بررسی تاثیرات مستقل و متقابل تغییرات شناختی تکالیف معنا محور و استعداد زبانی بر روی مهارت نوشتاری زبان آموزان ایرانی

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی(عادی)

نویسندگان

1 استاد یار گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی دانشگاه تبریز

2 استادیار گروه علوم پایه ، دانشکده پیراپزشکی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی تبریز

چکیده

هدف ‌‌‌این جستار؛ بررسی تاثیرات اصلی و هم‌کنشی پیچیدگی‌شناختی (Cognitive complexity) فعالیت‌های معنا‌محور(Meaning-based Tasks) و همچنین استعداد زبان‌آموزی(Language learning aptitude )به‌عنوان یک تفاوت فردی روی ‌‌‌کارکرد 226 زبان‌آموز ایرانی، با سطح متوسط زبانی در فعالیت نامه‌نگاری از لحاظ پیچیدگی لغوی(Lexical complexity )، پیچیدگی ساختاری(Structural complexity )و صحت دستوری(Accuracy) بوده است. پیچیدگی‌شناختی فعالیت‌های معنا‌محور هم از لحاظ عوامل جهت‌دهندۀ منابع(Resource-directing factors )و هم از لحاظ  عوامل متفرق کنندۀ منابع(Resource-dispersing factors )تغییر داده شد. در آغاز، زبان‌آموزان به‌صورت تصادفی به‌سه‌گروه آزمایشی تقسیم شدند تا هر کدام فعالیت متفاوتی از لحاظ پیچیدگی‌شناختی دریافت کنند. هر گروه به‌ترتیب شامل 70، 76، 80 نفر می‌شد. سپس در هر گروه، تعدادی مساوی از زبان‌آموزان با استعداد زبان‌آموزی بالا‌تر و پایین‌تردر دو گروه با زمان برنامه‌ریزی(Planning time )و بدون زمان برنامه‌ریزی جای داده شدند. به‌گروه اول 10 دقیقه زمان برای برنامه‌ریزی پیش از آغاز نگارش داده شد، در حالیکه گروه دوم بیدرنگ شروع به‌نوشتن کردند. نتایج آزمون تحلیل واریانس چند متغیری (MANOVA) نشان‌داد که: 1) فراهم کردن زمان برنامه‌ریزی پیش از انجام فعالیت، موجب افزایش معنا‌دار پیچیدگی ساختاری شد،2) افزایش پیچیدگی فعالیت از لحاظ مقدار بار استدلالی ارادی(Intentional reasoning demands ) منجر به‌افزایش پیچیدگی ساختاری و پیچیدگی لغوی شد، اما تاثیر معنا‌داری روی صحت دستوری مشاهده نشد، 3)  اثر هم‌کنشی معنا‌داری بین پیچیدگی‌شناختی و زمان برنامه‌ریزی بر روی صحت دستوری دیده شد و 4) تاثیر هم‌کنشی سه طرفه‌‌‌ای بین استعداد زبان‌آموز ودیگر متغیر‌‌ها بر صحت دستوری مشاهده شد. نتایج این ‌‌‌پژوهش می‌تواند درک ما را از چگونگی مداخله تفاوت‌های شناختی زبان‌آموزان در فرایندهای شناختی نگارش فعالیت‌های تغییر داده شده از لحاظ شناختی افزایش می‌دهد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Investigating The Main and Interaction Effects of Task Manipulation and Learner Variables On Iranian Learners’ Writing Skill

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Zohrabi 1
  • Simin Sattarpour 2
1 Mohammad Zohrabi (Corresponding Author) Assistant Professor University of Tabriz
2 Simin Sattarpour Assistant Professor Department of Basic Sciences, Faculty of Paramedicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences
چکیده [English]

Task features and learner variables are believed to play an important role in language outcome. Thus, the present factorial between-subject study set out to determine the main and interaction effects of task manipulation in terms of intentional reasoning and planning time and learner variables with regard to language learning aptitude on Iranian intermediate learners’ written performance in letter writing tasks. Lexical and syntactical complexity and also accuracy were the linguistic elements measured as dependent variables in the writers’ performance. First, the participants were randomly divided into three experimental groups; each group included 70, 76, 80 participants respectively. Then, they were assigned to planning and no-planning groups within each experimental group, and there were the same number of high-aptitude and low-aptitude participants in each planning group. Three letter writing tasks with different degrees of reasoning demands (low, medium, high) were designed, and each experimental group received one of these tasks. The ones in planning groups were also given 10 extra minutes for planning before performing the tasks.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • planning time
  • intentional reasoning demands
  • language learning aptitude
  • lexical and syntactical complexity
  • Accuracy

مراجع

Byrnes, H., & Manchón, R. M. (Eds.). (2014). Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.7
Carroll, J. (1981). Twenty-five years of research on foreign language aptitude. In K. C. Diller (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude (pp. 119-154). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400004203
Carroll, J. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511571312
Carroll, J., & Sapon, S. M. (1959). The modern language aptitude test. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Cho, H. (2015). Effects of task complexity on English argumentative writing. English Teaching, 70(2), 107-131.
Cumming (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composition. Written Communication, 7(4), 482-511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088390007004003
DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499-533. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100004022
DeKeyser, R. M. (2012). Interactions between individual differences, treatments, and structures in SLA. Language Learning, 62(2), 189-200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00712.x
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104026130
Frear, M. W., & Bitchener, J. (2015). The effects of cognitive task complexity on writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 45-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.009
Hunt, K.W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. Urbana, IL: The National Council of Teachers of English.
Johnson, M. D. (2017). Cognitive task complexity and L2 written syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing, 37, 13-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.06.001
Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 390-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.003
Kormos, J., & Trebits, A. (2011). Working memory capacity and narrative task performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 268-85). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2
Kormos, J., & Trebits, A. (2012). The role of task complexity, modality and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 62(2), 439-472. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00695.x
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 261-284. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.012
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2008). Cognitive task comp ity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 48-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.003   
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic performance in L2 writing and speaking: The effect of mode. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching thecognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 91-104). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Syntactic complexity, lexical variation and accuracy as a function of task complexity and proficiency level in L2 writing and speaking. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 143-170). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Meraji, S. R. (2011). Planning time, strategy use, and written task production in a pedagogic vs. a testing context. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2, 338-352.
Mohammadzadeh Mohammadabadi, A. R., Dabaghi, A., & Tavakoli, M. (2013). The effects of simultaneous use of pre-planning along ±here-and-now dimension on fluency, complexity, and accuracy of Iranian EFL learners’ written performance. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 2(3), 49-65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810383329  
Niwa, Y. (2000). Reasoning demands of L2 tasks and L2 narrative production: Effects of individual differences in working memory, intelligence, and aptitude (Unpublished master’s thesis). Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo, Japan.
Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2010). Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 218-233. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.003
Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2013). Effects of the manipulation of cognitive processes on EFL writers’ text quality. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 375-398. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.55
Rahimpour, M., & Nariman-Jahan, R. (2010). The influence of self-efficacy and proficiency on EFL learners’ writing. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 7 (11), 19-35.
Rahimpour, M., & Safarie, M. (2011). The Effects of on-line and Pre-task Planning on descriptive writing of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of English Linguistics, 11(2), 274-280.
Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for investigating task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287-318). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, P. (2001b). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27-57. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/applin/22.1.27
Robinson, P. (2002). Introduction: Researching individual differences and instructed learning. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 1-10). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Robinson, P. (2003). The cognition hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21, 45-105.
Robinson, P. (2005a). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 45-73. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000036
Robinson, P. (2005b). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 1-32. https://doi.org/ 10.1515/iral.2005.43.1.1
Robinson, P. (2007a). Aptitudes, abilities, contexts and practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from cognitive psychology and applied linguistics (pp. 256-286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, P. (2007b). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 237-257. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.009
Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the cognition hypothesis, language learning and performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 3-38). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Robinson, P. (2015). The Cognition hypothesis, second language task demands and the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in TBLT: Plenaries from a decade of the international conference (pp. 87-122). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the cognition hypothesis and second language learning and performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45(3), 161-176. https://doi.org/ 10.1515/IRAL.2007.007
Ruiz-Funes, M. (2013, November). The interplay between task complexity in foreign language writing at the intermediate level and measures of syntactic complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF). Paper presented at the American Council on Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL).
Ruiz-Funes, M. (2014). Task complexity and linguistic performance in advanced college-level foreign language writing. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Mancho´n (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 163-192). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ruiz-Funes, M. (2015). Exploring the potential of second/foreign language writing for language learning: The effects of task factors and learner variables. Journal of Second Language Writing, 28, 1-19. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jslw.2015.02.001
Schmidt, R
 
. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language learning (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38-62.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (2001). Tasks and language performance assessment. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 167-185). New York/London: Longman. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315838267.
Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1-14. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S026144480200188X
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510-532. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047
Skehan, P. (2014). Limited attentional capacity, second language performance, and task based pedagogy. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (task-based language teaching) (pp. 211-260). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5.08ske
Swain M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95-108). New York: Continuum. https://doi.org/ 10.12691/education-3-4-6.
Wen, Z., Biedron, A., & Skehan, P. (2017). Foreign language aptitude theory: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Language Teaching, 50(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S0261444816000276
پژوهشهای زبانشناختی در زبانهای خارجی
دوره 10، شماره 1
فروردین 1399
صفحه 180-197

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار