THE EFFECTS OF REPETITION OF DIFFERENT TASK TYPES ON THE FLUENCY, COMPLEXITY AND ACCURACY OF TURKISH EFL LEARNERS’ ORAL PRODUCTION

Öz

“Underlying most current research in SLA is the assumption that some level of attention to form is needed for language acquisition to take place” (Radwan, 2005, p.70). It can be done through task design (Fotos & Ellis, 1991), pre-task and post-task activities (Doughty, 1991) and consciousness-raising activities (Willis, 1996). The main purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of repetition of different task types on fluency, accuracy and complexity of participants. Three task types (personal task, narrative task and decision-making task) were used in this research and the effects of repetition of these three task types on the development of participants’ oral production were studied. This study was conducted with 60 EFL students (males and females) who were studying ELT and Medicine at Ataturk University and ELL in Manchester Language School. .To examine the effects of repetition of different task types 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 findings of the study indicate that greatest level of improvement on fluency obtained through repeating the narrative task and development in accuracy of participants gained through the repeating of personal task.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Task
• Task types
• Task repetition
• Fluency
• Accuracy
• Complexity

Kaynakça

1. Berwick, R. (in press). Towards an educational framework for teacher-led tasks in English as a foreign language. In C. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Task-based language teaching. Clevedon, Avon, England: Multilingual Matters.
2. Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising the development of second language learners. In J. Willis and D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 136-146) London: Macmillan.
3. Bygate, M. (1999). Task as the context for the framing, re-framing and un-framing of language. System, 27, 33-48.
4. Bygate, M. (2001). Speaking. In R. Carter and D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 14-20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Bygate, M. & Samuda, V. (2005). Integrative planning through the use of task repetition. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.37-74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
6. 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.
7. Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task-based performance. In R. Ellis. (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.3-34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
8. Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 229-323.

9. Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1999). The influence of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3(3), 215-247.
10. Foster, P. (1999). Task-based learning and pedagogy. ELT Journal, 53(1), 69-70.
11. Foster, P., & Skehan, P. 1996. The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299-324.
12. Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M., & Fernandez, M. (1999). The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49, 549-581.
13. Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1985). Task variation and non-native/non-native negotiation of meaning. In S. Cass and C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House
14. Heaton, J.B. (1975). Beginning composition through pictures. London: Longman.
15. Housen, A. and Kuiken, F. (2006) Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency in Second Language Acquisition. Applied Linguistics .461–473.
16. Long, M. H.(1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126-141.
17. Nunan, D. (2005). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Nunan, D. (2006). Task-based language teaching in the Asia context: Defining ‘task’. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3) 12-18.
19. Nunn, R. (2006). Designing holistic units for task-based teaching. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3), 69-93.
20. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing condition on narrative retelling. Language Learning, 49(1), 93-120.
21. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. pp. 185-211.
22. Skehan, P. (2003) Focus on form, tasks and methodology. Computer assisted language learning. Vol, 16. Pp.391-416
23. 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.