Quality and quantity of oral participation and English proficiency gains

Abstract

There are many reasons to believe that oral participation in the target language (TL) is beneficial for classroom language learners. In addition to the prominence current second language acquisition (SLA) theory gives to processes that assume learner production of the TL (e.g. negotiation of meaning), teachers often view oral participation as a measure of learner involvement. Thus, it is often assumed that learners who participate often are likely to make greater proficiency gains. This correlational study examined this assumption by investigating the relationship between learners’ oral participation in classes for English as a foreign language (EFL) at a Japanese university and their gains in TL proficiency. Results indicated that while the quality of learners’ participation (accuracy, complexity, and fluency) was positively related to gains in TL ability, quantity of participation was not. While not indicative of a cause–effect relationship, the results suggest that teachers might wish to consider encouraging quality of participation as well as quantity.

Conflicting Pathways to Participation in the FL Classroom: L2 Speech Production vs. L2 Thought Processes

“…In foreign language (FL) and L2 research, classroom participation has generally been conceived of in terms of students' L2 verbal activity in class. Studies on L2 interaction and production have provided support for the use of learners' output as evidence of L2 learning (Kumaravadivelu, ), and, as a consequence, classroom participation has been linked to speaking and language practice (Delaney, ; Johnson, ), which, in turn, have been found to lead to higher levels of communicative competence and achievement (MacIntyre, Baker, Clément, & Donovan, ; Shintani, Li, & Ellis, ; Tsou, ). Indeed, according to Dörnyei (2005), learning, including L2 learning, “relies heavily on learning through participatory experience in communication” (p. 210).…”

“…Indeed, according to Dörnyei (2005), learning, including L2 learning, “relies heavily on learning through participatory experience in communication” (p. 210). In general, the common principle that underlies perspectives on L2 interaction is that oral production provides a milieu in which L2 acquisition processes can take place (Delaney, ; Swain, ). Nonetheless, this idea has not gone undisputed by proponents of theories that emphasize the role of input in L2 learning.…”

“…Research linking motivation and oral production has sought to provide measureable evidence of learners' participation in the classroom (Delaney, ). For example, in their study on motivational strategies, Papi and Abdollahzadeh () documented learners' behavioral engagement in classroom activities in terms of the extent of their alertness, participation, and volunteering during class activities.…”

Application of Virtual Scenario Teaching in Spoken English Teaching

“…When designing the virtual scenarios, the designed scenarios mustn't go against the real-life experience of students, but should be in line with the daily routines that are closely related to students [29]. The clear scenario settings and definite interpersonal relationships of VST allow students to experience the real relationships in true situations, feel the charm of language in communication, make language learning vivid and interesting, and improve students' spoken English learning efficiency [30]. The value of VST in spoken English teaching…”

An investigation into the use of culturally responsive teaching strategies: Teaching English to Muong ethnic minority students at a tertiary institution in Vietnam

“…While some studies have focused on how student participation can be improved, other researchers examined the relationship between the participation and students' outcomes. For example, a study carried out in a Japanese university showed that there was a positive correlation between the quality of student oral participation (accuracy, complexity, and fluency) and the gains in target language ability, but no correlation between the quantity of participation and the gains in target language ability (Delaney, 2012). It was explained that the accurate and complex utterances required students to engage in more intensive processing, which resulted in greater gains in the ability of the target language and in the fluency of target language.…”