Predicting ESL learners’ oral proficiency by measuring the collocations in their spontaneous speech

Xu, Jing

doi:10.31274/etd-180810-4474

Cited by 13 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 177 publications

(232 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The conditions of using predominantly the L1 or a mix of the L1 and English did 117 not seem to significantly differ (p = .976). Based on this, it is possible to conclude that the amount of communication in English positively impacts test scores, which corresponds to the findings of Gabrýs-Barker (2006), Shih (2011), andXu (2015). Vocabulary learning strategies.…”

Section: Step 4 Identifying Potential Factors Of Influence In the Grsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…These results suggest that using English as the predominant language for communication might positively impact recognition of false collocations by speakers of English as L2. This corresponds to findings by Gabrýs-Barker (2006), Shih (2011), andXu (2015), namely, that more advanced bilinguals for whom English takes over as their primary language might have an advantage over emergent bilinguals.…”

supporting

confidence: 88%

“…Although collocation acquisition is a life-long, largely intuition-based process in L2 (Siyanova-Chanturia & Martinez, 2014;Siyanova & Schmitt, 2008), existing research on collocations has identified a number of such factors, which can be classified into two domains. The first domain includes external non-collocation-specific factors: (1) extralinguistic, such as the age of onset and offset of learning English (Granena & Long, 2013;Han, 2004;Wray, 2002); length of residence in an English-speaking country (Bardovi-Harlig & Bastos, 2011;Groom, 2009;Nesselhauf, 2005); language input and output Durrant & Schmitt, 2010;Szudarski & Carter, 2016), and psychological-affective factors of culture and motivation (Li & Schmitt, 2010;Smith, 2005;Wray, 2008); and (2) interlinguistic, such as whether English is used as the predominant language for thinking and communication (Wang & Shih, 2011;Xu, 2015), English language proficiency (Groom, 2009;Laufer & Waldman, 2011;Nizonkiza, 2012Nizonkiza, , 2015Schmitt, 2013), and interlanguage interference (Irujo, 1986;Liao, 2010;Millar, 2011;Peters, 2016;Wolter & Yamashita, 2015).…”

Section: Objectives and Research Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Discussion of the extralinguistic factors of length of residence and quality/frequency of the input and output suggests that those learners who predominantly use L2 for communication develop collocational competence more efficiently; consequently, those learners who use L2 for thinking might achieve even better results. Gabrýs-Barker (2006), Shih (2011), andXu (2015) demonstrate that using English for private (i.e., verbalized speech for oneself), inner (i.e., silent speech for oneself), and spontaneous speech might positively impact learners' collocational competence in terms of collocation output. However, the measurements that researchers use for analyzing inner or spontaneous speech are somewhat limited, which leaves a need for further investigation into the relationship between this phenomenon and collocational knowledge.…”

Section: English As the Predominant Language For Communication And Thmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several researchers have explored extralinguistic factors such as the age of onset of learning English (Granena & Long, 2013;Wray, 2002), the absence of native speaker intuition (Gitsaki, 1996;Siyanova, 2010;Siyanova-Chanturia & Martinez, 2014;Siyanova & Schmitt, 2008), the length of residence in an English-speaking country (Foster, 2009;Groom, 2009;Schmitt, 2000), personality and learning habits de Wit, 2007;Wray, 2008), the frequency and quality of language input and output (Cieślicka, 2015;Szudarski & Carter, 2016), vocabulary learning strategies (Lewis, 2000;Mian, 1988;Wray, 2002), and reading strategies (Sonbul, 2015). Other researchers have focused on interlinguistic factors, such as the predominant language for thinking and communication (Wang & Shih, 2011;Xu, 2015), L1-L2 congruency (Bylund, Abrahamsson, & Hyltenstam, 2012;Liao, 2010;Millar, 2011), and level of language proficiency (Groom, 2009;Li & Schmitt, 2010;Nizonkiza, 2012Nizonkiza, , 2015Talakoob & Koosha, 2017). However, only a few studies by Bardovi-Harlig and Bastos (2011) This study focused on participants' ability to recognize collocations since recognition as a process of selecting an appropriate and correct word combination from the set of possible options was identified as the basis for collocational competence and, therefore, subsequent collocation production (Gyllstad, 2009;Henriksen, 2013).…”

Section: Rationale and Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Factors Impacting Collocation Recognition and Controlled Production by ESL Speakers

Makinina¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The topic of collocations is popular in vocabulary acquisition-based studies. , 2013) implement many strategies for teaching/testing collocations, varying from intuitive noticing to repetition/drilling and analysis-based activities. However, collocational competence is slow to develop in learners of English as a second/additional language (L2), and so far, there is no clear understanding of factors impacting collocation acquisition. This dissertation examines external and internal factors influencing collocation recognition and controlled production by speakers of English as L2 in three consecutive studies.The first study was based on an acceptability judgement-focused reading-comprehension task and a survey that compared populations of speakers of English as a first language (L1) and L2. This phase identified that speakers of English as L2 with higher test scores implemented similar reading-comprehension strategies as speakers of English as L1.Additionally, the factors of English as a predominant language of communication, L1, and vocabulary learning strategies were the most significant external factors. The results of the second and third stages of the research were based on a teaching module, pre-and post-instruction cloze and multiple-choice/acceptability judgement matrix-based tests, and a post-test survey. The findings suggested that such interconnected characteristics of collocations as frequency of occurrence and co-occurrence and morphosyntactic type (MST) influence collocation recognition and production. In terms of frequency, collocations with low frequency of occurrence and high frequency of co-occurrence were found to be more difficult to recognize pre-instruction and more susceptible to teaching iii intervention. In terms of MST, Verb + Noun, Adjective + Noun, and Verb + Adjective were strong pre-instruction test score predictors; however, they were not easily acquired, and it was Verb + Adjective and Adverb + Adjective collocations that showed an improvement in post-instruction test scores. Other research implications concern strategies of teaching/testing collocations based on their characteristics. The testing format of a cloze and multiple-choice/acceptability judgment matrix modelled after Revier (2009) was an effective measurement of recognition and production of whole collocations in the sentence-level context. Additionally, a blended teaching approach based on noticing, repetition, and deep processing proved successful.iv

show abstract

Section: Step 4 Identifying Potential Factors Of Influence In the Grsupporting

confidence: 85%

supporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Objectives and Research Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: English As the Predominant Language For Communication And Thmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rationale and Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Factors Impacting Collocation Recognition and Controlled Production by ESL Speakers

Makinina¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Opening the Black Box: Exploring Automated Speaking Evaluation

Khabbazbashi

Galaczi

2021

Challenges in Language Testing Around the World

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rapid advances in speech processing and machine learning technologies have attracted language testers' strong interest in developing automated speaking assessment in which candidate responses are scored by computer algorithms rather than trained human examiners. Despite its increasing popularity, automatic evaluation of spoken language is still shrouded in mystery and technical jargon, often resembling an opaque "black box" that transforms candidate speech to scores in a matter of minutes. Our chapter explicitly problematizes this lack of transparency around test score interpretation and use and asks the following questions: What do automatically derived scores actually mean? What are the speaking constructs underlying them? What are some common problems encountered in automated assessment of speaking? And how can test users evaluate the suitability of automated speaking assessment for their proposed test uses? In addressing these questions, the purpose of our chapter is to explore the benefits, problems, and caveats associated with automated speaking assessment touching on key theoretical discussions on construct representation and score interpretation as well as practical issues such as the infrastructure necessary for capturing high quality audio and the difficulties associated with acquiring training data. We hope to promote assessment literacy by providing the necessary guidance for users to critically engage with automated speaking assessment, pose the right questions to test developers, and ultimately make informed decisions regarding the fitness for purpose of automated assessment solutions for their specific learning and assessment contexts.

show abstract

Incidental corrective feedback provision for formulaic vs. Non-formulaic errors: EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices

Gholami

2021

Language Awareness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predicting ESL learners’ oral proficiency by measuring the collocations in their spontaneous speech

Cited by 13 publications

References 177 publications

Factors Impacting Collocation Recognition and Controlled Production by ESL Speakers

Factors Impacting Collocation Recognition and Controlled Production by ESL Speakers

Opening the Black Box: Exploring Automated Speaking Evaluation

Incidental corrective feedback provision for formulaic vs. Non-formulaic errors: EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About