اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 20 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 385 |
| تعداد مقالات | 3,169 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 4,342,190 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 2,936,635 |
استنباط واژگانی و یادگیری کلمات: مقایسه ی تأثیر تمرین لغت و ارزشیابی پویای گروهی | ||
| پژوهش نامه آموزش زبان فارسی به غیر فارسی زبانان | ||
| مقاله 4، دوره 7، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 16، مهر 1397، صفحه 23-44 اصل مقاله (502.56 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30479/jtpsol.2019.1592 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| خسرو بهراملو* 1؛ سامان عبادی2؛ عادل اسماعیلی3 | ||
| 1دکتری آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه رازی | ||
| 2دانشیار گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه رازی | ||
| 3کارشناسی ارشد آموزش زبان انگلیسی- دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تاکستان | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 30 تیر 1397، تاریخ بازنگری: 18 مهر 1397، تاریخ پذیرش: 26 آبان 1397 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| هدف از این پژوهش مقایسهی تأثیر تمرین واژه و ارزشیابی پویای گروهی بر میزان واژهآموزی، از طریق استنباط واژگانی است. با استفاده از نمونه‌گیری هدفمند، از میان دانشآموزان ترک‌زبان سه مدرسهی ابتدایی پسرانه در مناطق روستایی شهرستان ارومیه، ۴۲ فارسیآموز انتخاب شدند و به‌صورت تصادفی در سه گروه مساوی قرار داده شدند. چهار متن انتخاب شد که درمجموع حاوی ۲۰ کلمه ناآشنا بود. فراگیران روزی یک متن را خواندند و به پرسشهای درکمطلب آن پاسخ دادند. پس از خواندن هر متن، فراگیران گروهِ «ارزشیابی پویا» به استنباط معنای واژههای ناآشنا پرداختند و یک‌بار دیگر متن را خواندند. فراگیران گروهِ «تمرین واژه» برای هر واژهی ناآشنا دو تمرین انجام دادند. فراگیران گروه «ارزشیابی پویا بهعلاوهی تمرین واژه» به استنباط معنای واژههای ناآشنا پرداختند و برای هر واژهی ناآشنا یک تمرین انجام دادند. یک روز پیش از مداخله، پیش‌آزمون واژههای ناآشنا برگزار شد. یک روز و یک ماه پس از مداخله، به ترتیب پس‌آزمون‌های یادگیری و یادداری واژههای ناآشنا برگزار گردیدند. نتایج تحلیل مانووا نشان داد که در آزمون‌های یادگیری و یادداری، میانگین گروههای «ارزشیابی پویا» و «تمرین واژه» تفاوت معناداری نداشتند؛ ولی میانگین گروه «ارزشیابی پویا بهعلاوهی تمرین واژه» به‌طور معناداری از میانگین‌های دو گروه دیگر بالاتر بود. با بررسی یافتهها این نتیجه گرفته شد که تمرین واژه و ارزشیابی پویای گروهی تأثیر تقریباً یکسانی بر واژهآموزی از طریق استنباط واژگانی دارند؛ ولی استفاده هم‌زمان از این دو شیوه، واژهآموزی بیشتری را به دنبال دارد. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| استنباط واژگانی؛ یادگیری کلمات؛ تمرین واژگان؛ ارزشیابی پویا؛ ارزشیابی پویای گروهی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Lexical inferencing and word learning: The effects of vocabulary practice and group dynamic assessment | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Khosro Bahramlou1؛ saman ebadi2؛ Adel Esmaeili3 | ||
| 1Corresponding author, PhD in TEFL, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Razi University, | ||
| 2Associate Professor, Department of English Language and Literature, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran. | ||
| 3MA in TEFL, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Islamic Azad University, Takestan Branch, Qazvin, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| This study aimed to compare the effects of vocabulary practice and group dynamic assessment on word learning through lexical inferencing. Using purposive sampling, 42 Persian language learners were selected as participants. The treatment consisted of four texts which in total contained 20 unfamiliar words. The learners read a text a day and answered its comprehension questions. After reading each text, in the “dynamic assessment” group the learners inferred the meanings of unfamiliar words and in the end read the text once more. The learners of the “vocabulary practice” group did two exercises for each unfamiliar word of the text. The “dynamic assessment plus vocabulary practice” group first inferred the meanings of unfamiliar words and then did one exercise for each unfamiliar word. One day before the treatment, the pretest of unfamiliar words was administered. One day and one month after the treatment, the learning and retention posttests were held, respectively. The results indicated that there were no significant differences between the means of “dynamic assessment” and “vocabulary practice” groups on learning and retention posttests. However, on learning and retention posttests the means of “dynamic assessment plus vocabulary practice” group were significantly higher than those of the other two groups. It was concluded that vocabulary practice and group dynamic assessment have a nearly similar effect on word learning through lexical inferencing, but, simultaneous use of these two could result in more word learning. Extended Abstract: Persian language vocabulary is one of the areas in which Persian language learners experience many difficulties. Many of the Persian language vocabulary cannot be directly taught in the language classes and the learners must acquire them through other means. Lexical inferencing is one of the ways in which vocabulary could be acquired. Lexical inferencing involves discovering the meanings of a text’s unfamiliar words based on textual clues or one’s own knowledge (Haastrup, 1991). Lexical inferencing is a reading comprehension strategy which could lead to word learning as a byproduct (Wesche & Paribakht, 2010. ) Paribakht and Wesche (1997) reviewed the studies which explored word learning through lexical inferencing. In naturalistic studies which involved reading texts and answering comprehension questions, vocabulary acquisition was inefficient and unpredictable. However, in interventionist studies which involved vocabulary enhancement activities following reading and answering comprehension questions, enhanced vocabulary learning was observed. In this study, it was argued that naturalistic and interventionist studies of word learning through lexical inferencing are not different in kind. Both types focus on the amount of word learning pursuing lexical inferencing and do not pay due attention to the process of lexical inferencing. That is, they do not train learners in drawing on textual clues and their own knowledge to discover word meanings. It was suggested that one of the ways in which the process of lexical inferencing could receive due attention involves using group dynamic assessment to explore word learning through reading. In a lexical inferencing study which draws on group dynamic assessment, the teacher would engage in a dialogic interaction with a group of learners who are reading a text for comprehension. Whenever learners experience problems with an unfamiliar word, drawing on the text and the learners’ knowledge the teacher would offer clues to the learners to help them infer its meaning. At first, the clues would be very implicit and if the learners are not responsive to them, they could gradually become more explicit until the learners discover the meaning or the teacher provides it. This study aimed to compare the effects of vocabulary practice and group dynamic assessment on word learning through lexical inferencing. For this purpose, three elementary schools in rural areas of Urmia were contacted to participate in the study. The student population consisted of 137 Azeri-speaking boys who were studying at grade three. Using purposive sampling, 42 Persian language learners were selected as participants. That is, one day before the treatment the pretest of target words was administered to the third grade students and the students for whom more than 85% of the target words were unfamiliar were selected as participants. The participants were randomly assigned to three equal size groups. Over four days, the treatment was administered to the participants. The treatment consisted of four texts which in total contained 20 unfamiliar words. The learners read a text a day and answered its comprehension questions. After reading each text, in the “dynamic assessment” group the learners inferred the meanings of unfamiliar words and in the end read the text once more. After reading each text, the learners of the “vocabulary practice” group did two exercises for each unfamiliar word of the text. After reading each text, the “dynamic assessment plus vocabulary practice” group first inferred the meanings of unfamiliar words and then did one exercise for each unfamiliar word. One day and one month after the treatment, the learning and the retention posttests were held, respectively. The results of MANOVA analysis indicated that there were no significant differences between the means of “dynamic assessment” and “vocabulary practice” groups on learning and retention posttests. However, on learning and retention posttests the means of “dynamic assessment plus vocabulary practice” group were significantly higher than those of the other two groups. It was concluded that vocabulary practice and group dynamic assessment have a nearly similar effect on word learning through lexical inferencing, but, simultaneous use of these two could result in more word learning. Based on the findings, Persian language teachers were recommended to encourage their learners to read extensively. While reading, the teachers were encouraged to draw learners’ attention to unfamiliar words; to have the learners infer their meanings; to offer inference clues to the learners; and to engage the learners in vocabulary practice pursuant to reading. According to Hulstijn (2001), after elaborate processing of a newly encountered word and intentional practice of that word the learner should engage in fluency practice of the new word. This would necessitate the use of the new word in L2 communication. One of the main limitations of this study was that the learners were not made to use the target words in real L2 communication. Future studies could explore this gap in the literature. Another limitation was that the study involved male participants alone. The effect of group dynamic assessment on word learning through lexical inferencing could be explored in female participants as well. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| lexical inferencing, word learning, vocabulary practice, dynamic assessment, group dynamic assessment | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Refrences: Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (1996). Effects of multimedia annotations on vocabulary acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 183-198. Day, R., Omura, C., & Hiramatsu, M. (1991). Incidental EFL vocabulary learning and reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 7(2), 541–551. Dupuy, B., & Krashen, S. (1993). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in French as a foreign language. Applied Language Learning, 4, 55–64. Ebadi, S., Weisi, H., Monkaresi, H. & Bahramlou, Kh. (2018): Exploring lexical inferencing as a vocabulary acquisition strategy through computerized dynamic assessment and static assessment, Computer Assisted Language Learning, DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2018.1451344 Haastrup, K. (1991). Lexical inferencing procedures, or talking about words: Receptive procedures in foreign language learning with special reference to English. Tubingen, Germany: Gunter Narr. Hayes, D. J. (2011). Assessing vocabulary in context using graduated prompting (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/pg_10?0::NO:10:P10_ETD_SUBID:83961. Horst, M., Cobb, T., & Meara, P. (1998). Beyond a clockwork orange: Acquiring second language vocabulary through reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 11(2), 207–223. Hulstijn, J. H. (1992). Retention of inferred and given word meanings: Experiments in incidental vocabulary learning. In P. Arnaud & H. Bejoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 113–125). London: Macmillan. Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). Intentional and incidental second-language vocabulary learning: A reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 258–286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hulstijn, J.H ., Hollander, M., & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and reoccurrence of unknown words. Modern Language Journal, 80, 327-39. Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B. (1998). What leads to better incidental vocabulary learning: Comprehensible input or comprehensible output? Paper presented at the ThirdPacific Second Language Research Forum, Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo, Japan, 26-29 March, 1998. Hulstijn, J. H., & Trompetter, P. (1999). Incidental learning of second-languagevocabulary in computer-assisted reading and writing tasks. In D. Albrechtsen, B. Henrikse, I. M. Mees, & E. Poulsen (Eds.), Perspectives on foreign and second language pedagogy (pp. 191-200). Odense, Denmark: Odense University Press. Knight, S. (1994). Dictionary: The tool of last resort in foreign language reading? A new perspective. Modern Language Journal, 78, 285-299. Lantolf, J. P. (2009). Dynamic assessment: The dialectic integration of instruction and assessment. Language Teaching, 42(3), 355-368. Min, H-T. (2008). EFL vocabulary acquisition and retention: Reading plus vocabulary enhancement activities and narrow reading. Language Learning, 58(1), 73–115. Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary acquisition. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp. 174-199). New York: Cambridge University Press. Pitts, M., White, H., & Krashen, S. (1989). Acquiring second language vocabulary through reading: A replication of the Clockwork Orange study using second language acquirers. Reading in a Foreign Language, 5(2), 271–275. Poehner, M. E. (2009). Group dynamic assessment: Mediation for the L2 classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 471-491. Poehner, M. E. (2011). Validity and interaction in the ZPD: Interpreting learner development through L2 Dynamic Assessment. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21(2), 244-263. Stenberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of learning potential. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. (M. Lopez-Morillas, M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Trans. (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (pp. 79–91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Waring, R., & Takaki, M. (2003). At what rate do learners learn and retain new vocabulary from reading a graded reader? Reading in a Foreign Language, 15, 130–163. Watanabe, Y. (1997). Input, intake, and retention: Effects of increased processing on incidental learning of foreign language vocabulary. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 287-307. Wesche, M., & Paribakht, T. S. (1996). Assessing second language vocabulary knowledge: Depth versus breadth.Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 13-40. Wesche, M., & Paribakht, T. S. (1998). The influence of task in reading-based vocabulary acquisition: Evidence from introspective studies. In K. Haastrup and A˚. Viberg (Eds), Perspectives on lexical acquisition in a second language (pp. 19-59). Lund: Lund University Press. Wesche, M., & Paribakht, T. S. (2000). Reading-based exercises in second language vocabulary learning: An introspective study. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 196-213. Wesche, M., & Paribakht, T. S. (2010). Lexical inferencing in a first and second language. New York: Multilingual Matters. Zahar, R., Cobb, T., & Spada, N. (2001). Acquiring vocabulary through reading: Effects of frequency and contextual richness. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 541–572. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 757 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 714 |
||