Investigating the Effect of TBLT Approach on Undergraduates Oral Production Via Ismart Platform
Abstract
language teaching (TBLT) Approach in enhancing English as a Foreign Language (EFL) oral production is crucial. This study, conducted
over 10 weeks, aimed to assess changes in EFL undergraduates oral production, specifically in terms of complexity, accuracy, and fluency
(CAF), following Ismart TBLT instruction. Additionally, the study investigated the evolving relationships among these CAF components, with
repeated measures and correlation analyses used to evaluate the data. The findings revealed a significant improvement in the learners speech
rate and the accuracy of their utterances.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
[1] Abrams, Zsuzsanna Ittzes. 2003. The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. The Modern Language Journal 87(2). 157167.
[2] Albarqi, Ghadah & Parvaneh Tavakoli. 2023. The effects of proficiency level and dual-task condition on L2 self-monitoring behavior.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 45(1). 212233.
[3] Baralt, Melissa. 2014. Task complexity and task sequencing in traditional versus online language classes. In Mellisa Baralt, Roger Gilabert & Peter Robinson (eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning, 59122.
[4] London & New York: Bloomsbury Academic. Bygate, Martin. 2016. Sources, developments and directions of task-based language
teaching. Language Learning Journal 44(4). 381400.
[5] Chen, Kate Tzu-Ching. 2021. The effects of technology-mediated TBLT on enhancing the speaking abilities of university students in a
collaborative EFL learning environment. Applied Linguistics Review 12(2). 331352.
[6] Chong, Sin Wang & Hayo Reinders. 2020. Technology-mediated task-based language teaching: A qualitative research synthesis. Language, Learning & Technology 24(3). 7086.
[7] Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences, 2nd edn. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[8] De Jong, Nel & Charles A. Perfetti. 2011. Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and
proceduralization. Language and learning 61(2). 533568.
[9] De Jong, Nivja H., Margarita P. Steinel, Arjen Florijn, Rob Schoonen & Jan H. Hulstijn. 2012. Linguistic skills and speaking fluency in
a second language. Applied PsychoLinguistics 34. 893916.
[10] more developmentally based measures of second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 35(5). 607614.
[11] Leonard, Karen Ruth & Christine E. Shea. 2017. L2 speaking development during study abroad: Fluency, accuracy, complexity, and underlying cognitive factors. The Modern Language Journal 101. 179193.
[12] Levelt, Willem J. M. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation, vol. 1. Cambridge: MIT Press.
[13] Li, Cha & Lawrence Jun Zhang. 2023. The development of accuracy and fluency in second language (L2) speaking related to self-efficacy through online scaffolding: A latent growth curve modeling analysis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 52(5). 13711395.
[14] Long, Michael. 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In William C. Ritchie & Tej K. Bhatia (eds.),
Handbook of second language acquisition, 413468. New York: Academic Press.
[15] Long, Michael. 2015. Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. London & England: Willey. McManus, Kevin,
Rosamond Mitchell & Nicole Tracy-Ventura. 2021. A longitudinal study of advanced learners linguistic development before, during,
and after study abroad. Applied Linguistics 42(1). 136163.
[16] Norris, John M. & Lourdes Ortega. 2009. Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity.
Applied Linguistics 30(4). 555578.
[17] Pallotti, Gabriele. 2009. CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics 30(4). 590601.
[18] Patanasorn, Chomraj. 2010. Effects of procedural content and task repetition on accuracy and fluency in an EFL context. Unpublished
PhD dissertation: Northern
[19] Robinson, Peter. 1997. Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19(2). 223247.
[20] Robinson, Peter. 2001. Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics 22(1). 2757.
[21] Skehan, Peter. 2009. Modeling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics
30. 510532.
[22] Skehan, Peter. 2014. Limited attentional capacity, second language performance, and task-based pedagogy. In Peter Skehan (ed.),
Processing perspectives on task performance, 211, 211260.
[23] Skehan, Peter, Pauline Foster & Sabrina Shum. 2016. Ladders and snakes in second language fluency. International Review of Applied
Linguistics in Language Teaching 54. 97111.
[24] Smith, Bryan & Marta Gonzlez-Lloret. 2021. Technology-meidated task-based language teaching: A research agenda. Language Teaching 54(4). 518534.
[25] Tavakoli, Parvaneh & Pauline Foster. (2011). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning 61(1). 3772.
[26] Rod Ellis (ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language, 11, 239273. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[27] Van der Zwaard, Rose & Anne Bannink. 2016. Nonoccurrence of negotiation of meaning in task-based synchronous computer-mediated
communication. The Modern Language Journal 100(3). 625640.
[28] Westbrook, Carolyn, Lida Baker & Chris Sowton. 2019. Unlock 2: Reading, writing & critical thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[29] Willis, Jane. 1996. A framework for task-based teaching. Harlow & England: Longman.
[30] Willis, David & Jane Willis. 2007. Doing task-based teaching: A practical guide to task-based teaching for ELT training courses and
practising teachers. Oxford & England: Oxford University Press.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18686/neet.v2i5.4629
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
