اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 20 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 348 |
| تعداد مقالات | 2,872 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 3,267,816 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 2,404,009 |
Exploring the Impact of Scaffolded Written Corrective Feedback on Iranian EFL Learners’ Writing Quality: A Sociocultural Theory Study | ||
| Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies | ||
| مقاله 3، دوره 8، شماره 4، دی 2021، صفحه 53-84 اصل مقاله (908 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: research paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30479/jmrels.2020.12116.1508 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Ehsan Abbaspour1؛ Mahmood Reza Atai* 2؛ Parviz Maftoon3 | ||
| 1Department of Foreign Languages, Faculty of Literature, Humanities, and Social Sciences, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Department of Foreign Languages, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 3Department of English, College of Literature, Humanities, and Social Sciences, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 10 آذر 1398، تاریخ بازنگری: 21 بهمن 1398، تاریخ پذیرش: 26 بهمن 1398 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| The prevalence of Sociocultural Theory (SCT) as a major theory in SLA has spurred a considerable number of studies to investigate the various aspect of L2 acquisition through the lens of this theoretical framework. The present study aimed at investigating the impact of Scaffolded Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) on Iranian EFL learners’ writing performance in terms of fluency, accuracy, grammatical complexity, and lexical complexity. Additionally, the study sought to inquire about the Iranian EFL learners’ attitudes toward Scaffolded WCF through a series of post-interviews and a questionnaire. For this purpose, 25 students who had enrolled in a university-level writing course were conveniently sampled after a homogeneity test for the study. The pedagogical treatment the participants received throughout the study was Scaffolded WCF (i.e. a ZPD-based teacher/peer corrective feedback on their writing performance). The data obtained from the pretest, immediate posttest, and delayed posttest were analyzed using a series of ANOVA and Friedman’s tests. The findings indicated that Scaffolded WCF statistically significantly contributed to the participants’ writing performance regarding grammatical complexity, fluency, accuracy, and lexical complexity. The results obtained from the attitude questionnaire and the post-interviews also revealed that the participants held a positive attitude toward the adopted approach. The findings provide promising implications for the adoption of this approach in large classes typical of Iranian university-level writing courses. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| Written Corrective Feedback؛ Sociocultural Theory؛ Scaffolding؛ Second Language Writing؛ Zone of Proximal Development | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| بررسی تاثیر بازخورد تصحیحی داربستی بر روی کیفیت نگارش زبان آموزان ایرانی: مطالعه ای از دید نظریه اجتماعی-فرهنگی | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| احسان عباسپور1؛ محمود رضا عطایی2؛ پرویز مفتون3 | ||
| 1گروه زبانهای خارجی، دانشکده ادبیات علوم انسانی و علوم اجتماعی، دانشگاه آزاد، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، تهران، ایران | ||
| 2گروه زبانهای خارجی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| در نتیجه رواج نظریه اجتماعی-فرهنگی، شمار زیادی تحقیقات علمی جنبه های مختلف فراگیری زبان دوم را از دیدگاه این نظریه مورد بررسی قرار داده اند. تحقیق حاضر تاثیر بازخورد تصحیحی داربستی بر روی عملکرد نگارشی زبان آموزان ایرانی را از منظر روان بودن، صحیح بودن، پیچیدگی دستوری و پیچیدگی لغوی مورد بررسی قرار داده است. افزون بر این، نگرش زبان آموزان نسبت به این روش آموزشی از طریق پرسشنامه و مصاحبه سنجیده شده است. به این منظور 25 دانشجوی ایرانی که در درس نگارش پیشرفته یکی از دانشگاه های ایران ثبت نام کرده بودند برای شرکت در این پژوهش شرکت کردند. نتایج به دست آمده حاکی از آن است که بازخورد تصحیحی به روش داربستی تاثیر چشمگیری بر کیفیت نگارش دانشجویان مذکور داشته و نگرش آنها نیز به روش استفاده شده مثبت می باشد. کاربردهای روش مورد استفاده در این پژوهش بر عرصه های مختلف آموزش زبان درکلاسهای پرجمعیت (که در دانشگاه های ایران رایج است) نیز مورد بحث قرار گرفته است. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| بازخورد تصیحی, آموزش نگارش زبان انگلیسی, تصحیح غلطهای نگارشی, روش داربستی | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Abbaspour, E., Atai, M. R., & Maftoon, P. (2020). The effect of Scaffolded written corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ writing quality: An activity theory perspective. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 30, 177-196.
Ai, H. (2017a). Web-based L2 lexical complexity analyzer [Online Software]. Retrieved from https://aihaiyang.com/software/lca
Ai, H. (2017b). Web-based L2 syntactical complexity analyzer [Online Software]. Retrieved from https://aihaiyang.com/software/l2sca
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465-83.
Atkinson, D. (2003a). L2 writing in the post-process era: Introduction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 3-15.
Atkinson, D. (2003b). Writing and culture in the post-process era. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1), 49-63.
Baba, K. (2009). Aspects of lexical proficiency in writing summaries in a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(3), 191-208.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118.
Casanave, C. P. (2003). Looking ahead to more sociopolitically-oriented case study research in L2 writing scholarship (But should it be called "post-process"?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1), 85-102.
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-296.
Cumming, A., Busch, M., & Zhou, A. (2002). Investigating learners' goals in the context of adult second-language writing. In S. Ransdell & M.L. Barbier (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing (pp. 189-208). Kluwer Academic Publisher.
De Guerrero, M. C. M. &Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51-68.
Duff, P. A., & van Lier, L. (1997). Approaches to observation in classroom Research; Observation from an ecological perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 31(4), 783-787.
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes. A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-10.
Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307-329.
Feuerstein, R., & Feuerstein, S. (1991). Mediated learning experience: A theoretical review. In R. Feuerstein, P. S. Klein, & A. J. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Mediated learning experience (MLE) (pp. 3-51). Freund.
Feuerstein, R., Feuerstein, R. S., & Falik, L. H. (2010). Beyond smarter: Mediated learning and the brain's capacity for change. Teachers College Press
Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M. B., & Miller, R. (1980). Instrumental enrichment. University Park Press.
Feuerstein, R., Rynders, J., & Rand, Y. (1988). Don't accept me as I am. Springer.
Foucault, M. (1984). What is an author? In P. Rainbow (Ed.), The Foucault reader (pp. 101–120). Pantheon.
Goldstein, L. M. (2004). Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and student revision: Teachers and students working together. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 63-80.
Han, Y. (2019). Written corrective feedback from an ecological perspective: The interaction between the context and individual learners. System, 80(4), 288-303.
Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30(1), 31-44.
Johnson, M. D., Mercado, L., & Acevedo, A. (2012). The effect of planning sub-processes on L2 writing fluency, grammatical complexity, and lexical complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 264-282.
Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta‐analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1-18.
Kent, T. (1999). Post-process theory: Beyond the writing-process paradigm. Southern Illinois University Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1984). Writing: Research, theory, and applications. Pergamon.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford University Press.
Liu, Q., & Brown, D. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30(1), 66-81.
Mak, P. (2019). From traditional to alternative feedback: What do L2 elementary students think? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 109-129.
Matsuda, P. K. (2003). Process and post-process: A discursive history. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1), 65-83.
Hanjani, A. M. (2019). Collective peer scaffolding, self-revision, and writing progress of novice EFL learners. International Journal of English Studies, 19(1), 41-57.
Merkel, W. (2018). Role reversals: A case study of dialogic interactions and feedback on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 39(1), 16-28.
Murray, D. M. (1980). Writing as process: How writing finds its own meaning. In T. R. Donovan, & B.W. McClelland (Eds.), Eight approaches to teaching composition (pp. 3-20). National Council of Teachers of English.
Nassaji, H. (2011). Correcting students’ written grammatical errors: The effects of negotiated versus nonnegotiated feedback. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1(3), 315–334.
Nassaji, H. (2018). Corrective feedback. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1-7). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34-51.
Phillips, D. (2001). Longman introductory course for the TOEFL test. Pearson Education, Inc.
Rassaei, E. (in press). Effects of dynamic and non-dynamic corrective feedback on EFL writing accuracy during dyadic and small group interactions. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching.
Sasaki, M. (2000). Toward an empirical model of EFL writing processes: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 259-291.
Storch, N. (2009). The impact of studying in a second language (L2) medium university on the development of L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(2), 103-118.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369.
Truscott, J. (1999). The case for ‘the case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111-122.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of second language Writing, 16(4), 255-272.
Truscott, J. (2016). The effectiveness of error correction: Why do meta-analytic reviews produce such different answers? In Y. Leung (Ed.), Epoch making in English teaching and learning: A special monograph for celebration of ETA-ROC’s 25th anniversary (pp. 129-141). Crane.
Truscott, J. (2017). Modularity, working memory, and second language acquisition: A research program. Second Language Research, 33(3), 313-323.
Vaezi, S., & Abbaspour, E. (2015). Asynchronous online peer written corrective feedback: Effects and affects. In M. Rahimi (Ed.), Handbook of research on individual differences in CALL (pp. 271-297). IGI Global.
van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity. University of Hawaii Press.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Child Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.
Yu, S., & Hu, G. (2017). Understanding university students’ peer feedback practices in EFL writing: Insights from a case study. Assessing Writing, 33(1), 25-35.
Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2015). Understanding EFL students’ participation in group peer feedback of L2 writing: A case study from an activity theory perspective. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 572-593
Zamel, V. (1983). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16(2), 195-205.
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79-101. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,286 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 484 |
||