تاثیر ابزارهای میانجی برمیزان پیشرفت مهارت نوشتاری زبان آموزان با تکیه بر روانی متن

نوع مقاله: علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 عضو هیئت علمی گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشکده زبانهای خارجی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تهران جنوت

2 عضو هیئت علمی گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشکده زبانهای خارجی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تهران شمال

چکیده

برای بهبود یادگیری توجه به محیط آموزشی رویکردی نوین در آموزش زبان محسوب می‌شود. این پژوهش می‌کوشد تاثیر سه محیط آموزشی را بر پیشرفت مهارت نوشتاری زبان آموزان از منظر روانی متن بررسی کند. پژوهشگران، چهار گروه آموزشی نوشتاری طراحی کردند؛ سه گروه تجربی ( گروه رو در روی دو نفری 21 نفر، گروه غیر همزمان رایانه‌ای 20 نفر و گروه رو در روی فردی 26 نفر) و یک گروه شاهد 16 نفر. بر اساس نمرات آزمون تعیین سطح آکسفورد 83 نفر در این تحقیق شرکت کردند. گروه‌های تجربی، در معرض آموزش مهارت نوشتن بر اساس شیوه داربست-محور قرار گرفتند.نتایج حاصل از روش تحلیل واریانس یک طرفه موید موفقیت گروه آزمایشی رو در روی دو نفره در پیشرفت مهارت نوشتاری از نظر روانی متن در مقایسه با سایر گروهها بود که نشانگر اهمیت رویکرد همکوشی است. بنابراین شایسته است معلمان با اتخاذ رویکرد همکوشی برای افزایش مهارت نوشتاری زبان آموزان برنامه‌ریزی کنند و برای تغییر شرایط در جهت ارتقاء بهره‌مندی مناسب در راستای اهداف آموزشی از کارهای گروهی استفاده نمایند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Impact of Three Different Types of Mediational Artifact on EFL Learners’ Writing Fluency

نویسندگان [English]

  • Nasibeh Bagherpour 1
  • Mojgan Rashtchi 2
1 Ph.D. candidate in Applied Linguistics, Islamic Azad University, Research and Science Branch, Tehran, Iran
2 TEFL Department, Faculty of Foreign Languages, Islamic Azad University, North Tehran Branch, Iran
چکیده [English]

The present study was an attempt to investigate the significance of environmental changes on the development of writing in EFL context with respect to the individual and compared impacts of collaboration, asynchronous computer mediation (ACM), and individual learning on the writing fluency of EFL learners. To this end, four intact writing classes were designated as Collaborative Face to Face group, Asynchronous Computer Mediation group, Individual Face to Face and Control group. The three experimental groups received scaffolding instructions on narrative essays. The three mentioned groups went through the working in pairs (CFFG), working asynchronously through a researcher-designed website (ACMG), and working individually in a conventional classroom setting (IFFG). The results showed that CFFG improved in terms of fluency and positive impact of Collaborative approach over the ACMG and IFFG. The findings emphasized the benefits of pair work and showed that learners working in pairs were more fluent in their writing.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • "Asynchronous computer mediation"
  • "Collaboration"
  • "Fluency"
  • "Mediating artifact"
  • "Scaffolding instruction"
  • "Writing performance"
Abdi, M., Eslami, H., & Zahedi, Y. (2012). The impact of pre-task planning on the fluency and accuracy of Iranian EFL learners’ oral performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 2281 – 2288.

Ableeva, R. (2010). Dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in second language learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, University Park.

Anton, M. (2003). Dynamic assessment of advanced foreign language learners. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.

Bae, J., & Bachman, L. F. (1998). A latent variable approach to listening and reading: Testing factorial invariance across two groups of children in the Korean/English two-way immersion program. Language Testing, 15, 380-414.

Biria, R., & Jafari, S. (2013). The impact of collaborative writing on the writing fluency of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(1), 164-175.

Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning and Technology, 4, 120–136.

Brodahl, C., Hadjerrouit, S., & Hansen, N. K. (2011). Collaborative writing with web 2.0 technologies: Education students’ perceptions. Journal of Information Technology Education, 10, 73–103.

Campbell, A. P. (2003). Weblogs for use with ESL classes.TSEL-EJ, 9(2). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Campbell-Weblogs.html

Campbell, A. P. (2005). Weblog applications for EFL/ESL: Classroom blogging, two fundamental approaches. TSEL-EJ, 9(3). Retrieved from http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej35/m1.html

Chun, D. M. (2016). The role of technology in SLA research. Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. Language Learning and Technology, 20(2), 98–115.

Clay, M., & Cazden, C. (1992). A Vygotskian interpretation of reading recovery. In L.C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of socio-historical psychology (pp. 206-222). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf, & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). NJ: Ablex.

Donato, R. (2004). Aspects of collaboration in pedagogical discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 248-302.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning & Technology, 14(3),51-71. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2010/elolaoskoz.pdf.

Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18 (3), 299–323.

Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics 21 (3), 354–375.

Fellner, T., & Apple, M. (2006). Developing writing fluency and lexical complexity with blogs. The JALT CALL Journal, 2(1), 15-26.

Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Ganem-Gutierrez, A. (2008). Microgenesis, method and object: A study of collaborative activity in a Spanish as a foreign language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 120-148.

Ganem-Gutierrez, A. (2009). Repetition, use of L1, and reading aloud as mediational mechanisms during collaborative activity at the computer. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(4), 323-348.

Ganem-Gutierrez, A., & Roehr, K. (2011). Use of L1, metalanguage, and discourse markers: L2 learners’ regulation during individual task performance. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21, 297-318.

Gruba, P. (2004). Understanding digitized second language videotext. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17(1), 51-82.

Harun, H., Massari, N., & Behak, F. P. (2014). Use of L1 as a mediational tool for understanding tense/ aspect marking in English: An application of concept-based Instruction. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 134 (2014), 134-139.

Hunt, K. (1966). Recent measures in syntactic development. Elementary English, 43, 732–739.

Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, A. (2004). Creating a writing course utilizing class and student blogs. The Internet TESL Journal, 10(8). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Johnson-Blogs/

Kelm, O. (1992). The use of synchronous and computer-networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25(5), 441–454.

Kessler, G., & Bikowski, D. (2010). Developing collaborative autonomous learning abilities in computer mediated language learning: Attention to meaningamong students in wiki space. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), 41-58.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588220903467335.

Kim. Y., & Kellogg. D. (2007). Rules out of roles: Differences in play language and their developmental significance. Applied Linguistics, 28, 25-45.

Kost, C. (2011). Investigating writing strategies and revision behavior in collaborative wiki projects. CALICO Journal, 28(3), 606-620. Retrieved from https://calico.org/html/article_879.pdf.

Kuteeva, M. (2011). Wikis and academic writing: Changing the writerereader relationship. English for Specific Purposes, 30(1), 44-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2010.04.007.

Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lapkin, S., Swain, M., & Knouzi, I. (2008). French as a Second Language: University Students Learn the Grammatical Concept of Voice. In J. P. Lantolf & M. E. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of Second Languages (pp. 228-255). London: Equinox.

Lin, H. (2014). Establishing an empirical link between computer-mediated communication (CMC) and SLA: A meta-analysis of the research. Language Learning & Technology, 18(3), 120–147.

Lin, H. (2015). A meta-synthesis of empirical research on the effectiveness of computer-mediated communication (CMC) in SLA. Language Learning & Technology, 19(2), 85–117.

Lin, W.C., Huang, H.T., & Liou, H.C. (2013). The effects of text-based SCMC on SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning & Technology, 17(2), 123–142.

Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/ non-native speaker conversation and negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126-141.

Long, M., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlangguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 207–227.

Nassaji, H., & Tian, J. (2010). Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs. Language Teaching Research, 14(4),397-419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168810375364.

Negueruela, E., & Lantolf J.P. (2006). Concept-based pedagogy and the acquisition of L2 Spanish. In R. M. Salaberry & B. A. Lafford (Eds.), The Art of Teaching Spanish: Second Language Acquisition from Research to Praxis (pp. 79-102). Washington: Georgetown University Press.

Ocker, R. J., & Yaverbaum, G. J. (2001). Collaborative learning environments: Exploring student attitudes and satisfaction in face-to-face and asynchronous computer conferencing settings. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(4), 427-449.

Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pena-Shaff, J., Altman, W., & Stephenson, H. (2005). Asynchronous online discussions as a tool for learning: Students attitudes, expectations, and perceptions. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16(4), 409-425.

Pennington, M. (1989). Teaching languages with computers: the state of the art. La Jolla, CA: Athelstan.

Pica, T. (1994). Review article: Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493–527.

Poehner, M. E. (2005). Dynamic assessment of oral proficiency among advanced L2 learners of French. Unpublished dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

Polio, C. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning, 47 (1), 101–143.

Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22 (1), 27–57.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning.  Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 192-196.

Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(4), 286-305. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.jslw.2011.05.010.

Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based learning. Applied Linguistics, 17 (1), 38–62.

Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (ed.) Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 183–205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Storch, N. (2002). Pattern of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119- 158.

Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153–173.

Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2010). Learners’ use of first language (Arabic) in pair work in an EFL class. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 355-375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168810375362.

Strauss, P., & U. A. (2007). Group assessment: Dilemmas facing lecturers in multicultural tertiary classrooms. Higher Education Research and Development, 26(2), 147-161.

Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158–164.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook, B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

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: OUP.

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). London: Continuum.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320–337.

Tavakoli, M., & rezazadeh, M. (2014). Individual and collaborative planning conditions: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 argumentative writing.The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 5(4), 85-110.

Thorne, S.L. (2003). Artifacts and Cultures-of-use in Intercultural Communication. Language Learning& Technology, 7(2), 38–67. Retrieved fromhttp://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/pdf/thorne.pdf

Van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Vorobel, O., & Kim, D. (2017). Adolescent ELLs’ collaborative writing practices inface-to-face and online contexts: From perceptions to action.System 65, 78-89.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. MA: Harvard University Press.

Warschauer, M. (2004). Technological change and the future of CALL. In S. Fotos & C. Brown (Eds.), The use of weblogs in language education: New perspectives on CALL for second and foreign language classrooms (pp. 15-25). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445-466.

Yarrow, F., & Topping, K. J. (2001). Collaborative writing: The effects of metacognitive prompting and structured peer interaction. British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 71(2), 261-282. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709901158514

Yim, S., & Warschauer, M. (2017). Web-basedcollaborative writing in L2 contexts: Methodological insights from text mining. Language Learning & Technology, 21(1), 146–165. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2017/yimwarschauer.pdf

Zeiss, E., & Isabelli, G. (2005). The role of asynchronous computer mediated communication on enhancing cultural awareness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(3), 151-169.