東華大學圖書館 |

L2 Language Development in Oral and Written Modality.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	L2 Language Development in Oral and Written Modality./
作者:	Son, Myeongeun.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2021,
面頁冊數:	161 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 83-03, Section: B.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International83-03B.
標題:	Foreign language instruction. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28720076
ISBN:	9798538139767

L2 Language Development in Oral and Written Modality.
Son, Myeongeun.

L2 Language Development in Oral and Written Modality. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2021 - 161 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 83-03, Section: B.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Michigan State University, 2021.

This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.

Analysis of second language (L2) learners' language development can allow valid and reliable assessment of the learners' L2 linguistic knowledge, which can enable the teachers and researchers to choose appropriate teaching or experimental materials (Bardovi-Harlig & Bofman, 1989; Wolfe-Quintero et al., 1997). However, most language development research has analyzed spoken production only, so it remains unclear whether learners develop L2 linguistic knowledge in the same way regardless of the modality (Polio, 2017). In addition, L2 writing research has primarily investigated changes in specific elements of L2 writing rather than investigating linguistic development per se. This study explores whether L2 learners' language developmental patterns are comparable across oral and written modalities on the basis of processability theory (PT; Pienemann, 1998, 2005). 87 Korean EFL learners with four different proficiency levels from beginner high to advanced (i.e., A2, B1, B2, & C1 based on Common European Framework of Reference) each completed speaking tasks and writing tasks designed to elicit particular morphosyntactic structures predicted by PT in counterbalanced order. The tasks were conducted one-on-one with each participant. The speaking and the writing tasks included open-ended questions and various activities, such as leaving a voice message and writing an email. The speaking and the writing tasks were comparable in order to highlight whether the participants' language development was consistent across the two modalities. In order to encourage the participants to respond to each question simultaneously, designated time constraints were given; the time constraints varied depending on type of the tasks. After completing either the speaking or the writing tasks, there were intervention tasks to distract participants from the similarity of the task types. The participants' oral responses were transcribed, and the transcribed productions and the written productions were coded. Implicational tables of each modality were created based on the emergence and accuracy of their grammatical structures, and the two implicational tables were statistically compared. The implicational tables for the speaking and writing tasks were highly correlated with each other, suggesting that the L2 learners' language development is comparable between oral and written modalities. In other words, the theoretical framework of language development can be extended to certain types of L2 writing. In addition, this study found the PT-intrastage development, which some recent studies proposed (Di Biase, Kawaguchi, & Yamaguchi, 2015) not only in earlier stages but also in later stages, and the development within a stage was also comparable between the oral and the written modality. However, accuracy differed between the modalities. The L2 learners reached higher accuracy in the production of morphosyntactic structures earlier in the written than the oral modality. In addition, accuracy in the written modality was more stable. The results provide teachers and researchers with a better understanding of L2 development in oral and written modalities and may help them assess learners' development appropriately.

ISBN: 9798538139767Subjects--Topical Terms:

3541319
Foreign language instruction.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Second language learners

L2 Language Development in Oral and Written Modality.
LDR:04391nmm a2200385 4500 001 2349606
005 20230509091125.5
006 m o d
007 cr#unu||||||||
008 241004s2021 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798538139767
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI28720076
035 $a AAI28720076
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Son, Myeongeun. $0 (orcid)0000-0003-2441-4999 $3 3689016
245 1 0 $a L2 Language Development in Oral and Written Modality.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2021
300 $a 161 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 83-03, Section: B.
500 $a Advisor: Spinner, Patti.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Michigan State University, 2021.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
520 $a Analysis of second language (L2) learners' language development can allow valid and reliable assessment of the learners' L2 linguistic knowledge, which can enable the teachers and researchers to choose appropriate teaching or experimental materials (Bardovi-Harlig & Bofman, 1989; Wolfe-Quintero et al., 1997). However, most language development research has analyzed spoken production only, so it remains unclear whether learners develop L2 linguistic knowledge in the same way regardless of the modality (Polio, 2017). In addition, L2 writing research has primarily investigated changes in specific elements of L2 writing rather than investigating linguistic development per se. This study explores whether L2 learners' language developmental patterns are comparable across oral and written modalities on the basis of processability theory (PT; Pienemann, 1998, 2005). 87 Korean EFL learners with four different proficiency levels from beginner high to advanced (i.e., A2, B1, B2, & C1 based on Common European Framework of Reference) each completed speaking tasks and writing tasks designed to elicit particular morphosyntactic structures predicted by PT in counterbalanced order. The tasks were conducted one-on-one with each participant. The speaking and the writing tasks included open-ended questions and various activities, such as leaving a voice message and writing an email. The speaking and the writing tasks were comparable in order to highlight whether the participants' language development was consistent across the two modalities. In order to encourage the participants to respond to each question simultaneously, designated time constraints were given; the time constraints varied depending on type of the tasks. After completing either the speaking or the writing tasks, there were intervention tasks to distract participants from the similarity of the task types. The participants' oral responses were transcribed, and the transcribed productions and the written productions were coded. Implicational tables of each modality were created based on the emergence and accuracy of their grammatical structures, and the two implicational tables were statistically compared. The implicational tables for the speaking and writing tasks were highly correlated with each other, suggesting that the L2 learners' language development is comparable between oral and written modalities. In other words, the theoretical framework of language development can be extended to certain types of L2 writing. In addition, this study found the PT-intrastage development, which some recent studies proposed (Di Biase, Kawaguchi, & Yamaguchi, 2015) not only in earlier stages but also in later stages, and the development within a stage was also comparable between the oral and the written modality. However, accuracy differed between the modalities. The L2 learners reached higher accuracy in the production of morphosyntactic structures earlier in the written than the oral modality. In addition, accuracy in the written modality was more stable. The results provide teachers and researchers with a better understanding of L2 development in oral and written modalities and may help them assess learners' development appropriately.
590 $a School code: 0128.
650 4 $a Foreign language instruction. $3 3541319
650 4 $a Study abroad. $3 3557623
650 4 $a Teaching. $3 517098
650 4 $a Research. $3 531893
650 4 $a Language. $3 643551
650 4 $a Accuracy. $3 3559958
650 4 $a Writing. $3 551664
650 4 $a Audiences. $3 618475
650 4 $a Hypotheses. $3 3560118
650 4 $a Knowledge. $3 872758
650 4 $a Questionnaires. $3 529568
650 4 $a Essays. $3 642973
650 4 $a Linguistics. $3 524476
650 4 $a Poliomyelitis. $3 823002
650 4 $a Speaking. $3 3561999
650 4 $a Speech. $3 530580
650 4 $a Morphology. $3 591167
650 4 $a Learning. $3 516521
650 4 $a Cognition & reasoning. $3 3556293
653 $a Second language learners
653 $a Language development
653 $a EFL learners
690 $a 0444
690 $a 0290
690 $a 0287
690 $a 0679
710 2 $a Michigan State University. $b Second Language Studies - Doctor of Philosophy. $3 3171490
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 83-03B.
790 $a 0128
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2021
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28720076