The Impact of Pushed Output on Oral Proficiency of Iranian Efl Learners
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AbstractDue to lack of quantitative investigations that either support or refute Pushed Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1985), current study attempted to establish baseline quantitative data on impacts of pushed output on oral proficiency of Iranian EFL leamers.To achieve this purpose, 30 female EFL learners were selected from a whole population pool of 50 based on standard test of IELTS interview and were assigned into an experimental group and control group using a stratified random assignment procedure. The participants in experimental group received pushed output treatment while students in control group received non-pushed output treatment. The data were collected through IELTS interview for measuring oral proficiency in both pre-test and post-test. The statistical results reveal that experimental group outperformed control group in oral proficiency (pKey words: pushed output, oral proficiency, EFL learners1.1. IntroductionUp to present, all scholars in field of applied linguistic have been encouraged to study how second language learners can acquire oral proficiency. The demand for oral proficiency in English has been sharply increasing because of strong situation of English as a language for international communication.Many studies in second language acquisition have been carried out to investigate how input and output contribute to language learning development. The results of all studies can be interpreted both from language learning perspectives and teaching perspectives. Output, as its name appears, refers to language in which a learner produces and a listener perceives. In last two decades, researchers concentrated more on input rather than output in their studies as an element for acquiring second language. However, recently some researchers have focused more on role of output practice in acquiring language (e.g., Hanaoka, 2007; Izumi, 2003; Kormos, 2006; Swain, 1995, 2005).The understanding and definition of pushed output, for most part, is grounded in Swain' data collection from a Canadian French immersion program. Swain (1985,1995) mentioned that immersion program in Canada proved that comprehensible input alone was insufficient to ensure that learners achieved language acquisition. Her observation showed that immersion students achieved near-native-like second language (L2) comprehension but they did not achieve near-native-like L2 production abilities.Regarding what contributing factors can assist language learners to develop their oral proficiency, and scarcity of empirical studies that support or rebut Pushed Output Hypothesis (POH) (Swain, 1985); specifically, this study aims at examining impact of Pushed Output (PO) on oral proficiency of Iranian EFL learners.1.2. Pushed Output HypothesisAs mentioned above, Merill Swain (1985) disregarded input as playing a significant role for language acquisition. Her observation on immersion program revealed that production was necessary to acquisition. Hence, Swain (1985) proposed a concept and termed Pushed Output Hypothesis (POH). According to Swain (1985), PO is output that extends linguistic repertoire of learner as he or she attempts to create precisely and appropriately desired meaning (p. 252). Swain (1985) also notes that when learners are pushed to engage in production, they have chance to deliver messages which are precise, coherent and appropriate (p. 249). In other words, L2 learners are pushed to modify their initial production in order to facilitate native speakers' understanding by modifying their linguistic output in a more targetlike way (Makey, 2012). Izumi (2002) notes the importance of output in learning may be construed in terms of learners' active deployment of their cognitive resources (p. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».