ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Exploring Language Learners’ Cognitive Processes in On-line ESP Courses via Think-aloud Protocol Analysis
The present study aims to investigate language learners’ cognitive processes in on-line ESP courses. Three modes of inquiry are used: think-aloud protocol analysis, screen capture analysis, and correlation analysis. The theoretical foundations for the evaluation of the cognitive aspect of Ferdowsi Univeristy of Mashhad E-learning System are drawn from cognitive load theory, cognitive apprenticeship theory and human-computer interactivity theory. 15 users were interviewed while their performance on the screen was recorded electronically. The results of qualitative and quantitative analyses show that design features have a meaningful effect on the users’ performance in four phases of cognitive interaction with e-learning systems. The educational implications of the findings for software developers are discussed.
https://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_599_1ee0746136ec3ba6661c9b5e63809631.pdf
2012-11-21
1
32
E-learning
Cognitive Processes
Think-aloud
Cognitive apprenticeship
Instructional design
Behzad
Ghonsooly
ghonsooly@yahoo.com
1
Associate professor, Ferdowsi university of Mashhad
LEAD_AUTHOR
Mohammad Ali
Shams
2
ph.d in TEFL, Ferdowsi university of Mashhad
AUTHOR
Albert, D., & Mori, T. (2001). The contributions of cognitive
1
psychology to the future of learning. Bull. Grad. School Educ.
2
Hiroshima Univ. Part I, 50, 25-34.
3
Baldus, K., & Nicholas, A. (2010). Don’t make me think: Creating
4
effective e-learning with user testing. Paper presented at Learning
5
Solutions Conference, Orlando, Florida.
6
Bloom, B. S. (1953). Thought processes in lectures and discussions.
7
Journal of General Education, 7, 160–169.
8
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). E-Learning and the science of
9
instruction. Hoboken: John Wiley.
10
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newmann, S. (1989). Cognitive
11
apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and
12
mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and
13
instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494).
14
Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
15
Cotton, D., & Gresty, K. (2006). Reflecting on the think-aloud method
16
for evaluating e-learning. British Journal and Educational
17
Technology, 37(1), 45-54.
18
Davis, D. N. (2000). Emotion as the basis for computational
19
autonomy in cognitive agents. Proceedings of the 14th European
20
Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
21
Ekanayake, H., Karunarathna, D. D., & Hewagamage, K. P. (2006).
22
Cognitive architecture for affective eLearning. Third International
23
Conference on eLearning for Knowledge-Based Society, Bangkok,
24
Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory.
25
Psychological Review, 102, 211–245.
26
30 Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning.No,9 / Spring & Summer 2012
27
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal
28
reports as data. London: MIT Press.
29
Fox, S., & MacKeogh, K. (2003). Can e-learning promote higherorder
30
learning without tutor overload. Open Learning, 18(2), 121-
31
Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of
32
Instructional Design (4th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson
33
Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. J. (1991). Psychological perspectives on
34
emerging nstructional technologies: A critical analysis.
35
Educational Psychologist, 26(1), 69-95.
36
Hudlicka, E. (2004). Beyond cognition: Modeling emotion in
37
cognitive architectures. Proceedings of the Sixth International
38
Conference on Cognitive Modeling.
39
Kalyuga, S. (2007). Enhancing instructional efficiency of interactive
40
e-learning environments: A cognitive load perspective.
41
Educational Psychological Review, 19, 387-399.
42
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A
43
conversational framework for the effective use of learning
44
technologies (2nd ed.). London: Routledge/Falmer.
45
Milton, J., & Lyons, J. (2003). Evaluate to improve learning:
46
Reflecting on the role of teaching and learning models. Higher
47
Education Research and Development, 22, 297–312.
48
Moore, M. G. (1989). Three Types of Interaction. The American
49
Journal of Distance Education, 3 (2), 1-6.
50
Moreno, R., & Valdez, A. (2006). Cognitive load and learning effects
51
of having students organize pictures and words in multimedia
52
Exploring Language Learners’ Cognitive Processes… 31
53
environments: The role of student interactivity and feedback.
54
Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 35-45.
55
Morrison, G. R., & Anglin, G. J. (2005). Research on cognitive load
56
theory: Application to e-learning. Educational Technology
57
Research and Development, 53(3), 94-104.
58
Ohlsson, S. (1995) Learning to do and learning to understand: A
59
lesson and challenge for cognitive modeling. In P. Reimann and
60
H. Spada (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines: Towards an
61
interdisciplinary learning science (??-??). London: Pergamon.
62
Parscal, T., & Hencmann, M. (2008). Cognitive apprenticeships in
63
online learning. Proceedings of the 24th Conference on Distance
64
Teaching & Learning, 1-4.
65
Richter, G. A. (2007). The next generation of interactivity: Cognitive
66
interactivity. ???
67
Salmon, G. (1998). Developing learning through effective online
68
moderation. Active Learning, 9, 3–8.
69
Schnotz, W., & Rasch, T. (2005). Enabling, facilitating, and inhibiting
70
effects of animations in multimedia learning: Why reduction of
71
cognitive load can have negative results on learning. Educational
72
Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 47-58.
73
Sorden, S. D. (2005). A cognitive approach to instructional design for
74
multimedia learning. Informing Science Journal, 8, 263-279.
75
Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of
76
human machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge
77
University Press.
78
Van Den Hakk, M. J., de Yong, M. D. T., & Schellens, P. J. (2004).
79
Employing think-aloud protocols and constructive interaction to
80
32 Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning.No,9 / Spring & Summer 2012
81
test the usability of online library catalogues: A methodological
82
comparison. Interacting with Computers, 16, 1153-1170.
83
von Brevern, H. (2004). Cognitive and logical rationales for elearning
84
objects. Educational Technology & Society, 7(4), 2-25
85
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
The role of Persian causative markers in the acquisition of English causative verbs
This project investigates the relationship between lexical semantics and causative morphology in the acquisition of causative/inchoative-related verbs in English as a foreign language by Iranian speakers. Results of translation and picture judgment task show although L2 learners have largely acquired the correct lexico-syntactic classification of verbs in English, they were constrained by the morphological patterns of their first language (L1) when learning zero morphology, especially with causative/inchoative verbs. Results also show the lack of the learners' proficiency level in all causative/inchoative contexts and in almost all contexts in grammatical judgment task.The transitivity errors documented are analogous to the overgeneralization errors reported in the L1 and L2 acquisition literature of English and other languages. In this study, we also suggest that L2 learners are atuned to the rich morphology of Persian and that the acquisition of derivational morphology and lexical semantics are not dissociated in these interlanguage grammars.
https://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_600_e299985c20bef2452e27a2d9760528d2.pdf
2012-11-21
33
61
: Persian causative\inchoative
English causative\inchoative
Morphology
Lexical Semantics
Ali Akbar
Jabbari
1
Associate professor, Yazd university
LEAD_AUTHOR
Mohammad Javad
Rezaie
2
Assistant professor, Yazd university
AUTHOR
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Design and Implementation of an Intelligent
Part of Speech Generator
The aim of this paper is to report on an attempt to design and implement an intelligent system capable of generating the correct part of speech for a given sentence while the sentence is totally new to the system and not stored in any database available to the system. It follows the same steps a normal individual does to provide the correct parts of speech using a natural language processor. It uses both morphological and syntactic analysis of the input to arrive at correct part of speech. It, then, checks to see if the correct part of speech is provided. If not, it displays the correct part of speech with a short note referring to the specific rule responsible for the selection of correct part of speech. This tool can be used to help learners master English parts of speech system
https://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_601_b2e722c27586f31e62756baef30c670a.pdf
2012-11-21
63
99
part of speech
word class
lexical class
lexical category
ICALL
Morphology
Syntax
NLP
Vahid Reza
Mirzaeian
1
Assistant professor, Arak Industrial university
LEAD_AUTHOR
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
On the Effect of Using Games, Songs, and Stories on Young Iranian EFL Learners' Achievement
The objective of the present study was to identify and examine the influence of instructional tools, namely, games, songs and stories on young Iranian EFL learners’ achievement utilizing a quantitative design. To conduct the study 65 Iranian EFL learners, divided into an experimental group and a control group, learning English at Navid English Institute, Shiraz, Iran, participated in the study. The data were collected through two instruments: a pre/post- achievement test, and audio-recorded interviews, both designed by the researchers. The data obtained from the administration of the test and the interviews were analyzed using independent samples t-tests and paired samples t-tests and the findings were compared to describe the influence of employing instructional games, songs and stories on participants’ achievement. Findings drawn from the analysis of data revealed that the implementation of pedagogical tools used in the study can significantly affect the learners’ language achievement, realized through their listening, speaking, and writing ability and their vocabulary and grammar.
https://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_602_22f79ffe799065180eba30c67222c699.pdf
2012-11-21
101
127
: instructional tools
games
songs
stories
young learners
language achievement
Seyyed Ayatollah
Razmjoo
1
Associate professor, university of shiraz
LEAD_AUTHOR
Saeed
Mehrpur
2
Assistant professor, university of shiraz
AUTHOR
Behnaz
Darban
3
MA in TEFL , university of shiraz
AUTHOR
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Improvement of Metadiscourse Use among Iranian EFL Learners through a Process- based Writing Course
The present study investigated the use of interactive metadiscourse resources (IMRs) in terms of appropriacy during a process- based writing course by applying qualitative and exploratory methods. Moreover, learners' perception was investigated to find out how confident they felt as they were writing and rewriting the drafts. 30 intermediate EFL learners were chosen to participate in this study based on their performance on the OPT. The participants wrote essays on argumentative topics during the period of one semester. Each participant submitted three drafts on a topic, the first draft, the draft after revising and the draft after editing. Experts’ appropriacy judgments showed a clear improvement in the appropriate use of IMRs from the participants’ earlier drafts to their final drafts. Furthermore, analysis of the interviews’ data showed that most of the interviewees had positive views towards this kind of writing and stated that their level of confidence in using IMRs increased through the stages and they felt more confident towards the end of the course. The results of this study seem to have some implications for teachers and practitioners in EFL contexts and could be of major significance for classroom application.
https://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_603_977645513c732e973e0e6ab994cb5d7e.pdf
2012-11-21
129
164
Process- oriented approach
metadiscourse
Interactive Metadiscourse Resources
Mansoor
Tavakoli
mr.tavakoli14@gmail.com
1
Assistant professor, university of Isfahan
LEAD_AUTHOR
Leila
Bahrami
2
M.A in TEFL , university of Isfahan
AUTHOR
Zahra
Amirian
3
ph.d in TEFL, university of Isfahan
AUTHOR
Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction
1
and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139–145.
2
Abdi, R. (2009). An investigation of the distribution and nature of
3
metadiscourse markers in research
4
articles.UnpublishedPh.DDissertation.University of Isfahan. Isfahan.
5
Abdi, R., TavangarRizi, M., &Tavakoli, M. (2010). The cooperative
6
principle in discourse communities and genres: A framework for the
7
use of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics.42(6), 1669-1679.
8
Abdollahzadeh, E. (2001). Native and non-native writers’ use of textual
9
metadiscourse in ELT papers.Unpublished MA Thesis, University of
10
Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
11
Adel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: John
12
Benjamins.
13
Allan, D. (1992). Oxford placement tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14
Amiri, M. (2007).Effects of teaching practical metadiscourse use on
15
Persian EFT university students’ writing.Unpublished MA Thesis,
16
Iran University of Science and Technology. Tehran, Iran.
17
Atkinson, D. (2003). L2 writing in the post-process era. Journal of Second
18
Language Writing, 12 (1), 3-15.
19
Beighmohammadi, A. (2003). An investigation into the patterns of use of
20
discourse features of intensity markers in academic research articles
21
Improvement of Metadiscourse Use among Iranian EFL… 157
22
of hard science, social science and TEFL. Unpublished MA Thesis,
23
University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
24
Camiciottoli, B. C. (2003). Metadiscourse and ESP reading comprehension:
25
An Exploratory Study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15 (1), 28-44.
26
Cheng, X., &Steffensen, M.S. (1996).Metadiscourse: A technique for
27
improving student writing.Research in the Teaching of English, 30(2),
28
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., &Steffensen, M. (1993).Metadiscourse in
29
persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish
30
university students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39–71.
31
DaftaryFard, P. (2002). Scalability of reading comprehension skill
32
constructs: Metadiscourse connection. Unpublished MA Thesis, Iran
33
University of Science and Technology. Tehran, Iran.
34
Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of
35
national culture or of academic discipline?.Journal of Pragmatics, 36
36
(10), 1807- 1825.
37
Faghih, E., &Rahimpour, S. (2009).Contrastive rhetoric of English and
38
Persian written texts: Metadiscourse in applied linguistics research
39
articles. Rice Working Papers in Linguistics, 1, 92- 107.
40
Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory
41
course books. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3–26.
42
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing.Cambridge: Cambridge
43
University Press.
44
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: metadiscourse in L2
45
postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133–
46
158 Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning.No,9 /Spring&Summer 2012
47
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing.
48
London: Continuum.
49
Hyland, K., &Tse, P. (2004).Metadiscourse in academic writing: A
50
reappraisal. Applied Linguistics.25(2), 156–177.
51
Intraprawat, P., &Steffenson, M. S. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in
52
good and poor ESL essays.Journal of Second Language Writing, 4
53
(3), 263- 272.
54
Jalilifar, A. and Alipour, M. (2007). How explicit instruction makes a
55
difference: Metadiscourse markers and EFL learners' reading
56
comprehension skill. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 38(1),
57
Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods
58
for implementation.ELT Journal.44(4), 294-304.
59
Kern, R., & Schultz, J. M. (1992). The effects of composition instruction on
60
intermediate level French students’ writing performance: Some
61
preliminary findings. The Modern Language Journal,76, 1-13.
62
Kroll, B. (1990). Second language writing: Research insights for the
63
classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
64
Kroll, B. (2001). Considerations for teaching an ESL/EFL writing course. In
65
Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd Edition),
66
Marianne Celce- Murcia (ed.), 219-232. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
67
Kroll, B. (2003). Exploring the dynamics of second language
68
writing.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
69
Marandi, S. (2002).Contrastive EAP rhetoric: Metadiscourse in Persian vs.
70
English. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Tehran,
71
Tehran, Iran.
72
Improvement of Metadiscourse Use among Iranian EFL… 159
73
Marandi, S. (2003).Metadiscourse in Persian / English Master's theses: A
74
contrastive study.Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 23- 42.
75
Matsuda, P. K. (2003). Process and post-process: A discursive history.
76
Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 65–83.
77
Nation, I.S.P. (2008). Teaching ESL/EFL reading and writing. New York
78
& London: Rutledge, Taylor & Francis.
79
Nemati, M. &Parvaresh, V. (2008). Metadiscourse and reading
80
comprehension: The effects of language and proficiency. Electronic
81
Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 5(2).220-239.
82
Noorian, M., &Biria, R. ( 2010). Interpersonal metadiscourse in persuasive
83
journalism: A study of texts by American and Iranian EFL columnists.
84
Journal of Modern Languages, 20. 64- 79.
85
Parvaresh, V. (2007).Metadiscourse and reading comprehension: The
86
effects of language and proficiency. Unpublished MA Thesis,
87
TarbiatModares University, Iran.
88
Rahimpour, S. (2006).Contrastive rhetoric of English and Persian texts;
89
Metadiscourse in applied linguistics research articles.Unpublished
90
MA Thesis, University of Mashhad, Iran.
91
Simin, S., &Tavangar, M. (2009).Metadiscourse knowledge and use
92
inIranian EFL writing.Asian EFL Journal, 11, 230-255.
93
Tavakoli, M., Dabaghi, A., &Khorvash, Z. (2010). The effect of
94
metadiscourse awareness on l2 reading comprehension: A case of
95
Iranian EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 3 (1).
96
VahidDastjerdi, H., &Shirzad, M.(2010). The impact of explicit instruction
97
of metadiscourse markers on EFL learners' writing performance.
98
Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 2( 2). 155-174.
99
160 Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning.No,9 /Spring&Summer 2012
100
VandeKopple, W. J. (1985). Some explanatory discourse on
101
metadiscourse.College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93.
102
VandeKopple, W. J. (1997). Refining and applying views of metadiscourse.
103
Paper presented at the 48th Annual Meeting of the Conference on
104
College Composition and Communication, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
105
Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six
106
case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165-187.
107
Zarei, G. R. &Mansoori, S. (2007). Metadiscourse in academic prose: A
108
contrastive analysis of English and Persian research articles. The
109
Asian ESP Journal, 3 (2), 24-40.
110
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Metadiscourse strategies in Persian research articles; Implications for teaching writing English articles
In order to develop an understanding of the rhetorical conventions in the Persian language and to find out the metadiscursive cultural norms of Iranian writers in their native language writings, it is necessary to probe into the implicit rhetorical features of academic writing which has so far eluded a comprehensive systematic characterization. Metadiscourse marking, which is supposed to be one of the important rhetorical aspects in the writing process, is shown to be susceptible to cultural mentalities. Therefore, in this study an attempt is made to explore interactive and interactional metadiscourse strategies use by the Persian writers in the genre of research articles (RAs). For the purpose of this study, a corpus of 60 Persian research articles from social and natural sciences was selected for a close qualitative manual analysis. It appeared that, though globally similar in many ways, different IMRD sections of RAs which follow different cognitive genre types use interactive and interactional strategies differently. Also, the conventions of the two sciences appeared to be weirdly different. The findings are analyzed and implications are drawn for the teachers and learners of writing research articles in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) classes. It is argued that without such characterizations it would be very difficult to gather an idea of the current rhetorical trend in Persian language so that a comparison can be made with any target language conventions in teaching and learning foreign languages.
https://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_604_fe30b3c18dc3850a26d9321df97db435.pdf
2012-11-21
165
176
metadiscourse markers
discourse analysis
metadiscourse
discourse community
rhetoric
genre analysis
Tohid
Siami
1
Assistant professor , university of Mohaghegh Ardabili
LEAD_AUTHOR
Reza
Abdi
reabdi@uma.ac.ir
2
Assistant professor , university of Mohaghegh Ardabili
AUTHOR
Abdi, R. (2011). Metadiscourse strategies in research articles; A study
1
of the differences across subsections. Journal of Teaching
2
Language Skills, 3(1), 1-16.
3
Basturkmen, H. (2006). Ideas and options in English for specific
4
purposes. Newjersy: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5
Belcher, D. D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research
6
world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 1-22.
7
Bizzell, P. (1992). Academic discourse and critical consciousness.
8
Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
9
Bruce, I. (2003). Cognitive genre prototype modeling and its
10
implications for the teaching of academic writing to learners of
11
English as a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
12
University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
13
Bruce, I. (2005). Syllabus design for general EAP writing courses: A
14
cognitive approach. English for Academic Purposes, 4, 239-256.
15
Buttny, R. (2010). Citizen participation, metadiscourse, and
16
accountability: A public hearing on a zoning change for wal-mart.
17
Journal of Communication, 60(4), 636-659.
18
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric; A cross-cultural study.
19
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20
Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and
21
interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and
22
attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper
23
discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(1), 95-113.
24
Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker
25
of national culture or of academic discipline. Journal of
26
Pragmatics, 36(10), 1807-1825.
27
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in
28
qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
29
Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks,
30
CA: Sage Publications.
31
Guillem, S. M. (2009). Argumentation, metadiscourse and social
32
cognition: organizing knowledge in political communication.
33
Discourse & Society, 20(6), 727-746.
34
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing.
35
Continuum: London.
36
176 Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning.No,9 /Spring&Summer 2012
37
Hyland, K., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). EAP: Issues and directions.
38
Journal of English for Academic Purposes 1, 1-12.
39
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A
40
reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
41
Jalilifar, A, & Alipour, M. (2007). How explicit instruction makes a
42
difference: Metadiscourse markers and EFL learners' reading
43
comprehension skill.
44
Journal of College Reading and Learning, 38(1), 1079-1095.
45
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought pattern in intercultural
46
communication. Journal of Language Learning, 1, 1-20.
47
Marandi, S. (2003). Metadiscourse in Persian /English master’s
48
theses: A contrastive study. Iranian Journal of Applied
49
Linguistics (IJAL), 6(2), 23-42.
50
Mey, J. L. (2005). Discourse and metadiscourse. Journal of
51
Pragmatics, 37(9), 1323-1324.
52
Nassaji, H. (2008). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English: Studies in
53
corpus linguistics. Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 332-333.
54
Simin S., & Tavangar, M. (2009). Metadiscourse knowledge and use
55
in Iranian EFL writing. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly,
56
11(1), 230-255.
57
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English for specific purpose in
58
academic and research setting. New York: Cambridge
59
University Press.
60