ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Is There a Place for Post-method Pedagogy in the Educational Context of Iran: Voices of EFL Teachers
In an attempt to liberate teachers from deficiencies of the conventional methods, Kumaravadivelu (1994) proposed the concept of “post method condition” to overcome the challenges caused by the very nature of methods. The literature regarding post-method pedagogy has indicated that most of the studies focus on its theoretical aspect, while the practical realization has been largely untouched. To this end, the present study was an endeavor to unveil the perspective of Iranian EFL teachers concerning the applicability of this pedagogy. 21 male and female in-service EFL teachers from different cities in Iran (Shiraz, Marvdasht, Bushehr, Tehran, and Gonbad-e-Kavus) participated in this qualitative research where data came from semi-structured interviews as the primary source of data collection. The interview data were transcribed and coded using Straus and Corbin’s (1998) constant comparative method, including three codification processes of open, axial and selective codings. The finding indicated that absence of required autonomy among teachers, teacher’s job security, students’ passivity, absence of critical thinking skills among students, dominance of transmission model of teacher education, inefficiency of the textbooks, teacher’s focus on coverage and grade pressure, and demanding nature of post-method pedagogy as the main pedagogical barriers which prevent language teachers from applying this pedagogy in their teaching practices.
https://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_8343_3e0df75d550ae73371a350f7ab1d4e2e.pdf
2018-12-01
1
25
Method
post-method pedagogy
applicability
EFL teachers
pedagogical barriers
Farzaneh
Amiri
farzane.amiri66@gmail.com
1
Ph.D. Student of TEFL Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Shiraz University
LEAD_AUTHOR
Rahman
Sahragard
rahman.sahragard@gmail.com
2
Professor in Applied Linguistics Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Shiraz University
AUTHOR
Aboulalaei, M. H., Poursalehi, J., & Hadidi, Y. (2016). The familiarity of EFL teachers with post-method:
1
Considering their field of study. English Language Teaching, 3(1), 89-109.
2
Akbari, R. (2008a). Post-method discourse and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 42(4), 641-652.
3
Akbari, R. (2008b). Transforming lives: Introducing critical pedagogy into ELT classrooms. ELT Journal, 62(3), 276-283.
4
Aliakbari, M., & Allahmoradi, N. (2012). On Iranian School Teachers’ Perceptions of the principles of the Critical Pedagogy. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 4(1), 154-171.
5
Allwright, D. (1991). The death of the method (Working Papers No. 10). Lancaster, England: The University of Lancaster, The Exploratory Practice Center.
6
Alvarez, R., & Urla, J. (2002). Tell me a good story: Using narrative analysis to examine information requirements interviews during an ERP implementation. The DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, 33(1), 38-52.
7
Arias Coronado, B. (2014). Post-method pedagogy as an alternative to autonomous and well oriented teaching practices. Enletawa Journal, 7, 145-158.
8
Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C. & Sorenson, C. (2010). Introduction to research education (8th ed.). New York: Wadsworth.
9
Ashari, N., & Zarrin, N. (2014). Problems in using communicative language teaching in Iran and possible solutions. Technical Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 4(4), 257-266.
10
Best, W.J., & Kahn, V.J. (1998). Research in education (8th ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
11
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
12
Crandall, J. A. (2000). Language teacher education. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 34-55.
13
Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14
Fahim, M., & Ahmadian, M. (2012). Critical thinking and Iranian EFL context. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(4), 793-800.
15
Fahim, M., & Pishghadam, R. (2009). Postmodernism and English language teaching. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 1(2), 27-54.
16
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York: The Seabury Press.
17
Gholami, J., & Mirzaei, A. (2013). Post-method in EFL teaching in Iran: Barriers, attitudes, and symbols. Research Journal of English Language and Literature, 1(2), 50-64.
18
Ghorbani, M. R. (2012). Controversy over abolishing Iranian university entrance examination. Asian Education and Development Studies, 1(2), 139 – 152.
19
Giroux, H. A. (1988). Schooling and the struggle for public life: Critical pedagogy in the modern age. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
20
Hazratzad, A., & Gheitanchian, M. (2009). EFL teachers’ attitudes towards post-method pedagogy and their students’ achievement. Proceedings of the 10th METU ELT Convention.
21
Izadinia, M. (2009). Critical pedagogy: An introduction. In P. Wachob (ed.), Power in the EFL Classroom: Critical pedagogy in the Middle East, 7-16. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
22
Khatib, M., & Fathi, J. (2012). Post-method pedagogy and ELT teachers. Journal of Academic and Applied Studies, 2(2), 22-29.
23
Kolb, S.M. (2012). Grounded theory and the constant comparative method: Valid research strategies for educators. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 3(1), 83– 86.
24
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The post-method condition: Emerging strategies for second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 27-48.
25
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a post-method pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35(4), 537-560.
26
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. New Haven: Yale University Press.
27
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2005). Understanding language teaching: From method to post-method. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
28
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trend. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 59-81.
29
McMorrow, M. (2007). Teacher education in the post-methods era. ELT Journal, 61 (4), 375-377.
30
Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2004). Critical pedagogies and language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31
Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, and politics of language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 23(4), 589-618.
32
Pishghadam, R., & Mirzaee, A. (2008). English language teaching in post-modern era. Teaching English Language and Literature, 2, 89-109.
33
Pishghadam, R., & Saboori, F. (2013). Construction, Validation, and Application of a Teacher Status Scale (TSS): A Case of Iranian Junior High School Teachers. Issues in Language Teaching, 2(2), 1-26.
34
Prabhu, N.S. (1990). There is no best method-why? TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 161-176.
35
Sadeghi, S., & Ketabi, S. (2009). From liberal ostrichism to transformative intellectual: An alternative role for Iranian critical pedagogues. ELTED, 12, 52-60.
36
Saengboon, S. (2013). Thai English teachers’ understanding of post-method pedagogy: Case studies of university lecturers. English Language Teaching, 6(12), 156-166.
37
Schmenk, B. (2005). Globalizing learner autonomy. TESOL Quarterly, 39(1), 107-118.
38
Sert, N. (2006). EFL student teachers’ learning autonomy. Asian EFL Journal, 8(2), 180-201.
39
Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research. London: Sage publications.
40
Smyth, J. (2000). Reclaiming Social Capital through Critical Teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 100 (5), 491-511.
41
Spratt, M. (2005). Washback and the classroom: The implications for teaching and learning of studies of washback from exams. Language Teaching Research, 9 (1), 5-29.
42
Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
44
Tekin, M. (2013). An investigation into novice English teachers’ views and beliefs about method and post-method pedagogy in Turkish EFL context. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 4(4), 55-69.
45
Widdowson, H. G. (1990). Aspects of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
46
Zeng, Z. (2012). Convergence or divergence? Chinese novice EFL teachers’ beliefs about post-method and teaching practices. English
47
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Establishing an Argument-Based Validity Approach for a Low-Stake Test of Collocational Behavior
Most of the validation studies conducted across varying test application contexts are usually framed within the traditional conceptualization of validity and therefore lack a comprehensive framework to focus on test score interpretations and test score use. This study aimed at developing and validating a collocational behavior test (CBT), drawing on Kane's argument-based approach to validity. Four types of inferences including observation, generalization, extrapolation and explanation were articulated. To verify the validity assumptions, both theoretical and empirical evidence were presented within the formative and summative stages of test development and validation. Followed from Kane, theoretical evidence was sought through test specification, item construction, and test construction procedures. Empirical support, however, was sought through examining the collocational behavior test (CBT) with a sample of 60 university students majoring in TEFL. Ebel’s criteria, KR-21 reliability and a series of Pearson-Product correlation were applied to analyze the data for both theoretical and empirical phases. The findings refer to the support for the assumptions proposed for test validity, suggesting that the collocational behavior test(CBT)may provide an appropriate and accurate indicator of collocational language ability for EFL learners. The implications for language testing and assessment are discussed
https://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_8346_2cab188555a8e4b94989d7cb6448e71e.pdf
2018-12-01
27
48
collocational behavior
validity argument
theoretical evidence
empirical evidence
ali
Darabi Bazvand
alidarabi1350@gmail.com
1
Assistant Professor, University of Human Development, College of Languages, English Department, Kurdistan, Iraq
LEAD_AUTHOR
Alireza
Khoram
arkhoram2017@gmail.com
2
Assistant Professor, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran
AUTHOR
Seyyed Ali
Mirsalari
gh.mirsalari@gmail.com
3
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Humanities, Islamic Azad University of Ramhormoz, Ramhormoz, Iran
AUTHOR
Abdul Kadir, K. (2008). Framing a validity argument for test use and impact: Malaysian public service experience. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
1
Almela, M. (2007). Words as “lexical units” in learning teaching vocabulary. International Journal of English Studies, 7(2), 21-40.
2
Aryadoust, V. (2011).validity arguments of the speaking and listening modules of international English language testing system: A synthesis of existing research. Asian ESP Journal.7(2), 28-54.
3
Bachman, L. F., (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4
Bachman, L. F. (2005). Building and supporting a case for test use. Language Assessment Quarterly, 2(1), 1-34.
5
Barfield, A. (2003). Collocation recognition and production: Research insights. Tokyo: Chuo University.
6
Bonk, W.J. (2001). Testing ESL learners’ knowledge of collocations. In T. Hudson &J. D. Brown (Eds.), A focus on language test development: expanding the language proficiency construct across a variety of tests. (Technical eport#21). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, (pp. 113-142).
7
Chapelle, C. A. (1994). Are C-tests valid measures for L2 vocabulary research? Second Language Research, 10(2), 157-187.
8
Chapelle, C. A., Enright, M. K., & Jamieson, J. (2004). Issues in developing a TOEFL validity argument: Paper presented at the 26th Annual Language Testing Research Colloquium, Temecula, CA.
9
Chapelle, C. A., Enright, M. K., & Jamieson, J. (2007a). (Where) is the construct in an Interpretive Argument? Paper presented at the 29th Annual Language Testing Research Colloquium, Barcelona, Spain.
10
Chapelle, C. A., Enright, M. K., & Jamieson, J. (2007b). From validation research to a validity argument. Paper presented at the 4th European Association for Language Testing and Assessment Conference, Sitges, Spain.
11
Chapelle, C. A., Enright, M. E., & Jamieson, J. (Eds.) (2008). Building a validity argument for the Test of English as a Foreign Language. London: Routledge.
12
Chapelle, C. A., Enright, M. E., & Jamieson, J. (2010). Does an argument-based approach to validity make a difference? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 29(1), 3- 13.
13
Chapelle, C. A., & Read, J. (2001). A framework for vocabulary assessment. Language Testing, 18(1), 1-32.
14
Cronbach, L. J. (.1971). Validity. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed., pp. 443-597). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
15
Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. (2007). Language testing and assessment: An advanced resource book. Oxford, UK: Routledge.
16
House, E. R. (1980). Evaluating with validity. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
17
Jaen, M.M. (2007). A corpus-driven design of a test for assessing the ESL collocational competence of university students. International journal of English Studies, 7(2), 127- 147.
18
Kane, M. T. (1992). An argument-based approach to validity. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 527-535.
19
Kane, M. T. (2001). Current concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 319-342.
20
Kane, M. (2002). Validating high-stakes testing programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 21(1), 31-41.
21
Kane, M. (2006). Validation. In R. Brennen (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed.), (pp. 17-64). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
22
Kane, M. T. (2006a). Content-related validity evidence. In S. M. Downing & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test development (pp. 131–154). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23
Kane, M. T. (2006b). Validation. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 17- 64). American Council on Education/Praeger.
24
Kane, M.T.(2011).Validating score interpretations and uses. Language Testing, 29(1) 3– 17
25
Keshavarz, M. H. & Salimi, H. (2007). Collocational competence and cloze test performance: A study of Iranian EFL learners, 17(1), 81-92.
26
Le, H.T. (2011). Developing a validity argument for the English placement Fall 2010 Listening test at Iowa State University, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Iowa State University.
27
McNamara, T. F., &Roever, C. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension. Maiden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
28
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13 103). New York: American Council on Education and Macmillan
29
Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., & Almond, R. G. (2003). On the structure of educational assessment. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 1, 3-62.
30
Mochizuki, M. (2002). Exploration of two aspects of vocabulary knowledge: Paradigmatic and collocational. Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan, 13, 121- 129.
31
Park, J. (2012). Developing and Validating an Instrument to Measure College Students’ Inferential Reasoning in Statistics: An Argument-Based Approach to Validation. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
32
Pawley, A., &Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Native like selection and native like fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191-226). New York, NY: Longman.
33
Qian, D. &Schedl, M. (2004). Evaluation of an in-depth vocabulary knowledge measure for assessing reading performance. Language Testing, 21(1), 28-52.
34
Johnson, R.C &Riazi, M.(2013). Assessing the assessments: Using an argument-based validity framework to assess the validity and use of an English placement system in a foreign language context. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, 2(1), 31-58.
35
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (updated edition). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
36
Voss, E. (2012). A validity argument for score meaning of a computer-based ESL academic collocational ability test based on a corpus-driven approach to test design. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University.
37
Widdowson, H. G., (2007). Discourse analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
An Investigation of Assessment Literacy Among Native and Non-Native English Teachers
The current study aimed at examining the relationship between English language teachers’ assessment literacy and their teaching experience. In other words, it intended to inspect the relationship between native and non-native English language teachers’ assessment literacy and their teaching experience. To achieve such goals, 100 native and non-native English teachers from ESL and EFL contexts were picked out on the basis of a combination of availability sampling and snowball sampling procedures. They were asked to take part in the study by filling out Classroom Assessment Literacy Inventory developed by Cynthia Campbell and Craig Mertler (2004). The results revealed that there was a positive relationship between native English language teachers’ perspectives regarding assessment literacy and their experience. Besides, 32 percent of shared variances between native teachers’ perspectives regarding assessment literacy and their experiences. However, there was not any significant relationship between non-native English language teachers’ perspectives regarding assessment literacy and their experience.Keywords: Assessment Literacy, Native Teachers, Non- Native Teachers, Teaching Experience
https://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_8341_d87994883968d96a283214ca53c38b7e.pdf
2018-12-01
49
62
Assessment Literacy
Native English Teachers
Non-Native English Teachers
Esmaeel Ali
Salimi
salimi2000@yahoo.com
1
Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics Department of English Language and Literature Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
LEAD_AUTHOR
mitra
farsi
farsi_1977@yahoo.com
2
PhD. Candidate of Applied Linguistics, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran.
AUTHOR
Alkharusi, H. (2011). Teachers’ classroom assessment skills: Influence of gender, subject area, grade level, teaching experience, and in-service assessment training. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 8, 39-48.
1
Campbell, C., & Mertler, C. (2004). Assessment literacy inventory. New York: Measurement Instruments Press.
2
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education policy analysis archives, 8 (1), 1-44.
3
Hailaya, W. M. (2014). Teacher assessment literacy and student outcomes in the province of Tawi-Tawi, Philippines (Doctoral dissertation). University of Adelaide, Australia.
4
Newfields, T. (2006, May). Teacher development and assessment literacy. In Authentic Communication: Proceedings of the 5th Annual JALT Pan-SIG Conference (pp. 48-73).
5
Stiggins, R. J. (1991). Assessment literacy. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(7), 534-539.
6
Xu, Y., & Brown, G. T. (2017). University English teacher assessment literacy: A survey-test report from China. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, 6(1), 133-158.
7
Zolfaghari, S., & Ashraf, H. (2015). The relationship between EFL teachers’ assessment literacy, their teaching experience, and their age: A case of Iranian EFL teachers. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(12), 2550-2556.
8
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Interactional Metadiscourse in the Writings of Novice vs. Established Members of Academic Communities
Novice academic writers, particularly Iranian graduate students (IGSs), upon entering an academic community, are hypothesized to face probable difficulties in practicing rhetorical expectations set by the experienced (EXP) members, hence, not being able to write in a way acceptable to these professionals. To explore the probable rhetorical distance between them, this study investigated the employment of interactional metadiscourse markers (IMMs) in the writings of IGSs (MA and Ph.D.) and EXP figures in Applied Linguistics. 120 recent research articles (RAs) served as the corpus of the study. Drawing on Hyland’s (2005) model of metadiscourse, all occurrences of the five types of IMMs were functionally identified, and compared. To detect any possible significant differences between the corpora, Chi-square tests were run. The results indicated that the IGSs used far less IMMs than the EXP ones in their RAs. However, the general pattern of their metadiscourse use was similar to the EXP writers’. It can be concluded that although the IGSs are relatively aware of general rhetorical framework of the genre based on IMMs, they seem to be far away from the rhetorical standards set by the established members of the discipline. Finally, the possible justifications and implications of the study were presented.
https://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_8344_d7cebd4338e275a6a78e791d6c5cf6ad.pdf
2018-12-01
63
86
interactional metadiscourse
academic writing
novice writers
established writers
research articles
Hooshang
Khoshsima
khoshsima@cmu.ac.ir
1
Associate Professor, Chabahar Maritime University, Iran
AUTHOR
Amrollah
Talati-Baghsiahi
talati.amir@yahoo.com
2
PhD Candidate in ELT, Chabahar Maritime University, Iran
LEAD_AUTHOR
Esmail
Zare-Behtash
behtash@cmu.ac.ir
3
Associate Professor, Chabahar Maritime University, Iran
AUTHOR
Mehdi
Safaie-Qalati
amensad@gmail.com
4
Assistant Professor, Chabahar Maritime University, Iran
AUTHOR
Abdollahzadeh, E. (2003). Interpersonal metadiscourse in ELT papers by Iranian and Anglo-American academic writers. Paper presented at the International Conference on Multiculturalism in ELT Practice at Baskent University, Turkey.
1
Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York: Peter Lang.
2
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39–71.
3
Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 40(1), 95-113.
4
Faghih, E., & Rahimpour, S. (2009). Contrastive rhetoric of English and Persian written texts: Metadiscourse in applied linguistics research articles. Rice Working Papers in Linguistics, 1, 92-107.
5
Falahati, R. (2004). A contrastive study of hedging in English and Farsi academic discourse (Master’s thesis). University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
6
Gilquin, G., & Paquot, M. (2008). Too chatty: Learner academic writing and register variation. English Text Construction, 1(1), 41-61.
7
Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in scientific research articles. Applied Linguistics 17(4), 433-454.
8
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
9
Hyland, K. (2001a). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication, 18(4), 549–574. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018004005
10
Hyland, K. (2001b). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 207-226.
11
Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091–1112.
12
Hyland, K. (2004a). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
13
Hyland, K. (2004b). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133-151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001
14
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
15
Hyland, K. (2008). Persuasion, interaction, and the construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies, 8 (2), 1-23.
16
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156–177.
17
Jalififar, A. R., & Shooshtari, Z. G. (2011). Metadiscourse awareness and ESAP comprehension. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 41(2), 53-74.
18
Keshavarz, M. H., & Kheirieh, Z. (2011). Metadiscourse elements in English research articles written by native English and non-native Iranian writers in applied linguistics and civil engineering. Journal of English Studies, 1(3), 3-15.
19
Koutsantoni, D. (2006). Rhetorical strategies in engineering research articles and research theses. Advanced academic literacy and relations of power. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 19-36.
20
Lautdmatti, L. (1978). Observations on the development of the topic in simplified discourse. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 87–113). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc.
21
Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 3–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(93)90024-I
22
Mur-Dueñas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3068-3079.
23
Rath, A. (2010). Dual function of first position nominal groups in research article titles: Describing methods and structuring summary. Journal of Applied Language Studies, 1(2), 5-23.
24
Russell, M. K. (2014). A comparison of linguistic features in the academic writing of advanced English language learner and English first language university students (Master’s thesis). Portland State University, Oregon, United States. Retrieved from http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds
25
Samaie, M., Khosravian, F., & Boghayeri, M. (2014). The Frequency and types of hedges in research article introductions by Persian and English native authors. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 98, 1678 – 1685.
26
Sarani, A., Khoshsima, H., & Izadi, M. (2017). Poring over metadiscourse use in Discussion and Conclusion sections of academic articles written by Iranian ESP students. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 133-145.
27
Shokouhi, H., & Talati-Baghsiahi, A. (2009). Metadiscourse functions in English and Persian sociology articles: A study in contrastive rhetoric. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 54(4), 549-568.
28
Talati-Baghsiahi, A., & Khoshsima, H. (2016). Improving linguistic and pragmatic knowledge of hedging strategies in EFL undergraduate students: A dynamic assessment approach. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies. 4(2), 13-28. Retrieved From http://www.eltsjournal.org
29
Tang, R., & John, S. (1999). The ‘I’ in identity: exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first-person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 23-39.
30
Tribble, C. (2017). ELFA vs. Genre: A new paradigm war in EAP writing instruction? Journal of English for Academic Purposes 25, 30-44.
31
Valero-Garces, C. (1996). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Spanish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 15(4), 279-94.
32
Vande-Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93.
33
Vande-Kopple, W. J. (2002). Metadiscourse, discourse, and issues in composition and rhetoric. In E. Barton & G. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse studies in composition (pp. 91-113). Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press.
34
Widdowson, H. G. (1998). Context, community, and authentic language. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 705-716.
35
Williams, J.M. (1981). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
36
Zarei, G., & Mansoori, S. (2011). Metadiscursive distinction between Persian and English: An analysis of computer engineering research articles. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(5), 1037-1042.
37
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
EFL Teachers’ Conceptions of Learner Autonomy: Developing a Glocalized Model
Learner autonomy (henceforth LA) has become a buzz word in education in general and language education, in particular, for more than a decade now. Focusing on investigating Iranian EFL teachers’ conceptions of LA, the current study, taking a mixed method approach, attempted to illustrate how Iranian EFL teachers’ conceptions of leaner autonomy mapped out. To that end, 7 teachers, purposefully cluster sampled, were interviewed. After data saturation, the result of the interviews and the data gleaned from the literature were fed into the development of a questionnaire. The questionnaire, having being validated through a pilot study, was administered to 585 EFL teachers snowball-sampled, 2 of whom were, later on through negative case analysis, interviewed, and were required to provide the researchers with a narrative. Running a number of factor analyses, the researchers modeled the participants’ mindsets toward LA, which can be quite significant as it can have some theoretical and pedagogical implications, including, inter alia, situating LA promotion into the pedagogy of TEFL in Iran by running LA promotion workshops as well as developing a pool of LA promotion activities and software programs available to the stakeholders, especially the teachers.
https://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_8347_f22f52c65e7ce0f380ab6e233211ace6.pdf
2018-12-01
87
112
Learner autonomy
teachers’ conceptions
glocalized model
Naser
Rashidi
naser.rashidi@shirazu.ac.ir
1
Professor, University of Shiraz
LEAD_AUTHOR
Hazhar
Muhammadineku
muhammadi.h@gmail.com
2
Assistant Professor of ELT, Islamic Azad University, Boukan Branch, Boukan, Iran
AUTHOR
Afkhami, A., & Davari-Ardakani, N. (2006). Barnāmeh-rizi zabān va negāreš-hāye zabāni (Language policy and language attitude). Tehran University Journal of Literature and Human Sciences, 56(1), 1-23.
1
Al-Asmari, A. R. (2013). Practices and prospects of learner autonomy: Teachers’ perceptions. English Language Teaching Journal, 6(3), 1-10.
2
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education. Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
3
Balcikanli, C. (2010). Learner autonomy in language learning: Student teachers’ beliefs. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(1), 90-114.
4
Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. London: Longman.
5
Benson, P. (2006). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 40 (1), 21-40.
6
Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning (2nd ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
7
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36, 81-109.
8
Borg, S. (2006). The distinctive characteristics of foreign language teachers. Language Teaching Research, 10(1), 3-31.
9
Borg, S. and Al-Busaidi, S. (2012). Teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding LA. ELT Journal, 66(3), 283–91.
10
Breen, M., C. Candlin, L. Dam, and G. Gabrielsen. (1990). The evolution of a teacher training programme In R. K. Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum (pp.111–135). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
11
Brown, D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
12
Brown, J. D. (2001). Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13
Camilleri, G. A. (Ed.). (1999). Learner autonomy - The teachers' views. Strassbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Retrieved from http://archive.ecml.at/documents/pubCamilleriG_E.pdf
14
Camilleri, G. A. (2007). Pedagogy for autonomy, teachers’ attitudes and institutional change: A case study. In M. J. Raya, & L. Sercu (Eds.), Challenges in teacher development: Learner autonomy and intercultural competence (pp. 81-102). Frankurt: Peter Lang.
15
Candy, (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning. California: Jossey-Bass.
16
Chan, V. (2003). Autonomous language learning: The teachers’ perspective. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(1), 33–48.
17
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. London: Routledge- Falmer.
18
Cotterall, S. (1995). Readiness for autonomy: Investigating learner beliefs. System, 23, 195-205.
19
Crabbe, D., Elgort, I, & Gu, P. (2013). Autonomy in a networked world. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 7 (3), 193-197.
20
Dam, L. (1995). Learner autonomy 3: From theory to practice. Dublin: Authentik.
21
Dam, L. (2003). Developing LA: The teacher’s responsibility. In D. Little, J. Ridley, and E. Ushioda (Eds.), Learner autonomy in foreign language classrooms: Teacher, learner, curriculum and assessment. Dublin: Authentik.
22
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: OUP.
23
Dörnyei, Z. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
24
Feryok, A. (2013). Teaching for LA: The teacher’s role and sociocultural theory. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 7 (3), 213-225.
25
Galiniené, L. (1999). Learner autonomy through project work. In A. Camilleri (Ed.), Introducing learner autonomy in teacher education, (pp. 22–32). Graz: European Centre for Modern Languages.
26
Gatt, F. (1999). DIVA: Learner autonomy for in-service teachers. In A. Camilleri (Ed.), Introducing learner autonomy in teacher education, (pp. 33–42). Graz: European Centre for Modern Languages.
27
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
28
Jiménez Raya, M. (2011). Enhancing pedagogy for autonomy: The potential of a case-based approach in promoting reflection and action. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5(2): 151–163. doi:10.1080/17501229.2011. 577531.
29
Jiménez Raya, M., & Vieira, F. (2015). Enhancing autonomy in language education: A case-based approach to teacher and learner development. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
30
Kohonen, V. (1992). Experiential language learning: Second language learning as cooperative learner education. In D. Nunan, (Ed.), Collaborative language learning and teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). A postmethod perspective on language teaching. World Englishes, 22(4), 539-50.
32
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to post-method. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2012). Language teacher education for a global society. New York: Taylor & Francis.
34
Lai, C., Gardner, D., & Law, E. (2013). New to facilitating self-directed learning: The changing perceptions of teachers. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 7 (3), 281-294.
35
Lam, T. E. (2008). Introduction to this volume [introduction]. In T. E. Lamb and H. Reinders (Eds.), Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities, and responses (pp.5-11). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
36
Lamb, T. E., & Reinders. H. (2008). Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities, and responses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
37
Lee, J. J. (2010), The uniqueness of EFL teachers: Perceptions of Japanese learners. TESOL Journal, 1, 23–48. doi:10.5054/tj.2010.214881
38
Lewis, T. (2013). Between the social and the selfish: Learner autonomy in online environments. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 7 (3), 198-212.
39
Lier, van L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. New York: Longman.
40
Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy: Definitions, issues and problems. Dublin: Authentik.
41
Little, D. (2002). Learner autonomy and second/foreign language learning, good practice guide. LTSN Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies. Retrieved from http://www.lang.ltsn.ac.uk/resources/goodpractice.aspx? resourceid=1409.
42
Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language Teaching, 40(3), 243-249. doi: 10.1017/S0261444807004363
43
Mansour, N. (2013). Consistencies and inconsistencies between science teachers’ beliefs and practices. International Journal of Science Education, 35(7), 1230-1275. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2012.743196.
44
Manzano Vázquez, B. (2016). Teacher development for autonomy: An exploratory review of language teacher education for learner and teacher autonomy. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching. 10(3), 1-11. doi: 10.1080/17501229.2016.1235171
45
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed.). (2002). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.
46
Nguyen, N. T., Tangen, D., & Beutel, D. (2014). Exploring the concept of LA in cross-cultural research. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 5(3), 202-216.
47
Nunan, D. (1997). Designing and adapting materials to encourage LA. In P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp. 192-203). New York: Longman.
48
Oxford, R. (2003). Toward a more systematic model of L2 LA. In Learner autonomy across cultures: Language education perspectives. (pp. 75-91). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
49
Palfreyman, D. (2003). Introduction: Culture and LA. In D. Palfreyman & R. C. Smith (Eds.) Learner autonomy across cultures: Language education perspectives (pp. 183-200). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
50
Polkinghorne, D. E., (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(1), 5-23.
51
Sheerin, S. (1991). State of the art: Self-access. Language Teaching, 24(3), pp. 153-57.
52
Swain, M., Kinner, P., & Steinman, L. (2011). Sociocultural theory in second language education: An introduction through narratives. New York: Multilingual Matters.
53
Tseng, W. T., Dörnyei, Z., & Schmitt, N. (2006). A new approach to assessing strategic learning: The case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 78-102.
54
Ushioda, E., R. Smith, S. Mann, & Brown, P. (2011). Promoting teacher-learner autonomy through and beyond initial language teacher education. Language Teaching, 44(1), 118–121. doi:10.1017/S026144481000039X
55
Yildirim, O. (2012). A study on a group of Indian English as a second language learners’ perceptions of autonomous learning. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry. 3(2), 18-29.
56
Zheng, H. (2013). Teachers’ beliefs and practices: A dynamic and complex relationship. Asia- Pacific Journal of teacher education, 41(3), 331- 343. Doi. 10.1080/1359866X.2013.809051.
57
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
L2 Learners' Acquisition of English Nominal Clauses: Effects of Textual Enhancement, Metalinguistic Explanation, and Self-Regulation
This study aimed to investigate the impact of textual enhancement and metalinguistic explanation as focus-on-form tasks tending to encourage the acquisition of nominal clauses (NCs) in English. It explored (a) whether textual enhancement and metalinguistic explanation would promote and enhance the knowledge of NCs, (b) whether these two tasks would differ in terms of enhancing learners' knowledge of nominal clauses, and (c) whether learners' use of self-regulatory capacity for grammar acquisition would have differential effects on textual enhancement and explicit explanation groups. A test of recognizing noun clauses and a test of producing combined sentences were used as both the pretest and the posttest to measure the achievement of first-year undergraduate university students in four intact classes. A grammar self-regulation questionnaire was also administered to measure the use of self-regulatory capacity. The findings demonstrated that both textual enhancement and explicit instruction contributed to developing grammatical knowledge of the learners at both recognition and production level. The results also showed that the learners who received textual enhancement used their grammar self-regulatory capacity more effectively in developing their receptive knowledge of NCs. It can be concluded that textual enhancement, which provides learners with less explicit instruction, pushes them to use their self-regulatory capacity more effectively in improving receptive knowledge of grammar.
https://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_8345_ce00655e9ef3c71f7d42be8851aac350.pdf
2018-12-01
113
139
textual enhancement
metalinguistic explanation
self-regulation
receptive knowledge
productive knowledge
nominal clauses
Hossein
Younesi
h.younesi40@gmail.com
1
PhD Candidate of TEFL, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran
AUTHOR
Zia
Tajeddin
zia_tajeddin@yahoo.com
2
Professor in Applied Linguistics, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Iran
LEAD_AUTHOR
Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (Tech. Rep. No. 9) (pp. 259-302). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
1
Batstone, R. (1994). Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3
De Graaff, R. (1997). The eXperanto experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,19, 249-276.
4
DeKeyser, R. M. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules. An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies is Second Language Acquisition, 17, 379-410.
5
Dornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6
Doughty, C. (1988). The effect of instruction on the acquisition of relativization in English as a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universit of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
7
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431-469.
8
Doughty, C. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 256-310). Oxford: Blackwell.
9
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.197-262). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,28, 339-368.
12
Erlam, R. (2003). Evaluating the relative effectiveness of structured-input and output-based instruction in foreign language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 559-582.
13
Farahani, A. K. & Sarkhosh, M. (2012). Do different textual enhancement formats have differential effects on the intake of English subjunctive mood? Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(4), 688-698.
14
Fernández, C. (2008). Reexamining the role of explicit information in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 277-305.
15
Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 323-351.
16
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2002). Frequency effects and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 249-260.
17
Han, Z., Park, E. S., & Combs, C. (2008). Textual enhancement of input: Issues and possibilities. Applied Linguistics, 29, 597-618.
18
Henry, N., Culman, H., & VanPatten, B. (2009). More on the effects of explicit information in instructed SLA: A partial replication and a response to Fernández (2008). Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31,559-575.
19
Housen, A. & Pierrard, M. (2006). Investigating instructed second language acquisition. In A. Housen & M. Pierrard (Eds.), Investigations in instructed second language acquisition (pp. 1-27). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
20
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541-577.
21
Jabbarpoor, S. & Tajeddin, Z. (2013). Enhanced input, individual output, and collaborative output: Effects on the acquisition of the English subjunctive mood. Estudios de Lingüística, 46(82), 213-235.
22
Jourdenais, R., Ota, M., Stauffer, S., Boyson, B., & Doughty, C. J. (1995). Does textual enhancement promote noticing? A think-aloud protocol analysis. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 183-216). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
23
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41,75-86.
24
LaBrozzi, R. M. (2016). The effects of textual enhancement type on L2 form recognition and reading comprehension in Spanish. Language Teaching Research, 20(1), 75-91.
25
Lee, S. K. (2007). Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students' reading comprehension and learning of passive form. Language learning, 57, 87-118.
26
Leow, R. P. (1997). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 47, 467-506.
27
Leow, R. P. (2000). A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behavior: Aware vs. unaware learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 557-584.
28
Leow, R. P. (2001). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 51, 113-155.
29
Leow, R. P. & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). To think aloud or not to think aloud: The issue of reactivity in SLA research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 35-57.
30
Leow, R. P., Egi, T., Nuevo, A-M., & Tsai, Y. (2003). The roles of textual enhancement and type of linguistic item in adult L2 learners’ comprehension and intake. Applied Language Learning, 13,93-108.
31
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
32
Long, M. & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15-41). New York: Cambridge University Press.
33
Macaro, E. (2001). Learning strategies in foreign and second language classrooms. London: Continuum.
34
Morgan-Short, K., Sanz, C., Steinhauer, K., & Ullman, M. (2010). Second language acquisition of gender agreement in explicit and implicit training conditions: An event-related potential study. Language Learning,60, 154-193.
35
Nassaji, H. (2013). Participation Structure and Incidental Focus on Form in Adult ESL Classrooms. Language Learning, 63(4), 835-869.
36
Nassaji, H. & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126-145.
37
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. New York: Routledge.
38
Overstreet, M. (1998). Text enhancement and content familiarity: The focus of learner attention. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 2,229-258.
39
Park, E. S. (2004). Constraints of implicit focus on form: Insights from a study of input enhancement. Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL and Applied Linguistics, 4, 1-30.
40
Purpura, J. E. (2004). Assessing grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283-331.
42
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,18, 27-67.
43
Robinson, P. (1997). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult second language learning. Language Learning, 47, 45-99.
44
Robinson, P. (2005). Aptitude and Second Language Acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 46-73.
45
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
46
Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206-226.
47
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48
Schmidt, R. (2010). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. In W. M. Chan, S. Chi, K. N. Cin, J. Istanto, M. Nagami, J. W. Sew, T. Suthiwan, & I. Walker (Eds.), Proceedings of CLaSIC (pp. 721-737). Singapore: National University of Singapore, Centre for Language Studies.
49
Shook, D. J. (1994). FL/L2 reading, grammatical information, and the input-to- intake phenomenon. Applied Language Learning, 5,57-93.
50
Simard, D. (2009). Differential effects of textual enhancement formats on intake. System, 37,124-135.
51
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
52
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64-81). New York: Cambridge University Press.
53
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471-483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
54
Tomlin, R. & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16,183-204.
55
Trahey, M. & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181-204.
56
Tseng, W.-T., Dörnyei, Z., & Schmitt, N. (2006). A new approach to assessing strategic learning: The case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 27, 78-102.
57
VanPatten, B. & Leeser, M. (2006). Theoretical and research considerations underlying classroom practice: The fundamental role of input. In R. Salaberry & B. Lafford (Eds.), The art of teaching Spanish: Second language acquisition from research to praxis (pp. 62-78). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
58
VanPatten, B. & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495-510.
59
Weinstein, C. E., Husman, J., & Dierking, D. R. (2000). Self-regulation interventions with a focus on learning strategies. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 727-747). San Diego: Academic Press.
60
White, J. (1998). Getting the learners' attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 85-113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
61
Winke, P. (2013). The effects of input enhancement on grammar learning and comprehension: A modified replication of Lee, 2007, with eye-movement data. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3(2), 323-352.
62
Wong, W. (2003). Textual enhancement and simplified input: Effects on L2 comprehension and acquisition of non-meaningful grammatical form. Applied Language Learning, 13, 109-132.
63
Wong, W. (2005). Input enhancement: From theory and research to the classroom. New York: McGraw-Hill.
64
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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
65
Zimmerman, B. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 166-183.
66
Zimmerman, B. J. & Risemberg, R. (1997). Self-regulatory dimensions of academic learning and motivation. In G. D. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of academic learning (pp. 105-125). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
67
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Language Acquisition and English Achievement at Grade Four Senior High School
This study aimed to explore the relationship between language acquisition and grade four senior high school (G4SHS) students’ achievement in English as a foreign language (EFL). To this end the 41-item English Language Acquisition Scale (ELAS) designed by Khodadady and Younesi (2017) was administered to 518 G4SHS students. Also to find the probable relationship between ELAS, its latent variables and participant achievement in EFL classes in EFL classes 126 participants were randomly selected out of population to answer schema-based cloze multiple choice items test ( S- test) designed by Khodadady and Ghergloo ( 2013). To know which of the G4SHS students who took the ELAS took the S-Test as well the researcher was matched the codes of the ELAS S-test and ELTAS carefully. The results showed that the ELAS consists of five factors, i.e., Qualified, grammatization, Humanistic, Engagement and Orientation. Also the ELAS and its underlying factors show significant relationships with English achievement scores. The results of the study are discussed .
https://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_8340_cb48104b705456756eaa6281780641c3.pdf
2018-12-01
141
156
language acquisition
language achievement
language scale
Mostafa
Younesi
m_yoonesi@yahoo.co.uk
1
PhD candidate in English education at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
LEAD_AUTHOR
Ebrahim
Khodadady
ekhodadady@gmail.com
2
Academic member of Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, International Branch, Mashhad, Iran.
AUTHOR
Behzad
Ghonsooly
ghonsooly@yahoo.com
3
Professor in Applied Linguistics, Department of English, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad.
AUTHOR
Alrabai, F.( 2016) . Factors Underlying Low Achievement of Saudi EFL Learners. International Journal of English Linguistics,6, 21-37. doi:10.5539/ijel.v6n3p21
1
Brown , A.V. (2006). Students' and Teachers' Perceptions of Effective Teaching in the
2
Brown, R., &Hanlon, C. (1970) .Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In J. Hayes (ed.), Cognition and the development of language ( pp. 155-207). New York: Wiley.
3
Brown, R., Cazden, C., &Bellugi, U. (1973) . The child's grammar from I to III . In C. Ferguson , & D. Slobin (Eds.), Studies of child language development( pp. 295-333). New York : Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
4
Gardner, R. (1959). Motivational variables in second language learning. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13(4), 265-271.
5
Khodadady, E., & Ghergloo,E. (2013). S-Tests and C-Tests: Measures of Content-Based Achievement at Grade Four of High Schools. Journal of American Review of Mathematics and Statistics,1,(1).pp.1-16. Retrieved from www.aripd.org/arms.
6
Khodadady, E., Younesi, M. (2017). Factors Underlying Characteristics of Acquisition of English Language in EFL Classrooms. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 19, 73-90.
7
Krashen, S. (2002).Second language aquisition and second language learning. Los Angeles:University of Southern California.
8
Krashen, S. (2009). Principles and practice in second language acquisition.Retrived from www.sdkrashen.com/content/books/principles_and_practice.pdf
9
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
On the Relationship between Metacognitive Reading Strategies, Reading Self-Efficacy, and L2 Reading Comprehension
The present study was conducted to investigate the relationship between metacognitive reading strategies, reading self-efficacy, and reading comprehension of Iranian EFL learners. The participants were 119 Iranian B.A and M.A students majoring in English at Imam Khomeini International University and Islamshahr Azad University. A Michigan Test of English language Proficiency was given to the participants to determine their language proficiency and reading comprehension. Then, they were asked to respond to the two questionnaires of MARSI (Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory), and RSEQ (Reading Self-Efficacy Questionnaire). To analyze the data, multiple regression analyses and correlation procedures were used. The results revealed a significant relationship between the use of reading strategies and reading comprehension. Also, a significant relationship was found between the use of reading strategies and reading self-efficacy. Moreover, the findings showed a positive relationship between reading self-efficacy and reading comprehension of Iranian EFL learners. The results of this study may have implications for teachers, learners, and materials developers.
https://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_8342_10be724c744e3fa88adea953c1387402.pdf
2018-12-01
157
181
metacognitive reading strategies
reading self-efficacy
reading comprehension
Abbas Ali
Zarei
a.zarei@hum.ikiu.ac.ir
1
Associate professor, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran
AUTHOR
Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364-373.
1
Alimoradi, H., Jahandar, S., & Khodabandehlou, M. (2013). The impact of self- efficacy on Iranian EFL learner’s reading comprehension ability at pre-intermediate level. An Online International Journal, 3(4), 649-657.
2
Amer, A., Al Barwani, T., & Ibrahim, M. (2010). Student teachers’ perceived use of online reading strategies. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 6(4), 102-113.
3
Anastasiou, D., & Griva, E. (2009). Awareness of reading strategy use and reading comprehension among poor and good readers. Elementary Education Online, 8(2), 283-297.
4
Anderson, N. J. (2004). Metacognitive reading strategy awareness of ESL and EFL learners. The CATESOL Journal, 16(1), 11-27.
5
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
6
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American psychologist, 37(2), 122-147.
7
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
8
Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. Annals of child development, 6, 1-85.
9
Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 21-41.
10
Bandura, A., & Adams, N. E. (1977). Analysis of self-efficacy theory of behavioral change. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 4(1), 287-310.
11
Carrell, P. L., Pharis, B. G., & Liberto, J. C. (1989). Metacognitive strategy training for ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 23(4), 647-678.
12
Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2004). Self-regulation empowerment program: A school- based program to enhance self-regulated and self-motivated cycles of student learning. Psychology in the Schools, 4(5), 537-550.
13
Ghezlu, M., Kordi, L., & Nasri Nasrabady, A. (2014). Gender differences in reading strategy use, reading self-efficacy, and perceptual learning styles among EFL learners. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW), 5(1), 609-624.
14
Ghonsooly, B., & Elahi, M. (2010). Learners’ self-efficacy in reading and its relation to foreign language anxiety and reading achievement. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning Year, 53(217), 46-67.
15
Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. The Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 283-294.
16
Karbalaei, A. R. (2010). A comparison of the metacognitive reading strategies used by EFL and ESL readers. The Reading Matrix, 10(2), 165-180.
17
Keskin, H. K. (2014). A path analysis of metacognitive strategies in reading, self-efficacy and task value. International J. Soc. Sci. & Education, 4(4), 798-808.
18
Khoshsima, H., & Rezaeian Tiyar, F. (2014). The effect of summarizing strategy on reading comprehension of Iranian intermediate EFL learners. International Journal of Languag and Linguistics, 2(3), 134-139.
19
Kolic-Vehovec S., Roncevic B., & Bajsanski I. (2008). Motivational components of self-regulated learning and reading strategy use in university students: The role of goal orientation patterns. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(1), 108–113.
20
Lau, K. L., & Chan, D. W. (2003). Reading strategy use and motivation among Chinese good and poor readers in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Reading, 26(2), 177-190.
21
Li, F. F. (2010). A study of English reading strategies used by senior middle school students. Asian Social Science, 6(10), 184-191.
22
Li, Y., & Wang, C. (2010). An empirical study of reading self-efficacy and the use of reading strategies in the Chinese EFL context. Asian EFL Journal, 12(2), 144-162.
23
Mahmoudi, E. (2014). Reading strategy use among Iranian EFL Learners. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW), 6(1), 371- 378.
24
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C.A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategy. Journal of Education Psychology, 94(2), 249-259.
25
Naseri, M., & Zaferanieh, E. (2012).The relationship between reading self-efficacy beliefs, reading strategy use and reading comprehension level of Iranian EFL learners. World Journal of Education, 2(2), 64-75.
26
Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 139-158.
27
Rastakhiz, M., & Roudgar Safari, M. (2014). The relationship between global reading strategies and support reading strategies on Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ reading comprehension ability. Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences, 4(S4), 491-503.
28
Rivers, W. M. (1981). Teaching foreign-language skills. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29
Salehi, K., & Khalaji, H. R. (2014). The relationship between Iranian EFL upper intermediate learners’ self-efficacy and their reading comprehension performance. International Journal of Educational Investigations, 1(1), 274-282.
30
Shang, H. F. (2010). Reading strategy use, self-efficacy and EFL reading comprehension. The Asian EFL Journal Quarter, 12(2), 18-42.
31
Shell, D. F., Colvin, C., & Bruning, R. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, attribution, and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement: Grade-level and achievement-level differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 386-398.
32
Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29, 431–449.
33
Soleimani, H., & Hajghani, S. (2013). The effect of teaching reading comprehension strategies on Iranian EFL pre-university students' reading comprehension ability. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 5(5), 594-600.
34
Solheim, O. J. (2011). The impact of reading self-efficacy and task value on reading comprehension scores in different item formats. Reading Psychology, 32, 1–27.
35
Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., & Huang, J. S. (2008). Improving children’s reading comprehension and use of strategies through computer-based strategy training. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(162), 1552–1571.
36
Vaez Dalili, M., & Tavakoli, M. (2013). A comparative analysis of reading strategies across ESP students of humanities and engineering. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 2(5), 63-78.
37
Zainol Abidin, M. J. (2012). Collaborative strategic reading (CSR) within cognitive and metacognitive strategies perspectives. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(3), 192-198.
38
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.
39
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-Efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, 82–91.
40
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal Manth, 45(1), 166-183.
41