Impacto de la Producción Oral Inducida en la Producción Oral de los Estudiantes
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26817/16925777.773Palabras clave:
Hipótesis de la Producción Inducida, Producción Oral en la Segunda Lengua, Fluidez, Precisión, Procesamiento Semántico, Procesamiento SintácticoResumen
Con la llegada de las metodologías comunicativas, se hizo la promesa de desarrollar la fluidez y la precisión como objetivo para la enseñanza y el aprendizaje del inglés como idioma internacional. Sin embargo, esto no ocurrió (Richards, 2008). En un intento de igualar la competencia semántica de los estudiantes con la sintáctica, este estudio investiga el impacto de la hipótesis de la producción oral inducida de Swain (1985) en la producción oral de estudiantes de inglés como lengua extranjera de nivel intermedio bajo un enfoque de métodos mezclados. Los participantes fueron 16 estudiantes de inglés de grado séptimo de un colegio privado en Ibagué, Colombia que fueron asignados aleatoriamente a un grupo de producción y a uno de no-producción. Durante cinco semanas, el grupo de producción se expuso a actividades orales de producción inducida, mientras que el grupo de no-producción fue expuesto únicamente a actividades de comprensión. Los instrumentos cuantitativos y cualitativos para recolectar la información incluyeron pruebas de entrada y salida, grabaciones de audio, recuerdos provocados y entrevistas. Los resultados revelaron que aunque inducir a los estudiantes a realizar producción oral significativa no promueve una observación significativa de sus problemas lingüísticos en formas narrativas en pasado, los estudiantes pueden modificar más producción oral a través de actividades de producción inducida no correspondidas que de actividades bilaterales e igualar sus competencias semántica y sintáctica al involucrarse en ambos procesamientos. Adicionalmente, los estudiantes percibieron la producción oral inducida como un regulador afectivo en su producción oral y como un detonador de exposición a vocabulario, gramática y pronunciación de la lengua objeto.
Descargas
Referencias bibliográficas
Al-Jamal, N. (2014). An Investigation of the Effect of Incorporating Input Enhancement in Dictogloss Tasks to Teach English Grammar on the Development of ESL Female Learners' Grammatical Awareness. Arab World English Journal. Retrieved from https://www.awej.org/images/Theseanddissertation/Nadahamadllaljamal/131.pdf.pdf
Basterrechea, M., García, M., & Leeser, M. (2013). Pushed output and noticing in a dictogloss: task implementation in the CLIL classroom. Portalinguarum, 22, 7-22. Retrieved from http://www.ugr.es/~portalin/articulos/PL_numero22/1%20%20Maria%20Basterrecha.pdf
Button, G., & Lee, J. (1987). Talk and social organisation. Clevedon, United Kingdom: Multilangual Matters Ltd.
Byrne, S., & Jones, C. (2014). Pushed and non-pushed speaking tasks in an EAP context: what are the benefits for linguistic processing and accuracy? Studies about Languages, 24, 87- 97. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.sal.0.24.6366
Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches (4thed.). Thousands Oak, CA: SAGE Publications.
De la Fuente, M. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102001043
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21(2), 285-301. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199002077
García Mayo, M. (2002). The effectiveness of two form‐focused tasks in advanced EFL pedagogy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12, 156-175. https://doi.org/10.1111/1473-4192.t01-1-00029
Greene, J., & Caracelli, V. (1997). Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms. New Directions for Evaluation, 74. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1069
Hayashi, N. (n.d.). Reexamining the effect of output on second language acquisition. 宮崎公立大学人文学部紀要, 24(1), 213-230. Retrieved from https://miyazaki-mu.repo.nii.ac.jp/?action=repository_action_common_download&item_id=1092&item_no=1&attribute_id=18&file_no=1
Higgs, T., & Clifford, R. (1982). The push towards communication. In T. Higgs (Ed.), Curriculum, competence, and the foreign language teacher (pp. 57-59). Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company.
Izumi, S., (2002). Output, Input Enhancement, and the Noticing Hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 541-577. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102004023
Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does Output Promote No¬ticing and Second Language Acquisition? Tesol Quarter¬ly, 34(2), 239-278. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587952
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. London: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: issues and implications. New York: Longman.
Krashen, S. (1998). Comprehensible output. System, 26, 175-182. Retrieved from http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/articles/comprehensible_output.pdf. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(98)00002-5
Leeser, M. (2004). Learner Proficiency and Focus on Form during Collaborative Dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55-81.https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr134oa
Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of Form, Recasts, and Explicit Correction in Relation to Error Types and Learner Repair in Immersion Classrooms. Language Learning, 48(2), pp. 183-218. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00039
Mamaghani, H., & Birjandi, P. (2017). Oral Pushed Output: The Route to Long-term Grammatical Accuracy. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 36(1), 57-84.doi: 10.22099/jtls.2017.4044
Marsh, D. & Langé, G. (2000). Using Languages to Learn and Learning to Use Languages. Retrieved from http://clilcompendium.com/1uk.pdf
McDougald, J. (2009). The state of language and content instruction in Colombia. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 2(2), 44-48. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2009.2.2.15
Nation, I., & Newton, J. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL Listening and Speaking. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203891704
Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. ELT Journal, 47(3), 203-210. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/47.3.203
Rezvani, E. (2011). The effect of output requirement on the acquisition of grammatical collocations by Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(3), 674-682. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.2.3.674-682
Richards, J. (2008). Growing up with TESOL. English Teaching Forum, 1, 2-10.
Sadeghi, A., & Edalati, V. (2014).The impact of pushed output on accuracy and fluency of Iranian EFL learners' speaking. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 2(2), 51-72. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1127288.pdf
Shehadeh, A. (2003). Learner Output, Hypothesis Testing, and Internalizing Linguistic Knowledge. System, 31(2), 155-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(03)00018-6
Shuttleworth, M. (2009). Pretest-Posttest Designs. Retrieved from https://explorable.com/pretest-posttest-designs
Sitthitikul, P. (2017). The roles of output in second language acquisition: a case study of Thai learners. Catalyst, 15(1), 63-76. Retrieved from https://www.apiu.edu/download-individual-articles-pdf/6-the-roles-of-output-in-second-language-acquisition/download
Song, M., & Suh, B. (2008). The effects of output task types on noticing and learning of the English past counterfactual conditional. System, 36, 295-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2007.09.006
Suzuki, W., & Itagaki, N. (2007). Learner metalinguistic reflections following output-oriented and reflective activities. Language Awareness, 16(2), 131-46. https://doi.org/10.2167/la392.0
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). New York:
Newbury House Publishers.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: just speaking and writing aren't enough. The Canadian modern language review, 50(1), 158-164. Retrieved from https://2010-soph-writing-nccu.wikispaces.com/file/view/05+Swain+(1993)+The+Output+Hypothesis.pdf. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.50.1.158
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook, & B. Seidhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125-144). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom SLA (pp. 64-81). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471-483). London: Routledge.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371-391. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.371
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002) Talking it through: Two French immersion learners' response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research 37(3&4), 285-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00006-5
Uggen, M.S. (2012). Reinvestigating the noticing function of output. Language Learning, 62(2), 505-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00693.x
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
| Estadísticas de artículo | |
|---|---|
| Vistas de resúmenes | |
| Vistas de PDF | |
| Descargas de PDF | |
| Vistas de HTML | |
| Otras vistas | |
