مقایسه اثر فعالیت‌های درون‌داد و برون‌داد هم سطح با دانش فراگیر در کیفیت و دقت گفتار زبان‌آموزان ایرانی

Subject Areas : آموزش زبان انگلیسی

امید طباطبایی ¹ (Islamic Azad University, Najafabad Branch)
معصومه یخ آبی ² (Islamic Azad University, Najafabad Branch)

Received: 2016-08-15 Accepted : 2016-08-15 Published : 2009-10-23

Keywords: گفتار, درون داد هم‌سطح با دانش فراگیر, برون داد هم‌سطح با دانش فراگیر, صحت گفتار, دقت گفتار,

Abstract :

هدف از این تحقیق بررسی اثر فعالیتهای درون‌داد و برون‌داد هم سطح با دانش فعلی فراگیر بر کیفیت و دقت گفتار زبان آموزان ایرانی می‌باشد. شرکت‌کنندگان این تحقیق به صورت تصادفی به سه گروه دریافت‌کننده درون‌داد، تولیدکننده برون‌داد و گروه کنترل تقسیم شدند. این تحقیق شامل دو فاز (مرحله) پیش فعالیت و مرحله فعالیت اصلی بود. در مرحله پیش فعالیت، گروه دریافت‌کننده درون‌داد، درون‌داد هم سطح با دانش فعلی خود را دریافت نمود و گروه برون‌داد، برون‌داد هم سطح با دانش فعلی تولید نمود. در مرحله فاز اصلی تمام شرکت‌کنندگان مونولوگهایی را ارائه دادند که به صورت جداگانه توسط محققان ضبط شده و بعد به صورت نوشتاری در آمد و سپس براساس میزان دقت و کیفیت گفتار کدگذاری شده و در آخر نمره‌دهی شد.نتایج حاصل بیانگر این بود که فعالیت‌های درون‌داد و برون‌داد هم سطح با دانش کنونی فراگیر هر دو سبب بهبودی دقت و کیفیت گفتار شدند ولیکن در این زمینه هیچ یک بر دیگری برتری نداشتند.  

References:

Bygate, M. (1999). Task as context for the framing, reframing, and unframing of language.  System, 27, 33-48.

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 and testing (pp. 37-53). London: Longman.

Dekeyser, R, & Sokalski, K. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 46(4), 613-642.

D’Ely, R. C. F. (2006). A focus on learners’ meta-cognitive processes: The impact of strategic planning, repetition, strategic planning plus repetition, and strategic planning for repetition on L2 oral performance. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Santa Catarina.

Ellis, R. (2008). Principles of instructed second language acquisition. CALL(Center for Applied Linguistics). Retrieved September 25, 2009 from                                                                                http:// www.cal.org/resources/digest/instructed2ndlang.html.

Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1986). The role of comprehension in second language learning.            .         Applied Linguistics, 7(3), 257-274.

Finardi, R. K. (2008). Effects of task repetition on L2 oral performance. Scielo, 47(1). Retrieved November 25, 2009 from                                                                                                                          http:// www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci-arttext&pid=5do3-18132008000100003&hg=es&nrm=iso&tlng=en

Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 229-323.

Fulcher, G. (2003). Testing second language speaking. TESL, 8(1). Retrieved June, 2004 from                                                                                                                                               http:// tesl-ej.org/ej 29/r5.html.

Harati, N. (2000). The impact of recast versus negotiation of form on the grammatical accuracy of Iranian EFL students’ speech. A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Teaching English as a Foreign Language. In the Foreign Languages Department of Iran, University of Science and Technology.

Iwashita, N. & McNamara, T. & Elder, C. (2002). 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.

Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541-577.

Krashen, S. D. (1981). Principles and practice in second language acquisition: English Language Teaching Series. London: Prentice-Hall International (UK) Ltd.

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:     Pergamon.

Krashen, S.D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman. 

Krashen, S. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 45-77). London: Academic Press.

Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557-587.

Mangubhai, F. (2001). Book floods and comprehensible input floods: Providing ideal conditions for second language acquisition. International Journal of Educational Research, 35,147-156.

Nagata, N. (1998). Input vs. output practice in educational software for second language acquisition. Language Learning & Technology, 1(2), 23-40.

Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. ELT Journal, 47, 203-210.

Ryan, J. (n.d.). A review of the role of the output in second language acquisition with anecdotal examples from a Japanese learner’s experience. Language Learning, 38(17), 42-54.

Schutz, R. (2007). Stephen Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition.Retrieved  November, 2007 from                                                                                     http://www.sk.com.br/sk-krash.html.

Shehadeh, A. (2002). Comprehensible output, from occurrence to acquisition: an agenda for acquisitional research. Language Learning, 52(3), 597-647.

Skehan, P . (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions. Language Teaching Research, 3(1), 185-211.

Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and Tasks. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and   second language instruction (pp. 183-205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Soleimani, H. & Ketabi, S. & Talebinejad, M. (2008). The noticing function of output in  acquisition of rhetorical structure of contrast paragraphs of Iranian EFL university students. Linguistic Online. Retrieved April, 2008 from                                                                               http:// www. linguistic-online.de/34-08/soleimani.html

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass,S; & Madden, C. (EDs), Input in second language acquisition (pp.235-256). Newyork. Newbury House.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seildlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (2008). The output hypothesis: its history and its future. A keynote speech in The 5^th Annual International Conference on ELT in Beijing. Retrieved March 1, 2008 from http://www.celea.org.cn/2008/keynote/ppt/merrill%20Swain.pdf.

Swain, M. & S. Lapkin (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-391.

Tarone, E., & Liu, G.Q. (1995). Situational context, variation, and second language acquisition theory. In G. Cook & B. Seidelhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp.107-124). Oxford: Oxford University Press.