تعداد نشریات | 19 |
تعداد شمارهها | 380 |
تعداد مقالات | 3,131 |
تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 4,251,607 |
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 2,845,977 |
تأثیر محیط ترکیبی آموزش زبان در یادگیری دستور زبان و لغات در فارسیآموزان غیرایرانی سطح متوسط (مقاله علمی پژوهشی) | ||
پژوهش نامه آموزش زبان فارسی به غیر فارسی زبانان | ||
دوره 9، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 20، مهر 1399، صفحه 287-305 اصل مقاله (1.2 M) | ||
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30479/jtpsol.2021.2463 | ||
نویسندگان | ||
مرضیه مرادی1؛ محمدرضا اروجی* 2؛ سکینه جعفری3 | ||
1دانشجوی دکتری گروه زبان و زبانشناسی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد زنجان | ||
2نویسندهی مسئول، دانشآموختۀ دکتری گروه زبان و زبانشناسی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد زنجان | ||
3دانشآموختۀ دکتری گروه زبان و زبانشناسی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد زنجان | ||
تاریخ دریافت: 02 تیر 1399، تاریخ بازنگری: 17 مرداد 1399، تاریخ پذیرش: 21 آذر 1399 | ||
چکیده | ||
مبنای این تحقیق بررسی تأثیر یادگیری ترکیبی[1]یا تلفیقی بر میزان یادگیری دستور زبان و واژههای فارسیآموزان سطح متوسط است. هدف از یادگیری ترکیبی یا همان بهرهگیری از مواد آزمایشی گوناگون درهمآمیختن مناسب مواد آموزشی معمولی و سنتی کلاسهای حضوری با فناوری نوین است. جامعهی آماری این تحقیق زبانآموزان خارجی حاضر در ایران است که به یادگیری زبان فارسی مشغولاند. شرکتکنندگان در این پژوهش 60 زبانآموز خارجی سطح متوسط بودند که در مؤسسات ایرانی واقع در شهر تهران زبان فارسی میخواندند. آنها بهصورت تصادفی به دو گروه سیتایی شامل گروه گواه (گروه از راه دور) و گروه آزمایشی (گروه تلفیقی) تقسیم شدند. نمونهگیری بهصورت غیرتصادفی انجام گرفت. در این تحقیق، از طرحی نیمهآزمایشی پیروی شد و همسانسازی شرکتکنندگان آن بهلحاظ مهارت زبانی، دستور زبان و دانش زبانی پیش از بررسی انجام شد. بعد از اجرای روند، پسآزمون دستور زبان و واژه به شرکتکنندگان داده شد. یافتههای تحقیق حاضر نشان میدهد که محیط یادگیری تلفیقی تأثیر چشمگیری بر گسترش دانش دستوری و لغوی زبانآموزان دارد. نتایچ تحلیل واریانس چندمتغیره (MANOVA) نشان داد که زبانآموزان گروه تلفیقی نسبتبه گروه از راه دور در آزمونهای دانش واژهها و دستور زبان بهمراتب عملکرد بهتری داشتند. نتایج این تحقیق میتواند برای محققان، معلمان و زبانشناسان مفید باشد. [1]. blended | ||
کلیدواژهها | ||
دستور زبان فارسی؛ فارسیآموزان سطح متوسط؛ واژه؛ یادگیری تلفیقی | ||
عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
The Effect of a Blended Language Environment on the Grammar Achievement and Vocabulary Learning of Intermediate PFL Learners | ||
نویسندگان [English] | ||
Marzieh Moradi1؛ Mohammad Reza Oroji2؛ Sakine Jafari3 | ||
1Ph.D Candidate, Department of English and Linguistics, Zanjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Zanjan, Iran | ||
2Assistant Professor, Department of English and Linguistics, Zanjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Zanjan, Iran | ||
3Assistant Professor, Department of English and Linguistics, Zanjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Zanjan, Iran | ||
چکیده [English] | ||
The purpose of this research was to study the effects of blended learning on intermediate PFL learners’ Persian grammar and vocabulary knowledge. Blended learning or utilizing of blended or mixed traditional curriculum materials by means of modern technology. The statistical population of the research were all PFL (Persian as a Foreign Language) learners in Iran who were involved in Persian learning. In This research, 60 intermediate PFL learners studying Persian in different institutes in Tehran participated. They were randomly divided into two groups namely control group (= 30 learners) and experimental or distant group (30 learners). It was based on non-random sampling due to the impossibility of total randomization. Prior to the experiment, based on a quasi-experimental approach, the participants were homogenized in terms of grammar and vocabulary. After the experiment, a posttest including grammar and vocabulary was administered to the same population. The outcome of the research illustrated that the blended learning setting has an outstanding effect on the learners’ knowledge of grammar and vocabulary. The results of the MANOVA test indicated that the blended or experimental group had a better performance in grammar and vocabulary as compared to the control or distant group. The results could be beneficial to researchers, teachers, and linguists. | ||
کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
Blended Learning, PFL learners, Persian Grammar, Persian Vocabulary | ||
مراجع | ||
Al-Jarf, R. (2004). Building Cross-cultural communication through online collaboration. IX TESOL Ukraine Conference entitled: “Building Cross- Cultural Understanding through ELT”. Horlivka, Ukraine. Arreerard, W. & Sanrach, C. (2006). The development of the collaborative intelligent computer-assisted instruction model using computer network (CICAI Model). Bataineh, R. F. & Mayyas, M. B. (2017). The utility of blended learning in EFL reading and grammar: A case for Moodle. Teaching English with Technology, 17(3), 35-49. Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2008). How cognitive linguistics can foster effective vocabulary teaching. In F. Boers & S. Lindstromberg (Eds.), Applications of cognitive linguistics: Congitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology (pp. 1-61). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Cercone, K. (2008). Characteristics of adult learners with implications for online learning design. AACE journal, 16(2), 137-159. Ching, G. (2020). From face-to-face to blended learning: Teaching and learning during COVID-19 in Taiwan. SITE Interactive Online 2020 Conference. Crook, C. (1994). Computers and the collaborative experience of learning. London: Routledge. Doig, A., & Hogg, S. (2013). Engaging distance and blended learners online. In C. Wankel & P. Blessinger (Eds.), Increasing Student Engagement and Retention in E-learning Environments (pp. 229-260). Web 2.0 and Blended Learning Technologies (Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher Education). United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Duhaney, D. (2004). Blended learning in education, training, and development. Performance Improvement, 43(8), 35–38. [DOI: 10.1002/pfi.4140430810.] Esmaeilifard, H., & Nabifar, N. (2011). The effect of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) on reading comprehension Iranian EFL context. Journal of Academic and Applied Studies, 1 (4), 1-8. Harahap, F., Nasution, N. E. A., & Manurung, B. (2019). The effect of blended learning on student's learning achievement and science process Ssills in plant tissue culture course. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 521-538. Kim, K. (2007). Validating the learning style structure in the PLSPQ for Korean EFL students. English Language Teaching, 19(3), 25-46. Kim, K.-J., Bonk, C. J., & Oh, E. J. (2008). The present and future state of blended e-learning in workplace learning settings in the United States. Performance Improvement, 47(8), 5-16 Overmyer, G. R. (2014). The flipped classroom model for college algebra: effects on student achievement. Gardner, J. (2006) (Ed). Assessment and learning. London: Sage Ghalami Nobar, A., & Ahangari, S. (2012). The impact of computer-assisted language learning on Iranian EFL learners’ task-based listening skill and motivation. Journal of Academic and Applied Studies, 2(1), 39-61. Graham, D. (2005). Cooperative learning methods and middle school students, Unpublished PhD thesis, Capella University Hiltz, S.R., and Turoff, M. (1993). The network nation: Human communication via computer. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Howard, L., Remenyi, Z., & Pap, G. (2006). Adaptive blended learning environments. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Education (San Juan, Puerto Rico, July2006). Jacobs, E.A., Lauderdale, D.S., Meltzer, D., Shorey, J.M., Levinson, W., & Thisted, R.A. (2001). Impact of Interpreter Services on Delivery of Health Care to Limited-English-Proficient Patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16, 468–74. Jaitip N., (1999). Web based instruction. Bangkok and faculty of education, Chulalongkorn University. Kaoud, A. A. E. (2007). The effectiveness of Internet blended discussion group on developing some composition writing skills of first year secondary school students. Retrieved April 3rd, 2013 from http://srv3.eulc.edu.eg/eulc_v5/libraries/start.aspx. Kim, K.-J., Bonk, C. J., & Oh, E. J. (2008). The present and future state of blended e-learning in workplace learning settings in the United States. Performance Improvement, 47(8), 5-16 Knowles, M. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. Chicago: Follett Publishing Company. Kudrik, Y, Lahn, L.C. & Mørch, A. I. (2009). Technology-Enhanced Workplace Learning: Blended Learning in Insurance Company. Paper presented at 17th International Conference on Computers in Education. Hong Kong: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education Laufer, B. (1997). The development of L2 lexis in the expression of the advanced learner. The Modern Language Journal, 75 (4), 440‐448. Lim, D. H., Morris, M. L., & Kupritz, V. W. (2006). Online vs. blended learning: differences in instructional outcomes and learner satisfaction. Paper presented at the Academy of Human Resource Development International Conference. Retreived from the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (ED492755). Moore, M. G. (2003). Handbook of distance education, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Nunan, D. (Ed.). (1992). Collaborative language learning and teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press. Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning systems: definitions and directions. Q. Rev. Distance Educ. 4 (3), 227–234. Papadopoulos, C., & Roman, A. S. (2010, June). Implementing an inverted classroom model in engineering statistics: Initial results. Paper presented at the 2010 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Louisville, KY. Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/16768. Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual – A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. Allen & Unwin. Pazio, M. (2010). Blended learning and its potential in expanding vocabulary knowledge: A case study. Teaching English with Technology, 10(1), pp. 3-30. Picciano, A. G. (2006). Online Learning: Implications for Higher Education Pedagogy and Policy. Journal of Thought,41 (1), 75-94. Raya, M.J., & Vieira, F. (2015). Enhancing autonomy in language education: A case-based approach to teacher and learner development. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton Sadler, D.R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–44. Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 35, 535-550. 10.1080/02602930903541015. Sarayreh, R. (2020). Using blended learning during COVID-19: The perceptions of school teachers in Jordan. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 15(6),1544-1556. Shaheen, M. (2008). Use of social networks and information seeking behaviour of students during po-litical crises in Pakistan: A case study. The International Information & Library Review, 40(1), 142–147. Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness: What the research tells us. In J. Bourne & J. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education, practice and direction (pp. 13–45). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education. Thompson, I. (2003). Vocabulary learning strategies. [On-line] Available: http://www.public.asu.edu/~ickpl/learningvocab.htm. Vilmi, R. (2003). Collaborative Writing Projects on the Internet: more than half a decade of experimentation. Retrieved May 28, 2003. Warschaur, M., & Meskill, C. (2000). Technology and second language teaching. In J. W. Rosenthal (Ed.), Handbook of undergraduate second language education (pp. 303-318). NJ, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wichuda, R. (1999). Web based Instruction: A new way for educational technology. Bangkok, Faculty of Education Chulalongkorn University. Zu, F. (2009). Using lexical approach to teach vocabulary. US-China Foreign Language, 7(8), 44-47. | ||
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 373 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 382 |