دانشگاه الزهرا

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات25
تعداد شماره‌ها915
تعداد مقالات7,521
تعداد مشاهده مقاله12,223,343
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله8,644,630
Aaj, Ali, Maftoon, Parviz, Siyyari, Masood. (1402). Effects of Pre-task Task Planning, Online Planning, and Combined Pre-Ttask and Online Planning on Young Learners’ Oral Production. جلوه هنر, 7(3), 63-89. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2022.36007.1487
Ali Aaj; Parviz Maftoon; Masood Siyyari. "Effects of Pre-task Task Planning, Online Planning, and Combined Pre-Ttask and Online Planning on Young Learners’ Oral Production". جلوه هنر, 7, 3, 1402, 63-89. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2022.36007.1487
Aaj, Ali, Maftoon, Parviz, Siyyari, Masood. (1402). 'Effects of Pre-task Task Planning, Online Planning, and Combined Pre-Ttask and Online Planning on Young Learners’ Oral Production', جلوه هنر, 7(3), pp. 63-89. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2022.36007.1487
Aaj, Ali, Maftoon, Parviz, Siyyari, Masood. Effects of Pre-task Task Planning, Online Planning, and Combined Pre-Ttask and Online Planning on Young Learners’ Oral Production. جلوه هنر, 1402; 7(3): 63-89. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2022.36007.1487

Effects of Pre-task Task Planning, Online Planning, and Combined Pre-Ttask and Online Planning on Young Learners’ Oral Production

Journal of Language Horizons
مقاله 3، دوره 7، شماره 3 - شماره پیاپی 17، اسفند 2023، صفحه 63-89    اصل مقاله (404.59 K)
نوع مقاله: Research article
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/lghor.2022.36007.1487
نویسندگان
Ali Aaj1؛ Parviz Maftoon* 2؛ Masood Siyyari3
1Department of English, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran..
2Department of English, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
3Department of English, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده
Exploring the effects of task planning as an implementational variable on second language (L2) performance has witnessed a noticeable growth over the past years (Ellis, 2005a; Skehan, 2014b). Building on this bulk of research, this study aimed at investigating the effects of three task planning conditions, i.e., pre-task planning (PTP), online planning (OLP), and the combination of pre-task and online planning (PTP+OLP), on young learners’ oral complexity, accuracy, and fluency. The participants were 60 EFL learners aged between 10 and 12 who were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions in the study, including the no planning (NP) condition (n = 15 in each group). The participants were asked to watch a short silent video and narrate its story. The results of the statistical analyses indicate that while PTP increases fluency, OLP and OLP+PTP improve both accuracy and syntactic complexity. The findings suggest that teachers of young L2 learners should utilize the promising potentials of different task planning conditions to channel learners’ language production toward more fluent, accurate, and complex production.
کلیدواژه‌ها
accuracy؛ complexity؛ fluency؛ narrative tasks؛ task planning
عنوان مقاله [English]
تاثیرات برنامه ریزی قبل از انجام درسکار، برنامه ریزی در حین انجام درسکار و تلفیق برنامه ریزی قبل و در حین انجام درسکار بر پیچیدگی، صحت و روان بودن تولیدات شفاهی کودکان فراگیر زبان انگلیسی
نویسندگان [English]
علی عاج1؛ پرویز مفتون2؛ مسعود سیری3
1گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشکده ادبیات، علوم انسانی و اجتماعی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد علوم و تحقیقات تهران، ایران
2گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشکده ادبیات علوم انسانی و اجتماعی، دانشگاه آزاد واحد علوم و تحقیقات تهران، ایران
3گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشکده ادبیات علوم انسانی و اجتماعی، دانشگاه آزاد واحد علوم و تحقیقات تهران، ایران.
چکیده [English]
بررسی تاثیرات نقش برنامه ریزی به عنوان یک متغیر اجرایی برای انجام درسکار بر کیفیت تولید زبان دوم شاهد رشد چشمگیری در سالهای گذشته بوده است (الیس، 2005؛ اسکین، 2014). با تکیه بر نتایج تحقیقات قبلی، هدف مطالعه ی پیش رو بررسی تاثیرات سه نوع برنامه ریزی شامل برنامه ریزی قبل از انجام درسکار، برنامه ریزی در حین انجام درسکار و تلفیق برنامه ریزی قبل و در حین انجام درسکار بر پیچیدگی دستوری، صحت و روان بودن تولیدات شفاهی فراگیران خردسال بوده است. شرکت کنندگان 60 کودک 10 تا 12 ساله ی فراگیر زبان انگلیسی بودند که به صورت تصادفی در یکی از چهار گروه تحقیق از جمله گروه کنترل قرار گرفتند. از شرکت کنندگان خواسته شد تا یک ویدیو کوتاه صامت را دیده و داستان آن را نقل کنند. نتایج بدست آمده نشان می دهد که برنامه ریزی قبل از انجام درسکار منجر به روانتر شدن گفتار شده و همچنین برنامه ریزی در حین انجام درسکار و تلفیق برنامه ریزی قبل و در حین انجام درسکار پیچیدگی دستوری و صحت گفتار را همزمان بهبود می بخشد. بر اساس یافته های این تحقیق به معلمان کودکان فراگیر زبان دوم  پیشنهاد می گردد تا با بهره بردن از تاثیرات مثبت متنوع نقش برنامه ریزی در انجام درسکارها تولیدات شفاهی زبان آموزان خود را به لحاظ پیچیدگی دستوری، صحت و روان بودن گفتار تقویت کنند.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
برنامه ­ریزی درسکار, درسکارهای داستانی, پیچیدگی, صحت, روانی گفتار
مراجع
  1. Ahmadian, M. J. (2012). The relationship between working memory capacity and oral L2 performance under task-based careful online planning condition. TESOL Quarterly, 46(1), 165-75. http://doi.10.1002/tesq.8
  2. Ahmadian, M. J., & Tavakoli, M. (2011). The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 35- 59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810383329 
  3. Ahmadian, M. J., & Tavakoli, M. (2014). Investigating what second language learners do and monitor under careful online planning conditions. Canadian Modern Language Review, 70(1), 50-75. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.1769 
  4. Ahmadian, M., Tavakoli, M., & Vahid Dastjerdi, H. (2015). The combined effects of online planning and task structure on complexity, accuracy and fluency of L2 speech. Language Learning Journal, 43(1), 41-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2012.681795
  5. Baleghizadeh, S., & Shahri, M. N. (2017). The effect of online planning, strategic planning and rehearsal across two proficiency levels. The Language Learning Journal, 45(2), 171-184. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2013.808258 
  6. 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). Longman.
  7. Bui, G., & Huang, Z. (2018). L2 fluency as influenced by content familiarity and planning: Performance, measurement, and pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 22(1), 94-114. http://doi:10.1177/1362168816656650
  8. Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 367-383. http://doi:10.1017/S0272263100008391
  9. Ellis, R. (1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 1-20. http://doi:10.1017/S0272263100006483
  10. Ellis, R. (2005a). Planning and task performance in a second language. John Benjamins.
  11. Ellis, R. (2005b). Planning and task-based research: theory and research. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task-performance in a second language (pp. 3-34). John Benjamins.
  12. Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity and accuracy in l2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 474-509. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp042 
  13. Elder, C., & Iwashita, N. (2005). Planning for test performance: Does it make a
  14. difference? In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 221-238). John Benjamins.
  15. Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2005). The effects of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task-performance in a second language (pp. 167-192). John Benjamins.
  16. Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299-324. http://doi:10.1017/S0272263100015047
  17. Foster, P., Tonkin, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21, 354-375. http://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.3.354
  18. Fujita, T. (2011). Does planning time improve learners' spontaneous performance? ARELE: Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan, 22, 329-344.
  19. García Mayo, M. D. P. (2018). Child task-based interaction in EFL settings: Research and challenges. International Journal of English Studies, 18(2), 119-143.
  20. Kim, Y. (2013). Effects of pretask modeling on attention to form and question development. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 8-35.
  21. Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. MIT Press.
  22. Li, L., Chen, J., & Sun, L. (2015). The effects of different lengths of pretask planning time on L2 learners' oral test performance. TESOL Quarterly, 49(1), 38-66. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.159 
  23. Li, S., & Fu, M. (2016). Strategic and unpressured within-task planning and their associations with working memory. Language Teaching Research, 22(2), 230-253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816684367 
  24. Mackey, A., & Oliver, R. (2002). Interactional feedback and children’s L2 development. System, 30(4), 459-­­­477. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0346-251x(02)00049-0 
  25. Mackey, A., & Sachs, R. (2012). Older learners in SLA research: A first look at working memory, feedback, and L2 development. Language Learning, 62(3), 704-740. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00649.x 
  26. Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 52-83. http://doi:10.1017/S0272263198001041
  27. Mochizuki, N., & Ortega, L. (2008). Balancing communication and grammar in beginning-level foreign language classrooms: A study of guided planning and relativization. Language Teaching Research, 12(1), 11-37.
  28. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555-578.
  29. Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109-148. http://doi.10.1017/S0272263199001047
  30. Ortega, L. (2005). What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pretask planning. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 77-110). John Benjamins.
  31. Philp, J., Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2006). The impact of planning time on children’s task-based interactions. System, 34, 547-565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.08.004 
  32. Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287-318). Cambridge University Press.
  33. Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: A review of studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2005.43.1.1 
  34. Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38-62. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.1.38
  35. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.
  36. Skehan, P. (2009). Modeling second language performance: integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4) 510-32. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047 
  37. Skehan, P. (2014a). The context for researching a processing perspective on task performance. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 1-26). John Benjamins.
  38. Skehan, P. (2014b). Processing perspectives on task performance. John Benjamins.
  39. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185-211. http://doi:10.1177/136216889700100302
  40. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93-120. http://doi.10.1111/1467-9922.00071
  41. Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (2008). Complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis in task-based performance: A meta-analysis of the Ealing research. In Van Daele, S., Housen, A., Kuiken, F., Pierrard, M. & Vedder, I. (Eds.). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language use, learning, & teaching, (pp. 207-226). Contact Forum.
  42. Stroud, R. (2019). The effects of strategic planning and rehearsal on second language group discussion task performance. The Language Learning Journal, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2019.1610475 
  43. Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). ‘Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing’. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task- performance in a second language. John Benjamins.
  44. VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to content and form in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287-301.
  45. Wang, Z. (2014). On-line time pressure manipulations: L2 speaking performance under five types of planning and repetition conditions. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 27-62). John Benjamins.
  46. Wang, Z., & Skehan, P. (2014). Structure, lexis, and time perspective: Influences on task performance. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 155­-186). John Benjamins.
  47. Wendel, J. (1997). Planning and second language narrative production [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Temple University.
  48. Wigglesworth, G. (1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14(1), 85-106.
  49. 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. http://doi.10.1093/applin/24.1.1
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 489
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 119


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب