ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Multimedia Annotation: Comparability of Gloss Modalities and their Implications for Reading Comprehension
This study compared the effects of two annotation modalities on the reading comprehension of Iranian intermediate level EFL learners. The two experimental groups under study received treatment on 10 academic L2 reading passages under one of two conditions: One group received treatment on key words in the reading passages through a multimedia environment providing textual annotations. The second group received treatment under a similar environment but received compound glosses. The control group, however, received no treatment and was encouraged to use contextual guessing. The findings revealed that the experimental group who received treatment through compound glosses outperformed the other two groups on the comprehension test, and the group who used textual annotations obtained a higher mean on the posttest than the control group. One explanation is that compound glosses might help learners better decipher the meanings of key words in L2 passages, thus contributing to their deeper understanding of the texts.
https://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_17251_69ea62634f65658bad659854ce1803d6.pdf
2015-05-01
1
41
Compound gloss
Dual Coding Theory
reading comprehension
Technology-Enhanced Language Learning
vocabulary annotation
Hamed
Babaie Shalmani
babaie@iaurasht.ac.ir
1
Ph.D. Candidate of TEFL, Shiraz University
LEAD_AUTHOR
Seyyed Ayatollah
Razmjoo
arazmjoo@rose.shirazu.ac.ir
2
Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, College of Literature and Humanities, Shiraz University
AUTHOR
Akbulut, Y. (2008). Predictors of foreign language reading comprehension in a hypermedia reading environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(1), 37-50.
1
Al-Seghayer, K. (2001). The effect of multimedia annotation modes on L2 vocabulary acquisition: A comparative study. Language Learning & Technology, 5(1), 202-32. Retrieved October 10, 2011, fromhttp://llt.msu.edu/vol5num1/alseghayer/default.pdf
2
Babaie, H. (2008). On the effects of help options in MCALL programs on the listening comprehension of EFL learners. Journal of TELL, Tarbiat Modares University, 2(6), 27-47.
3
Babaie, H. (2010). Image modalities in multimedia vocabulary instruction: Does dual coding of vocabulary occur at different degrees? Journal of English Language Studies (JELS), Islamic Azad University-Central Tehran Branch, 1(2), 83-102.
4
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5
Baddeley, A. D. (1997). Human Memory: Theory and practice. Hove, United Kingdom: Psychology Press.
6
Bengeleil, N., & Paribahkt, T. S. (2004). L2 reading proficiency and lexical inferencing by university EFL learners. Canadian Modern Language Review, 61, 225-49.
7
Birjandi, P., Mosallanejad, P., & Bagheridoust, E. (2006). Principles of teaching foreign languages. Tehran: Rahrovan Publications.
8
Bowles, M. A. (2004). L2 glossing: To CALL or not to CALL. Hispania, 87(3), 541-52.
9
Brown, D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd Ed.). White Plains, Addison: Welsey Longman, Inc.
10
Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second language skills: theory and practice. Florida: Harcourt BracJovanish, Inc.
11
Cheng, Y. (2009). L1 glosses: Effects on EFL learners’ reading comprehension and vocabulary retention. Reading in a Foreign Language, 21(2), 119–42.
12
Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (1997). Research on text comprehension in multimedia environments. Language Learning & Technology, 1(1), 60-81.
13
Davis, J. N. (1989). Facilitating effects of marginal glosses on foreign language reading. The Modern Language Reading, 73(1), 41-52.
14
Day, I. (1982). Curiosity and the interested explorer: Performance and instruction, 21(4), 19-22.
15
Gardner, D. (2011). Fostering autonomy in language learning. Gaziantep: Zirve University.
16
Gettys, S., Imhof, L. A., &Kautz, J. O. (2001). Computer-assisted reading: The effect of glossing format on comprehension and vocabulary retention. Foreign Language Annals, 34, 91-106.
17
Hong, Xu. (2010). Review of effects of glosses on incidental vocabulary learning and reading comprehension. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 56-72.
18
Iheanacho, C. C. (1997). Effects of two multimedia computer-assisted language learning programs on vocabulary acquisition of intermediate level ESL students. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section A: The Humanities and Social Sciences, 62(8) (UMI No. 3024746)
19
Johnson-Glenberg, M. C. (2000). Training reading comprehension in adequate decoders / poor comprehenders: Verbal versus visual strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 772-82.
20
Jones, L. & Plass, J. (2002). Supporting listening comprehension and vocabulary acquisition in French with multimedia annotations. The Modern Language Journal, 86(4), 546-61.
21
Ko, M. H. (2005). Glosses, comprehension, and strategy use. Reading in a Foreign Language, 17(2), 125-143. Retrieved September 10, 2011, from http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/October2005/ko/ko.pdf
22
Lee, K. R., & Oxford, R. (2008). Understanding EFL learners’ strategy use and strategy awareness. Asian EFL Journal, 10(1), 1-19. Retrieved November 2, 2011 from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/March_08_kl&ro.php
23
Lomicka, L. L. (1998). To Gloss or not to gloss: An investigation of reading comprehension online. Language Learning & Technology, 1(2), 41-50. Retrieved October 21, 2011, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num2/pdf/article2.pdf
24
Martinez-Lage, A. (1997). Hypermedia technology for teaching reading. In M. D. Bush, R. Terry (Eds.), Technology Enhanced Language Learning (pp.121-63). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.
25
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26
Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching and Learning (2nd Ed.). London: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
27
Pass, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive Load Theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1-4.
28
Pigada, M., & Schmitt, N. (2006). Vocabulary acquisition from extensive reading: A case study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 18,1-28.
29
Paivio, A., Smythe, P. C., & Yuille, J. C. (1968). Imagery versus meaningfulness of noun in paired-associated learning. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 22, 427-41.
30
Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and Verbal Processes, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
31
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach, New York: Oxford University Press.
32
Plakans, L. (2009). The role of reading strategies in integrated L2 writing tasks. Journal of English for Academic Purposes8, 252-66.
33
Roby, W. B. (1999). What’s in a gloss? Language Learning & Technology, 2(2), 94-101. Retrieved October 10, 2011, from http://www.polyglot.cal.msu.edu/llt/vol2num2/roby/index.html
34
Rott, S., & Williams, J. (2003). Making form-meaning connections while reading: A qualitative analysis of word processing. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(1), 45-75. Retrieved September 20, 2011, from http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/April2003/rott/rott.pdf
35
Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2004). A dual coding theoretical model of reading.In R. B. Ruddell& N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5thed.)(pp. 1329-62). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
36
Schmitt, B., Tavassoli, N., & Millard, R. (1993). Memory for print ads: Understanding relations among brand name, copy, and picture. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2(1), 55-81.
37
Stein, M. (1993). The healthy inadequacy of contextual definition. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 203-12). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
38
Stewart, R. A., & Cross, T. L. (1991). The effect of marginal glosses on reading comprehension and retention. Journal of Reading, 35, 4-12.
39
Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251-96.
40
Unnava, H., & Burnkrant, R. (1991). An Imagery-Processing View of the role of pictures in print advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(2). 226-31.
41
Yanguas, I. (2009). Multimedia glosses and their effects on L2 text comprehension and vocabulary learning. Language Learning & Technology, 13(2), 48-67.
42
Yoshii, M. (2006). L1 and L2 glosses: Their effects on incidental vocabulary learning. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3), 85-101. Retrieved October 22, 2011, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num3/yoshii/
43
Zaid, M. A. (2009). Comparison of inferencing and meaning-guessing of new lexicon in context versus non-context vocabulary presentation. The Reading Matrix, 9(1), 56-66
44
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Impoliteness and Power: An Interlanguage Pragmatic Approach to the Use of Impolite Patterns in Terms of Power
Although studies on pragmatics in general and politeness in particular abound in the literature, impoliteness has been largely ignored. In the present study, participants filled out either the Persian or English version of a discourse completion test (DCT). The researchers analyzed collected answers to discover the relationship between impoliteness and power. Furthermore, the researchers compared responses to the Persian version with responses to the English version to see if they diverge regarding the relationship between impoliteness and power. According to the number of impoliteness strategies used, the results show that though there is a positive relationship between impoliteness and power in Persian, there is no relationship in English responses. In comparing the mentioned relationship in two languages, there is a significant difference between them. This led to the conclusion that the learners did not realize the relationship between impoliteness and power in English, whereas in answering the Persian DCT their answers showed the recognition of that relationship.
https://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_17256_1cde697028888408e54b05981036f89c.pdf
2015-05-01
43
67
impoliteness
Power
interlanguage pragmatics
Mohammad
Khatib
mkhatib27@yahoo.com
1
Aَََllameh Tabataba'i University
LEAD_AUTHOR
Khadijeh
Lotfi
khadijeh.lotfi7@gmail.com
2
Aَََllameh Tabataba'i University
AUTHOR
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics and pedagogy together. Pragmatics and Language Learning Monograph Series, 7, 21-39.
1
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 49, 677-713.
2
Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2003).New (insights) for old (concepts). Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1453–1469.
3
Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning to say what you mean in a second language. Applied Linguistics, 3, 29-59.
4
Brown, J. D. (2001). Pragmatic tests: Different purposes, different tests. In K. R. Rose &G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 301-325). New York: Cambridge University Press.
5
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6
Cenoz, J., & Valencia, J. F. (1996). Cross-cultural communication and interlanguage pragmatics: American vs. European requests. Pragmatics and Language Learning Monograph Series, 7, 47-53.
7
Chie, A. (2011). Sociolinguistic investigation of compliments and compliment responses among young Japanese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Edinburgh University-Edinburgh.
8
Cohen, A. D. (2008). Teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics: what can we expect from learners? Language Teaching, 41, 213-235
9
Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 349-367.
10
Culpeper J. (2008). Reflections on impoliteness, relational work and power. In D. Bousfield & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness and language (pp. 17-45). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
11
Culpeper, J. (2009). Impoliteness: Using and Understanding the Language of Offence. ESRC Project. Accessed October, 2011.Retrieved fromwww.lancs.ac.uk/fass/projects/impoliteness/
12
Culpeper, J. (2010). Conventionalised impoliteness formulae. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3232-3245.
13
Eslami-Rasekh, Z. (2005). Raising the pragmatic awareness of language learners.ELT Journal, 59, 199-209.
14
Hartford, B. S., & Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992).Experimental and observational data in the study of interlanguage pragmatics.Pragmatics and Language Learning Monograph Series, 3, 33-52.
15
Heidari, A. (2010). On the effect of explicit instruction on pragmatic production of request and apology speech acts: The case of L1- versus L2-based pragmatic awareness raising. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran
16
Kasper, G. (2001). Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. Applied Linguistics, 22, 502-530.
17
Khakzad-Esfahlan, F. (2010).EFL students’ gender and socioeconomic status: the use of politeness strategies in the first and second languages. Unpublished M. A. thesis, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran.
18
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
19
Locher, M.A., & Bousfield, D. (2008).Impoliteness and power in language. In D. Bousfield& M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness and language (pp. 77-99). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
20
Lowe, C. (2009). Review of the book Impoliteness in Language. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1865-1869.
21
Meier, A. J. (1997). Teaching the universals of politeness.ELT Journal, 51, 21-28.
22
Monfaredi, E. (2010). Pragmatic transfer in complement responses and chastisements by Iranian learners of English. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran.
23
Mugford, G. (2008). How Rude! Teaching impoliteness in the second-language classroom. ELT Journal, 62, 375-384.
24
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10, 2-35.
25
Noorani, L. M. (2009). Methodological issues in pragmatic research: is discourse completion test a reliable data collection instrument? Jurnal Sosioteknology Edisi 17 Tahun, 8, 667-678.
26
Olshtain, E., & L. Weinbach. (1993). Interlanguage features of the speech act of complaining. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 108-122). New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27
Rose, K. R. (1994). On the validity of discourse completion tests in non-western contexts. Applied Linguistis, 15, 1-14.
28
Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.) (2008). Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory. London: Continuum.
29
Spencer-Oatey, H., & Jiang, W. (2003).Explaining cross-cultural pragmatic findings: moving from politeness maxims to sociopragmatic interactional principles (SIPs). Journal of Pragmatis, 35, 1633-1650.
30
Umale, J. (2011). Pragmatic failure in refusal strategies: British versus Omani interlocutors. Arab World English Journal, 2, 18-46.
31
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Language Learning and Language Teaching: Episodes of lives of six EFL Teachers
Teachers are the most important players of every educational system in different societies; accordingly, understanding their personal reflections may help us gain valuable insights into what it means to be a teacher in a specific cultural and social context. The purpose of this case study was to investigate the life and career of 6 non-native English speaking teachers in state educational systems and private institutes in Iran so that a clear image of EFL teacher’s perceptions on their own language learning, teaching experiences, current conditions and expectations, and their possible attempts to innovate in their classrooms would be obtained. By conducting a series of repeated interviews and observations within the period of one year, the researcher collected the required data and examined them through the process of meaning categorization. The outcomes suggested that most teachers either in state or private schools were not satisfied with their current living status or working conditions. Moreover, they were struggling with lots of de-motivating factors in their career and life due to some external and internal policies imposed by authorities. It is discussed that by giving voice to EFL teachers in Iran, their real status would be revealed and, consequently, some improvements would be made towards their essential needs and expectations.
https://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_17250_2195705df174fafeec33c8902f729db7.pdf
2015-05-01
69
91
English Language teaching
Non-native speaking teachers
Teacher’s life histories
Life stories
Sima
Modirkhamene
sima.modirkhamene843@gmail.com
1
Urmia University
LEAD_AUTHOR
Braine, G. (Ed.) (1999). Non-native educators in English language teaching .Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
1
Goodson, I., & Choi, P.L. (2008). Life History and collective memory as methodological strategies: Studying teacher professionalism. Teacher Education Quarterly. Pre publish version.
2
Hayes, D. (2009 a). Learning language, learning teaching. Regional Language Centre Journal, 40(1), 83-101.
3
Hayes, D. (2009 b). Becoming a teacher of English in Thailand. Language Teaching Research, 12,471- 495.
4
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing .Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5
Malm, B. (2001). Teachers’ lives and work in a cultural and historical context: Reflections based on the professional life histories of eight Montessori teachers in Sweden. Malmö University, Sweden. Paper presented at the World Education Fellowship 41st International Conference, Sun City, South Africa, 22-27.
6
Medgyes, P. (1994). The Non-native Teacher. London: Macmillan press.
7
Moussu L., & Llurda, E. (2008). Non-native English-speaking English language teachers: History and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9
Riessman, C.K. (2001). Analysis of personal narratives. In J.F. Gubrium and J.A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interviewing (pp.106-125). London: Sage publications.
10
Roberts, B. (2002). Biographical research. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press.
11
Smith. J. (2010). Agency and female teachers' career decisions: a life history study of 40 women. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 39, 7-20.
12
Yow, V. R. (1994). Recording Oral History: A Practical Guide for Social Scientists. London: Sage publications.
13
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Identification and Distribution of Interactional Contexts in EFL Classes: The Effect of Two Contextual Factors
This study aims at empirically furthering awareness of the organization of interaction in EFL classes. Informed by the methodological framework of conversation analysis, it draws upon a corpus of 52 three-hour naturally-occurring classroom interaction to identify classroom interactional contexts based on the structuring of the pedagogic goals in turn-taking sequences. Conversation analytic procedures were then paired with quantitative procedures to explore the distribution of the identified contexts within the macro-context of classroom discourse and to investigate the effect of interaction-external factors, i.e., teachers’ training and learners’ levels of language proficiency, on the distribution of the identified contexts. Analyses of extracts from the transcribed data led to the emergence of four interactional contexts: form-oriented, meaning-oriented, skill-oriented, and management-oriented contexts. As to their distribution, form-oriented and skill-oriented contexts were found to be constitutive of the bulk of interaction, with meaning-oriented context comprising the smallest proportion. A two-way multivariate analysis of variance revealed that the distribution of all identified contexts was significantly affected by learners’ levels of language proficiency. Teachers’ training had a significant main effect on just form-oriented and management-oriented contexts. The findings of this study draw teachers and teacher educators’ attention to the necessity of a change in the status quo of EFL classroom interaction.
https://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_17252_38a69e21692c066121d5d237445914cf.pdf
2015-05-01
93
123
classroom interaction
conversation analysis
contextual factors
interactional contexts
Mostafa
Pourhaji
m.pourhaji@ut.ac.ir
1
University of Tehran
LEAD_AUTHOR
Seyed Mohammad
Alavi
smalavi@ut.ac.ir
2
University of Tehran
AUTHOR
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. K. (2010).Introduction to research in education (8th Ed.). Belmot, CA: Wadsworth.
1
Bellack, A., Kliebard, H., Hyman, R. & Smith, F. (1966).The language of the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
2
Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse. Portsmouth, N. H.: Heinemann.
3
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4
Edwards, A., &Westgate, D. (1994).Investigating classroom talk. London: Falmer.
5
Ellis, R. (1998). Discourse control and the acquisition- rich classroom. In W.A. Renandya &G.M. Jacobs (Eds.), Learners and language learning (pp. 148-62) (Anthology Series 39).Singapore: SEAMO Regional Language Centre.
6
Flanders, N. (1970). Analyzing teacher behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
7
Freire, P. (1970).Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). New York: Continuum. Fröhlich, M., Spada, N., & Allen, P. (1985).Differences in the communicative orientation of L2 classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 27-57.
8
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
9
Heritage, J. (1997).Conversational analysis and institutional talk: analyzing data. In D. Silverman (Ed.) Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 113-29). London: Sage Publications.
10
Hutchby, I., &Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis: principles, practices and applications. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
11
Jarvis, J., & Robinson, M. (1997). Analyzing educational discourse: An exploratory study of teacher response and support to pupils’ learning. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 212-228.
12
Jefferson, G. (1983). Notes on some orderliness of overlap onset. Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature No. 28.
13
Johnson, K.E. (1995).Understanding communication in second language classrooms, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
14
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
15
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/nonnative speaker conversation and the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141.
17
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (413-468). San Diego: Academic Press.
18
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19
Musumeci, D. (1996). Teacher–learner negotiation in content-based instruction: communication at cross- purposes? Applied Linguistics, 17, 286–325.
20
Nation, P. (2003). The role of the first language in foreign language learning. Asian EFL Journal, 5(2), 1-8.
21
Rowe, M.B. (1974). Wait time and rewards as instructional variables, their influence in language, logic, and fate control: Part 1. Wait time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11(2), 81-94.
22
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematic for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.
23
Saslow, J., & Ascher, A. (2011).Top notch: English for today’s world. NY: Pearson Education Inc.
24
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25
Seedhouse, P. (1996). Learning talk: a study of the interactional organisation of the L2 classroom from a CA institutional discourse perspective. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of York.
26
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
27
Sinclair, J. M., &Coulthard, M. (1975).Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
28
Slimani, A. (1989).The role of topicalization in classroom language learning. System, 17, 223-234.
29
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–53). Rowley: Newbury House.
30
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125– 44).Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31
Ten Have, P. (1999). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. London: Sage.
32
Van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman.
33
Van Lier, L. (1991). Inside the classroom: learning processes and teaching procedures. Applied Language Learning, 2, 48–64.
34
Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or obstruction: Teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 6, 3-23.
35
Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. New York: Routledge.
36
Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring Classroom Discourse: Language in action. Oxon: Routledge.
37
Waring, H. Z. (2008).Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF, feedback, and learning opportunities. Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 577–594.
38
Wyse, D. (2003). The national literacy strategy: a critical review of empirical evidence. British Educational Research Journal, 29, 903-916.
39
Xie, X. (2011).Turn allocation patterns and learning opportunities. ELT Journal, 65(3), 240- 250.
40
Yaqubi, B., & Karimpour, S. (2013). A conversation analytic study on the teachers’ management of understanding-check question sequences in EFL classrooms. Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 5(12), 109-134.
41
Yaqubi, B., & Pourhaji, R. M. (2012). Teachers’ limited wait-time practice and learners participation opportunities in EFL classroom interaction. Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 4(10), 127-161.
42
Yousefi, M. & Biria, R. (2011).Interactional feedback, task-based interaction and learner uptake. Contemporary Online Language Education Journal, 1, 1-19.
43
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Sociocultural Identity Development Scaffolded by Collaboration-Conducive Strategies: A Case of an Iranian EFL Writing Class
This investigation postulates Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of zone of proximal development (ZPD) and his related “scaffolding” metaphor as well as Norton’s (2006) principles of sociocultural identity as its theoretical foundation. This research intends to scrutinize the socioculturally-oriented mediational mechanisms utilized in student-student and student-teacher collaborations in an Iranian EFL writing class. Such scrutiny is to reveal the learners’ sociocultural change in behavior, and how their sociocultural identity is scaffolded and developed through collaborative negotiation in writing. For this purpose, Lidz's Rating Scale (1991) was adopted to delve into the sociocultural-identity-conducive interactions produced by 32 sophomores of English Language and Literature at Shiraz University as they collaborated in writing. The analysis of such scaffolding-mediated discourse provides useful insights into the nature of the learners’ sociocultural identity development. Particularly, the results provide evidence that dialogic exchanges through linguistic means on the part of peers and the teacher include some behaviors such as intentionality, joint regard, affective involvement, communicative ratchet, contingent responsivity, intersubjectivity, and L1 use in collaborative writing tasks which play the most significant role in establishing new identities and gaining self-regulation, i.e. developing sociocultural identity.
https://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_17254_4207189726f0fb98e419eb10809d1d73.pdf
2015-05-01
125
156
identity
sociocultural identity
collaboration
writing
Seyyed Mohammad Ali
Soozandehfar
soozandehfar@yahoo.com
1
Shiraz University
LEAD_AUTHOR
Rahman
Sahragard
rsahragard@rose.shirazu.ac.ir
2
Shiraz University
AUTHOR
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994).Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465-483.
1
Anton, M., & DiCamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 314-342.
2
Bamberg, M. (2006). Stories, big or small: why do we care? Narrative Inquiry, 16, 139-147.
3
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1982).Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
4
Canagarajah, A.S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5
Cronbach, L. J. (1984). Essentials of psychological testing. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
6
De Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. (2000).Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 51-68.
7
Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 40–58.
8
Donato, R. (1988).Beyond group: A Psycholinguistic rationale for collectivity in second language learning. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Delaware.
9
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.). Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56).Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
10
Dunn, W. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (1998).Vygotsky's zone of proximal development and Krashen's "i + 1": Incommensurable constructs; incommensurable theories. Language Learning, 48, 411-442.
11
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.
12
Englert, C. S., Mariage, T. V., & Dunsmore, K. (2006).Tenets of sociocultural theory in writing instruction research. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.) Handbook of writing research (pp.208-221).New York: The Guilford Press.
13
Esquinca, A. (2011). Bilingual college writers’ collaborative writing of word problems. Linguistics and Education, 22,150–167.
14
Fernandez, M., Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Rojas-Drummond, S. (2001).Re-conceptualizing scaffolding and the Zone of Proximal Development in the context of symmetrical collaborative learning. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 36(2), 1–15.
15
Frawley, W. (1992). Linguistic Semantics. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16
Gibbons, P. (2002) Scaffolding language scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth NH: Heinemann.
17
Grossen, B. (1998). Child-directed teaching methods: A discriminatory practice of Western education. On-line at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~bgrossen/cdp.htm
18
Hayes-Conroy, J., & Vanderbeck, R. (2005). Ecological identity work in higher education: theoretical perspectives and a case study. Ethics, Place and Environment, 8(3), 309-329.
19
Kanno, Y. (2003). Negotiating bilingual and bicultural identities: Japanese returnees betwixt two worlds. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20
Kanno, Y., & Norton, B. (Guest Eds.)(2003). Imagined communities and educational possibilities [Special issue]. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 2, 4-21.
21
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2002).The effect of interaction in acquiring the grammar of a second language. International Journal of Educational Research, 37,343–358.
22
Lantolf, J. P. (2000).Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33, 79-96.
23
Lantolf, J. P. (2002). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp.104-114).Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24
Lantolf, J. P., & Aljaafreh, A. (1995). Second language learning in the zone of proximal development: A revolutionary experience. International Journal of Educational Research, 23, 619-632.
25
Lidz, C. (1991).Practitioner's Guide to Dynamic Assessment. New York: Guilford Press.
26
Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 30–43.
27
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004).Second language learning theories. London: Hodder Arnold.
28
Norton, B. (2006). Identity as a sociocultural construct in second language education. TESOL in Context, 7, [Special Issue], 22-33.
29
Nunnally, J. C., & Berstein, I. H. (1994).Psychometric theory (3rd Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
30
Nyikos, M., & Hashimoto, R. (1997). Constructivist theory applied to collaborative learning in teacher education: In search of ZPD. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 506-517.
31
Pata, K., Sarapuu, T., & Lehtinen, E. (2005). Tutor scaffolding styles of dilemma solving in network-based role-play. Learning and Instruction, 15, 571-587.
32
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd Ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
33
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
34
Prior, P. (2006). A sociocultural theory of writing. In C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham& J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp.54-66). New York: The Guilford Press.
35
Psarou M. K., & Zafiropoulos, C. (2004).Scietific Research: Theory and Applications in Social Sciences. Athens: Tipothito, Dardanos.
36
Rasku-Puttonen H, Etelapelto A, Arvaja M., & Hakkinen P. (2003). Is successful scaffolding an illusion? Shifting patterns of responsibility and control in teacher-student interaction during a long term learning project. Instructional Science, 31, 377-393.
37
Roberts, J. (2007). Capturing values: a triangulation of academic frameworks, concepts of education and the student experience. Paper presented at the ESD: Graduates as Global Citizens Conference, 10-11 September, Bournemouth University.
38
Rommetveit, R. (1985).Language acquisition as increasing linguistic structuring of experience and symbolic behavior control. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), Cultural, communication and cognition: Vygotskyan perspectives (pp. 183-204).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39
Samuel, M., & Stephens, D. (2000). Critical dialogues with self: Developing teacher identities and roles—a case study of South African student teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 33, 475–491.
40
Scarcella, R.C., &Oxford, R.L. (1992).The tapestry of language learning: The individual in the communicative classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
41
Schwartz, S. J. (2001). The evolution of Eriksonian and neo-Eriksonian identity theory and research: A review and integration. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 1, 7 - 58.
42
Seliger, H. W. (1983). Learner interaction in the classroom and its effect on language acquisition. In H.W.Seliger & M.H. Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp.89-107).Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
43
Serres, M. (2004). The Parasite (trans. Lawrence R. Schehr). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
44
Simon, R. I. (1988). For a pedagogy of possibility. In J. Smyth (Ed.), The critical pedagogy networker, (pp. 1-4). Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.
45
Simon, R. I. (1995). Face to face with alterity: Postmodern Jewish identity and the eros of pedagogy. In J. Gallop (Ed.), Pedagogy: The question of impersonation (pp. 90–105). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
46
Smith, F. (2006).Ourselves: Why we are who we are: A handbook for educators. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishing.
47
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119-158.
48
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students' reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153-173.
49
Storch, N., & Wigglesowrth, G. (2010). Students’ engagement with feedback on writing: The role of learner agency. In R.Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 166-185). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
50
Storch, N., &Wigglesworth, G. (2007). Writing tasks: Comparing individual and collaborative writing. In M.P. Garcia Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 157-177). London: Multilingual Matters.
51
Sullivan, P. (1996).Playfulness as mediation in communicative language teaching in a Vietnamese classroom. In J.P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 115-131). New York: Oxford University Press.
52
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320-337.
53
Toohey, K. (2000) Learning English at school: Identity, social relations and classroom practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
54
Van Lier, L. (1996).Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy & authenticity. Harlow Essex: Longman Group Limited.
55
Villamil, O., & De Guerrero, M. C. M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 51-75.
56
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
57
Wells, G. (1998). Using L1 to Master L2: A response to Anton and DiCamilla’s ‘‘Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom.’’ Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 343–53.
58
Wertsch, J. V. (1991).Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
59
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26, 445–466.
60
Williams, J. (2004). Tutoring and revision: Second language writers in the writing center. Journal of Second Language Writing. 13, 173–201
61
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976).The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
62
Yelland, N., & Masters, J. (2007).Rethinking scaffolding in the information age. Computers & Education, 48, 362-382.
63
64
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Cognitive Aspects of Teacher Expertise in ELT
The present paper seeks to investigate the cognitive abilities of expert EFL teachers. To this aim, the existing literature was examined and ten cognitive themes were derived which were further investigated through interviews conducted with ten academics, teacher trainers and exemplary teachers of the field in the Iranian context. The ten extracted themes were attested by interviewees’ comments. They include: fast pattern recognition, selective attention, holistic perception, superior memory, fast information encoding, anticipation power, perception of teacher’s role, awareness of situation-specific class events, awareness of their knowledge, linking prior and new knowledge. These themes are further explained and discussed along with extracts of the actual interviews. It is recurrently reminded that these cognitive issues are just one aspect of teaching expertise in ELT and the whole idea is part of a model of expertise being constructed which consists of 8 factors only one of which is teacher cognition.
https://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_17255_1da6b57a61d6098196af809e791cde5c.pdf
2015-05-01
157
180
Teacher expertise
ELT
cognition
Cognitive abilities
Elham
Yazdanmehr
el_yazdanmehr@hotmail.com
1
Tarbiat Modares University of Tehran
LEAD_AUTHOR
Ramin
Akbari
ram_akbari@yahoo.com
2
Tarbiat Modares University of Tehran
AUTHOR
Almarza, G.G. (1996). Student foreign language teacher’s knowledge growth. In D. Freeman &J. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching (pp. 50-78). Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
1
Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers’ stated beliefs about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 25, 243-272.
2
Berliner, D. C. (2004). Describing the behavior and documenting the accomplishments of expert teachers. Bulletin of Science Technology and Society, 24(200), 200-212.
3
Borg, S. (1998). Teachers’ pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: a qualitative study. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 9-38.
4
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education.London: Continuum.
5
Borko, H., & Linvingstone, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisation: Differences in mathematics instruction by expert and novice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 473-498.
6
Cellier, J., Eyrolle, H., & Marine, C. (1997). Expertise in dynamic environments. Ergonomics, 40, 28–50.
7
Clandinin, D.J. (1985). Personal practical knowledge: a study of teachers’ classroom images. Curriculum Inquiry, 15, 361-385.
8
Diab, R.L. (2005). Teachers’ and students’ beliefs about responding to ESL writing: A case study. TESL Canada Journal, 23, 28-43.
9
Elbaz, F. (1981). The teacher’s “practical knowledge”: report of a case study. Curriculum Inquiry, 11, 43-71.
10
Freeman, D. (1993). Renaming experience/reconstructing practice: Developing new understandings of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, 485-497.
11
Freeman, D., &Johnson, K. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 397-417.
12
Gatbonton, E. (1999). Investigating experienced ESL teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. Modern Language Journal, 83, 35-50.
13
Glaser, R., & Chi, M. (1988). Overview. In M. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14
Golombek, P. (1998). A study of language teachers’ personal practical knowledge. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 447-464.
15
Gruber, H. (2001). Acquisition of expertise. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 5145-5150.
16
Hardre, P. L., & Chen, C-H. (2005). A case study analysis of the role of instructional design in the development of teaching expertise. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 18(1), 34-58.
17
Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Australian Council for Educational Research, 1-17.
18
Hogan, T., & Rabinowitz, M. (2003). Problem representation in teaching: inferences from research of expert and novice teachers. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 235-247.
19
Johnson, K. (1992). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices during literacy instruction for non-native speakers of English.Journal of Reading Behavior, 24, 83-108.
20
Johnson, K. (1994). The emerging beliefs and instructional practices of pre service English as a second language teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, 439-452.
21
Johnson, K. (1999). Understanding language teaching: Reasoning in action. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
22
Johnston, B., & Goettsch, K. (2000). In search of the knowledge base of language teaching: explanations by experienced teachers. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56, 437-468.
23
Lewis, T. J., & Sugai, G. (1999). Effective behavior support: A systems approach to proactive schoolwide management. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31, 1-24.
24
Moallem, M. (1998). An expert teacher’ thinking and teaching and instructional design models and principles: an ethnographic study. ETR&D, 46(2), 37-64.
25
NBPTS (2012). English language arts standards. Retrieved from http://www.nbpts.org/english-language-arts-ea
26
Numrich, C. (1996). On becoming a language teacher: insights from diary studies. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 131-151.
27
Opre, D., Calbaza-Ormenisan, M., & Opre, A. (2011). University teaching: didactic expertise reflected by metacognitive abilities and emotional control. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 670-677.
28
Rich, Y. (1993). Stability and change in teacher expertise. Teacher and Teacher Education, 9(2), 137-146.
29
Shanteau, J. (1992). The psychology of experts: an alternative view. In G. Wright & F. Bolger (Eds.), Expertise and decision support (pp. 11-23).New York: Plenum Press.
30
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
31
Smith, D.B. (1996). Teacher decision making in the adult ESL classroom. In D. Freeman & J. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching (pp. 197-216).Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32
Tsang, W.K. (2004). Teachers’ personal practical knowledge and interactive decisions. Language Teaching Research, 8, 163-198.
33
Tsui, A. B. M. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching: Case studies of ESL teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34
Tsui, A. B. (2009). Teaching expertise: Approaches, perspectives, and characterization. In A. Burns& J. Richards (Eds.), Cambridge guide to second language teacher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35
Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
36