َنقش ارزیابی های تکوینی بازخورد-محور در تقویت توانایی گفتاری: بازخورد فرازبانی در مقایسه با تصحیح صریح

نوع مقاله: علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشکده علوم پایه؛ دانشگاه امام علی، تهران، ایران

2 دانشکاه امام علی

چکیده

ارزیابی بعنوان فرآیند اندازه گیری یادگیری به معنای عام و سنجش توانایی زبان آموزان در حیطه آموزش زبانهای خارجی امروزه ماهیت و هدف متفاوتی به خود گرفته است بطوریکه از آن به عنوان ابزاری برای پیشبرد فرایند یادگیری یادگیران تحت عنوان "ارزیابی تکوینی"سود برده می شود.در راستای راستی آزمایی و تحقق چنین هدفی از ارزیابی، 90 زبان آموزایرانی زبان انگلیسی به دوگروه آزمایشی و یک گروه کنترل تقسیم شدند ودر جریان اجرای یک دوره آموزشی مکالمه-محور آموزش زبان انگلیسی، این گروه ها بترتیب بطور متناوب در چندین مرحله در معرض دو نوع ارزیابی تکوینی تحت عناوین "ارزیابی بازخورد فرازبانی" و "ارزیابی اصلاح شفّاف"قرار گرفتند.تجزیه و تحلیل یک سویه و چندسویه واریانس داده ها نشان داد که گروه بازخورد فرازبانی عملکرد بهتری نسبت به گروه کنترل داشته است.باتوجه به این اطلّاعات آماری، ارزیابی در کلاس درس تأثیر بسزایی در تقویت مهارت گفتاری زبان آموزان که بازخورد و تشویق جزو مقولات ذهنی آنهاست، دارد. البته، پیشنهاد می شود در این زمینه تحقیقات بیشتری انجام شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Incorporating Assessment-based Feedbacks into EFL Speaking Class: Metalinguistic Feedback vs. Explicit Correction

نویسندگان [English]

  • Firouz Kazemi 1
  • Gholam-Reza Abbasian 2
1 English, Faculty of Basic Sciences, Imam Ali University, Tehran, IraN
2 Head of English Dept
چکیده [English]

Assessment is no longer taken as a means of grading learners’ learning, rather it is a means of enhancing learning provided that an appropriate alternative can conducted. Among various alternative to assessment, formative assessment can be a platform for rendering various types of feedback to facilitate and enhance learning. To verify this acclaimed conjecture, ninety Iranian male EFL learners divided into two experimental and one control groups that the former two groups received two different types of feedback namely assessment-based metalinguistic feedback, and assessment-based explicit correction, while the control group received conventional instruction in a conversation course, respectively. One-way ANOVA and multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA) of the collected data revealed outperformance by the metalinguistic feedback group over the control one, while the control group outperformed those who received explicit correction feedback. Along with the statistical data, monitoring the trend of classroom atmosphere revealed effectiveness of assessment-based intervention, though the room is suggested to be open for further investigation.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • "assessment"
  • "formative assessment"
  • "metalinguistic feedback"
  • "explicit correction"
  • "speaking skill"

Abadikhah, Sh., & Ashoori, A. (2012). The effect of written corrective feedback on EFL
learners’ performances after collaborative output. Journal of language Teaching and
Research, 3(1), 118-125. http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/JLTR.3.1.118-125
Abbasian, G. R., & Moghimeslam, A. (2012). Washback Teacher-Learner’s Academic
Behavior. Journal of Language and Translation Volume 3, Number2 (5), (pp.21-
33).Spring 2013.
Alderson, J. C., & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics, 14(2),
115-129.
Amini. M & Noriani. I.G. (2012). The Washback Effect of Cloze and Multiple-Choice
Tests on Vocabulary Acquisition. LANGUAGE IN INDIA Strength for Today and
Bright Hope for Tomorrow, 12(7), July 2012 ISSN1930-2940. Retrieved from
http://www.lanugae in India.com/July/2012/
562 پژوهش های زبانشناختی در زبان های خارجی، دورة 9، شمارة 2، تابستان 1398
Bailey. M. K. (1996). Promoting Positive Washback. Retrieved from
http://firstsearch.oclc.org/web umber: 11309224
Buck, G. (1988). Testing listening comprehension in the Japanese University Entrance
Examinations JALT Journal 10, 15-42. Retrieved from http://jaltpublications.
org/files/pdf-article/jj-10.1-art1.pdf
Bygate, M. (2001). Speaking. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.). The Cambridge guide to
teaching English to speakers of other languages. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical
study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 15 (3), 357-386.
Cross, R., & O􀀃 Loughlin, K. (2009). Class-room-based assessment and teacher
practice in ELICOS pathway programs. Melbourne Graduate School of Education,
the University of Melbourne, 1-10. Retrieved November 23, 2008 from
www.englishaustralia.com.au /index.cgi? E=hcatfuncs &X. 8
Djurić, M. (2008). Dealing with situations of positive and negative washback. Scripta
Manent, 4(1), 14-27.
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1, 1-18.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S. and Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and Explicit Corrective Feedback
and the Acquisition of L2 Grammar, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28:
339–368.
Elton, L. &, Laurillard, D. (1979). Trends in student learning. Studies in Higher
Education, 4, 87-02). Retrieved from http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/ 59244/1/59244.pdf
Erfani, SH. (2012). A Comparative Washback Study of IELTS and TOEFL iBT on
Teaching and Learning Activities in Preparation Courses in the Iranian Context.
English Language Teaching; Vol. 5, No. 8; 2012 .ISSN 1916-4742, E-ISSN 1916-
4750 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education. Retrieved from
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal /index. php/elt
Estaji, M. (2013). Demystifying the Complexity of Washback Effect on Learners in the
IELTS Academic Writing Test. 1Allameh Tabataba’i University, Iran. Retrieved from
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/selt .Vol. 1, No. 1; February, 2013.
Farhady, H. Jafarpur, A. & Birjandi, P. (1994). Teaching language skills from theory to
practice. Tehran: The Center for Studying and Compiling University Books in
Humanities.
Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student Revision. TESOL
Quarterly, 31 (2), 315- 339.
Furnborough, C., & Truman, M. (2009). Adult beginner distance language learner
perceptions and use of assignment feedback, Distance Education, 30, 399-418.
Genesee, F. and Upshur, J.A.1996: Classroom-based evaluation in second language
education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
نقش ارزیابی های تکوینی بازخورد-محور در تقویت توانایی گفتاری: بازخورد فرازبانی در مقایسه با تصحیح صریح 563
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers (2nd .Ed.).Cambridge University Press.
Kim, J. H. (2004). Issues of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition,
Teachers College Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL and Applied
Linguistics, 4(2), 1–24.
Long, M.H., 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition.
In: Ritche, W.C., Bhatia, T.K. (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition.
Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 413e468.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997).Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of
form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-
66.
Madsen, H.S, (1983). Techniques in testing. Oxford University Press. NY 10016, USA.
Manjarrés, N. B. (2000). Washabck of the foreign language test on the state
examinations in Columbia: A case study. Arizona Working Papers in SLAT – Vol.
12, 1-19.
Pan, C.Y. (2008).A critical review of five language washback studies from 1995- 2007:
Methodological considerations. National Pingtung Institute of Commerce, Taiwan &
the University of Melbourne, Australia, Shiken: JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG
Newsletter. 12 (2) Retrieved from http://jalt.org/test/pan_1.htm, April 2008 (pp. 2 -
16).
Shohamy, E. (2007). Language tests as language policy tools. Assessment in Education.
14(1), 117–130
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 honor of
William E. Rutherford (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese
EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 32(2), 235-263.