1 / 20

The Impact of Two Modes of Input and Task Repetition on Story Retellings

The Impact of Two Modes of Input and Task Repetition on Story Retellings. Sachiyo Nishikawa Lancaster University, UK PhD student s.nishikawa@lancaster.ac.uk. The purpose of this study. To investigate the impact of oral vs. textual input and task repetition on L2 speech production.

solana
Download Presentation

The Impact of Two Modes of Input and Task Repetition on Story Retellings

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Impact of Two Modes of Input and Task Repetition on Story Retellings Sachiyo Nishikawa Lancaster University, UK PhD student s.nishikawa@lancaster.ac.uk

  2. The purpose of this study To investigate the impact of oral vs. textual input and task repetition on L2 speech production. • The role of oral vs. textual input: a lack of research … • L2 listening and reading comprehension (Lund, 1991) • Data: L1 Written output • Findings: Readers -> details, Listeners -> main ideas • Fundamental differences between oral and textual input • Processing of input (single word processing model, Martin & Wo, 2005: 384) Heard word Written word Phonological input <Phoneme> Orthographic input <grapheme> Semantic system Phonological output <Phoneme> Orthography- Phonology Conversion Speech

  3. Task repetition • Types of repetition 1. Simultaneous repetition e.g. Shadowing (Kurz, 1992; Murphey, 2001) 2. Overlapping repetition e.g. A-> A+B -> A+B+C-> A+B+C+D…. 3. Interactive repetition e.g. Poster carousel (Lynch & Maclean, 1994) 4. Delayed repetition e.g. Week 10 (Bygate, 2001), Week 1(Gass et al., 1999) • The impact of task repetition “Greater capacity to bring together and structure relevant information, greater speed of access, greaterability to attend to their performance” (Bygate, 2007)

  4. Rationale summarised • Oral input provides a trigger for such phonological information, • but textual input DOES NOT provide this trigger. • Through task repetition, a capacity for processingof inputcould increase. Research Questions 1. What impact does oral input have on speech production compared to textual input? 2. Does task repetition have an overall effect on speech production? Hypotheses: Oral input -> greater fluency in speech production than textual input. Task repetition -> greater fluency, complexity, accuracy on second performance. Task repetition -> differently affect the impact of oral and textual input (i.e. interaction).

  5. Methodology • Participants • 2nd year Japanese sociology undergraduates (N=24) • 18 males, 6 females • Study design • Participants grouped based on a 3000 word vocabulary test (Nation, 2001), 2 groups with the comparable vocab. level • Time 1 • Time 2 Task repetition (one week later) Oral input Group 1 (N=12) Textual input Group 2 (N=12) Reordering pictures Story retelling(×4 sub tasks )

  6. Tasks & Materials • Story retelling with visual aids (sequenced pictures) 1. Dog’s story 2. Businessman’s story DP1 DP2 BP1 BP2 4 sub tasks Part 1 Part 2 Part 1 Part 2

  7. Data & Analysis procedures • Story retelling recorded, transcribed (Soundscriber/Transcriber) • Segmented into AS-units (Foster et. al, 2000) • Utterances and pauses measured – Praat (www.praat.org) • cut-off = 0.25 sec. (Goldman- Eisler, 1968; Towell, 1987) • 8 measures of fluency, complexity and accuracy (described in detail below) • 4 selected for statistical analysis • Computed the overall scores (i.e. mean scores of four sub tasks) • Inter-rater reliability tests for complexity and accuracy measures • Agreement: 94% (complexity), 84% (accuracy)

  8. Measures

  9. Statistical analysis

  10. RMs MANOVA results to select a speech output measure • *p < .05.

  11. RMs MANOVA results to select a pause measure • *p < .05.

  12. Selected four measures

  13. Results(Descriptive Statistics of four selected measures)

  14. RMs MANOVA Results • *p < .05.

  15. RMs MANOVA Results(Possible Trade-off) • *p < .05.

  16. Summary of results Complex trade-off? Familiar information ---> More F & A, not C (Foster & Skehan ,1996; Skehan & Foster, 1997)

  17. Discussion & Conclusion Model input(oral / textual) Main findings Task repetition • + familiarcontext • + familiar task + focus on linguistic needs Gains in fluency & accuracy Oral input may promote fluency on theAR level.

  18. Limitations and further research • Limitations • Small sample size (N=12 for each group) • English oral proficiency • Further research • Different oral proficiency level: • intermediate and advanced level of speakers • + input (oral/textual) & task repetition vs. - input(visual) & task repetition • Further analysis • Qualitative analysis: interviews To be continued…….

  19. Thank you! Sachiyo Nishikawa s.nishikawa@lancaster.ac.uk

  20. References • Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David (2008). Praat: doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.0.35) [Computer program]. Retrieved September 23, 2008, from http://www.praat.org/ • Bygate, M. (2001) Effect of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (eds.) Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing: 23-48. Harlow, England; New York: Longman. • Bygate, M. (2007, January) Linking empirical research to the development of language pedagogy: the case of task repetition.Paper presented at the Language Learning Pedagogy Research Group, Lancaster University, UK. • Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1996) The influence of planning and task type on second language performances. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299-323. • Foster, P., Tonkyn, A. & Wigglesworth, G. (2000) Measuring spoken language : A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21 (3), 354-375. • Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M.J. & Fernandez-Garcia, M. (1999) The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49 (4), 549-581. • Goldman- Eisler, F. (1968) Psycholinguistics: Experiments in Spontaneous Speech. New York: Academic Press. • Kurz, I. (1992) ‘Shadowing’ exercises in interpreter training. In Dollerup, C. & Loddegaar, A. (eds.) Teaching Translation and Interpreting: Training, Talent and Experience: 245-250. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. • Lund, R.J. (1991) A comparison of second language listening and reading comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 75 (2), 196-204. • Lynch, T. & Maclean, J. (1994) Poster carousel. In Bailey, K. and Savage, L. (eds.) New Ways of Teaching Speaking: 108-109. TESOL. • Martin, R.C. & Wu, D.H. (2005) The cognitive neuropsychology of language. In Lamberts, K. & Goldstone, R.L. (eds.) Handbook of Cognition: 382-404. London: SAGE. • Murphey, T. (2001) Exploring conversational shadowing. Language Teaching Research, 5 (2), 18-155. • Nation, I.S.P. (2001) Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. • Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (1997) Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1 (3), 185-212 • Tavakoli, P & Skehan, P. (2005) Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In Ellis, R. (ed.) Planning and Task Performance in Second Language: 239-273. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. • Towell, R. (1987) Approaches to the analysis of the oral language development of the advanced learner. In Coleman, J.A. & Towell, R. (eds.) The Advanced Language Learner: 157-181. London: C.I.L.T.

More Related