Huri Meltem BATURAY, Ayşegül DALOĞLU, Hatice TOKMAK SANCAR, Berrin DOĞUSOY

The impact of task type on oral performance of English language preparatory school students

Bu çalışmada, görsellerle sunulan anlatımsal, tanımsal ve tahminsel-kişisel reaksiyon task türlerinin orta seviye İngilizce hazırlık sınıfı öğrencilerinin oral performansları üzerindeki etkisi karşılaştırılmıştır. Çalışma Gazi Üniversitesi Yabancı Diller Öğretimi Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezinde, 85 öğrencinin katılımıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir.. Anlatımsal, tanımsal ve tahminsel kişisel reaksiyon task türlerinden birine göre değerlendirilen öğrencilerin sözlü sınav notları karşılaştırılmış ve konu ile ilgili daha derinlemesine bilgi toplamak amacıyla odak görüşme yöntemi uygulanmıştır. Sonuçlar, anlatımsal, tanımlayıcı ve tahminsel-kişisel reaksiyon gruplar arasında sözlü performans notları açısından önemli bir fark olmadığını göstermiştir. Fakat nitel veri, anlatımsal grup öğrencilerinin kendilerini değerlendirmeler sırasında daha sakin olduklarını ve kendilerini ifade etmekte konusunda daha özgür hissettiklerini ortaya koymuştur.

Görev türlerinin İngilizce hazırlık okulu öğrencilerinin sözlü performansları üzerine etkisi

In this study, the effects of narrative, descriptive and prediction-personal reaction task types with visuals on the oral performance of intermediate level English language learners were compared. The study was carried out at Gazi University Preparatory School, Research and Application Center for the Instruction of Foreign Languages with the participation of eighty five students. The students' oral exam marks based on the assessment of narrative, descriptive and prediction-personal reaction task types for each group were compared and focus-group interviews were carried out with the students in order to get in depth data on the issue. The results showed that there was no significant difference between the narrative, descriptive and prediction personal reaction task type groups in terms of oral performance scores. However, qualitative data showed that the narrative group students felt more relaxed and free to express themselves in the assessment sessions.

PDF

___

Alderson, J., Clapham, C., & Wall, D. (2001). Language test construction and evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Anglin, G. J. (1986). Effect of pictures on recall of written prose: How durable are picture effects? Paper presented at the Annual convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Las Vegas, NV. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 267 755)
Bygate, M. (1987). Speaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, B. & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. USA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Crisp, V. & Sweiry, E. (2006). Can a picture ruin a thousand words? The effects of visual resources in exam questions. Educational Research, 48( 2): 139 - 154.
Dunbar, N.E., Brooks, C.F. & Miller, T. K., (2006). Oral communication skills in higher education: using a performance-based evaluation rubric to assess communication skills. Innovative Higher Education, 31(2): 115-128.
Fulcher, G. & Marquez Reiter, R. (2003). Task difficulty in speaking tests. Language Testing, 20, 321-344.
Hingle, I. & Linington, V. (2002) English proficiency test: the oral component of a primary school. In Richards J.C. and Renandya, W.A. (2002), Eds. Methodology in Language Teaching. An Anthology of Current Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for Language Teachers (2nd Edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kennedy, J. M., (1974) A psychology of picture perception: Images and information. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rrueger, R. A. (1988). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Madsen, H. S. (1983). Techniques in testing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Marshall,C. & Rossman,G.B. (1999). Designing Qualitative Research (3rd Edition). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nakamura, Y. (1993). Measurement of Japanese college students' English Speaking ability in a classroom setting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, International Christian University, Tokyo.
Ollerenshaw, A, Aidman, E & Kidd, G. (1997) Is an illustration always worth ten thousand words? Effects of prior knowledge, learning style and multimedia illustrations on text comprehension. International Journal of Instructional Media, 24(3): 227-238.
Omaggio, A.C. (1979). Pictures and second language comprehension: Do they help? Foreign Language Annals, 12(2): 107-116.
Pawlikowska- Smith, G. (2002). Canadian language benchmarks 2000: Theoretical framework. Retrieved June 27, 2008 from http://www.language.ca/pdfs/final_theoreticalframework3 .pdf
Peng, C-Y. & Levin, J. R. (1979). Pictures and children's story recall: Some questions of durability. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 27(1): 39-44.
Schnotz, W. (2002). Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays, Educational Psychology Review, 14( 1): 101 - 120.
Skehan, P. and Foster, P. (1999), The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning 49(1): 93-120.
Skehan, P. (1998a). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (1998b). Processing perspectives to second language development, instruction, performance and assessment. Thames Valley Working Papers in Applied Linguistics 4, 70-88.
Struyven K., Dochy F. & Janssens F. (2005). Students' perceptions about evaluation and assessment in higher education: a review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30 (4): 331-347.
Taguchi, N. (2007). Task difficulty in oral speech act production. Applied Linguistics, 28(1): 113 - 135.