.org/10.7176/JEP/10-34-02 [DOI:10.7176/jep/10-34-02]
29. Hashemi, L., & Thomas, B. (2010). Objective PET. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://sciarium.com/file/5984/
30. Hilton, H. (2008). The link between vocabulary knowledge and spoken L2 fluency. Language Learning Journal, 36(2), 153-166. [DOI:10.1080/09571730802389983]
31. Hsu, H. C. (2019). The combined effect of task repetition and post-task transcribing on L2 speaking complexity, accuracy, and fluency. The Language Learning Journal, 47(2), 172-187. [DOI:10.1080/09571736.2016.1255773]
32. Huhta, A., Kallio, H., Ohranen, S., & Ullakonoja, R. (2019). Fluency in language assessment. In P. Lintunen, M. Mutta & P. Peltonen (Eds.), Fluency in L2 learning and use (pp. 129-145). Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters. [DOI:10.21832/9781788926317-011]
33. Iwashita, N., Brown, A., McNamara, T., & O'Hagan, S. (2008). Assessed levels of second language speaking proficiency: How distinct? Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 24-49. [DOI:10.1093/applin/amm017]
34. Jamshidnejad, A. (2010). The construction of oral problems in an EFL context: An innovative approach. Studies in Literature and Language, 1(6), 8-22. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.856.5244&rep=rep1&type=pdf
35. Johnson, M. D. (2017). Cognitive task complexity and L2 written syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing, 37, 13-38. doi:10.1016/J.JSLW.2017.06.001 [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2017.06.001]
36. Karami, M., Jafarigohar, M., Tajeddin, Z., & Rouhi, A. (2017). Input-induced variation in EFL learners' oral production in terms of complexity, accuracy, and fluency. Iranian Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(2), 70-85. http://journalscmu.sinaweb.net/article_76537.html
37. Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 211-234. doi:10.1177/1362168807086288 [DOI:10.1177/1362168807086288]
38. Kong, F., Lai, M., Deng, Y., & Wang, Q. (2022). A summary of the effectiveness of the TBLT approach in improving speaking fluency. International Journal of Education and Humanities, 3(2), 96-97. [DOI:10.54097/ijeh.v3i2.882]
39. Kormos, J., & Dénes, M. (2004). Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System, 32(2), 145-164. [DOI:10.1016/j.system.2004.01.001]
40. Lanteigne, B. (2017). Unscrambling jumbled sentences: An authentic task for English language assessment? Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 7(2), 251-273. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1149764.pdf [DOI:10.14746/ssllt.2017.7.2.5]
41. Lee, E., & Park, M. (2008). Student presentation as a means of learning English for upper intermediate to advanced level students. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 47-60. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ921004.pdf
42. Leonard, K. R. (2015). Speaking fluency and study abroad: what factors are related to fluency development? (Doctoral dissertation). University of Iowa, Iowa City. doi: 10.17077/etd.5ku9rrs7 [DOI:10.17077/etd.5ku9rrs7]
43. Lintunen, P., Mutta, M., & Peltonen, P. (Eds.). (2020). Fluency in L2 learning and use. Multilingual Matters. [DOI:10.21832/9781788926317]
44. Long, M. (2014). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching: John Wiley & Sons. https://www.amazon.com/Second-Language-Acquisition-Task-Based-Teaching/dp/0470658940
45. Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 classrooms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.7916/salt.v13i1.1353
46. Masuram, J., & Sripada, P. N. (2020). Developing spoken fluency through task-based teaching. Procedia Computer Science, 172, 623-630. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2020.05.009 [DOI:10.1016/j.procs.2020.05.009]
47. Michel, M. (2017). Complexity, accuracy and fluency in L2 production. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition (pp.154-166). London: Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9781315676968-4]
48. Mota, M. B. (2003). Working memory capacity and fluency, accuracy, complexity, and lexical density in L2 speech production. Fragmentos: Revista de Língua e Literatura Estrangeiras, 24(5), 69-104. doi: [DOI:10.5007/fragmentos.v24i0.7659]
49. Mukundan, J., & Khojasteh, L. (2011). Modal auxiliary verbs in prescribed Malaysian English textbooks. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 79-89. doi:10.5539/elt.v4n1p79 [DOI:10.5539/elt.v4n1p79]
50. Namaziandost, E., Neisi, L., Kheryadi & Nasri, M. (2019). Enhancing oral proficiency through cooperative learning among intermediate EFL learners: English learning motivation in focus. Cogent Education, 6(1), 1683933. doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2019.1683933 [DOI:10.1080/2331186X.2019.1683933]
51. Nezakat-Alhossaini, M., Youhanaee, M., & Moinzadeh, A. (2014). Impact of explicit instruction on EFL learners' implicit and explicit knowledge: A case of English relative clauses. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 10(2), 183-199. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.680.2677&rep=rep1&type=pdf
52. Nget, S., Pansri, O., & Poohongthong, C. (2020). The effect of task-based instruction in improving the English speaking skills of ninth-graders. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 13(2), 208-224. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342876810_
53. Noora, A. (2008.). Iranian undergraduates' non-English majors' language learning preferences. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 8(2), 33-44.
54. Nugrahaeni, S. M. (2022). Task-based language teaching for enhancing students' speaking ability in junior high school. Globish: An English-Indonesian Journal for English, Education, and Culture, 11(2), 83-95. [DOI:10.31000/globish.v11i2.6250]
55. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.31000/globish.v11i2.6250 [DOI:10.31000/globish.v11i2.6250]
56. Oradee, T. (2012). Developing speaking skills using three communicative activities (Discussion, problem-solving, and role-playing). International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 2(6), 533-555. doi: 10.7763/IJSSH.2012.V2.164 [DOI:10.7763/IJSSH.2012.V2.164]
57. Préfontaine, Y. (2010). Differences in perceived fluency and utterance fluency across speech elicitation tasks: A pilot study. Paper presented at the Lancaster Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics and Language Teaching (LAEL PG). (Vol. 5, pp. 134-154). https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ e/3b8b0a81bd813bf48d5a86dc307f8283b6584d67
58. Rahimpour, M., & Mehrang, F. (2010). Investigating effects of task structure on EFL learner's oral performance. English Language Teaching, 3(4), 10-17. doi:10.5539/elt.v3n4p10 [DOI:10.5539/elt.v3n4p10]
59. Révész, A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom‐based study. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 162-181. [DOI:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01241.x]
60. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching: Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/9781009024532]
61. Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the cognition hypothesis and second language learning and performance. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 161-176. doi:10.1515/IRAL.2007.007 [DOI:10.1515/iral.2007.007]
62. Rohani, S. (2011). Impact of task-based learning on Indonesian tertiary EFL students' employment of oral communication strategies. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 5(10), 25-43. doi: [DOI:10.18848/1833-1882/CGP/v05i10/51915]
63. Roohani, A., Forootanfar, F., & Hashemian, M. (2017). Effect of input vs. collaborative output tasks on Iranian intermediate EFL learners' grammatical accuracy and willingness to communicate. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 71-92. doi:10.22055/rals.2017.13092
64. Rosmawati, R. (2014). Dynamic development of complexity and accuracy. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 37(2), 75-100. doi:10.1075/aral.37.2.01ros [DOI:10.1075/aral.37.2.01ros]
65. 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. Science Journal, 36(3), 1154-1168. https://civilica.com/doc/423240/
66. Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. London: Routledge. doi: [DOI:10.4324/9780203851357]
67. Shintani, N. (2012). Repeating input-based tasks with young beginner learners. Regional Language Centre (RELC) Journal, 43(1), 39-51. [DOI:10.1177/0033688212439322]
68. Siyi, L., & Patamadilok, S. (2021). How task-based language teaching (TBLT) works in ELT classrooms: A case study of grade-8 students at junior middle schools in Yunnan, China. Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology, 18(4), 3516-3528. https://archives.palarch.nl/index.php/jae/article/view/6840
69. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning: Oxford University Press. [DOI:10.5070/L4111005027]
70. Soureshjani, K., & Ghanabri, H. (2012). Factors leading to an effective oral presentation in EFL classrooms. The Technology Enhanced Learning Teaching and Assessment (TELTA) Journal, 3, 37-50.
71. Sotoudehnama, E., & Hashamdar, M. (2016). Oral presentation vs. free discussion: Iranian intermediate EFL learners' speaking proficiency and perception. Applied Research on English Language, 5(2), 211-236. doi: 10.22108/are.2016.20427
72. Tarone, E. (1985). Variability in interlanguage use: A study of style-shifting in morphology and syntax. Language Learning, 35(3), 373-403. [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1985.tb01083.x]
73. Tarone, E. (1988). Variation in interlanguage. London: Edward Arnold. doi: [DOI:10.1017/S0272263100009840]
74. Tarone, E. (1990). On variation in interlanguage: A response to Gregg. Applied Linguistics, 11(4), 392-400. [DOI:10.1093/applin/11.4.392]
75. Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439-473. [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00446.x]
76. Tavakoli, P., & Hunter, A. M. (2018). Is fluency being neglected in the classroom? Teacher understanding of fluency and related classroom practices. Language Teaching Research, 22(3), 330-349. [DOI:10.1177/1362168817708462]
77. Teng, H. C. (2007). A study of task type for L2 speaking assessment. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the International Society for Language Studies (ISLS). National Yunlin University of Science & Technology, Honolulu, 1-11. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED496075.pdf
78. Thornbury, S. (2005). How to teach speaking. Essex: Pearson Longman. https://www.academia.edu/38359051/Howto_Teach_Speaking
79. Toghroli, M., & Afraz, S. (2021). The impact of class presentation on EFL learners' speaking development. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 9(39), 57-66. doi: 10.52547/JFL.9.39.57 [DOI:10.52547/JFL.9.39.57]
80. Ur, P. (2009). Teaching grammar: Research, theory and practice. VIEWZ: Vienna English Working Papers, 18(3), 1-9.
81. Van den Branden, K. (2016). Task-based language teaching. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of English Language Teaching (pp. 238-251). Routledge. https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315676203 [DOI:10.4324/9781315676203-21]
82. Van der Veen, C., van Kruistum, C., & Michaels, S. (2015). Productive classroom dialogue as an activity of shared thinking and communicating: A commentary on Marsal. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 22(4), 320-325. doi: 10.1080/10749039.2015.1071398 [DOI:10.1080/10749039.2015.1071398]
83. Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers: A coherent approach. State University of New York Press.: Albany. https://www.amazon.com/Educating-Culturally-Responsive-Teachers-Preparation/dp/0791452409
84. Witton-Davies, G. (2013). The variability of fluency in dialogue and monologue. Paper presented at the Twenty-first International Symposium on English Teaching. National Taiwan University, 224-237. https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/Giles-Witton-Davies/2084803380
85. Yeh, H. C., & Yang, Y. F. (2011). Prospective teachers' insights towards scaffolding students' writing processes through teacher-student role reversal in an online system. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(3), 351-368. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/50873/ [DOI:10.1007/s11423-010-9170-5]
86. Yuzkiv, H. I., Ivanenko, I. M., Marchenko, N. V., Kosharna, N. V., & Medvid, N. S. (2020). Innovative methods in language disciplines during profile training implementation. International Journal of Higher Education, 9(7), 230-242. doi: [DOI:10.5430/ijhe.v9n7p230]
87. Zalbidea, J. (2021). On the scope of output in SLA: Task modality, salience, L2 grammar noticing, and development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 43(1), 50-82. doi: [DOI:10.1017/S0272263120000261]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
