اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 20 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 348 |
| تعداد مقالات | 2,872 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 3,266,492 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 2,402,498 |
The Effects of Task Focus and Involvement Load on Idioms Recognition | ||
| Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies | ||
| مقاله 7، دوره 8، شماره 4، دی 2021، صفحه 159-181 اصل مقاله (587.54 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: research paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30479/jmrels.2021.15357.1893 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Maryam Mousavi1؛ Abbas Ali Zarei* 2؛ Saeideh Ahangari3 | ||
| 1Department of English,Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, | ||
| 2Imam Khomeini International University | ||
| 3Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 19 اردیبهشت 1400، تاریخ بازنگری: 24 خرداد 1400، تاریخ پذیرش: 30 خرداد 1400 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| This study investigated the effects of form-focused and meaning-focused tasks with different involvement load indices on EFL learners' recognition of L2 idioms. To this end, a sample of 180 EFL learners (both male and female) in two language institutes was selected and randomly assigned into six groups. Form-focused tasks with involvement load 2 (Multiple-choice), 3 (Sentence-completion), 4 (Sentence-making) were used for three experimental groups, while meaning-focused tasks with involvement load 2 (Summary-writing), 3 (Writing with glossary), and 4 (Writing without glossary) were utilized for the other three groups. After the treatment, a 30-item test in multiple-choice format was administered to assess the participants' recognition of idioms. One two-way ANOVA and a series of independent-samples t-tests were run to process the collected data. The results indicated that the tasks with higher levels of involvement load were more effective on recognition of idioms. The results also showed that form-focused tasks were more efficient than meaning-focused tasks. Moreover, at involvement load of two, meaning-focused tasks were more beneficial than form-focused tasks, while form-focused tasks were more effective at higher involvement loads of three and four. The results of this study can have theoretical and pedagogical implications for language teachers, curriculum designers, and researchers. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| Form-focused tasks؛ Idioms؛ Involvement Load؛ Meaning-focused tasks | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| تاثیرات تمرکز تکالیف و شاخص بار اشتغال فکری بر درک اصطلاحات زبان دوم | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| مریم موسوی1؛ عباسعلی زارعی2؛ سعیده اهنگری3 | ||
| 1گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تبریز | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| این مقاله تاثیرات تکالیف متمرکز بر شکل و متمرکز بر معنی با شاخص های متفاوت بار اشتغال فکری بر درک اصطلاحات زبان دوم را بررسی نموده است. بدین منظور، نمونه ای متشکل از 180 زبان آموز خارجی انتخاب شدند و بطور تصادفی در شش گروه قرار گرفتند. تکالیف متمرکز بر شکل با بار اشتغال فکری 2 (چند گزینه ای)، 3 (تکمیل جمله)، 4 (جمله سازی) برای سه گروه آزمایشی مورد استفاده قرار گرفتند، در حالیکه تکالیف متمرکز بر معنی با بار اشتغال فکری 2 (خلاصه نویسی)، 3(نوشتن با واژه نامه)، 4(نوشتن بدون واژه نامه) برای سه گروه دیگر استفاده شدند. پس از بررسی، یک آزمون 30 بخشی در قالب چند گزینه ای جهت ارزیابی شناخت شرکت کنندگان از اصطلاحات اجرا گردید. یک ANOVA دو طرفه و یک سری از نمونه های مستقل آزمون های t جهت پردازش داده ها استفاده شدند. نتایج نشان دادند که تکالیف با سطح اشتغال فکری بالاتر در شناخت اصطلاحات موثرتر بودند. همچنین تکالیف نشان دادند که تکالیف متمرکز بر شکل، کار آمدتر از تکالیف متمرکز بر معنی بودند. بعلاوه، در بار اشتغال فکری دو، تکالیف متمرکز بر معنی از تکالیف متمرکز بر شکل سودمندتر بودند، در حالیکه تکالیف متمرکز بر شکل، در بار های اشتغال فکری بالاتر سه و چهار موثرتر بودند. نتایج این مطالعه می تواند پیامدهای نظری و آموزشی برای معلمان زبان، طراحان برنامه درسی و محققان داشته باشد. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| تکالیف متمرکز به شکل, اصطلاحات, بار اشتغال فکری, تکالیف متمرکز به معنی | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Asadzadeh Maleki, N. (2012). The effect of the involvement load hypothesis on improving Iranian EFL learners’ incidental vocabulary acquisition in listening comprehension classes. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 6(9), 119–128.
Amini, A., & Maftoon, P. (2017). The impact of skill integration on task involvement load. The Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 10(21), 29-48.
Alavinia, P. & Rahimi, H. (2019). Task types effects and task involvement load on vocabulary learning of EFL learners. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 1501-1516.
Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(1), 67-82.
Birjandi, P., Alavi, S. M., & NajafiKarimi, S. (2015). Effects of unenhanced, enhanced and elaborated input on learning English phrasal verbs. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 4(1), 43-59.
Boers, F., Demecheleer, M., He, L., Deconinck, J., Stengers, H., & Eyckmans, J. (2017). Typographic enhancement of multiword units in second language text. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 448-469.
Boostan Saadi, S., & Saeidi, M. (2018). The effect of input-based and output-based focus on form instruction on learning grammar by Iranian EFL learners. The Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 11(22), 74-90.
Celik, B. (2019). A comparison of form-focused and meaning-focused instruction types: A study on Ishik university students in Erbil, Iraq. International Journal of English Linguistics, 9(1), 201-228.
Cook, P., Fazly, A., Stevenson, S. (2008). Unsupervised type and token identification of idiomatic expressions. Association for Computational linguistics, 29(2), 1-44.
Ellis, R. (2003). Designing a task-based syllabus. RELC Journal, 34(1), 64-81.
Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Folse, K. S. (2006). The effect of type of written exercise on L2 vocabulary retention. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 273-293.
Golshan, M. (2015). Task-based language teaching and focus on form. Journal of Advances in English Language Teaching, 3(4), 75-81.
Grant, L., & Bauer, L. (2004). Criteria for re-defining idioms: Are we barking up the wrong tree? Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 38-61.
Haward, J. (1998). Idioms in American life. Prentice-Hal, Inc.
Hazrat, M. (2015). The effects of task type and task involvement load on vocabulary learning. Waikato Journal of Education, 20(2), 79-92.
Irujo, S. (1986). Don’t put your leg in your mouth: Transfer in the acquisition of idioms in a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 287-304.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman.
Kim, Y. (2011). The role of task-induced involvement and learner proficiency in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 61(1), 100-140.
Kang, D. (2020). The effects of task-Induced involvement on L2 academic word acquisition in Korea. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 20, 141-156.
Kaivanpanah, S., Alavi, M., & Ravandpour, A. (2020). The effect of input-based and output-based tasks with different and identical involvement loads on Iranian EFL learners’ incidental vocabulary learning. Cogent Psychology, 7, 1-16.
Kıvrak, C., & UygunGökmen, D. (2019). The effects of task-induced involvement load and input modality on incidental vocabulary learning. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(4), 1355-1375.
Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Tasks based Language teaching. Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Liu, D. (2003). The most frequently used spoken American English idioms: A corpus analysis and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 671-700.
Lan, Y., & Wu, M. (2013). Application of form-focused instruction in English pronunciation: examples from Mandarin learners. Creative Education, 4(9), 29-34.
Lee, J. (2019). Task complexity, cognitive load, and first language speech. Applied Linguistics, 40(3), 506-539.
Laufer, B., & Girsai, N. (2008). Form-focused instruction in second language vocabulary learning: A case for contrastive analysis and translation. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 694-716.
Laufer, B., &Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 1–26.
Hulstijn, J. H., &Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51(3), 539-558.
McCarthy, M., & O'Dell, F. (2017). English idioms in use. Cambridge University Press.
Moslehi, M., &Rahimy, R. (2018). The effect of role-play through dialogues vs. written practice on Iranian intermediate EFL learners' knowledge of English idioms. International Journal of Research in English Education, 3(1), 59-66.
Namaziandost, E., Hosseini, E., & Utomo, D. (2020). A comparative effect of high involvement load versus lack of involvement load on vocabulary learning among Iranian sophomore EFL learners. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 7(1), 1-15.
Noroozi, M., & Siyyari, M. (2019). Meaning-focused output and meaning-focused input: The case of passive and active vocabulary learning. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 6, 1-29.
Naserpour, A., Zarei, A. A., & Esfandiari. R. (2013). The effects of task orientation and involvement load on learning collocations. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 39(1), 71-114.
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford University Press.
Rahmani, R., Jafari, S., & Izadpanah, S. (2018). The effect of task-induced involvement load on unfamiliar L2 vocabulary learning: Sentence writing, summary writing, imaginary story writing and creative sentence writing. Applied Research on English Language, 7(1), 67-88.
Pishghadam, R., Khodadady, E., & Daliry Rad, N. (2011). The effect of form versus meaning-focused tasks on the development of collocations among Iranian intermediate EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 180-189.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.
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 University Press.
Sarbazi, M. (2014). Involvement load hypothesis: Recalling unfamiliar words meaning by adults across genders. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98(1), 1686-1692.
Saslow, J., & Ascher A. (2011). Top notch. Pearson Education, Inc.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42(2), 181-207.
Simpson, R., & Mendis, D. (2003). A corpus-based study of idioms in academic speech. TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), 419-441.
Soleimani, H., & Rostami Abu Saeedi, A. A. (2016). The interaction between involvement load hypothesis criterion and language proficiency: A case in vocabulary retention. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 8(1), 173-194.
Saeidi, M., Zaferanieh, E., & Shatery, H. (2012). On the effects of focus on form, focus on meaning, and focus on forms on learners' vocabulary learning in ESP context. English Language Teaching, 5(10), 72-79.
Tahmasbi, M, & Farvardin, M. (2017). Probing the Effects of Task Types on EFL Learners’ Receptive and Productive Vocabulary Knowledge: The Case of Involvement Load Hypothesis. SAGE Open, 7(3), 1-10.
Yagubi, B., Rayati, R. A., & AllemzadeGorji, N. (2010). The involvement load hypothesis and vocabulary learning: The effects of task types and involvement index on l2 vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 2(1), 145-163.
Zou, D. (2017). Vocabulary acquisition through cloze exercises, sentence-writing and composition-writing: Extending the evaluation component of the involvement load hypothesis. Language Teaching Research, 21, 54-75.
Zarei, A, A. (2020). L2 idioms: On the effectiveness of teaching techniques. Teaching English Language, 14(2), 217-238.
Zarei, A. A., & Moftakhari Rezaei, G. (2016). The effect of task type and task orientation on L2 vocabulary learning. Issues in Language Teaching, 5(2), 255-278. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 256 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 376 |
||