پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 161 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,532 |
| تعداد مقالات | 70,501 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 124,105,397 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 97,210,867 |
بررسی تأثیر تطبیق سبک یادگیری شناختی با بازخورد اصلاحی نوشتاری متمرکز بر یادگیری حروف تعریف معین و نامعین در زبان انگلیسی | ||
| پژوهشهای زبانشناختی در زبانهای خارجی | ||
| دوره 10، شماره 3، آبان 1399، صفحه 602-617 اصل مقاله (996.29 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: علمی پژوهشی(عادی) | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jflr.2020.310001.753 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| حجت عابدی* 1؛ ابوالقاسم فاطمی جهرمی2؛ محمدرضا عنانی سراب2 | ||
| 1دانشجوی دکتری آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشکدة ادبیات، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی تهران، ایران | ||
| 2دانشیار آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشکدة ادبیات، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی تهران، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| این مطالعه با هدف بررسی میزان تاثیر تطابق سبک‌های یادگیری شناختی (Cognitive Learning Styles) با بازخورد اصلاحی نوشتاری (Written Corrective Feedback) بر یادگیری حروف تعریف معین و نامعین در زبان انگلیسی انجام گرفت. برای این منظور، با استفاده از یک طرح پیش‌آزمون و پس‌آزمون فوری و باتأخیر، 75 فراگیر زبان انگلیسی به‌عنوان زبان خارجی (English as a Foreign Language) سطح ماقبل میانی به چهار گروه آزمایش مستقیم-FD، آزمایش غیرمستقیم-FI، مقایسة غیرمستقیم-FD و مقایسة مستقیم-FI تقسیم شدند. در مورد جمع‌آوری داده‌ها، از چندین ابزار در مراحل مختلف مطالعه به شرح زیر استفاده شد: آزمون تعیین سطح آکسفورد (Oxford Placement Test)، آزمون اشکال تعبیه‌شده گروهی (Group Embedded Figures Test)، آزمون ترجیحی بازخورد اصلاحی نوشتاری (Written Corrective Feedback Preference Test)، آزمون روایی (Narrative Test) و آزمون تصحیح خطا (Error Correction Test). از آزمون‌های تعیین سطح آکسفورد، اشکال تعبیه‌شده گروهی و بازخورد اصلاحی نوشتاری برای تقسیم دانشجویان به گروه‌های مختلف استفاده شد، در حالی که آزمون‌های روایی و تصحیح خطا به عنوان معیارهای یادگیری بکار گرفته شدند. برای تجزیه و تحلیل داده‌ها و یافتن تفاوت‌های احتمالی بین گروه‌ها، آزمون تحلیل کواریانس اجرا شد. نتایج نشان داد که گروه‌های آزمایش در پس‌آزمون فوری و باتأخیر، از گروه‌های مقایسه در آزمون‌های روایی و تصحیح خطا بهتر عمل کردند، و این نشان می‌دهد که سبک‌های یادگیری شناختی فراگیران در صورت سازگاری با نوع بازخورد می‌تواند تاثیر بازخورد اصلاحی نوشتاری را بهبود ببخشد. بر اساس این یافته‌ها، چند کاربرد همراه با موضوعاتی برای تحقیقات آتی در حیطة بازخورد اصلاحی نوشتاری .و سبک‌های یادگیری شناختی پیشنهاد شد. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| بازخورد اصلاحی نوشتاری؛ بازخورد اصلاحی نوشتاری مستقیم؛ بازخورد اصلاحی نوشتاری غیرمستقیم؛ سبک های یادگیری شناختی؛ وابستگی/استقلال میدانی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Exploring the effect of matching cognitive learning style with focused written corrective feedback on English definite/indefinite article system learning | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Hojjat Abedi1؛ Seyed Abolghasem Fatemi Jahromi2؛ Mohammad Reza Anani Sarab2 | ||
| 1Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Letters and Humanities, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Letters and Humanities, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| This study aimed to explore the extent to which matching cognitive learning styles (CLS) with written corrective feedback (WCF) can enhance the feedback efficacy in learning the English definite/indefinite article system. To this end, using a pre-test, immediate and delayed post-tests design, 75 pre-intermediate EFL learners were assigned to four groups: experimental direct-FD, experimental indirect-FI, comparison indirect-FD, and comparison direct-FI. As for data collection, several instruments were used in different stages of the study as follows: Oxford Placement Test (OPT), Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT), WCF Preference Test, Narrative Tasks, and Error Correction Test. OPT, GEFT, and WCF Preference Test were used to assign the students to different groups, whereas Narrative Tasks and Error Correction Test were used as measures of learning gains. To analyze the data, ANCOVA was run to find any potential differences between the groups. The results revealed that the experimental groups outperformed the comparison groups in both narrative and error correction immediate and delayed post-tests, suggesting that the cognitive learning styles of learners can contribute to the efficacy of direct and indirect types of WCF if they are in harmony with each other. Based upon these findings, a number of implications along with new avenues of research at the intersection of WCF and CLS are suggested. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| written corrective feedback, direct written corrective feedback, indirect written corrective feedback, cognitive learning styles, field dependence/independence | ||
|
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
|
||
| مراجع | ||
|
Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227-257.
Biedron, A., & Pawlak, M. (2016). The interface between research on individual difference variables and teaching practice: The case of cognitive factors and personality. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(3), 395-422.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118.
Bitchener, J., & Ferris D. R. (2012).Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010a). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207-217.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010b). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten-month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193-214.
Carter, E. F. (1988). The relationship of field dependent/independent cognitive style to Spanish language achievement and proficiency: A preliminary report. Modern Language Journal, 21-30.
Cassidy, S. (2004). Learning styles: An overview of theories, models, and measures. Educational Psychology, 24, 419–444.
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.
Chapelle, C., & Roberts, C. (1986). Ambiguity tolerance and field independence as predictors of proficiency in English as a second language. Language Learning, 36, 27–45.
Dancey, C. P., & Reidy, J. (2007). Statistics without maths for psychology. Pearson Education.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2th Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Evans, N., Hartshorn, J., McCollum, R., & Wolfersberger, M. (2010). Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 14, 445–464.
Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81-104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184.
Goo, J. & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35 (1), 127-165.
Goodenough, D.R. (1976). The role of individual differences in field dependence as a factor in learning and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 675–694.
Guo, X., & Yang, Y. (2018). Effects of corrective feedback on EFL learners’ acquisition of third-person singular form and the mediating role of cognitive style. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47(4), 841-858.
Hansen, J. (1984). Field dependence‐independence and language testing: Evidence from six Pacific Island cultures. TESOL Quarterly, 18(2), 311-324.
Hansen, J., & Stanfield, C. (1981). The relationship of field dependent-independent cognitive styles to foreign language achievement. Language Learning, 31, 349-367.
Hill, L. A. (1980). Intermediate anecdotes in American English. Oxford University.
Hinkel, E. (Ed.). (2011). Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2). Routledge.
Hoffman, S.Q. (1997). Field dependence/Independence in second language acquisition and implications for educators and instructional designers. Foreign Language Annals, 30, 222-234.
Johnson, J., Prior, S., & Artuso, M. (2000). Field dependence as a factor in second language communicative production. Language Learning, 50(3), 529-567.
Johnson, J., & Rosano, T. (1993). Relation of cognitive style to metaphor interpretation and second language proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 159-159.
Kurzer, K. (2018). Dynamic written corrective feedback in developmental multilingual writing classes. TESOL Quarterly, 52(1), 5-33.
Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. The Modern Language Journal, 66(2), 140–149.
Li, S. (2015). Working memory, language analytical ability and L2 recasts. In Wen, Z., Mota, M. B., & McNeill, A. (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 139-159). Multilingual Matters.
Liew, T. W., Tan, S. M., & Seydali, R. (2014). Learners' field dependence and the effects of personalized narration on learners' computer perceptions and task-related attitudes in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 42(3), 255-272.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66.
Oltman, P.K., Raskin, E., & Witkin, H.A. (1971). Group embedded figures test. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 43-68.
Powers, J. E., & Lis, D. J. (1977). Field dependence-independence and performance with the passive transformation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 45(3), 759-765.
Rassaei, E. (2015). Recasts, field dependence/independence cognitive style, and L2 development. Language Teaching Research, 19(4), 499-518.
Richardson, J. A., & Turner, T. E. (2000). Field dependence revisited I: Intelligence. Educational Psychology, 20(3), 255-270.
Rummel, S., & Bitchener, J. (2015). The effectiveness of written corrective feedback and the impact of Lao learners’ beliefs have on uptake. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 38(1), 64-82.
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL-Review of Applied Linguistics, 156(1), 279-296. Doi: 10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034439.
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41.
VanPatten, B. (Ed.). (2004). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ.
Wang, A. (2007). The effects of varied instructional aids and field dependence independence on learners’ structural knowledge in a hypermedia environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio University.
Wieseman, R. A., Portis, S. C., & Simpson, F. M. (1992). An analysis of the relationship between cognitive styles and grades: new perspectives on success or failure of preservice education majors. College Student Journal, 26(4), 512–517.
Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. (1977). Field dependence revisited. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. (1981). Cognitive styles: essence and origins. Field dependence and field independence. Psychological Issues, (51), 1-141.
Witkin, H. A., Moore, C.A., Goodenough, D.R., & Cox, P.W. (1977). Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47, 1–64.
عسگری، فاطمه (1398). توانایی‌های متفاوت زبان‌آموزان در یک کلاس: مشکلات و راهبردها. زبان، پژوهش زبان خارجی، 9(4): 1165-1131. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 487 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 722 |
||
