اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 19 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 380 |
| تعداد مقالات | 3,131 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 4,251,628 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 2,845,987 |
On the Relationship between EFL Learners' Socio-Economic Status and their Attitudes toward Oral Corrective Feedback: A Mixed-Method Study | ||
| Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies | ||
| مقاله 4، دوره 2، شماره 4، بهمن 2015، صفحه 75-59 اصل مقاله (372.33 K) | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Puyan Taheri1؛ Mobin Khanlarzadeh2 | ||
| 1Assistant Professor, Imam Khomeini International University | ||
| 2University Instructor, Imam Khomeini International University | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 17 فروردین 1395، تاریخ پذیرش: 17 فروردین 1395 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Although many studies have focused on the language learners’ beliefs and attitudes regarding error correction, less has been done to investigate whether and how student characteristics influence their preferences. The present investigation explores how socio-economic status affects the error correction views of 140 upper-intermediate/advanced students, ranging from 23 to 31, in an EFL context. The participants' social class was determined by MacArthur scale of subjective socio-economic status. A questionnaire and a follow-up interview were employed to obtain the students' overall preferences about different aspects of oral corrective feedback (OCF). The results showed that the students unanimously favored teachers as the best provider of feedback and highly expected both local and global errors to be treated; nevertheless, whereas middle-class students would rather their errors to be corrected at the end of the class while the teacher addressed the whole class, high-class students did not mind if teachers corrected them individually as soon as they finished speaking. Besides, although predominantly the students preferred direct error correction, high-class students had a more positive view toward elicitation and self-error correction in general. The findings of this study highlight the influence of language learners' socio-economic status on how they expect their teachers to treat their oral errors. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| error correction؛ grammatical errors؛ learners’ preferences؛ oral corrective feedback؛ socio-economic status | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| بررسی رابطه بین وضعیت اقتصادی-اجتماعی زبان آموزان و دیدگاه آنان در مورد بازخورد اصلاحی شفاهی: یک روش ترکیبی | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| پویان طاهری1؛ مبین خانلری زاده2 | ||
| 1استادیار دانشگاه بین المللی امام خمینی (ره) | ||
| 2مربی دانشگاه بین المللی امام خمینی (ره) | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| اگرچه مطالعات زیادی اعتقادات و دیدگاه های زبان آموزان را نسبت به تصحیح خطا مورد بررسی قرار داده اند، کمتر تحقیقی تاثیر خصوصیات فردی زبان آموزان بر ترجیحات آنها را برسی کرده است. تحقیق کنونی تاثیر وضعیت اجتماعی-اقتصادی را بر دیدگاه 140 زبان آموز سطح متوسط بالا/پیشرفته در موقعیت انگلیسی به عنوان زبان خارجی مطالعه می کند. طبقعه اجتماعی شرکت کنندگان از طریق مقیاس نسبی مک آرتور مشخص شد و برای بررسی ترجیحات آنها از پرسشنامه و مصاحبه استفاده شد. نتایج نشان داد که زبان آموزان متفق القول معلم را به عنوان ارائه دهنده ی بازخورد می پذیرند و انتظار دارند که هم خطاهای موضعی و هم خطاهای کلی آنها تصحیح شود. با این وجود، در حالی که زبان آموزان طبقه متوسط جامعه ترجیح می دهند خطاهای آنها در پایان کلاس و به نحوی که معلم کل کلاس را خطاب می کند تصحیح شوند، زبان آموزان طبقه بالای جامعه مشکلی با تصحیح شدن به صورت انفرادی و بلا فاصله پس از بروز خطا ندارند. همچنین، اگرچه غالبا زبان آموزان تصحیح خطای مستقیم را ترجیح می دهند، زبان آموزان طبقه بالای جامعه دید مثبت تری را به تصحیح خطا توسط خودشان دارند. یافته های این مطالعه تاثیر وضعیت اجتماعی-اقتصادی زبان آموزان بر انتظار آنها از نحوه دریافت بازخورد تصحیحی شفاهی را روشن می سازد. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| تصحیح خطا, خطاهای گرامری, ترجیحات زبان آموزان, بازخورد تصحیحی شفاهی, وضعیت اجتماعی- اقتصادی | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: preliminary data in healthy white women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 586-592. Alavi, S. M., & Kaivanpanah, S. (2007). Feedback expectancy and EFL learners' achievement in English. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education. 3(2), 181-196.
Ancker, W. (2000). Errors and corrective feedback: Updated theory and classroom practice. English Teaching Forum, 38(4), 20-24.
Arnold, D. H., & Doctoroff, G. L. (2003). The early education of socioeconomically disadvantaged children. The Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 517-545.
Brown, A. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 46-60.
Farah, M.J. (2009). Mind, brain, and education in socioeconomic context. In M. Ferrari, & L. Vuletic (Eds.), The developmental relations between mind, brain and education. Dordrecht: Springer Science +Business.
Farrokhi, F. (2007). Teachers’ stated beliefs about corrective feedback in relation to their practices in EFL classes. Research on Foreign Languages Journal of Faculty of Letters and Humanities, 49(2), 91-131.
Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Fukuda, Y. (2004). Treatment of spoken errors in Japanese high school oral communication classes. Master’s thesis, California State University, San Francisco.
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner.Mahwah, NJ. Erlbaum.
Giatti, L., Camelo, L. do. V., Rodrigues, J. F. de. C., & Barreto, S. M. (2012). Reliability of the MacArthur scale of subjective social status – Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health (ELSA-Brasil). BMC Public Health, 12, 1096.
Goldman, N., Cornman, J. C. & Chang, M. (2006). Measuring subjective social status: A case study of older Taiwanese. Journal of Cross Cultural Gerontology, 21, 71-89. Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. The Modern Language Journal, 72, 283-294.
Jean, G., & D. Simard (2011). Grammar learning in English and French L2: Students’ and teachers’ beliefs and perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 44(4), 465-492.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1988). Teaching grammar: Why bother? California English, 3(3), 241-258.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2012). The emancipation of the language learner. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 2(3), 297-309.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2005). Error correction: Students’ versus teachers’ perceptions. Language Awareness, 14, 112-127.
Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 285-312. Lee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 144-146.
Leki, I. (1991). The preference of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203-218.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Second language acquisition (pp. 413- 468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1-40.
Mezzacappa, E. (2004). Alerting, orienting, and executive attention: Developmental properties and sociodemographic correlates in an epidemiological sample of young, urban children. Child Development, 75(5), 1373-1386.
Nunan, D. (1987). Communicative language teaching: Making it work. English Language Teaching Journal, 41, 136-145.
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573-595.
Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K (2005). Influencing brain networks: Implications for education. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 99-103.
Radecki, P. M., & Swales, J. M. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work. System, 16(3), 355-465.
Rahimi, A. & Dastjerdi, H. (2012). Impact of immediate and delayed error correction on EFL Learners’ Oral Production: CAF. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. 3 (1), 45-54.
Rahimi, M. (2013). Is training student reviewers worth its while? A study of how training influences the quality of students’ feedback and writing. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 67-89.
Riazi, A., & Riasati, M. (2007). Language learning style preferences: A students case study of Shiraz EFL institutes. Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 9(1), 97-125.
Schulz, R. A. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students’ and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 343-364.
Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA-Columbia. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244-258.
Singh-Manoux, A., Adler, N. E., & Marmot, M. G. (2003). Subjective social status: Its determinants and its association with measures of ill-health in the Whitehall II study. Social Science & Medicine, 56(6), 1321-1333. Singh-Manoux, A., Marmot, M.G. & Adler, N.E. (2005). Does subjective social status predict health and change in health status better than objective status? Psychosomatic Medicine, 67, 855-861. Sultana, A. (2009). Peer correction in ESL classrooms. BRAC University Journal, 4(1), 11-19. Truscott, J. (1999). What’s wrong with oral grammar correction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 437-456.
Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179-200. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,314 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,121 |
||