اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 20 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 347 |
| تعداد مقالات | 2,862 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 3,254,043 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 2,389,662 |
Classroom Metatalk: Uncovering the Role of Elaborate vs. Limited Engagement in Fostering Iranian L2 Learners' Writing Accuracy | ||
| Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies | ||
| مقاله 1، دوره 9، شماره 3، مهر 2022، صفحه 1-24 اصل مقاله (1.13 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: research paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30479/jmrels.2022.15675.1910 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Karim Shabani* ؛ Mona Hosseinzadeh | ||
| English Department, Allameh Mohaddes Nouri University | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 22 خرداد 1400، تاریخ بازنگری: 10 آذر 1400، تاریخ پذیرش: 18 دی 1400 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| The underlying goal of this study was to assess the effects of metatalk at elaborate and limited levels of engagement on Iranian L2 learners’ grammatical accuracy in writing. Thirty-four male and female students were recruited following the administration of the Quick Oxford Placement Test (QOPT) and then randomly divided into an experimental group with elaborate engagement (n=16) and a comparison one with limited engagement (n=18). Ten narrative tasks were used during the treatment sessions and both groups were asked to write the stories. The initial drafts were reformulated by the teacher. They were then asked to compare the two versions. The experimental group was asked to discuss the reasons for the applied changes while the comparison group only noted the differences. The learners’ sheets were scored and their accuracy was measured drawing on Ellis and Yuan's (2004) accuracy scales. The results revealed that both groups’ grammatical accuracy in writing was enhanced. However, the experimental group outperformed the comparison one since their posttest scores were statistically different. The learners’ language-related episodes were also analyzed, and the qualitative scrutiny brought to surface four patterns of interaction including collaborative, expert-novice, dominant-dominant and dominant-passive. Finally, the current study discusses implications for L2 instructional settings and the use of metatalk as a means to enhance noticing the target forms and expedite their grammatical accuracy and learning processes. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| accuracy؛ elaborate engagement؛ limited engagement؛ metatalk | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| فراگفتار کلاسی: بررسی نقش تعامل مبسوط و تعامل محدود در تقویت صحت نوشتاری زبان آموزان ایرانی | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| کریم شعبانی؛ مونا حسین زاده | ||
| دانشگاه علامه محدث نوری، گروه زبان انگلیسی | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| هدف از تحقیق حاضر بررسی تاثیر فراگفتار در دو سطح تعامل، یعنی تعامل مبسوط و محدود، بر دقت دستوری نوشتاری زبان آموزان ایرانی در سطح مقدماتی است. براساس نتایج آزمون تعیین سطح سریع آکسفورد، 34 زبان آموز انتخاب و به صورت تصادفی به دو گروه آزمایش با تعامل مبسوط و مقایسه با تعامل محدود تقسیم شدند. ده فعالیت روایی در طول جلسات آموزش مورد استفاده قرار گرفت و از هر دو گروه خواسته شد تا داستان های مربوطه را بنویسند. پیش نویس های اول زبان آموزان توسط معلم اصلاح شد. سپس از زبان آموزان خواسته شد تا دو نسخه را با هم مقایسه کنند. از زبان آموزان گروه آزمایش خواسته شد تا در رابطه با تغییرات اعمال شده به بحث و گفتگو بپردازند، در حالی که زبان آموزان گروه مقایسه تنها تفاوت ها را بیان می کردند. متون نوشتاری زبان آموزان نمره گذاری شدند و دقت دستوری آنان اندازه گیری شد. نتایج به دست آمده حاکی از آن بود که دقت دستوری زبان آموزان هر دو گروه افزایش یافت اما به دلیل تفاوت چشمگیرآماری میان نمرات آزمون تاخیری دو گروه، زبان آموزان گروه آموزش، نسبت به گروه مقایسه، عملکرد بهتری از خود نشان دادند . اپیزودهای زبانی زبان آموزان نیز مورد تحلیل قرار گرفت و تحلیل کیفی داده ها به پیدایش چهار الگوی مشارکتی، خبره/مبتدی، غالب/غالب و غالب/منفعل انجامید. درانتها، یافته های تحقیق حاضر کاربردهایی برای محیط های آموزشی زبان دوم داشته تا فراگفتار، به عنوان ابزاری برای افزایش توجه به ساختارهای هدف و بهبود دقت دستوری زبان آموزان و روند یادگیری آنان مورد استفاده قرار گیرد. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| صحت, تعامل مبسوط, تعامل محدود, فراگفتار | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
References
Abtahi, M., Abadikhah, S., & Dehqan, M. (2020). The influence of computer-based and collaborative handwritten peer feedback on the writing performance of EFL learners. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 3(7), 95-113.
Arabgary, H., & Izadpanah, S. (2016). The study of turn-taking processes through focus on form and focus on forms instructions: Incidental grammar acquisition. English Language Teaching, 3(3), 105-128.
Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 9-19.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1995). Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 87–105.
Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 59- 84.
Faerch, C. (1985). Metatalk in FL classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 184–99.
Hill, L. (1980). Steps to understanding. Oxford University Press.
Ishikawa, M. (2013). Examining the effect of written languaging: The role of metanotes as a mediator of second language learning. Language Awareness, 22(3), 220-233.
Jang, E. E., Wagner, M., & Park, G. (2014). Mixed methods research in language testing and assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34, 123–153.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman.
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2002). The effect of interaction in acquiring the grammar of a second language. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 343–358.
Lado, R. (1979). Thinking and "languaging": A psycholinguistic model of performance and learning. Sophia Linguistics, 12, 3-24.
Leow, R. P. (1997). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behaviour. Language Learning, 47(3), 467–505.
Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition (pp. 259-278). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories. Hodder Arnold.
Moradian, M. R., Miri, M., & Nasab, M. H. (2017). Contribution of written languaging to enhancing the efficiency of written corrective feedback. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 406-421.
Myhill, D., & Newman, R. (2016). Metatalk: Enabling metalinguistic discussion about writing. International Journal of Educational Research, 80, 177–187.
Nation, P. (2002). Best practice in vocabulary teaching and learning. In J. C. Richards, & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching (pp. 267-272). Cambridge University Press.
Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. ELT Journal, 47(3), 203-210.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165-179.
Simmons, N. (2010). Family and friends 4. Oxford University Press.
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158.
Storch, N. (2008). Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17(2), 95–114.
Suzuki, W. (2009). Improving Japanese university students' second language writing accuracy: Effects of languaging. Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan, 20, 81-90.
Suzuki, W. (2012). Written languaging, direct correction, and second language writing revision. Language Learning, 62(4), 1110-1113.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren't enough. The Canadian Modem Language Review, 50, 158-64.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Dougthy, and J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–82). Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95-108). Continuum.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.
Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Knouzi, I., Suzuki, W., & Brooks, L. (2009). Languaging: University students learn the grammatical concept of voice in French. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 5-29.
Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239-273). John Benjamins.
Thompson, T. (2010). Family and Friends 3. Oxford University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Yilmaz, M. (2016). Improving Turkish EFL learners' writing accuracy: Effects of written languaging and languaging types. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 413-420. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 331 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 239 |
||