آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 45 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 1,552 |
| تعداد مقالات | 18,933 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 63,525,564 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 23,244,070 |
Language Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in Different Types of Writing Paragraph: Do the Raters Notice Such Effect. | ||
| Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning | ||
| دوره 9، شماره 20، بهمن 2017، صفحه 1-24 اصل مقاله (714.97 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Paper | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Alireza Ahmadi؛ Sahar Alavi Zahed* | ||
| Shiraz University | ||
| چکیده | ||
| The aim of the present study was to investigate the effects of two types of paragraph on EFL learners’ written production. It addressed the issue of how three aspects of language production (i.e. complexity, accuracy, and fluency) vary among two types of paragraphs (i.e. paragraphs of chronology and cause-effect) written by EFL learners. Thirty intermediate level learners of English participated in the study. Each learner wrote the two specified types of paragraphs in the final exam of their writing course. In the first phase of the study, separate paired t-tests were conducted on each dependent variable to see whether there were any statistically significant differences in measures of complexity, accuracy, and fluency across the paragraph types. In the second phase of the study, to investigate if the raters detect the inconsistencies in the complexity, accuracy, and fluency of paragraphs written by a learner, four raters were asked to rate 12 paragraphs written by six learners whose paragraphs differed extremely in one of the three features. The findings revealed that EFL learners performed significantly better in paragraphs of chronology than the paragraphs of cause-effect in terms of fluency and accuracy. However, the analysis of complexity measures showed that there was no significant difference between the two types of paragraphs. In the qualitative analysis, it was found that raters did not consistently consider these three features in their examining the quality of the paragraphs. They paid attention to qualities such as coherence, cohesion and unity more consistently. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Types of paragraphs؛ EFL learners؛ Complexity؛ Accuracy؛ Fluency | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Ary, D., Jocabs, L., C., & Sorensen, C., K. (2016). Introduction to research in education. New York: Cengage Learning.
Brumfit, C. J. (1984). Communicative methodology in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, J.W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edn). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 367‐383.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. and G. Barkhuizen. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Favart, M., & Chanquoy, L. (2007). Cohesion devices as crucial tools of text composition: A comparison between 5th graders and expert adults. Langue Française, 155(3), 51-58.
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.
Foster, P. & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task performance: comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 866–896.
Gan, Z. (2010). Interaction in group oral assessment: A case study of higher- and lower-scoring students. Language Testing, 27(4), 585–602.
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.
Ismail, L., Samad, A., Eng. W. & Noordin, N. (2012). Effects of task reasoning demand and task condition on learner written output in ESL classrooms. International Journal of Education, 4(4), 157-175.
Ghapanchi, Z & Alavi Z. S. (2011). The relation between paragraph organization and the topic progression used in English paragraphs selected from native books on teaching writing. Iranian EFL Journal, 7(3), 243-253.
Kormos, J., & Dénes, M. (2004). Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System, 32, 145‐164.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 590–619.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Adjusting Expectations: The study of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 579–589.
Leaper, D. & Riazi, M. (2014).The influence of prompt on group oral tests. Language Testing, 31(2), 1–28.
Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 83‐108.
Rezazadeh, M., Tavakoli, M. & Eslami, A. (2011). The role of task type in foreign language written production: Focusing on fluency, complexity, and accuracy. International Education Studies, 4(2), 169-176.
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. IRAL, 43, 1-32.
Seyyedi, K., Ismail, S., & Mohamed, A. (2014). The Effect of Task Structure on Second Language Learner’s Narrative Writing Performance. Journal of Foreign Languages, Cultures and Civilizations, 2(1), 41-53.
Schneider, M., and Connor, U. (1991). Analyzing topical structure in ESL essays: Not all topics are equal. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 411-427.
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), pp. 12-26.
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (2009). Modeling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49, 93‐120.
Taylor, L. & Wigglesworth, G. (2009). Are two heads better than one? Pair work in L2 assessment contexts? Language Testing, 26 (3), 325–339.
Van Moere, A. (2012).A psycholinguistic approach to oral language assessment. Language Testing, 29(3), 325–344.
Wigglesworth, G. (1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14, 167‐197.
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445-466.
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity. Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.
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, 1‐27. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 426 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 565 |
||