Second Language Acquisition Presentation[1]

8/8/2019 Second Language Acquisition Presentation[1]

1/36

Second Language

Acquisition


2/36

Article Title

Using Dictation toImprove

LanguageProficiency


3/36

AuthorDr. Mohammad

Rahimi,

Shiraz University


4/36

Sourcehttp://asian-efl- journal.com/March_0

8_mr.php


5/36

Dictation

testing device formeasuring

languageproficiency


6/36

Ex perimental Group ( E G)

Control Group (CG)showed improvement intheir performance on thewhole proficiency test .


7/36

E G showed improvement in all the components of the post-test grammar ,

vocabulary , reading andlistening comprehension .

CG improved in thevocabulary section only


8/36

Lado (1961)

- having very little value intesting the language.

- dictation cannot measure

any aspect of the language .


9/36

Harris (1965)

- rejects dictation- uneconomical and imprecise

technique of languagetesting.Somaratne (1957)

- considers it as just as test of


10/36

Stanfield (1985)

- rejects usingdictation as a test of foreign language

proficiency.


11/36

Proponents of dictation

advocate it as a gooddevice for measuring

language proficiency.Integrative language

proficiency tests such asTOEFE L


12/36

Oller and Streiff (1975)

believe that dictationtriggers the internalized

ex

pectancy grammar of thelearner.


13/36

Cartledge (1968)

- believes that dictation isnot a teaching device.

- It can merely helplearners have somepractice in oral

comprehension.


14/36


15/36

Sawyer and Silver (1961)

- dictation is primarily a learningex ercise and only secondarily atesting device.


16/36

Student s control of his

new language isproportionately that great.

Learn to listen, toconcentrate, to writefrom dictation.


17/36

Morris (1983)

- concludes that dictationis a technique - testing

techniques and as alearning activity.

- helps students developtheir accuracy.


18/36

Whitaker (1976)

- considers dictation as agood teaching device.

- An oral comprehension ,together with literacy

and ability to read.


19/36

Dictation may be found to

be both profitable forteaching and valid for

testing.

E g: Listening


20/36

Researchers believethat dictation can beutilized as a teachingtechnique.


21/36

Stanfield (1985)- mentions that since indictation the learnersgo through two cognitive- process

i.e s nthesis and


22/36

Jafarpur and Yamini (1993)claim that, Dictationallows the language

learner to bothcomprehend and produce

the language in the


23/36

dual-access processing the subjects alter andharmonize his perception,

conception andex pression.


24/36

believe in the priority of

listening to speaking inlanguage learning.

Meaning we should wait for thelanguage to which the learners

are ex

posed to be internalized


25/36

According to Alwright (1984)

and Lightbown (1983),teaching or learning techniquedoes not immediately show its

effects,so we should wait for sometime (the incubation period)to see the effect of teachingand learning in the learners

performance.


26/36

25 listening items selected

from Sharpe (1995) wereadded to it.

It was used as both pre-and post- tests to measurethe subjects overalllanguage proficiency.


27/36

Procedurethe conversation class, all the

subjects took the proficiencytest as the pre-test.

the listening comprehensionpart, there was no time limit for

the test.


28/36

Data analysis

The results of the test were subjectedto the following statistical procedures.

Two independent t-tests- difference between the mean scores- E G and CG on the pre-test as well

as post test.


29/36

A pair test is run to find:

The difference between the

mean of the scores on thefollowing pre- test and post-proficiency test for CG aswell as for the E G .


30/36


31/36


32/36

Instrumentation

The main instrumentation of

the study was Shiraz UniversityPlacement test , consisted of three sections:

grammar, vocabulary andreading comprehension items.


33/36

25 listening items selected from Sharpe(1995) were added to it. Although, thetest included 165 multiple- choice items(the test format was like TO EF L)It was used as both pre- and post- teststo measure the subjects overalllanguage proficiency.


34/36

1. Difference between

performance

2 . Different components

3. Scores on the wholepre- and post-test and theircomponents.


35/36

F inally, an ANOVA test was run for the meangains of the subjects in

the components of thepost- test.


36/36

Documents

Second Language Acquisition Presentation[1]