اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 19 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 385 |
| تعداد مقالات | 3,154 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 4,305,250 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 2,897,827 |
Depth of Processing in Different Instructional Conditions and Iranian Learners’ Interpretation of English Inversion Structures | ||
| Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies | ||
| مقاله 1، دوره 6، شماره 3، آبان 2019، صفحه 32-1 اصل مقاله (790.07 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: research paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30479/jmrels.2019.11445.1422 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Shiva Kaivanpanah* 1؛ Seyed Mohammad Alavi1؛ Sara Rafsanjani Nejad2 | ||
| 1English Department, Language Faculty, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2English department, Language faculty, university of Tehran, Tehran, Iran | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 31 مرداد 1398، تاریخ پذیرش: 03 شهریور 1398 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| The idea of encouraging awareness in classrooms is not new, but research into awareness is beginning to encourage those involved in language teaching to think more systematically about how language presentation facilitate language awareness. Awareness can be promoted through focus on form activities as it triggers important cognitive processes in L2 acquisition. The effectiveness of various input- and output-based focus on form instructions on the acquisition of different grammatical structures and the role of awareness in each type is a matter for debate. The present study qualitatively investigated the effects of Processing instruction, Textual enhancement, and Text editing on L2 learners’ cognitive processes and the relationship between the learners’ level of awareness and their abilities to interpret English inversion structures. To do this, learners’ think-aloud verbalizations during instruction were recorded, transcribed, and coded. Criteria to decide which level of awareness they would fall into were slightly adapted from Leow, Hsieh, and Moreno (2008) to fit with the type of tasks employed in the study. Pretest-posttests design was also employed to measure learners’ interpretive abilities. The findings indicated that each instructional technique promoted different levels of awareness and depth of processing. The findings also provided explanations for the non-significant differences in performances between the Processing instruction and Text editing groups on an immediate posttest and outperformance of the Processing instruction group on a delayed posttest. Given the benefits that Processing instruction and Text editing brought about in the present study, both might be incorporated into a curriculum and serve as complementary tools for language teachers. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| Depth of processing؛ Level of awareness؛ Processing instruction؛ Textual enhancement؛ Text editing | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| عمق پردازش در شرایط متفاوت آموزشی و تفسیر ساختارهای وارونگی انگلیسی توسط زبان آموزان ایرانی | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| شیوا کیوان پناه1؛ سید محمد علوی1؛ سارا رفسنجانی نژاد2 | ||
| 1گروه زبان، دانشکده زبان های خارجه، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران | ||
| 2گروه زبان، دانشکده زبانهای خارجه دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| ایده فعال‌سازی آگاهی به یادگیری در کلاس‌های درس ایده جدیدی نیست اما به تازگی تحقیقات مربوط به آن، همه افراد درگیر در آموزش زبان را ترغیب می‌کند که به چگونگی ارائه زبان جهت تسهیل این امر به گونه‌ای اصولی بپردازند. این نوع آگاهی از طریق فعالیت‌های فرم-معنا محور برانگیخته می‌شود زیرا این فعایت‌ها، فرآیندهای شناختی مهم در یادگیری زبان دوم را فعال می‌سازند. تاثیر این نوع فعالیت‌های مبتنی بر درون‌داد و برون‌داد بر یادگیری انواع ساختارهای دستوری و نقش آگاهی در هر یک، موضوعی قابل بحث است. این تحقیق به صورت کیفی فرآیندهای شناختی و سطح آگاهی زبان‌آموزان را در سه نوع آموزش فرم-معنا محور با در نظر گرفتن عملکرد آنها در تفسیر ساختارهای وارونگی انگلیسی مقایسه کرده است. تکنیک‌های مورد بررسی در این تحقیق، آموزش پردازشی، برجسته‌سازی متنی و ویرایش متن بوده است. برای دستیابی به اهداف تحقیق، از زبان‌آموزان خواسته شد افکارشان را در طول آموزش به صورت شفاهی بیان کنند تا ضبط، نوشته و کدگذاری شوند. معیار قرار دادن زبان‌آموزان در هر یک از سطوح آگاهی از معیارهای ذکر شده توسط لئو، شی و مورنو (2008) انتخاب و برای متناسب شدن با فعالیت‌های تجربی مورد استفاده در این تحقیق، کمی تغییر داده شدند. عملکرد زبان‌آموزان در تفسیر این ساختارها از طریق پیش‌آزمون و دو پس‌آزمون مورد سنجش قرار گرفت. یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهد که هر یک از تکنیک‌های آموزشی، سطوح متفاوتی از آگاهی و عمق پردازش را فعال می‌سازد. بر این اساس، یافته‌ها همچنین عدم تفاوت معنادار در عملکرد دو گروه آموزش پردازشی و ویرایش متن را در پس‌آزمون فوری و عملکرد بهتر گروه آموزش پردازشی را در پس‌آزمون زمان‌دار توضیح می‌دهند. با توجه به مزایای آموزش پردازشی و ویرایش متن در تحقیق حاضر، این دو تکنیک آموزشی می‌توانند در یک برنامه درسی گنجانده شوند و به عنوان ابزارهایی مکمل به معلمان زبان کمک کنند. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| عمق پردازش, سطح آگاهی, آموزش پردازشی, برجسته‌سازی متنی, ویرایش متن | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 259-302).Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Baleghizade, S., & Saharkhiz, A. (2013). An investigation of spoken output and intervention types among Iranian EFL learners. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 5(12), 17-41.
Cho, M. Y. (2010). The effects of input enhancement and written recall on noticing and acquisition. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 4(1), 71-87.
Cowan, R. (2008). The teacher’s grammar of English: A course book and reference guide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Craik, F. I. M. & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671-684.
Doughty, C. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In Doughty, C. & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 256-310). New York: Basil Blackwell.
Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197-261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (1995). Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 87-105.
Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Form-focused instruction and second language learning (pp. 1-46). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Farley, A. (2004). The relative effects of processing instruction and meaning-based output instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 227-239). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fernandez, C. (2008). Reexamining the role of explicit information in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(3), 227-305.
Fowler, W. S., & Coe, N. (1976). Nelson English language tests. London: Butler and Tanner Ltd.
Fulcher, G. & Davidson, F.(2007). Language testing and assessment. London & New York: Routledge.
Gass, S., Svetics. I., & Lemelin, S. (2003). Differential effects of attention. Language Learning, 53(3), 497-546.
Godfroid, A., Bores, F., & Housen, A. (2013). An eye for words: Gauging the role of attention in incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition by means of eye-tracking. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(3), 483-517.
Goo, J., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y., & Novella, M. (2015). Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 443-482). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Hernandez, T. A. (2011). Re-examining the role of explicit instruction and input flood on the acquisition of Spanish discourse markers. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 159-182.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement and the noticing hypothesis: an experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541-77.
Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the output hypothesis: Effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in second Language acquisition, 21(3), 421-452.
Jabbarpoor, S., & Tajeddin, Z. (2013). The effect of input enhancement, individual output, and collaborative output on foreign language learning: The case of English inversion structures. RESLA, 26, 267-288.
Jahan, A., & Kormos, J. (2015). The impact of textual enhancement on EFL learners’ grammatical awareness. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 46-66.
Kang, E. Y. (2010). Effects of output and note-taking on noticing and interlanguage development. Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 19-36.
Kim, Y. (2008). The role of task-induced involvement and learner proficiency in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 58(2), 258-325.
Lee, J. & Benati, A. (2007). Delivering processing instruction in classroom and virtual contexts: Research and Practice. Equinox, London.
Lee, J., & VanPatten, B. (1995). Making communicative language teaching happen. New York: McGraw Hill.
Leow, R. P. (1997). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning 47(3), 467-505.
Leow, R. P. (2000). A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behavior: Aware versus unaware learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 557-584.
Leow, R. P. (2001). Do learners notice enhance forms while interacting with the L2? An online and offline study of the role of written input enhancement in L2 reading. Hispania, 84(3), 496-509.
Leow, R. P., Nuevo, M., & Tsai, Y. (2003). The role of textual enhancement and type of linguistic item in adult L2 learners’ comprehension and intake. Applied Language Learning, 13(2), 1-16.
Leow, R. P., Hsieh, H., & Moreno, N. (2008). Attention to form and meaning revisited. Language Learning, 58(3), 665-695.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in second language teaching. In K. deBot, R. B. Ginsberg & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Clevendon, U. K.: Multilingual Matters.
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. New York: Routledge.
Nassaji, H., & Tian, J. (2010). Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 397-419.
Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417-528.
Qi. D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 277-303.
Qin, J. (2008). The effect of processing instruction and dictogloss tasks on acquisition of the English passive voice. Language Teaching Research, 12(1), 61-82.
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45(2), 283-331.
Robinson, P. (1997). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult second language learning. Language Learning, 47(1), 45-99.
Rosa, E., & Leow, R. P. (2004). Computerized task-based exposure, explicitness, type of feedback, and Spanish L2 development. Modern Language Journal, 88(2), 192-216.
Rosa, E. & O’Neil, M. D. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness: Another piece of the puzzle. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 511-556.
Shmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 206-226.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206-226.
Schmidt, R. (1994). Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious. In Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning languages (pp. 1165-209). London: Academic Press.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 3-32). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sharwood-Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 7(2), 118-132.
Sharwood-Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in structured SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 165-79.
Shook, D. (1994). Fl/L2 reading, grammatical information, and the input-to-intake phenomenon. Applied Language Learning, 5(2), 57-93.
Song, M. J. (2007). Getting learners’ attention: Typographical input enhancement, output, and their combined effects. English Teaching, 62(2), 193-215.
Song, Z. (2010). An empirical study of the role of output in promoting the acquisition of linguistic forms. English Language Teaching, 3(4), 109-114.
Song, M. J., & Suh, B. R. (2008). The effects of output task types on noticing and learning of the English past counterfactual conditional. System, 36(2), 259-312.
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263-308.
Storch, N. (1997). The editing talk of adult ESL learners. Language Awareness, 6(4), 221-232.
Storch, N. (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 143-159.
Suzuki, W. & Itagaki, N. (2007). Learner metalinguistic reflections following output-oriented and reflective activities. Language Awareness, 16(2), 131-146.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some role of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass and C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second Language Acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and Practice in Applied Linguistics (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty, C. & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition (pp. 85-113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tomlin, R. S., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(2), 183-203.
Toth, P. D. (2006). Processing instruction and a role for output in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 56(2), 319-385.
Uggen, M. S. (2012). Reinvestigating the noticing function of output. Language Learning, 62(2), 506-540.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Albex.
VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5-31). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
VanPatten, B. (2007). Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (Second Language Acquisition Research Series). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
VanPatten, B., & Fernandez, C. (2004). The long-term effects of processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: theory, research, and commentary (pp. 273-290). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction in French: The roles of explicit information and structured input. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 187-205). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wu, H. P., & Garza, E. V. (2014). Types and attributes of English writing errors in the EFL context: A study of error analysis. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, (5)6, 1256-1262.
Zhan, H. (2015). Frequent errors in Chinese EFL learners’ topic-based writings. English Language Teaching, 8(5), 72-81.
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 589 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,050 |
||