Abstract:
Performance deficiencies and inconsistencies among SLA or FL learnerscan be attributed to variety of sources including both systemic (i.e., language issues) and individual variables. Contrary to a rich background, the literature still suffers from a gap as far as delving into the issue from language proficiency and learning style is concerned. To fill the gap, this study addressed EFL learners’ interlanguage performance (i.e., error types) in the light of their learning styles and language proficiency levels. Participants were 73 Iranian graduate EFL learners, who received the Michigan proficiency tests along with the Perceptual Learning-Style Preference Questionnaire (of Reid) in order to measure their language proficiency level and learning style types. For the purpose of the study they were divided into pre-intermediate, intermediate and upper-intermediate levels. To explore their performance inconsistencies, both oral data from an semi-structured (SST) interview and written data based on an on-the-spot piece of writing were used and then classified based on Corder’s (1971) scheme into pre-systematic, systematic and post-systematic errors. The results revealed significant relationships among the target variables, if not predictor-predicted relationships. The non-linear relationship among the variable underscores significance of an integrative approach to EFL learner’s performance inconsistencies and the importance of stylistic instruction in EFL contexts.
Machine summary:
"Results First the analysis of chi-square was run to explore the extent to which frequency of error type differ depending on the proficiency levels of the students (pre-intermediate, intermediate and upper-intermediate) and their pre-systematic, systematic and post-systematic errors conventionally named based on Corder’s classification.
Std. Residuals Performance Inconsistency in Writing by Proficiency Levels After this stage, the analysis of chi-square was run to find the relationship between the proficiency levels of the students (pre-intermediate, intermediate and upper-intermediate) and their pre-systematic, systematic and post-systematic speaking errors.
5 Figure 4 Std. Residuals Performance Inconsistency by Learning Styles The third question sought to investigate if there were any significant relationship between the proficiency levels of the students (pre-intermediate, intermediate and upper-intermediate) and their learning styles.
-8 Figure 5 Std. Residuals Proficiency Levels by Learning Styles Discussion As to the first research question, the result of the analysis revealed that the relationship between level of language proficiency and type of errors is meaningful.
Along the same line, Mariko (2007) in a study of spoken and written data extracted from 100 Japanese junior and senior high-school EFL learners whose proficiency levels were assessed variously using SST interview found evidence in favor of variability of errors during different stages of language development.
The results of the study point to language proficiency level and language learners learning styles as two main predictors of error types and performance inconsistency, even though the effect of learners learning styles is still a matter of controversy (Hall & Moseley (2005)."