"The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners' oral production" is a paper published by Ahmadian and Tavakoli in the year 2010 in the journal Language Teaching Research (Vol. 15, Issue 1). The following is a summary of the outcome, and possible implications for language testing research. Original paper is available at this link: Access original paper at Sage Publications.
The goal of the paper is to study the effects of careful online planning (COLP) and task repetition (TR) on oral production of EFL learners' oral production. Planning time was operationalised as COLP and was studied against pressurized online planning (POLP). TR was operationalised as with and without repetition (+TR and -TR) conditions. COLP normally requires more time to complete a task, as there is no restriction to the amount of time that can be used to complete a task.
The results of the experiment showed that COLP has been successfully operationalised. That is, learners who used COLP used more time in completing the task than those learners who used POLP.
COLP produced more error-free clauses and correct verb forms than POLP group. Therefore, the conclusion is that COLP enhances accuracy of EFL learners' oral production.
COLP learners have outperformed POLP learners n terms of descriptive and inferential measures of complexity. Therefore, the conclusion is that COLP enhances complexity of EFL learners' oral production.
POLP group (-TR) produced more syllables per minute than COLP (-TR) group. Therefore, COLP causes disfluency in EFL learners' oral production. Also, Task repetition has positive effect on fluency.
Task repetition assists complexiy of EFL learners oral production. Both measures of complexity were higher in +TR condition than -TR condition.
Simultaneous use of COLP and +TR in learning tasks showed the following effects on accuracy, complexity and fluency. COLP +TR group produced more error-free clauses and correct verb forms than all other groups. Also, complex language was produced by learners performing narrative tasks in both measures of complexity.
Two interesting findings:
1. COLP +TR has outperformed all other groups in terms of complexity measures.
2. Engaging in COLP resulted in a degree of disfluency. But COLP +TR condition learners exceeded POLP _TR condition learners' fluency in both measures of fluency.
Implications for Testing
In learning research, it is easy to operationalise careful online planning. One could give enough time to complete the task. But in testing, we cannot provide unlimited time for planning because of constraints offered by testing context. Therefore, though COLP supports eliciting best performance, we cannot practice it in testing as it is. But we can increase or decrease the amount of time provided in some testing contexts. For example, in computer delivered tests, timed provision of planning time can be adjusted or varied according to specifications previously set by the test designer. Today most standardised tests provide planning time for fairness' sake. Test designers ought to go beyond this and provide research-based, sufficient amounts of planning time, and make sure that test-takers make use of it for planning performance. This is important.
Likewise, task repetition cannot be applied in testing, since it affects validity and readily encourages 'preparation' negatively. But test designers can select tasks that have specific characteristics that can encourage particular test strategies and processes we want test-takers to use in a test. This is very much possible and advisable. Especially in classroom-based tests of oral proficiency, teacher can do this with a bit of careful planning and thought.
 |
| Oral Proficiency Interview |
The goal of the paper is to study the effects of careful online planning (COLP) and task repetition (TR) on oral production of EFL learners' oral production. Planning time was operationalised as COLP and was studied against pressurized online planning (POLP). TR was operationalised as with and without repetition (+TR and -TR) conditions. COLP normally requires more time to complete a task, as there is no restriction to the amount of time that can be used to complete a task.
The results of the experiment showed that COLP has been successfully operationalised. That is, learners who used COLP used more time in completing the task than those learners who used POLP.
COLP produced more error-free clauses and correct verb forms than POLP group. Therefore, the conclusion is that COLP enhances accuracy of EFL learners' oral production.
COLP learners have outperformed POLP learners n terms of descriptive and inferential measures of complexity. Therefore, the conclusion is that COLP enhances complexity of EFL learners' oral production.
POLP group (-TR) produced more syllables per minute than COLP (-TR) group. Therefore, COLP causes disfluency in EFL learners' oral production. Also, Task repetition has positive effect on fluency.
Task repetition assists complexiy of EFL learners oral production. Both measures of complexity were higher in +TR condition than -TR condition.
Simultaneous use of COLP and +TR in learning tasks showed the following effects on accuracy, complexity and fluency. COLP +TR group produced more error-free clauses and correct verb forms than all other groups. Also, complex language was produced by learners performing narrative tasks in both measures of complexity.
Two interesting findings:
1. COLP +TR has outperformed all other groups in terms of complexity measures.
2. Engaging in COLP resulted in a degree of disfluency. But COLP +TR condition learners exceeded POLP _TR condition learners' fluency in both measures of fluency.
Implications for Testing
In learning research, it is easy to operationalise careful online planning. One could give enough time to complete the task. But in testing, we cannot provide unlimited time for planning because of constraints offered by testing context. Therefore, though COLP supports eliciting best performance, we cannot practice it in testing as it is. But we can increase or decrease the amount of time provided in some testing contexts. For example, in computer delivered tests, timed provision of planning time can be adjusted or varied according to specifications previously set by the test designer. Today most standardised tests provide planning time for fairness' sake. Test designers ought to go beyond this and provide research-based, sufficient amounts of planning time, and make sure that test-takers make use of it for planning performance. This is important.
Likewise, task repetition cannot be applied in testing, since it affects validity and readily encourages 'preparation' negatively. But test designers can select tasks that have specific characteristics that can encourage particular test strategies and processes we want test-takers to use in a test. This is very much possible and advisable. Especially in classroom-based tests of oral proficiency, teacher can do this with a bit of careful planning and thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment