SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 37 - Sayı: 1

The Effects of Task Condition on L2 Oral Performance: Exploring Complexity Measures

Ödev Koşullarının İkinci Dil Performansına Etkileri: Karmaşıklık Ölçütlerinin İncelenmesi

Ayşen TUZCU
Şebnem YALÇIN
Pages
25–42
Publication Date
2020-06-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Most studies measured only subordination and overall complexity and eschewed clausal and phrasal level complexity (Bulté & Housen, 2012).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Syntactic complexity has been used as a dependent variable in studies investigating the effects of task features.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Most studies measured only subordination and overall complexity and eschewed clausal and phrasal level complexity (Bulté & Housen, 2012).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings were discussed in the light of the syntactic complexity measures, the nature of the task, and L2 proficiency.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2012 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Çevrimiçi planlama · sözdizimsel karmaşıklık · ikinci dilde sözlü performans

Abstract

Syntactic complexity has been used as a dependent variable in studies investigating the effects of task features. Most studies measured only subordination and overall complexity and eschewed clausal and phrasal level complexity (Bulté & Housen, 2012). The present study investigated how the selection of syntactic complexity measures as well as specific task designs affect L2 oral performance. The study analyzed the oral narratives of 64 university-level participants in two groups which differed in terms of online planning opportunities in task demands. Syntactic complexity was assessed with four measures focusing on the supraclausal, clausal, and phrasal levels. The results did not show any statistically significant differences between the two groups. The findings were discussed in the light of the syntactic complexity measures, the nature of the task, and L2 proficiency.

Özet

Sözdizimsel karmaşıklık, ödev özelliklerinin etkilerini incelemek üzere çeşitli çalışmalarda bağımlı değişken olarak kullanılmıştır. Önceki çalışmaların büyük bir çoğunluğunda genel karmaşıklık ve yan tümceleme karmaşıklığı incelenmiş olup, söz öbeği karmaşıklığı araştırılmamıştır (Bulté & Housen, 2012). Bu çalışma, sözdizimsel karmaşıklık ölçülerinin seçimi ve ödev tasarımının ikinci dil öğrenenlerin sözlü performanslarını nasıl etkilediğini incelemiştir. Çalışmada çevrimiçi planlama fırsatlarına göre iki gruba ayrılmış 64 üniversite öğrencisinin sözlü olarak anlattıkları sözel hikayelere bakılmıştır. Sözdizimsel karmaşıklık; tümce, yantümce ve söz öbeği karmaşıklıklarını gösteren dört farklı ölçüt ile incelenmiştir. Çalışmanın sonucunda iki grup arasında istatiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark gözlemlenmemiştir. Sonuçlar; kullanılan sözdizimsel karmaşıklık ölçüleri, çalışmada kullanılan ödevin özellikleri ve katılımcıların ikinci dildeki yeterlilikleri göz önünde bulundurularak tartışılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

TUZCU, A., YALÇIN, Ş. (2020). The Effects of Task Condition on L2 Oral Performance: Exploring Complexity Measures. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi, Cilt: 37 - Sayı: 1, 25–42. https://ajindex.com/articles/43248

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

  1. Ahmadian, M. J., & Tavakoli, M. (2010). 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.
  2. Ahmadian, M. J., Tavakoli, M., & Dastjerdi, H. V. (2015). The combined effects of online planning and task structure on complexity, accuracy and fluency of L2 speech. The Language Learning Journal, 43(1), 41-56.
  3. Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5-35. Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (eds.). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 21–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2018). Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Individual pathways and emerging group trends. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28, 147–164.
  4. De Clercq, B., & Housen, A. (2017). A cross-linguistic perspective on syntactic complexity in L2 development: syntactic elaboration and diversity. The Modern Language Journal, 101(2), 315–334.
  5. Cumming, G. (2012). Understanding the new statistics. Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and Meta-Analysis. New York, NY: Routledge. Ellis, R. (1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style in the use of past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 12-20.
  6. Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 3- 34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 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. 167–92). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 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., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 354-375.
  7. Heaton, J. B. (1966). Composition through pictures. Essex: Longman. Heaton, J. B. (1975). Beginning composition through pictures. London: Longman. Housen, A., & Simoens, H. (2016). Introduction: Cognitive perspectives on difficulty and complexity in L2 acquisition. S