ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
The Effect of Mnemonic Key Word Method on Vocabulary Learning and Long Term Retention
Most of the studies on the key word method of second/foreign language vocabulary learning have been based on the evidence from laboratory experiments and have primarily involved the use of English key words to learn the vocabularies of other languages. Furthermore, comparatively quite limited number of such studies is done in authentic classroom contexts. The present study inquired into the effect of using mnemonic key word method of vocabulary instruction on the learning and retention of vocabulary over long term in a normal EFL classroom context.Fifty5th grade primary school students were selected and randomly assigned into experimental and control groups. The experimental group received vocabulary instruction using mnemonic key word method and the control group received classic memorization based instruction of the same vocabulary items. The two groups took three posttests a day, two weeks, and a month after the last treatment session. A MANOVA analysis was run on the data and the results indicated that subjects in the key word group outperformed the memorization group at a significant level in both their learning and retention of the newly learnt vocabularies. The results of the study underscore the efficacy of the establishment of mental links and images for the vocabulary learning and retention of novice and beginning level EFL learners. It further implies that mnemonic devices like key word method should be given prompt attention by both EFL material developers and practitioners as a potentially effective strategy for vocabulary teaching, learning and long term retention at the early stages of second or foreign language development.
https://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_16184_667defa6c0c2db73a6b9eb96cd6391e1.pdf
2013-12-01
1
15
Mnemonic Keyword Method
Rote Memorization
Vocabulary
Retention
Vocabulary Learning
Mohammad
Ahmadi Safa
ahmadisafa@gmail.com
1
Assistant Professor, Bu-Ali Sina University
LEAD_AUTHOR
Raouf
Hamzavi
raoufhamzavi@yahoo.com
2
M.A. Student, Bu-Ali Sina University
AUTHOR
Anjomafrouz, F. & Tajalli, G. (2012). Effects of using mnemonic associations on vocabulary recall of Iranian EFL learners over time. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(4), 101-114.
1
Atkinson, R. C. (1975). Mnemotechnics in second-language learning. American Psychologist, 30, 821-828.
2
Atkinson, R. C., & Raugh, M. R. (1975).An application of the mnemonic keyword method to the acquisition of a Russian vocabulary. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1(2), 126-133.
3
Avila, E. & Sadoski, M. (1996).Exploring new applications of the key word method to acquire English vocabulary. Language learning, 43(3),379-395.
4
Brown, T.S. &Perry, F.L, Jr., (1991).A comparison of three learning strategies for ESL vocabulary learning. TESOLQuarterly, 25(4), 655-670.
5
Cohen, A. (1987).The use of verbal and imagery mnemonics in second-language vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Learning, 9, 43-62.
6
Hulstijn, J. H. (1997). Mnemonic methods in foreign language vocabulary learning. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp. 203–224). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7
Kasper, L. F. (1993). The key word method and foreign language vocabulary learning: A rationale for its use. Foreign Language Annals, 26(2), 245-251.
8
Meara, P. (1980). Vocabulary acquisition: A neglected aspect of language learning. Language Teaching and Linguistics: Abstracts 13, 221-46.
9
McDaniel, M. A., & Pressley, M. (1984). Putting the keyword method in context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 598-409.
10
Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11
Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., &Delaney, H. D. (1982).The mnemonic keyword method. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 61-91.
12
Richmond, A. S., Cummings, R., & Klapp, M. (2008). Transfer of the method of loci, peg word, and keyword mnemonics in the eighth grade classroom. Researchers, 21(2),1-13.
13
Rodriguez, M. & Sadoski, M. (2000).Effects of rote, context, keyword, and context/keyword methods on retention of vocabulary in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50(2), 385-412.
14
Sagarra, N., & Alba, M. (2006). The key is in the keyword: L2 vocabulary learning methods with beginning learners of Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 90(2), 228–243.
15
Sarcoban, A., & Basibek, N. (2012).Mnemonics technique versus context method in teaching vocabulary at upper-intermediate level. Education and Science,37, 251-266.
16
Tabatabaei, O., & Hossainzadeh Hejazi, N. (2011).Using similarity in form between L1-L2 vocabulary items (keyword method/ linguistic mnemonics) in L2 vocabulary instruction. International Conference on Languages, Literature and Linguistics, 26, 270-275.
17
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
An Investigation of Spoken Output and Intervention Types among Iranian EFL Learners
This study was inspired by VanPatten and Uludag’s (2011) study on the transferability of training via processing instruction to output tasks and Mori’s (2002) work on the development of talk-in-interaction during a group task. An interview was devised as the pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest to compare four intervention types for teaching the simple past passive: traditional intervention as the comparison group and three task-based groups were processing instruction, consciousness-raising, and input enhancement. The interviews and the interactions during the treatments were also analyzed qualitatively. Task-based instruction (TBI) proved significantly more effective than traditional intervention and processing instruction significantly outperformed all others on both posttests. Furthermore, processing instruction was the only task-based intervention to retain its improvement till the delayed posttest. Qualitatively, processing instruction led to true negotiation of meaning and deep-level learning, consciousness-raising led to massive negotiation over the function of the target structure and deep-level learning, input enhancement led to enormous unfocused interaction about meaning, and traditional intervention just led to interaction about the forms. It was concluded that a well-planned processing instruction is a promising intervention for focusing on language form; however, due to the strong points cited for the other two tasks, their roles should not be ignored.
https://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_17197_7fa3b199be348b4cfcae5ed158206691.pdf
2013-12-01
17
41
input enhancement
processing instruction
consciousness-raising
traditional exercise-based intervention
Sasan
Baleghizadeh
sasanbaleghizadeh@yahoo.com
1
Shahid Beheshti University, İran.
LEAD_AUTHOR
Arash
Saharkhiz
saharkhiz.arash@gmail.com
2
Shahid Beheshti University, İran.
AUTHOR
Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 259-302). Honolulu: University of Hawaii.
1
Benati, A. (2005). The effects of processing instruction, traditional instruction, and meaning-output instruction on the acquisition of the English past simple tense. Language Teaching Research, 9, 67-93.
2
Benati, A., & Lee, J. F. (2008). Grammar acquisition and processing instruction: Secondary and cumulative effects. Bristol UK: Multilingual Matters.
3
DeKeyser, R. M., & Sokalski, K. J. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 46, 613-642.
4
Dempster, F. N. (1987). Effects of variable encoding and spaced presentation on vocabulary learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 162-170.
5
Duff, P. (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6
Dupuy, B., & Krashen, S. D. (1993). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in French as a foreign language. Applied Language Learning, 4, 55-63.
7
Ellis, R. (1991). Second language acquisition and language pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
8
Ellis, R. (1995). Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 87-105.
9
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.
10
Ferna´ndez, C. (2008). Reexamining the role of explicit information in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 207-305.
11
Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 323-351.
12
Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 605-628.
13
Griffin, G. F. (1992). Aspects of the psychology of second language vocabulary list learning. PhD thesis, Dept. of Psychology, University of Warwick.
14
Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment. Applied Linguistics, 10, 331-359.
15
Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual: design and statistics for applied linguistics. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
16
House, J., & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine (pp. 157-185). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
17
Hulstijn, J. H. (1992). Retention of inferred and given word meanings: Experiments in incidental vocabulary learning. In P. Arnaud and H. Bejoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 113-25). London: Macmillan.
18
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541-577.
19
Johnson, K. (1988). Mistake correction. ELT Journal, 42, 89-101.
20
Jourdenais, R., Ota, M., Stauffer, S., Boyson, B., & Doughty, C. (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, HI: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
21
Keating, G. D., & Farley, A. P. (2008). Processing instruction, meaning-based output instruction, and meaning-based drills: Impacts on L2 classroom acquisition of Spanish object pronouns. Hispania, 91, 639-650.
22
Kim, S. (2001). Structured input and production practice in foreign/second-language learning. Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia.
23
Koike, D. A., & Pearson, L. (2005). The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence. System, 33, 481-501.
24
Laufer, B. and Shmueli, K. (1997). Memorizing new words: Does teaching have anything to do with it? RELC Journal, 28, 89-108.
25
Lyster, R. (1994). The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics, 15, 263-287.
26
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27
Min, H. T. (2008). EFL vocabulary acquisition and retention: Reading plus vocabulary enhancement activities and narrow reading. Language Learning, 58, 73-115.
28
Mori, J. (2002). Task design, plan, and development of talk-in-interaction: An analysis of a small group activity in a Japanese language classroom. Applied linguistics, 23, 323-347.
29
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, 719-758.
30
Pitts, M., White, H., & Krashen, S. (1989). Acquiring second language vocabulary through reading: A replication of the Clockwork Orange study using second language acquirers. Reading in a Foreign Language, 5, 271-275.
31
Qin, J. (2008). The effect of processing instruction and dictogloss tasks on the acquisition of English passive voice. Language Teaching Research, 12, 61-82.
32
Salaberry, M. R. (1997). The role of input and output practice in second language acquisition. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 422-451.
33
Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence vs. explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer assisted study. Language Learning, 54, 35-78.
34
Sheen, R. (1992). Problem solving brought to task. RELC Journal, 23, 44-59.
35
Storch, N. (1999). Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System, 27, 363-374.
36
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty and J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37
Tanaka, S., & Kawade, S. (1982). Politeness strategies and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 18-33.
38
Tateyama, Y. (2001). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines. In K. Rose and G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 200-222). New York: Cambridge University Press.
39
Trahey, M., and White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 181-204.
40
Truscott, J., & Sharwood Smith, M. (2004). Acquisition by processing: A modular perspective on language development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 1-20.
41
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225-243.
42
VanPatten, B., & Uludag, O. (2011). Transfer of training and processing instruction: From input to output. System, 39, 44-53.
43
Witten, C. (2000). Using video to teach for sociolinguistic competence in the foreign language classroom. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 5(1) 143-175.
44
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Task-Induced Involvement in L2 Vocabulary Learning: A Case for Listening Comprehension
The study aimed at investigating whether the retention of vocabulary acquired incidentally is dependent upon the amount of task-induced involvement. Immediate and delayed retention of twenty unfamiliar words was examined in three learning tasks( listening comprehension + group discussion, listening comprehension + dictionary checking + summary writing in L1, and listening comprehension + dictionary checking + sentence writing with the target words) inducing differential ‘involvement loads’- consisting of varying degrees of need, search and evaluation. Time-on-task was kept constant among all three tasks. The results partially supported the Involvement Load Hypothesis: The sentence writing task generated the highest retention rate, a finding which is quite in harmony with the Hypothesis’s prediction. However, the other two tasks did not result in different retention rates despite equal involvement loads. These results are discussed with reference to the involvement load hypothesis and some suggestions are made as to how to improve and revise the original theory.
https://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_16186_af5612e7249f52f96fd6499844f465e5.pdf
2013-12-01
43
61
task-induced involvement load hypothesis
depth of processing theory
vocabulary acquisition
English as a second language
incidental learning
Ali
Jahangard
jahangard@sharif.edu
1
Assistant Professor, Sharif University of Technology
LEAD_AUTHOR
ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages) (1998). Proficiency Guidelines. SIL International. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from http://www.actfl.org/files/public/Guidelinesspeak.pdf
1
Baddeley, A. D. (1978). The trouble with levels: A reexamination of Craik and Lockhart’s framework for memory research. Psychological Review, 85, 139-152.
2
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.
3
Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology; General, 104, 268-294.
4
de la Fuente, M. J. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary: The roles of input and output in the receptive and productive acquisition of words. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 81-112.
5
Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The role of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meaning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285-301.
6
Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and L2 vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 44, 449-491.
7
Hulstijn, J. (2003). Incidental and intentional learning. In Doughty, C; & Long, M. (Eds). The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 349-381). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
8
Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, pp.539-558.
9
Hunt, A. & Belgar, D. (2005). A framework for developing EFL reading vocabulary. Reading in a Foreign Language, (17)1, 23-59.
10
Jahangard, A. (2011). An Empirical investigation of the task-induced involvement load hypothesis: A case for intentional learning environment. Biannual Journal of Language Teaching and Literature, (11)2, 7-22.
11
Joe, A. (1995). Text-based tasks and incidental vocabulary. Second Language Research, 11, 149-158.
12
Joe, A. (1998). What effects do text-based tasks promoting generation have on incidental vocabulary acquisition? Applied Linguistics, 19, 357-377.
13
Kim, Y.J. (2008). The role of task-induced involvement and learner proficiency in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, (58)2, 285-325.
14
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement, Applied Linguistics, 22, 1–26.
15
Nelson, T. O. (1977). Repetition and depth of processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 151-171.
16
Paribakht,T. S., & Wesche, M. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary acquisition. In Coady, J. & Huckin, T. (Eds.). Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp.174-200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17
Rott, S. (2004). A comparison of output interventions and un-enhanced reading conditions on vocabulary acquisition and text comprehension. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61(2), 169-202.
18
Widdowson, H. G. (1989). Knowledge of language and ability for use. Applied Linguistics, (10)2, 128-137.
19
Widdowson, H. G. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching (pp. 148-164). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Contribution to Mobile-Enhanced English Language Pedagogy among Iranian L2 Learners
This study aimed at providing learners with an opportunity not only to bring together their core and disciplinary knowledge to acquire major skills of learning English as a foreign language (EFL), and the intellectual challenge of these issues at the interface of media, language and religion, but also help the materials generators to produce suitable types of content to be delivered through the medium of mobile technology. Therefore, it sought to examine the new way of teaching EFL in the form of correspondence with respect to Iranian learners' native culture and language. For the purposes of this study, English was the target language for 680 Iranian students with pre-intermediate level of language proficiency whose native languages were Persian, Arabic, Georgian, and Turkish. This study took as its point of departure the existence of important differences between the two learning materials (off the shelf vs. Islamic culture) types; thus, applying the Qur'ānic criteria of intelligence, knowledge and virtue parallel with the digital representation of common textbook materials, materials delivery was adapted to the cellphone screen to be accessed by learners' in 18 virtual sessions. Learners took part in two summative and 18 formative components included in the assessment design of this study. Also, they all answered a questionnaire which yielded information concerning their attitude towards the target language, and learning through the wireless technology. Learners' short texting correspondence as well as their performance in battery and their answers to items of questionnaires formed the reference for analyzing the results. The gains from English Islamic materials were outweighed by the effects of obtaining materials which involved more categorized cases.
https://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_17196_6b8cc5cbe8222616d1f4261ac6b925c4.pdf
2013-12-01
63
92
culture
first language
materials
m-learning
Saeed
Khazaie
saeed.khazaie@gmail.com
1
Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz
LEAD_AUTHOR
Gholam
Zarei
grzarei@cc.iut.ac.ir
2
Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz
AUTHOR
Ali
Jalilifar
ar.jalilifar@gmail.com
3
Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz
AUTHOR
Alam, & Muzahid, M. (2006). Informal Islamic education and its role in human resource development in society: A theoretical evaluation. IIUC Studies, 3, 83-92.
1
Ally, M. (2009). Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training. Athabasca: AU Press.
2
Alsayed, M. (2003). Factors that contribute to success in learning English as a foreign language. Damascus University Journal, 19(2), 21-44.
3
Bersamina, F. V. (2009). English as second language (ESL) learners in Saudi Arabia.Online Forum Comment. Retrieved July 23, 2012, from httP://www.contributor. Yahoo.com
4
Birjandi, P., Anani Sarab, M. R., & Samimi, D. (2012). English for pre university students. Iran: Ministry of Education.
5
Coe, N., & Fowler, W. S. (1976).Nelson English language tests. London: Butler and Tanner Ltd.
6
De Vaus, D. A. (2002).Surveys in social research. Australia: Allen & Unwin.
7
Devaney, L. (2013, April 4). How three districts are tracking student data. eSchoolNews. Retrieved May 16, 2013, from http://www.eschoolnews.com
8
Dudley-Marling, C. & Lucas, K. (2009).Pathologizing the language and culture of poor children. Language Arts, 86 (5), 362-370.
9
Ebadi, M., Salehzadeh, S., Janfaza, E., Assemi, A., &Abbasi, G. (2012). Culture within language. Proceedings of Language, Medias and Culture IPEDR. Singapore, 33, IACSIT Press,
10
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
11
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (Eds.) (1983).Strategies in interlanguage communication. London: Longman.
12
Farrell, E. J. (2003). Tracks in the sand: On being media savvy. English in Texas, 33(1&2), 6-9.
13
Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online dating: A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(1) 3 –66.
14
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
15
Gleitman, L. R., Liberman, M., & Osherson, D. N. (Eds.) (2004). An invitation to cognitive science. Cambridge University Press.
16
Gunawan, W. (2009, September).The Jakarta post revisiting globalization of English. The Jakarta Post. Retrieved May 17, 2013, from http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/09/26/-revisiting globalization-english.html
17
Higgins, C. (2009). English as a local language: Post-colonial identities and multilingual practices. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
18
Hjarvard, S. (2004). The globalization of language. how the media contribute to the spread of English and the emergence of medialects. Nordicom Review, 25, 75-97.
19
Hong, S. (2008).The role of heritage students in incorporating culture into language teaching. South Asia Language Pedagogy and Technology, 1.
20
Hidalgo, A. C., Hall, D., & Jacobs, G. M. (Eds.) (1995).Getting started: Materials writers on materials writing. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
21
Jalilifar, A., Beitsayyah, L. (2011). Genre analysis of enquiry letters across cultures: Perspectives on rhetorical structures. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 37 (2), 309-333.
22
Kennedy, C., & Levy, M. (2008).Using SMS to support beginners' language learning. Recall, 20 (3), 315-330.
23
Ketabi, S., & Talebinejad, M. R. (2009). The role of cultural-social patterns of Iranian high-school English textbooks in arousing research motivation. Shiraz University Journal of Teaching Language Skill, 1(1), 41-69.
24
Khajavi, Y., & Abbasian, R. (2011). English language in Iran: Why practice is more common than practise? Canadian Social Science, 7(4), 89-94.
25
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. OUP.
26
Kubota, R., & A. Lin (Eds.) (2009).Race, culture, and identities in second language education. New York: Routledge.
27
Lazear, E. P. (1999). Culture and language. Journal of Political Economy, 107 (2), 95-126.
28
Li, Z. (2002). Cultural globalization and the reconstruction of modern Chinese culture. Nankai University Journal, 5(4), 23-38.
29
Lin, A. (Ed.). (2008). Problematizing identity. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30
Morris, M. (2009).Inter-Asian banality, and education. Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Japan, Inter-Asia Cultural Studies.
31
Nyiri, K. (Ed.) (2009). Mobil communication and ethics of social networking. Vienna: PassagenVerlag.
32
Peltzman, A. (2013, March 6). Achieve and education first release common core state standards tool to assist states in implementing the CCSS.PARCC. Retrieved September 16, 2013 from, http://www.parcconline.org
33
Rebecca, C., & McKinlay, E. (2012). A Space for the Possible: Globalization and English Language Learning for Tibetan Students in China. Asian Highlands Perspectives, 21, 7-32.
34
Regalado, G. A. E. (Ed.) (2008). Dialogos: Forum Universal de lasculturas. Lenguaje, cultura Y educacion. Busqueda de libros: Fondo Editorial de Nuevo León
35
Slover, L. (2012, March 6). States to launch 'IT readiness' tool for common assessments. eSchool News. Retrieved September 26, 2013, from http://www.eschoolnews.com
36
Sutton, M. (2008). Knowledge citizenship for active informed citizenship. South African Journal of Information Management, 10(4), 1-5.
37
Tamimi, A. A., Shuib, M. (2009).Journal of Language Studies, 9(2), 29-55.
38
Traxler, J. (2007). Defining, discussing, and evaluating mobile learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(2), 1-12.
39
UNESCO (2009). UNESCO world report 2: Investing in cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
40
vanLier. L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 349-350.
41
Wang, L. (2003). Switching to first language among writers with differing second-language proficiency. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 347–375.
42
Whalen, K., & Menard, N. (1995). L1 and L2 writers’ strategic and linguistic knowledge: A model of multiple-level discourse processing. Language Learning, 45, 381–418.
43
Widdowson, H. G. (1980). Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
44
Witt, J. (2000). English as a global language: the case of the European Union.EESE, 11. Retrieved May 25, 2013, from http://webdoc.gwdg.de
45
Woodall, B. R. (2002). Language-switching: Using the first language while writing in a second. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 7–28.
46
Yu, K. (2008). The developmental logic of Chinese culture under modernization and globalization. Boundary 2, 35(2), 157-182.
47
Zarei, G. R., & Amir yousefi, M. A study of L2 composing task: An analysis of conceptual and linguistic activities and text quality. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 437-441.
48
Zughoul, M. (2003).Globalization and EFL/ESL pedagogy in the Arab world. Journal of Language & Learning, 1(2), 106-146.
49
50
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Critical Perspectives on Contrastive Rhetoric: A Report from Iranians' EFL Reading Textbooks
The efficacy of genre-based approach to teaching writing has been regarded as an influential practice in L2 writing pedagogy (Hyland, 2007). However, there is still gap between actual structures found in reading materials recommended as textbooks and discourse patterns recommended for L2 writing in EFL contexts, the gap which would highlight the problems of genre and rhetorical patterns for teaching. The current study, therefore, is an attempt to explore the level of consistency between the rhetorical patterns found in reading textbooks and discourse pattern recommended for writing. For this purpose, a number of 22 essays selected from textbooks were analyzed to identify (1) the overall rhetorical structures, and (2) the location of main idea and opinion of writers. The results show that while some texts did not follow the three-part structure of introduction-body-conclusion, main idea was presented in the introductory parts of essays, illustrating a deductive rhetorical pattern recommended for English writing. Further research was suggested as well.
https://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_16194_a5ec91d3dd3e7edf34c708fa426b81de.pdf
2013-12-01
93
108
Contrastive rhetoric
Rhetorical organization
Genre instruction
University textbooks
Marzieh
Rafiee
rafieemarzieh@gmail.com
1
PhD Candidate, University of Isfahan, Iran
LEAD_AUTHOR
Hossein
Vahid Dastjerdi
h_vahid@yahoo.com
2
Associate Professor, University of Isfahan, Iran
AUTHOR
Mansoor
Tavakoli
mr.tavakoli14@gmail.com
3
Associate Professor, University of Isfahan, Iran
AUTHOR
Soler-Monreal , C., & Carbonell-Olivares,, M. (2011). A contrastive study of the rhetorical organisation of English and Spanish PhD thesis introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 30, 4-17.
1
Zaree , A., & Farvardin , M. (2009). Comparison of University Level Efl Learners’ Linguistic and Rhetorical Patterns as Reflected in Their L1 and L2 Writing. Novitas-ROYAL, 3 (2), 143-155.
2
Abasi, A. R. (2012). the pedagogical value of intercultural rhetoric: A report from a Persian-as-a-foreign-language classroom Original Research Article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21 (3), 195-220.
3
Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (1), 288-297.
4
Atai, M. (2010). A Genre-based letter writing course for Iranian students of business . The Second Conference of the Asia-Pacific Rim: Languages for Specific Purposes and Professional Communication (pp. 35-46). Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya.
5
Atai, M. R., Moini, H., & Tasnimi, M. (2009). Reading Through Skills (RTS ). Tehran: Rahnama Press.
6
Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 54 (2), 153-160.
7
Bruce, I. (2008). Academic Writing and Genre: A systematic Analysis. London: Continuum.
8
Canagarajah, S. (2002). Multi-lingual writers and the academic community: towards a critical relationship. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1, 29-44.
9
Freedman, A., & Medway, P. (1994). Genre and the New Rhetoric. London: Taylor & Francis.
10
Ghasemi Bagherabadi, M., & Jahanbakhsh, J. (2011). New Smart Readers: A basic Course in Vocabulary and Reading Skills. Tehran: Jungle Publication.
11
Hirose, K. (2003). Comparing L1 and L2 organizational patterns in the argumentative writing of Japanese EFL students. students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 181-209.
12
Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 148-164.
13
Hyland, K. (2003b). Second language writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
14
Jalali, Z., & Fallah, N. (2010, 07 12). A Meta-Analysis of Studies of Contrastive Rhetoric in Iran. Retrieved 07 12, 2010, from StudyMode.com: http://www.studymode.com/essays/A-Meta-Analysis-Of-Studies-Of-Contrastive-359755.html
15
Jalilifar, A. (2010). Research Article Introductions: Sub-disciplinary Variations in Applied Linguistics. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 20 (2), 29-55.
16
Javid, F., Khodadad, M., Yamini, H., & Abedini, F. (2006). Intermediate Reading Passages for English Students. Tehran: Jungle Publication.
17
Jun, Z. (2008). A Comprehensive Review of Studies on Second Language Writing. HKBU Papers in Applied Language Studies, 12, 89-123.
18
Khodabandeh, F., Jafarigohar, M., Soleimani, H., & Hemmati, F. (2013). Overall Rhetorical Structure of Students’ English and Persian Argumentative Essays. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3 (4), 684-690.
19
Khodaparasti, S. (2011). Stepping Stones: An Advanced Course in Reading Comprehension. Tehran: Rah Publication.
20
Kobayashi, H. (1984). Rhetorical patterns in English and Japanese. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 737–738.
21
Kubota, R. (2010). In T. Silva , & P. K. Matsuda, Practicing theory in second language writing (pp. 191-208). Indiana : Parlor Press.
22
Kubota, R. (1998). An Investigation of Ll-L2 Transfer in Writing among Japanese University Students: Implications for Contrastive Rhetoric. Journal of Second LAnguage Writing, 7 (1), 69-100.
23
Kubota, R., & Lehner, A. (2004). Toward critical contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 7-27.
24
Kubota, R., & Shin, L. (2005). Instruction and reading samples for opinion writing in L1 junior high school textbooks in China and Japan. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 15 (1), 97-127.
25
Kuhi, D. (2008). An Analysis of the Move Structure of Textbook Prefaces. The Asian ESP Journa, 4 (2), 62-78.
26
Liebman, J. D. (1992). Toward a New Contrastive Rhetoric: Differences between Arabic and Japanese Rhetoric Instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 141-165.
27
Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Meta-text in Finish-English economic texts. English for specific purposes, 12, 3-22.
28
Mirhassani, A. (2007). Reading Skillfully: A General English Textbook for Students. Tehran: Zabankadeh Publication.
29
Mirhassani, A., Behroozi, P., & Alemi, M. (2008). Effective Reading (2). Tehran: Kasa Kavosh Publicatio.
30
Moradian, M. R. (1999). A contrastive rhetoric study: the use of deductive, inductive, and quasi-inductive writing styles in Persian and English newspaper editorials: Unpublished Master’s thesis. University of Tehran, Iran.
31
Nunnally, T. (1990). Breaking the Five-Paragraph-Theme Barrier. The English Journal, 80 (1), 67-71.
32
Ostler, S. E. (1987). English in Parallels: A Comparison of English and Arabic Prose. In U. C. Kaplan, Writing Across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text (pp. 169-185). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
33
Petrić, B. (2005). Contrastive rhetoric in the writing classroom: A case study. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 213-228.
34
Rahimi, A., & Mowlaie, B. (2007). Why Not Enjoy Reading? . Tehran: Jungle Publication.
35
Rashidi, N., & Alimorad Dastkhezr, Z. (2009). A Comparison of English and Persian Organization Patterns in the Argumentative Writing of Iranian EFL Students. JoLIE, 2 (1), 131-152.
36
Shi, L., & Kubota, R. (2007). Patterns of rhetorical organization in Canadian and American language arts textbooks: An exploratory study. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 180-202.
37
Shin, L., & Kubota, R. (2007). Patterns of rhetorical organization in Canadian and American language arts textbooks: An exploratory study. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 180-202.
38
Simin, S., & Tavangar, M. (2009). Meta-discourse knowledge and use in Iranian EFL writing. Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 9 (1), 232-257.
39
Swales, J. (1981). Aspects of article introduction: Aston ESP Research Report No.1. Birmingham: University of Aston.
40
Tahririan, M. H. (2002). Developing Reading Proficiency (1). Tehran: Payame Noor Publication.
41
Vahidi, S. (1996). A study on the role of conjunctions in academic/expository text composition: Unpublished , M.A. Thesis. Shira: Shiraz University.
42
Vahidi, S. (2008). The Impact of EFL Learners' Rhetorical Organization Awareness on English Academic/Expository Text Comprehension. Pazhuhesh-e Zabanha-ye Khareji (41), 145-158.
43
Warschauer, M. (2002). Networking into academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1, 45-48.
44
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
A Conversation Analytic Study on the Teachers’ Management of Understanding-Check Question Sequences in EFL Classrooms
Teacher questions are claimed to be constitutive of classroom interaction because of their crucial role both in the construction of knowledge and the organization of classroom proceedings (Dalton Puffer, 2007). Most of previous research on teachers’ questions mainly focused on identifying and discovering different question types believed to be helpful in creating the opportunities for learners’ interactions. Drawing on conversation analysis through adopting socio-cultural perspective, this study, however, aims to examine how EFL teachers manage understanding-check questions in their talk-in-interaction. For this purpose, six EFL teachers’ discursive classroom practices were observed, video-recorded, and transcribed line-by-line in its entirety. Through the microanalysis of the transcribed data, our findings suggest that EFL teachers vary in their management of understanding-check questions and the teachers’ understanding-check questions tend to serve different functions in the different micro-contexts identified. Three major sequential environments emerged to feature understanding-check questions in this study: Activity-boundary environment, post-instruction environment and within-activity environment. The findings of the study indicate that understanding-check questions at activity boundary environment are designed to accomplish dual functions, however those launched in post-instruction and within-activity environments maintain a singular focus on ensuring absolute understanding of the just-given explanation or instruction.
https://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_16183_c1e45c10bb38acd8b3f889c2d297ed8a.pdf
2013-12-01
109
134
classroom interaction
conversation analysis
Understanding-Check questions
Baqer
Yaqubi
yaqubib@gmail.com
1
Associate Professor, University of Mazandaran
LEAD_AUTHOR
Sediqeh
Karimpour
sedighehkarimpour1367@yahoo.com
2
MA in ELT, University of Mazandaran
AUTHOR
Brock, C. A. (1986). The Effects of Referential Questions on ESL Classroom Discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 47 – 5.
1
Cabrera, M. & Martinez, P. (2001), the Effects of Repetition, Comprehension Checks and Gestures on Primary School Children in EFL Situation. ELT Journal. 55(3).
2
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (eds.) (2007) Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse. (pp. 7-24). Frankfurt: Lang.
3
Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the second language classroom, In J.P. Lantolf (ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp.25-40). Oxford University Press.
4
Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of second language acquisition. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5
Foster, P, & Ohta, A. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language Classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 402-430.
6
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7
Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 247–273.
8
Heritage, J., Robinson, J., Elliott, M., Beckett, M., & Wilkes, M. (2007). Reducing patients’ unmet concerns in primary care: The difference one word can make. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22, 1429–1433.
9
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt (1998). Conversation Analysis. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
10
Jefferson, G. (1983). Notes on some orderliness of overlap onset. Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature No. 28.
11
Johnson, K.E. (1995). Understanding communication in second language classrooms. New York NY: CUP.
12
Kasper, G. (2009). Locating cognition in second language interaction and learning: Inside the skull or in public view? International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47, 11–36.
13
Kasper, G., & Wagner, J. (2011).A conversation analytic approach to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp.117–142). NewYork, NY: Routledge.
14
Kim, Y. (2010). Scaffolding through questions in upper elementary ELL learning. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 15, 109-137.
15
Koshik, I. (2002). A conversation analytic study of yes/no questions which convey reversed polarity assertions. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1851–1877.
16
Lee, Y. A. (2006). Respecifying display questions: Interactional resources for language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 40(4), 691–713.
17
Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non- native speaker conversation and the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–41.
18
Long, M. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19
Long, M., & Sato C.J. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk Discourse: forms and functions of teacher’s questions in Salinger and M. H. Long (eds). Classroom – oriented research in second language acquisition. (PP.268 – 285) Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
20
Musumeci, D. (1996). Teacher–learner negotiation in content-instruction: communication at cross-purposes. Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 286–325.
21
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68, 939–967.
22
Richards, J. C., & Lockhart, C. (1996).Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
23
Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24
Sacks, H. (1987).On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 54–69). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
25
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis Perspective. Blackwell Publishing: University of Michigan.
26
Shomoossi, N. (2004). The effect of teachers` questioning behavior on EFL Classroom interaction: A classroom research study. The Reading Matrix, 4(2).
27
Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28
Thompson, J. (1997). Training teachers to ask questions. ELT Journal, 51, 99–105.
29
Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30
Wajnryb, R. (1992). Classroom observation tasks: A resource book for language teachers and trainers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
31
Walsh, S. (2006).Investigating classroom discourse. Cambridge. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
32
Walsh, S. (2013). Conversations as space for learning. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 1-20.
33
Waring, H. Z. (2012). Any Questions?: Investigating the Role of Understanding-Checks in Language Classrooms. TESOL Quarterly.
34
Waring. H. Z. (2013). How was your weekend?: developing the interactional competence in managing routine inquiries. Language Awareness. 22(1), 1–16.
35
Wong, J., & Waring, H. Z. (2010).Conversation analysis and second language pedagogy: A guide for ESL/ EFL teachers. New York: Routledge.
36
Wootton, A. J. (1989). Remarks on the methodology of conversation analysis. in D. Roger & P. Bull (Eds.), Conversation: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 238–258). Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.
37