Main Article Content

Alaa Saadi Fahad
Manal Omar Musa


     The current study aims at investigating the role of using chunks on EFL university students performance in conversation and sentential level in posttest and finding out whether there is any significant difference between the achievement of the experimental group in the pre and post-test. This study is hypothesized that ,there is no statistically significant difference between the mean score of the experimental group which taught according to chunks activity and control group which  is taught by the conventional method in the post-test. The second hypothesis is that there is no statistical significant difference among the mean scores of the experimental group in post-test. The third hypothesis is that there is no significant difference between the mean scores of students' experimental group achievement in the pre and posttest. The sample of the current study consists of (120) students of third class. They are derived from Collage for Woman in Tikrit University during academic year (2022-2023). They are divided into two groups. Group A which has been randomly chosen as an experimental group and B have been chosen as a control group, each group consists of 60 students. Both groups have been equalized in many variables which are fathers and mothers' educational level, their age, their scores at the previous year, and pretest for both groups. Both groups have been equalized in many variables which are fathers and mothers' educational level, Pupils age, their scores at the previous  year, and pretest for both groups. The experiment has lasted for six weeks and the researcher has taught the two groups in the first course of the year(2022-2023)to analyze data that obtained from students' posttests. To fulfill the aims of this study, an experiment has been designed. The two groups have been taught the same instructional material , for a period of six weeks. The experimental group has been taught according to chunks activity while the control group has been taught according to the traditional way. An achievement test has been constructed , validated, and applied to the two involved groups .The required data has been collected and analyzed statistically                                          .     Results indicate that there is a statistical significance difference in mean scores of the experimental group who taught according to chunks activity  and the control group who is taught by using traditional method. This indicates that using chunks effective than using traditional method. Finally, the study ends with some conclusions, recommendation and suggestions for further studies..


Metrics Loading ...

Article Details

How to Cite
Fahad, A. S., & Musa, M. O. (2024). The Role of Using Chunks on Iraqi EFL University Students’ Performance in Conversation . Journal of Tikrit University for Humanities, 31(5), 1–22.


Alali, F. A., & Schmitt, N. (2012). Teaching formulaic sequences: The same as or different from teaching single words?. Tesol Journal, 3(2), 153-180.

Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C., & Wall, D. (1999). Language test construction and evaluation. Cambridge University Press.

Best, J. W., & Kahn, J. V. (2006). Research in education, 10th. New Delhi: PHI Learning Private Ltd, 289.‏

Best, J.W.(1981). Research in Education. (4th ed).New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2009). Optimizing a lexical approach to instructed second language acquisition. Springer.

Boers, F., Lindstromberg, S., & Eyckmans, J. (2012). Are alliterative word combinations comparatively easy to remember for adult learners?. RELC Journal, 43(1), 127-135.‏

Brown, Douglas (2004) Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices . London :Longman University Press.

Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2010). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices (Vol. 10). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.‏

Bynom, A . (2001). Going the Information Given. New York: Norton Press.

Campoy-Cubillo, M. C., Bellés-Fortuño, B., & Gea-Valor, M. L. (2010). Introduction to corpus linguistics and ELT. Corpus-based approaches to English language teaching, 3-17.

‏ Chastain, K. (1988). Developing Second-Language Skills: Theory and Practice. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers

Cohen, R. and Swerdlik, M. (2010). Psychological Testing and assessment. Boston: McGraw – Hill .Higher Education.

Devellies, Robert (2003). Scale Development Theory and Application. USA Sage publication.

Davey, B. (1991). Evaluating Teacher Competence through the Use of Performance Assessment Tasks: An Overview. Journal of personnel evaluation in education, 5(2), 121-32.‏

Douglas, D. A. N., & Frazier, S. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy .: H. Douglas Brown.‏

Ebeling, S., & Ebeling, J. (2013). Patterns in contrast. Patterns in Contrast, 1-271.

Eble, R.L. (1972). Essentials of Educational Measurement. New York. Oxford University Press.

Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text & Talk, 20(1), 29-62.

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Gibbs, S., & Miller, A. (2014). Teachers’ resilience and well-being: A role for educational psychology. Teachers and Teaching, 20(5), 609-621.‏

Glass, G. and Stanley, J. (1970) Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hal.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.

Good, C.V., Barr, A S. and Douglas, E. S.(1976).The Methodology of Educational Research. New York: D. Appleton Century Company Inc.: 366.

Goodman, K. S. (1973). Miscue Analysis: Applications to Reading Instruction.

Gronlund, Norman E. (1976). Measurement and Evaluation in Teaching. 3rd. ed. New York: Macmillan Pub. Co. , Inc.

Guilcher, S. J. T., Craven, B. C., Calzavara, A., McColl, M. A., & Jaglal, S. B. (2013). Is the emergency department an appropriate substitute for primary care for persons with traumatic spinal cord injury?. Spinal Cord, 51(3), 202-208.‏

Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). [2d ed. 1994]. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

Hattie & Anderman (2013:5) indicate that'' performance is the determination of a students’ academic competencies in related content areas abilities necessary to success in school and real-world context''.

Lehman, Irvin& Mehrens ,A.(1971).Educational Research Reading in Focus. U.S.A.:American Winston,Inc.

Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach (Vol. 1, p. 993). Hove: Language teaching publications.

Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the lexical approach: Putting theory into practice. London: Language Teaching Publications.

Pintea, M. O., & Achim, M. V. (2010). PERFORMANCE-AN EVOLVING CONCEPT. Annals of the University of Craiova, Economic Sciences Series, 2.‏

Madsen, H.S. (1983). Techniques in Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Meling, B. (2019). Chunks in the classroom: An experiment on the use of Cognitive Linguistic principles in academic vocabulary instruction among Norwegian upper secondary ESL-students (Master's thesis, The University of Bergen).‏

McIntosh, K., & Turri, M. G. (2014). Positive Behavior Support: Sustainability and Continuous Regeneration. Grantee Submission.

McColl, H. (2013). Modern Languages for All. London: Routledge.

Moon, R. (2007). Sinclair, lexicography, and the Cobuild Project: The application of theory. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 12(2), 159-181.‏

Moon, R. (1998). Fixed expressions and idioms in English: A corpus-based approach. Oxford University Press

Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford University Press.‏

Romero-Trillo, J. (2013). Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2013: New Empirical and Theoretical Paradigms. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

Rosas, M. (2000) ''The Level of Difficulty and Discrimination Power of the Basic Knowledge and Skills Examinations''. P: 3 Available at http://2n0.1/contents- backhoff. pdf

Schegloff, E. Sacks. H.(1973) Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 284-327.

Schmitt, C. (2015). Der Begriff des politischen (pp. 1-117). Duncker und Humblot.‏

Schmitt, N., & Carter, R. (2000). The lexical advantages of narrow reading for second language learners. Tesol Journal, 9(1), 4-9.‏

Schmitt, N., Grandage, S., & Adolphs, S. (2004). Are corpus-derived recurrent clusters psycholinguistically valid. Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use, 127-151.‏

Simpson, R., & Mendis, D. (2003). A corpus‐based study of idioms in academic speech. TESOL quarterly, 37(3), 419-441.

Thornbury, S., & Slade, D. (2006). Conversation: From description to pedagogy. Cambridge University Press.

Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press, 110 Midland Ave., Port Chester, NY 10573-4930 (45 British pounds).‏

Wray, Alison (2008). Formulaic language : pushing the boundaries. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Ying, Q. L., Wray, J., Nichols, J., Batlle-Morera, L., Doble, B., Woodgett, J., ... & Smith, A. (2008). The ground state of embryonic stem cell self-renewal. nature, 453(7194), 519-523.‏