ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Examining Iranian EFL Learners' Knowledge of Grammar through a Computerized Dynamic Test
Dynamic assessment (DA) which is rooted in Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory involves the integration of instruction and assessment in a dialectical way to achieve two main purposes: enhancing learners' development and understanding about their learning potential. However, the feasibility and appropriateness of mediation are two main concerns of DA. The former is concerned with the application of DA for a large number of students, while the latter is concerned with providing test takers with appropriate hints. The purpose of the current study was three-fold: to examine the difference between dynamic and nondynamic tests, to understand about test takers' potential for learning, and to find out how mediation works for high and low ability students. To achieve these aims, computer software was developed. The software is capable of both providing the test takers with graduated hints for each item automatically, and adapting the overall difficulty level of the test to the test takers' proficiency level. To test the efficiency of the software in employing dynamic assessment, 83 Iranian university students participated in the study. The results of the study indicated that the computerized dynamic test made significant contribution both to enhancing students' grammar ability and to obtaining information about their potential for learning. Based on the findings of the study, it can be concluded that the use of dynamic assessment can simultaneously lead to the development of the test takers' ability and provide a more comprehensive picture of learning potential. Accordingly, teachers are recommended to use dynamic assessment to make more informed decisions about their students.
https://ilt.atu.ac.ir/article_1759_e685ee9ad14a6941bd9405ef06c275c5.pdf
2014-12-01
183
161
Vygotsky
sociocultural theory
dynamic assessment
computerized test
Iranian learners
Alireza
Ahmadi
arahmadi@shirazu.ac.ir
1
Associate professor of TEFL, Shiraz University, Iran
AUTHOR
Elyas
Barabadi
elyasbarabadi@yahoo.com
2
Ph.D. Candidate of TEFL, Shiraz University, Iran
AUTHOR
Ableeva, R. (2008). The effects of dynamic assessment on L2 listening comprehension. In J. P. Lantolf and M. E. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 57-86). London: Equinox.
1
Anton, M. (2009). Dynamic assessment of advanced second language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 42(3), 576-598.
2
Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3
Birjandi, P., & Ebadi, S. (2009). Issues in dynamic assessment. English Language Teaching, 2(4), 188-198.
4
Black, C., & Anestis, M. (2008). 12 SAT practice tests and PSAT. New York: McGraw-Hill.
5
Black, C., & Anestis, M. (2011). SAT. New York: McGraw-Hill.
6
Chapelle, C. H. (2012). Validity argument for language assessment: The framework is simple. Language Testing, 29(1), 19-27.
7
Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8
Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9
Haney, M., & Evans, J. (1999). National survey of school psychologists regarding use of dynamic assessment and other nontraditional assessment techniques. Psychology in the Schools, 36(4), 295-304.
10
Hasson, N., & Joffe, V. (2007). The case for dynamic assessment in speech and language therapy. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 23(1), 9-25.
11
Haywood, H. C., & Lidz, C. S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12
Haywood, H., & Tzuriel, D. (2002). Applications and challenges in dynamic assessment. Peabody Journal of Education, 77(2), 40-63.
13
Kane, M. (2011). Validating score interpretations and uses. Language Testing, 29(3), 3-17.
14
Kozulin, A., & Garb, E. (2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension. School Psychology International, 23, 112-127.
15
Kozulin, A., & Garb, E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of literacy: English as a third Language. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 19(1), 65-77.
16
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17
Lantolf, J. P. (2009). Dynamic assessment: The dialectic integration of instruction and assessment. Language Teaching Journal, 42(3), 355-368.
18
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic Assessment. In E. Shohamy (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of language and education (vol. 7): Language testing and assessment (pp. 273-285). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19
Lidz, C. S., & Macrine, S. (2001). Identification of minority and immigrant students for gifted education: The contribution of dynamic assessment. School Psychology International, 22(1), 74-96.
20
Pamela, J. S. (2004). Barron's, how to prepare for the TOEFL. New York: Barron's Educational Series, Inc.
21
Pena, E. D., Iglesias, A., & Lidz, C. S. (2001). Reducing test bias through dynamic assessment of children's word learning ability. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10, 138-154.
22
Phillips, D. (2003). Preparation course for the TOEFL test, the paper test. New York: Pearson Education.
23
Pishghadam, R., & Barabadi, E. (2012). Constructing and validating computerized dynamic assessment of l2 reading comprehension. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 15(1), 73-95.
24
Poehner, M. E. (2007). Beyond the test: L2 dynamic assessment and the transcendence of mediated learning. The Modern Language Journal, 91(3), 323-340.
25
Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development. Berlin: Springer.
26
Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 233-265.
27
Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2013). Bringing the ZPD into the equation: Capturing L2 development during Computerized Dynamic Assessment (C-DA). Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 323-342.
28
Poehner, M. E., Zhang, J., & Lu, X. (2014). Computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA): Diagnosing L2 development according to learner responsiveness to mediation. Language Testing, 32(3), 337-357.
29
Shohamy, E. (2005). The power of tests over teachers: The power of teachers over tests. In D. J. Tedick (Ed.), Second language teacher education (pp. 101-112). Trenton, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum associates.
30
Tajeddin, Z., & Tayebipour, F. (2012). The effect of dynamic assessment on EFL Learners' acquisition of request and apology. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 4(2), 87-118.
31
Toe, A. (2012). Promoting EFL students’ inferential reading skills through computerized dynamic assessment. Language Learning & Technology, 16(3), 10-20.
32
Tzuriel, D., & Kaufman, R. (1999). Mediated learning and cognitive modifiability: dynamic assessment of young Ethiopian immigrant children to Israel. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 359-380.
33
Tzuriel, D., & Shamir, A. (2002). The effects of mediation in computer assisted dynamic assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 21–32.
34
Valsiner, J. (2001). Process structure of semiotic mediation in human development. Human Development, 44, 84-97.
35
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36
37
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
A Comparative Study of Nominalization in an English Applied Linguistics Textbook and its Persian Translation
Among the linguistic resources for creating grammatical metaphor, nominalization rewords processes and properties metaphorically as nouns within the experiential metafunction of language. Following Halliday's (1998a) classification of grammatical metaphor, the current study investigated nominalization exploited in an English applied linguistics textbook and its corresponding Persian translation. Selection of these textbooks was motivated by consulting 10 ELT professors. Analysis started by identifying nominalization instances and recurrent patterns of nominalization in the books through adopting a mixed approach. The frequency of nominal expressions was counted, and eventually chi-square was run to find out the probable significance of nominalization use in English and Persian academic text samples. The quantitative differences in using nominalization turned out to be significant, and results revealed variations in the ranking patterns of nominalization in both texts. Qualities as entities tended to recur more in English than in Persian. However, the noun to noun modifier was frequently exploited in the Persian translation. The similarities in the employment of nominalization patterns might reflect the awareness of both the author and the translator of the role of metadiscourse markers in scientific texts. The main reason for the differences lies in the matter that knowledge is realized in different languages. The findings of this study have implications for textbook writers, English for Academic Purposes students, and translators.
https://ilt.atu.ac.ir/article_1760_f8fc0bdfba2f4370c2f45c6e57eff101.pdf
2014-12-01
207
185
systemic functional linguistics
grammatical metaphor
nominalization
textbook
translation
Alireza
Jalilifar
ar.jalilifar@gmail.com
1
Professor of Applied Linguistics, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Iran
AUTHOR
Fereshteh
Shirali
fereshtehshirali@yahoo.com
2
M.A. Student of TEFL, Islamic Azad University, Khuzestan Science & Research Branch, Iran
AUTHOR
Bloor, T., & Bloor, M. (2004). The functional analysis of English: A Hallidayan approach (2nd ed.). . New York: Arnold.
1
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
2
Colombi, M. C. (2006). Grammatical metaphor: Academic language development in latino students in Spanish. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 147-163). London: Continuum.
3
Hadidi, Y., & Raghami, A. (2012). A comparative study of ideational grammatical metaphor in business and political texts. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(2), 348-365.
4
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Some grammatical problems in scientific English. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 76-94). London: The Falmer Press.
5
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional Grammar (2nd ed.).London: Edward Arnold.
6
Halliday, M. A. K. (1998a). Things and relations: Regrammaticising experience as technical knowledge. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 185-236). London: Routledge.
7
Halliday, M. A. K. (1998b). Language and knowledge: The unpacking of text. In M.A.K. Halliday (Ed.), The language of science (2004) (pp. 24-48). London: Continuum.
8
Halliday, M. A. K. (2008). Complementarities in language. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
9
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). General orientation. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 2-24). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
10
Ho, V. (2010). Grammatical metaphor in request e-mail discourse. Applied Language Studies, 14, 1- 24.
11
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles of language teaching (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum.
13
Mẫu, V. T. (2012). Grammatical metaphor in English pharmaceutical discourse (unpublished M.A. Thesis). University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam.
14
Norouzi, M. H., Khomeijani Farahani, A. A., & Borzabadi Farahani, D. (2012). Deverbal nominalizations across written-spoken dichotomy in the language of science. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(11), 2251-2261.
15
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16
Sayfouri, N. (2010). SFL and ESP genre analysis of English research articles in Iranian and English-American medical journals: A contrastive study (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
17
Sušinskienė, S.(2010)Nominalization as a cohesive device in British newspaper editorials. Filologija, 15, 142-150.
18
Tabrizi, F., & Nabifar, N. (2013).A comparative study of ideational grammatical metaphor in health and political texts of English newspapers. Journal of Academic and Applied Studies, 3(1),32-51.
19
Văn, T. T. L. (2011). A study on grammatical metaphor in English business letters (M.A. Thesis). Vietnam National University, Hanoi.
20
Wenyan, G. (2012). Nominalization in medical papers: A comparative study. Studies in Literature and Language, 4(1), 86-93.
21
فهیم، م. (2011). اصول یادگیری و آموزش زبان (چاپ دوم). تهران: رهنما.
22
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Using Critical Discourse Analysis Instruction in Argumentative and Descriptive Writing Classes
The field of ELT is constantly witnessing the introduction of new instructional approaches: one such perhaps recent initiative is critical discourse analysis (CDA). Accordingly, the present study was an attempt to investigate the impact of CDA instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ descriptive and argumentative writing ability. To fulfill the aforementioned purpose, a sample TOEFL was primarily piloted among a group of 30 upper intermediate EFL learners by the researchers; with the acceptable reliability and item analysis indices achieved, then the researchers administered the test among another group of 90 upper intermediate learners. Ultimately, those 60 learners whose scores fell one standard deviation above and below the mean were chosen as the participants of the study and were randomly assigned to a control and an experimental group with 30 participants in each. Both of these groups underwent the same amount of teaching time during 20 sessions which included a treatment of CDA instruction based on Jank’s (2005) set of 14 features for the experimental group. A posttest was administered at the end of the instruction to both groups and their mean scores on the test were compared through a multivariate analysis of variance. The result (F = 14.41 and p = 0.000 < 0.05) led to the rejection of the two null hypotheses raised in this study, thereby demonstrating that the learners in the experimental group benefited significantly more than those in the control group in terms of improving their descriptive and argumentative writing ability. Hence, the major pedagogical implication of this study is that CDA instruction can be effectively used to assist EFL learners improve their argumentative and descriptive writing ability.
https://ilt.atu.ac.ir/article_1761_ab7cb5c59012def519ce284425464cc7.pdf
2014-12-01
209
236
Critical Discourse Analysis
critical language awareness
systemic functional linguistics
writing genres
descriptive writing
argumentative writing
Hamid
Marashi
ahmuya@yahoo.com
1
Associate Professor, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch, Iran
AUTHOR
Elham
Yavarzadeh
chelcheragh1361@gmail.com
2
M.A. Student of TEFL, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Iran
AUTHOR
Ali, S. (2011). Critical language awareness in a pedagogic context. English Language Teaching, 4(4), 28-35.
1
Allwright, R. (1979). Language learning through communicative practice. In C. I. Brumfit & K. Johnson (Eds.), The communicative approach to language teaching (pp. 167-181). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2
Auerbach, E. R., & McGrail, L. (1993). Rosa’s challenge: Connecting classroom and community contexts. In S. Benesch, (Ed.), ESL in America: Myths and possibilities(pp. 96-111). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton Kook.
3
Bazerman, C., Little, J., & Bethel, L. (2005). Reference guide to writing across the curriculum. Indianapolis, ID: Parlor Press.
4
Bohannon, J. M. (2005). I hate writing: The unofficial guide to freshman composition and undergraduate writing. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse.
5
Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
6
Chakraverty, A., & Gautum, K. K. (2008). Dynamics of writing. In P. Shankar (Ed.), Teaching of English (pp. 286-297). New Delhi: APH.
7
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8
Cook, G. (2003). Applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9
Correia, R. (2006). Encouraging critical reading in the EFL critical language awareness classroom. English Teaching Forum Journal, 60(4), 336-345.
10
Cots, J., M. (2006). Teaching with an attitude: Critical discourse analysis in EFL teaching. ELT Journal, 60(4), 336-345.
11
Crammond, J. G. (1998). The uses and complexity of argument structures in expert and student persuasive writing. Written Communication, 15(2), 230-268.
12
Fairclough, N. (1992). Language and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
13
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.
14
Fairclough, N. (2004). Critical discourse analysis in researching language in the new capitalism: Over determination, transdisciplinarity and textual analysis. In L. Young & C. Harrison (Eds.), Systemic functional linguistics and critical discourse analysis (pp. 103-122 ) London: Continuum.
15
Fowler, R. (1996). On critical linguistics. In C. R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis (pp. 3-14). London: Routledge.
16
Fowler, R., Hodge, R., Kress, G., & Trew, T. (1979). Language and control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
17
Fredricks, L. (2007). A rationale for critical pedagogy in EFL: The case of Tajikistan. The Reading Matrix, 7(2), 22-28.
18
Fusillo, A. (2000). Imaginative writer. Australia: Curriculum Cooperation.
19
Glencoe, N. (2005). Writer’s choice: Grammar and composition. New York: McGraw Hill.
20
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
21
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1989). Scoring procedures for ESL contexts. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 241-276). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
22
Hedge, T. (2000).Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23
Hedgecock, J. S. (2005). Taking stock of research and pedagogy in L2 writing. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 598-613). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24
Heise, W. E. (2009). Writing for people who hate writing: A book for rest of us. Chicago, IL: Jackson-Graham.
25
Icmez, S. (2009). Motivation and critical reading in EFL critical language awareness in classrooms: A case of ELT preparatory students. Theory and Practice in Education, 5(2), 123-145.
26
Janks, H. (2005). Language and design of text. English Teaching: Practice and Critique 4(3), 97-110.
27
Kamler, B. (2001). Relocating the personal: A critical writing pedagogy. New York: State University of New York Press.
28
Kane, T. S. (2000). The Oxford essential guide to writing. New York: Berkley Books.
29
Koupaee Dar, Z., Rahimi, A., & Shams, M., R. (2010). Teaching reading with a critical attitude: Using critical discourse analysis to raise EFL university students’ critical language awareness. International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, 3(2), 457-476.
30
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1999). Critical classroom discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 453-484.
31
Larson-Hall, J. (2010). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. New York: Routledge.
32
Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. O. (2008). Educational administration: Concepts and practices. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
33
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
34
McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35
Mehan, H. (1979). Lesson learning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
36
Morgan, C. (1998). Writing mathematically: The discourse of investigation. London: Falmer.
37
Nazario, L. A., Borchers, D. D., & Lewis, W. F. (2010). Bridges to better writing. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
38
Nimehchisalem, V. (2011). Determining the evaluative criteria of an argumentative writing scale. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 58-69.
39
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40
Petraglia, J. (2005). Introduction: General writing skills instruction and its discontents. In J. Petraglia (Ed.), Reconceiving writing, rethinking writing instruction (pp. xi-xvii). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
41
Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42
Rogers, R. (2004). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. In R. Rogers (Ed.), An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (pp. 1-19). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
43
Rozmiarck, R. (2000). Descriptive Writing. Westminster, CA: Teachers Created Recourses.
44
Schmitt, N. (2002). An introduction to applied linguistics. London: Arnold.
45
Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
46
Svalberg, A. M. (2000). Language awareness and language learning. ELT Journal, 40, 287-308.
47
Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3), 359-383.
48
Van Lier, L. (1988). The Classroom and the language learner: Ethnography and second-language classroom research. Harlow: Longman.
49
Vesely, P., & Sherlock, J. (2005). Pedagogical tools to develop critical thinking. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 9(4), 155-161.
50
Wallace, C. (1992). Critical literacy awareness in the EFL classroom. In N. Fairclough (Ed.), Critical language awareness (pp. 59-92). London: Longman.
51
Wallace, C. (1999). Critical language awareness: Key principles for a course in critical reading. Language Awareness, 8(2), 98-110.
52
Wang, Y. (2004). English magazines: Motivation + improved EFL writing skill. English Teaching Forum, 42(1), 24-29.
53
Weigle, S. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
54
Widdowson, H. G. (2007). Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
55
Wright, J. W. (1994). Resumes for people who have to write resumes: A fast, step-by-step method to write resumes and cover letters. Los Angeles: Shastar.
56
Yang, Y. F. (2004). The pilot study of diagnostic reading assessment. In The proceedings of the 21st international conference on English teaching and learning in R.O.C. (pp. 241-254). Taichung: Chaoyang University of Technology.
57
Young, R. (1992). Critical theory and classroom talk. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
58
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
The Relationship among Reflective Thinking, Listening Anxiety and Listening Comprehension of Iranian EFL Learners: Does Proficiency make a Difference?
As the main part of a large-scale project, the present study investigated the relationship among reflective thinking, listening anxiety, and listening comprehension of Iranian EFL learners with regard to their proficiency level. To this end, 223 (106 intermediate and 117 advanced) adult male and female Iranian EFL learners from a private language institute took part in the study by completing the Reflective Thinking Questionnaire (RTQ) developed by Kember et al., (2000), the Foreign Language Listening Anxiety Scale (FLLAS) developed by Kim (2000) and a listening comprehension test selected from the listening part of IELTS. Using factor analysis and Chronbach’s Alpha, the questionnaires were revalidated and their reliability was re-estimated. The results of Pearson product moment correlations indicated there was a statistically significant: (a) positive association between reflective thinking and listening comprehension, (b) reverse correlation between listening anxiety and listening comprehension, and (c) reverse relationship between reflective thinking and listening anxiety of Iranian EFL learners. Furthermore, the results of multiple regression analysis indicated listening anxiety, compared to reflective thinking, was a significantly stronger predictor of listening comprehension. Additionally, the results of MANOVA revealed there was a significant difference between intermediate and advanced EFL learners with respect to their reflective thinking and listening anxiety. In the light of the findings of the study, foreign language education policy makers in general and EFL teachers in particular are thus recommended to introduce ways to enhance reflective thinking of the students and decrease their listening anxiety if they are to improve their listening comprehension. The results and implications of the study are discussed in more detail in the paper.
https://ilt.atu.ac.ir/article_1762_0a88f490c396ee7894b91b8d3cc5fc9d.pdf
2014-12-01
261
237
reflective thinking
listening anxiety
listening comprehension
Iranian EFL learners
intermediate
advanced
Hassan
Soodmand Afshar
hassansoodmand@gmail.com
1
Assistant Professor, Bu-Ali Sina University, Iran
AUTHOR
Raouf
Hamzavi
raoufhamzavi@yahoo.com
2
M.A. in TEFL, Bu-Ali Sina University, Iran
AUTHOR
Andrusyszyn, M. A., & Davie, L. (1997). Facilitating reflection through interactive journal writing in an online graduate course: A qualitative study. Journal of Distance Education, 12(1), 103-126.
1
Aneiro, S. (1989). The influence of receiver apprehension in foreign language learners on listening comprehension among Puerto Rican college students. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation. New York, NY: New York University.
2
Aydin, S. (2009). Test anxiety among foreign language learners: A review of literature. The Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 5(1), 127-137.
3
Buck, G. (2001). Assessing listening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4
Chamot, A. U. (1995). Learning strategies and listening comprehension. In D. J. Mendelsohn & J. Rubin (Eds.), A guide for the teaching of second language listening (pp. 13-30). San Diego, CA: Dominie Press.
5
Christenberry, B. (2003). Listening comprehension in the foreign language classroom. Retrieved from http://langlab.uta.edu/german/lana.rings/fall01gradstudents/2001paperchristenberry.htm
6
DeFilippis, D. A. (1980). A study of the listening strategies used by skillful and unskillful college French students in aural comprehension tasks. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Pennsylvania, PE: University of Pittsburgh.
7
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
8
Elkhafaifi, H. (2005). Listening comprehension and anxiety in the Arabic language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 89(2), 206-220.
9
Ennis, R. H. (1987). Taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J. Baron & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 9-26). New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.
10
Gonen, M. (2009). The relationship between FL listening anxiety and foreign language listening strategies: The case of Turkish EFL learners. Proceedings of the 5th WSEAS/IASME International Conference on Educational Technologies (EDUTE’ 09).
11
Griffith, B., & Frieden, G. (2000). Facilitating reflective thinking. Counselor Education & Supervision, 40(2), 82-92.
12
Jakeman, V., & McDowell, C. (1997). Cambridge practice tests for IELTS 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13
Jensen, S. K., & Joy, C. (2005). Exploring a model to evaluate levels of reflection in baccalaureate nursing students' journals. The Journal of Nursing Education, 44(3), 139-142.
14
Kember, D., Jones, A., Loke, A., McKay, J., Sinclair, K., Tse, H., Webb, C., Wong, F., Wong, M., & Yeung, E. (1999). Determining the level of reflective thinking from students’ written journals using a coding scheme based on the work of Mezirow. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 18(1), 18-30.
15
Kember, D., Leung, D.Y.P., Jones, A., Loke, A.Y., McKay, J., Sinclair, K., Yeung, E. (2000). Development of a questionnaire to measure the level of reflective thinking. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(4), 382-395.
16
Kim, J. H. (2000). Foreign language listening anxiety: A study of Korean students learning English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Austin, TE: University of Texas.
17
Kimura, H. (2008). Foreign language listening anxiety: Its dimensionality and group differences. JALT Journal, 30(2), 173-196.
18
Kinchin, I. M., Hay, D. B., & Adams, A. (2000). How a qualitative approach to concept map analysis can be used to aid learning by illustrating patterns of conceptual development. Educational Research, 42(1), 43-57.
19
King, P., & Kitchener, K. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
20
Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155-178.
21
Kwon, N. (2008). A mixed-methods investigation of the relationship between critical thinking and library anxiety among undergraduate students in their information search process. College & Research Libraries, 69(2), 117-131.
22
MacIntyre, P. D. (1995). How does anxiety affect second language leaning? A reply to Sparks and Ganschow. Modern Language Journal, 79(1),90-99.
23
Mendelsohn, D. J. (1994). Learning to listen: A strategy-based approach for the second-language learner. San Diego, CA: Dominie Press.
24
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Brass.
25
Mezirow, J. (1998). On critical reflection. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(3), 185-198.
26
Mohammadi Golchi, M. (2012). Listening anxiety and its relationship with listening strategy use and listening comprehension among Iranian IELTS learners. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(4), 115-128.
27
Moradan, A., Niroo, Z., & Kazemian, E. (2013). The Relationship between test anxiety and listening comprehension among EFL students of Kerman University. Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, 3(10), 143-152.
28
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House/Harper & Row.
29
Oxford, R. L. (1993). Research update on teaching L2 listening. System, 21(2), 205-211.
30
Phan, H. P. (2006). Examination of student learning approaches, reflective thinking, and epistemological beliefs: A latent variables approach. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 10(4), 577-610.
31
Phan, H. P. (2007). Examination of student learning approaches, reflective thinking, and self-efficacy belief at the university of the South Pacific: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 27(6), 789-806.
32
Phan, H. P. (2008). Unifying different theories of learning: Theoretical framework and empirical evidence. Educational Psychology, 28(3), 325-340.
33
Phillips, E. M. (1992). The effects of language anxiety on students’ oral test performance and attitudes. The Modern Language Journal. 76(1), 14-26.
34
Renner, C. E. (1996). Enrich learners’ language production through content-based instruction. Paper presented at a National Conference on Lingua e Nuova Didattica, Modena, Italy.
35
Rudd, R. D. (2007). Defining critical thinking. Techniques, 82(7),46-49.
36
Scarcella, R. C., & Oxford, R. L. (1992). The typstry of the language learning: The individual in the communicative classroom. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
37
Serraj, S., & Noordin, N. (2013). Relationship among Iranian EFL students’ foreign language anxiety, foreign language listening anxiety and their listening comprehension. English Language Teaching, 6(5), 1-12.
38
Song, H. D., Koszalka, T. A., & Grabowski, B. (2005). Exploring instructional design factors prompting reflective thinking in young adolescents. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(2), 49-68.
39
Soodmand Afshar, H., & Hamzavi, R.(2014). Listening strategy use, test anxiety and test performance of intermediate and advanced Iranian EFL learners. Applied Research on English Language, 3(2), 101-116.
40
Suliman, W. A., & Halabi, J. (2007). Critical thinking, self-esteem, and state anxiety of nursing students. Nurse Education Today, 27(2), 162-168.
41
Vandergrift, L. (1999). Facilitating second language listening comprehension: Acquiring successful strategies. ELT Journal, 53(3), 168-176.
42
Vandergrift, L. (2003). Orchestrating strategy use: Toward a model of the skilled second language listener. Language Learning, 53(4), 463-496.
43
Vandergrift, L. (2004). Listening to learn or learning to listen?. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 3-25.
44
Vandergrift, L. (2006). Second language listening: Listening ability or language proficiency?. The Modern Language Journal, 90(1), 6-18.
45
Vogely, A. J. (1998).Listening comprehension anxiety: Students' reported sources and solutions. Foreign Language Annals, 31(1), 67-80.
46
Vogely, A. J. (1999). Addressing listening comprehension anxiety. In D. J. Young (Ed.), Affect in foreign language and second language learning. A practical guide to creating a low-anxiety atmosphere (pp.106-123). Boston, MA:McGraw-Hill.
47
Wang, S. (2010). An experimental study of Chinese English major students’ listening anxiety of classroom learning activity at the university level. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(5), 562-568.
48
Williams, J. M. G. (1996). Autobiographical memory in depression. In D. Rubin (Ed.), Remembering our past: Studies in autobiographical memory (pp. 244-267). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
49
Willingham, D. T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it hard to teach? Arts Education Policy Review, 109(4), 21-29.
50
Young, D. J. (1992). Language anxiety from the foreign language specialists’ perspective: Interviews with Krashen, Omaggio, Hadley, Terrell, and Rardin. Foreign Language Annals, 25(2), 157-172.
51
Zare, M., Behjat, F., Abdollrahimzadeh, S. J., & Izadi, M. (2013). Critical thinking and Iranian EFL students' listening comprehension. International Journal of Linguistics, 5(6), 12-21.
52
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
The Effect of Self-Regulation on Improving EFL Readers’ Ability to Make Within-Text Inferences
Self-regulation is the ability to regulate one’s cognition, behavior, actions, and motivation strategically and autonomously in order to achieve self-set goals including the learning of academic skills and knowledge. Accordingly, self-regulated learning involves self-generated and systematic thoughts and behaviors with the aim of attaining learning goals. With that in mind, this study aimed to examine the effect of self-regulation instruction to the intermediate EFL readers on their ability to make within-text inferences while reading. Zimmerman’s model of self-regulation with its three cyclic phases of forethought, performance and self-reflection constituted the theoretical basis of this study. Two intact intermediate classes in an English language institute were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. The experimental group was trained in self-regulatory processes which were directed at EFL reading comprehension for ten sessions, while the control group received the routine, traditional reading instruction involving pre-, while-, and post-reading tasks and activities. The results of parametric one-way between-group ANCOVA showed that the experimental group outperformed the control group on the post-test of EFL reading comprehension, particularly in term of within-text inferencing. This finding revealed that self-regulation instruction aimed at EFL reading comprehension significantly contributed to learners’ ability to make correct within-text inferences while reading in English as a foreign language.
https://ilt.atu.ac.ir/article_1763_a0da5d1f81b0a7f0f7adac48b704b677.pdf
2014-12-01
286
263
self-regulation
self-regulated learning
EFL reading comprehension
within-text inferences
Manoochehr
Jafarigohar
jafarigohar2007@yahoo.com
1
Associate Professor, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
AUTHOR
Mahboobeh
Morshedian
m.morshedian@gmail.com
2
Ph.D. Candidate of TEFL, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
AUTHOR
Allgood, W. P., Risko, V. J., Alvarez, M. C., & Fairbanks, M. M. (2000). Factors that influence study. In R. F. Flippo & D. C. Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategy research (pp. 201-219). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
1
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
2
Barnett, M. (1988). Reading through context: How real and perceived strategy use affects L2 comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 72(2), 150-162.
3
Barry, S., & Lazarte, A. A. (1998). Evidence for mental models: How do prior knowledge, syntactic complexity, and reading topic affect inference generation in a recall task for nonnative readers of Spanish? The Modern Language Journal, 82, 176-193.
4
Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 463-494.
5
Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learning and Instruction, 7(2), 11-186.
6
Brown, D. H. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
7
Byrnes, J. P. (2008). Cognitive development and learning in instructional context (3rd ed.). Boston, MA.: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
8
Carrell, P. L. (1988). SLA and classroom instruction: Reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 9, 223-242.
9
Chamot, A. U., & Kupper, L. (1989). Learning strategies in foreign language instruction. Foreign Language Annuals, 22(1), 13-24.
10
Cheng. E. C. K. (2011). The role of self-regulated learning in enhancing learning performance. The International Journal of Research and Review, 6(1), 1-16.
11
Chikalanga, I. W. (1992). A suggested taxonomy for inferences for the reading teacher. Reading in a Foreign Language, 8(2), 697-709.
12
Cleary, T. J., Callan, G.L., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2012). Assessing self-regulation as a cyclical, context-specific phenomenon: Overview and analysis of SRL microanalytic protocols. Education Research International. Retrieved from http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/edri/2012/428639.pdf
13
Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2004). Self-regulated empowerment program: A school program to enhance self-regulated and self-motivated cycles of student learning. Psychology in the Schools, 41(5), 537-550.
14
Collins, V.L., Dickson, S. V., Simmons, D.C., & Kameenui, E.J. (2001). Metacognition and its relation to reading comprehension: A synthesisof the research.Eugene, OR: US Office of Special Education Programs. Retrieved from http://idea.uoreon.edu/~ncite/documents/echrep/tech23.html
15
Courtis, J. K., & Hassan, S. (2002). Reading Ease of Bilingual Annual Reports. Journal of Business Communication. 39(4), 394-413.
16
Davis, S. G., & Gray, E. S. (2007). Going beyond test-taking strategies: Building self-regulated students and teachers. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 1(1), 31-47.
17
Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Person, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61, 239-264.
18
Ellis, D, & Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Enhancing self-monitoring during self-regulated learning of speech. In H. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in teaching and learning (pp. 205-228). New York: Kluwer Academic.
19
Finkbeiner, C., Knierim, M., Smasal, M., & Ludwig, P.H. (2012). Self-regulated cooperative EFL reading tasks: Students’ strategy use and teachers’ support. Language Awareness, 21(1–2), 57–83.
20
Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. (2007). Language testing and assessment: An advanced resource book. London: Rutledge.
21
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. Harlow: Pearson Education, Longman.
22
Hammadou Sullivan, J. (1991). Interrelationships among prior knowledge, inference, and language proficiency in foreign language reading. The Modern Language Journal, 75(1), 27-38.
23
Hammadou Sullivan, J. (2002). Advanced second language reader’s inferencing. In J. Hammadou Sullivan (Ed.). Literacy and the second language learner, Vol. 1 of research in second language learning. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
24
Hopkins, N. M., & Mackay, R. (1997). Good and bad readers: A look at the high and low achievers in an ESP Canadian studies reading and writing course. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 53(3), 473-490.
25
Horiba, Y. (1996). Comprehension processes in L2 reading: Language competence, textual coherence, and inferences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(4), 403-432.
26
Housand, A., & Reis, S. M. (2008). Self-Regulated learning in reading: Gifted pedagogy and instructional settings. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20(1), 108-136.
27
Hudson, T. (1988). The effects of induce schemata on the “short circuit” in L2 reading: Non-decoding factors in L2 reading performance. Language Learning, 32(1), 1-31.
28
Keene, E.O., & Zimmermann, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a reader’s workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
29
Kelly, M., Moore, D.W., & Tuck, B.F. (2001). Reciprocal teaching in a regular primary classroom. The Journal of Educational Research, 88(1), 53-61.
30
Kembo, J.A. (2001). Testing of inferencing behaviour in a second language. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 4(2), 77-96.
31
Kern, R. G. (1989). Second Language Reading Strategy Instruction: Its effects on comprehension and word inference ability. The Modern Language Journal 73(2), 135-49.
32
Kintsch, W. (1980). Semantic memory: A tutorial. In R. S. Nikerson (Ed.), Attention and Performance, 8. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
33
Kumi-Yeboah, A. (2012). Self-Regulated Learning and Reading in Social Studies – K-12 Level. International Forum of Teaching and Studies, 8(2), 25-31.
34
Lee, J. F., & Van Patten, B. (1995). Making communicative language teaching happen. New York: McGraw-Hill.
35
Linn R., & Gronlund, N. (2000). Measurement and assessment in teaching. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
36
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.
37
McNamara, D.S., & Shapiro, A. M. (2005). Multimedia and hypermedia solutions for promoting metacognitive engagement, coherence, and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(1), 1-29.
38
Magno, C. (2009). Self-regulation and approaches to learning in English composition writing. TESOL Journal, 1(1), 1-16.
39
Martínez, A.C.L. (2011). The Relationship between Metacognitive Awareness and Reading in English as a Foreign Language. Revista de Filología, 29(1), 163-177.
40
Mason, L. H. (2004). Explicit self-regulated strategy development versus reciprocal questioning: Effects on expository reading comprehension among struggling readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 283-296.
41
McClelland, M., Morrison, F.J. & Holmes, D. L. (2000). Children at risk for early academic problems: The role of learning-related social skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(3), 307-29.
42
Mcwhaw, K., & Abrami, P. (2001).Student goal orientation and interest: Effects on students´ use of self-regulated learning strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(3), 311-329.
43
Moos, D. C., & Ringdal, A. (2012). Self-Regulated learning in the classroom: A literature review on the teacher’s role. Education Research International, 1-15, retrieved from http://www.hindawi.com/journals/edri/2012/423284/citations/
44
Mulcahy-Ernt, P. I., & Caverly, D. C. (2009). Strategic study-reading. In R. F. Flippo, & D.C. Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategy research (2nd ed., pp. 177-198). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
45
Nash-Ditzel, S. (2010). Metacognitiue reading strategies can improve self-regulation. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 40(2), 45-63.
46
Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 89-101.
47
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2),117-175.
48
Perels, F., Gurtler, T., & Schmitz, B. (2005).Training of self-regulatory and problem-solving competence. Learning and Instruction, 15(1), 123-139.
49
Perfetti, C. A. (1999). Comprehending written language: A blueprint of the reader. In C. M. Brown, & P. Hagoort (Eds.), The Neurocognition of language (pp. 167-208). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
50
Perry, E. P., Hutchinson, L., & Thauberger, C. (2007). Mentoring student teachers to design and implement literacy tasks that support self-regulated reading and writing. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 23(1), 27-50.
51
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451-502). San Diego, Calif. Academic Press.
52
Pratontep, C., & Chinwanno, A.(2008). Self-regulated learning by Thai university students in an EFL extensive reading program.MANUSYA: Journal of Humanities, 11(2), 104-124.
53
Pressley, M. (1995). More about the development of self-regulation: Complex, long-term and thoroughly social. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 207-12.
54
Rose, H., & Harbon, L. (2013). Self-regulation in second language learning: An investigation of the kanji learning task. Foreign Language Annals, 46(1), 96-107.
55
Shimizu, M. (2005). Effects of a question on generating bridging inferences: L2 reading proficiency and a qualitative analysis of reading processes. Bulletin of the Chubu English Language Education Society, 34, 353-360.
56
Schraw, G. (1997). The effect of generalized metacognitive knowledge on test performance and confidence judgments. Journal of Experimental Education, 65(2), 135-146.
57
Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1987). Enhancing comprehension skill and self-efficacy with strategy value information. Journal of Reading Behavior, 19, 285-302.
58
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory competence. Educational Psychologist, 32, 195-208.
59
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
60
Stoeger, H., & Ziegler, A. (2008). Evaluation of a classroom based training to improve self-regulation in time management tasks during homework activities with fourth graders. Metacognition and Learning, 1 (24), 207-230.
61
Souvignier, E., & Mokhlesgerami, J. (2006). Using self-Regulation as a framework for implementing strategy instruction to foster reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 16(1), 57-71.
62
Trabasso, T., & Magliano, J. P. (1996). Conscious understanding during comprehension. Discourse Processes, 21(3), 255-287.
63
Turner, J. C. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children’s motivation for literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3),410-441.
64
van den Broek, P., Lorch, Jr., R. F., Linderholm, T, & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory & Cognition, 29(8), 1081-1087.
65
Vanderveen. T. (2006). The effect of EFL students’ self-monitoring on class achievement test scores. JALT Journal, 28(2), 197-206.
66
Vonk, W., & Noordman, L. G. M. (1990). On the control of inferences in text understanding. In D. A. Balota, G. B. Flores D'Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in Reading (pp. 447-464). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
67
Wegman, B., & Knezevic, M. (2007). Mosaic 1 reading. (Silver edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.
68
Wilawan, S. (2012). Fostering main idea comprehension among EFL learners through cognitive and metacognitive strategies. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(14), 46-54.
69
Winne, P.H., & Perry, N.E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-regulation (pp. 531-566). San Diego, Calif.: Academic Press.
70
Yough, M. S., & Fang, M. (2010). Keeping native Languages in ESL class: Accounting for the Role Beliefs Play Toward Mastery. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 23(2),27-32.
71
Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Development of self-regulated learning: Which are the key subprocesses? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16(4), 307-313.
72
Zimmerman, B. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329-39.
73
Zimmerman, B. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.
74
Zimmerman, B. J. (1999). Commentary: Toward a cyclically interactive view of self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 545-551.
75
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: a social-cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner, (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation, (pp. 13-39). San Diego, Calif.: Academic Press.
76
Zimmerman, B.J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In B.J. Zimmerman & D.H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp.1-37). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
77
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64-70.
78
Zimmerman, B. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), pp. 166-83.
79
Zimmerman, B. J., & Campillo, M. (2003). Motivating self-regulated problem solvers. In J. E. Davidson, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of problem solving (pp. 233-263). New York: Cambridge University.
80
Zimmerman, B. J., & Paulsen, A. S. (1995). Self-monitoring during collegiate studying: An invaluable tool for academic self-regulation. In P. Pintrich (Ed.), Understanding self-regulated learning (pp. 13-28). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
81
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
L2 Learners’ Lexical Inferencing: Perceptual Learning Style Preferences, Strategy Use, Density of Text, and Parts of Speech as Possible Predictors
This study was intended first to categorize the L2 learners in terms of their learning style preferences and second to investigate if their learning preferences are related to lexical inferencing. Moreover, strategies used for lexical inferencing and text related issues of text density and parts of speech were studied to determine their moderating effects and the best predictors of lexical inferencing. To this end, a posttest group design with 142 students studying engineering was adopted for the study. Perceptual style preferences questionnaire was administered to identify the students’ major learning styles, followed by strategy training for deriving the meaning of unknown words. Finally, lexical inferencing texts were given to the students to study and extract the meaning of unknown words and concurrently determine the type of strategy used for lexical inferencing. The results indicated that a great proportion of students belonged to the kinesthetic category of styles while the predominant treatments in the class were audio-visually structured. The analysis also revealed that tactile, kinesthetic, and group categories of style preferences are meaningfully related. Moreover, it was found that learning style preferences lead to statistically different lexical ineferncing. As for the strategies, the ‘syntactic knowledge analysis’ showed the highest correlation with ‘auditory learners’. Lexical density and parts of speech were also shown to moderate the effect of perceptual style preferences on lexical ability. On the whole, strategy and perceptual style preferences were found to be the two best predictors of successful lexical inferencing.
https://ilt.atu.ac.ir/article_1764_1214f8e9eece8b71fc643bc7026a0ce0.pdf
2014-12-01
315
287
L2
lexical inferencing
parts of speech
preferences in perceptual learning styles
strategy training
text density
Hossein
Pourghasemian
pourghasemian@qut.ac.ir
1
Assistant Professor, Qom University of Technology, Iran
AUTHOR
Gholam Reza
Zarei
grzarei@cc.iut.ac.ir
2
Associate Professor, Isfahan University of Technology, Iran
AUTHOR
Hassan
Jalali
h.jalali@cc.iut.ac.ir
3
Assistant Professor, Isfahan University of Technology, Iran
AUTHOR
Anderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1
Beheydt, L. (1987). The Semantization of Vocabulary in Foreign Language Learning. System, 15(1), 55-67.
2
Carbo, M. (1983). Research in reading and learning style: Implications for exceptional children. Exceptional Children, 49(6), 486-494.
3
Clark, D. F. & Nation, S. P. (1980). Guessing the meanings of words from context: strategy and techniques. System, 8(3), 211-220.
4
Collinson, E. (2000). A survey of elementary students' learning style preferences and academic success. Contemporary Education, 71(4), 42-48.
5
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. San Francisco, CA: College-Hill Press.
6
de Bot, K., Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. B. (1997). Toward a lexical processing model for the study of second language vocabulary acquisition: Evidence from ESL reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(2), 309–329.
7
Diakidoy, I. & Anderson, R. C. (1991). The role of contextual information in word meaning acquisition during normal reading. Technical Report, 531, 1-19.
8
Doyle, W. & Rutherford, B. (1984). Classroom research on matching learning and teaching styles. Theory into Practice, 23(1), 20-25.
9
Ehrman, M. & Oxford, R. (1990). Adult language learning styles and strategies in an intensive training setting. Modern Language Journal, 74(3), 311-326.
10
Ehrman, M. E. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning success. The Modern Language Journal, 79(1), 67-89.
11
Ehrman, M. E. (1999). Ego boundaries and tolerance of ambiguity in second language learning. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language learning (pp. 68-86). New York: Cambridge University Press.
12
Ely, C. M. (1995). Tolerance of ambiguity and the teaching of ESL. In J. Reid (Ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 87-95). Boston, M.A.: Heinle & Heinle.
13
Felder, R. & Henriques, E. R. (1995). Learning and teaching styles in foreign and second language education. Foreign Language Annals, 28(1), 21-31.
14
Felder, R., Felder, G., & Dietz, E. J. (2002). The effects of personality type on engineering student performance and attitudes. Journal of Engineering Education, 91(1), 3-17.
15
Frantzen, D. (2003). Factors affecting how second language Spanish students deriving meaning from context. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 168-199.
16
Fukkink, R. G., Block, H. & Glopper, K. D. (2001). Deriving word meaning from written context: A multicompontential skill. Language Learning 51(3), 477-496.
17
Funderstanding. Retrieved on May 18, 2014, from http://www.funderstanding.com/learning_styles.com
18
Gilbert, J. E. (2000). Case based reasoning applied to instruction method selection for intelligent tutoring systems. Workshop Proceedings of ITS'2000: Fifth International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Montreal, CA, 11-15.
19
Graesser, A. C., & Zwaan, R. A. (1995). Inference generation and the construction of situation models. In C. A. Weaver, S. Mannes, & C. R. Fletcher III (Eds.), Discourse comprehension: Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch (pp. 117-139). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20
Haastrup, K. (1991). Lexical inferencing procedures or talking about words: Receptive procedures in foreign language learning with special reference to English. Tubingen, Germany: Gunter Narr.
21
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). Language, context and text: Aspects of language as social semiotic. Geelong: Deakin University Press.
22
Huckin, T., & Block, J. (1993). Strategies for inferring word meaning from context: A cognitive model. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 153- 178). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
23
Hue, H. C. & Nation, P. (2000). Unknown word density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13(1), 403-430.
24
Hunt, A. (1996). Constrains on inferring meaning from context: Should we encourage it? Journal of Inquiry and Research, 63, 239-249.
25
Illeris, K. (2004). A model for learning in working life. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(8), 431-441.
26
Keefe, J. W. (1979). Learning styles: an overview. In J.W. Keefe, (Ed.), Student learning styles diagnosing and prescribing programs (pp. 1-17). National Association of Secondary School Principals, Reston, VA.
27
Kinsella, K. (1995). Understanding and empowering diverse learners in ESL classroom. In M. J. Reid (Ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 74-86). Boston, M.A.: Heinle & Heinle.
28
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
29
Kroonenberg, N. (1995). Meeting language learners’ sensory-learning-style preferences. In M. J. Reid (Ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 74-86). Boston, M.A.: Heinle & Heinle.
30
Laufer, B. (1997). The lexical plight in second language reading. In J. Coady & T. Huckin, (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp. 20-34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31
Levine, A. & Reves, T. (1998). Interplay between reading tasks, reader variables and unknown word processing. TESL-EJ, 3(2), 1-12.
32
Liu, N., & Nation, I., (1985). Factors affecting guessing vocabulary in context. RELC Journal, 16(1), 33-42.
33
Matthews, D. (1996). An investigation of learning styles and perceived academic achievement for high school students. The Clearing House, 69(4), 249-254.
34
Meyers, M. J. (1980). The significance of learning modalities, modes of instruction, and verbal feedback for learning to recognize written words. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3(3), 62-69.
35
Nagy, W. (1997). On the role of context in first and second-language vocabulary learning. In N. Schmidt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 64-83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36
Nassaji, H. (2002). Schema theory and knowledge-based processes in second language reading comprehension: A need for alternative perspectives. Language Learning, 52(2), 439-481.
37
Nassaji, H. (2003a). Higher-level and lower-level text processing skills in advanced ESL reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 261-276.
38
Nassaji, H. (2003b). L2 vocabulary learning from context: Strategies, knowledge sources, and their relationship with success in L2 lexical inferencing. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 645-670.
39
Nassaji, H. (2004). The relationship between depth of vocabulary knowledge and L2 learners’ lexical inferencing strategy use and success. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 16(1), 107-134.
40
Nassaji, H. (2006). The relationship between depth of vocabulary knowledge and L2 learners’ lexical inferencing strategy use and success. The Modern Language Journal, 90(3), 387-401.
41
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42
Obralic, N. & Akbarov, A. (2012). Students preference on perceptual learning style. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 5(3), 31-42.
43
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House.
44
Oxford, R. L. (2001). Language learning styles and strategies. In M. Celece- Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.) (pp. 359-366). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
45
Parel, R. (2004). The impact of lexical inferencing strategies on second language reading proficiency. Reading & Writing, 17(6), 847-873.
46
Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1999). Reading and “incidental” L2 vocabulary acquisition: An introspective study of lexical inferencing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(2), 195-224.
47
Parry, K. (1993). Too many words: Learning the vocabulary of an academic subject. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 109-129). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
48
Peacock, M. (2001). Match or mismatch? Learning styles and teaching styles in EFL. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 38-58.
49
Reid, J. M. (1995). Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Boston, M.A.: Heinle & Heinle.
50
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
51
Schmitt, N., & Zimmerman, C. B. (2002). Derivative word forms: What do learners know? TESOL Quarterly, 36(2), 145-171.
52
Shen, M. (2010). Effects of perceptual learning style preferences on L2 lexical inferencing. System, 38(4), 539-547.
53
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
54
Tripp, L. O., & Moore, S. D. (2007). Examination of pre-service teachers’ learning styles and temperament styles within an elementary science methods course. Institutefor Learning Styles Journal, 1(Fall 2007), 23-33.
55
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
56
Whitney, P. (1987). Psychological theories of elaborative inferences: Implications for chema-theoretic views of comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(3), 299-310.
57
Winograd, P., & Hare, V. C. (1988). Direct instruction of reading comprehension strategies: The nature of teacher explanation. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, E.T., & P. A. Alexander, (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation (pp. 121-139). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
58
Zhenhui, R. (2001). Matching teaching styles with learning styles for ESL/EFL instruction. The Internet TESL Journal, 7(7).
59