Nemat Zamani; Manijeh Youhanaee; Hossein Barati
Volume 11, Issue 24 , December 2019, , Pages 323-350
Abstract
The study compared the pedagogical effects of early versus delayed Form Focused Instruction (EFFI vs. DFFI), both subsumed under Isolated Form Focused Instruction (IFFI), on the achievement of three target structures with relative degrees of complexity by monolinguals and bilinguals. Six intact Gilaki-Persian ...
Read More
The study compared the pedagogical effects of early versus delayed Form Focused Instruction (EFFI vs. DFFI), both subsumed under Isolated Form Focused Instruction (IFFI), on the achievement of three target structures with relative degrees of complexity by monolinguals and bilinguals. Six intact Gilaki-Persian learners of English as L3 and six groups of Persian learners of English as L2 participated in the study. They were all male beginning learners of English in Iranian public high schools who followed a pretest-treatment-posttest procedure. Four groups (grade 7) received instruction for the simple structure; four other groups (grade 8) were taught the moderately complex structure and four groups (grade 9) were exposed to the highly complex structure instruction. Within each grade, one group of Gilaki and one group of Persian natives received EFFI while their native counterparts benefited DFFI. The overall results revealed that when the method of instruction was the same, Gilaki natives outperformed Persian natives both in the post and delayed tests regardless of complexity. The groups that received the simple structure via EFFI did better than their native counterparts instructed via DFFI in both the post and delayed tests though a significant difference was only observed in the latter test. In contrast, DFFI groups outperformed their native counterparts taught via EFFI on the fairly and highly complex structures in the post and delayed posttests. Further analysis of the data demonstrated that DFFI contributes better to the durability of gain effects for more complex structures regardless of linguistic background of the learners.
Hanieh Varmaziyar; Azam Sazvar
Volume 9, Issue 19 , June 2017, , Pages 169-197
Abstract
The main objective of the present study was to investigate the differences between Iranian EFL monolinguals and bilinguals in terms of vocabulary language learning strategies. In fact, it was an attempt to investigate whether bilingual/ monolingual learners differ significantly in using vocabulary learning ...
Read More
The main objective of the present study was to investigate the differences between Iranian EFL monolinguals and bilinguals in terms of vocabulary language learning strategies. In fact, it was an attempt to investigate whether bilingual/ monolingual learners differ significantly in using vocabulary learning strategies. To this end, 70 EFL, 45 monolingual (Persian) and 25 bilingual (Arabic-Persian) pre-university students were selected to answer Schmitt’s Vocabulary Learning Strategies Questionnaire (VLSQ). The participants were homogeneous in terms of age, sex, nationality and level of instruction. Following the administration of a general English proficiency test and one VLSQ, interviews were conducted. Then, descriptive statistics and independent t-test were used to analyze the data. The findings obtained through comparison revealed significant dissimilarities between bilinguals and monolinguals’ usage of determination, memory, cognitive and metacognitive strategies. There was no significant variation, however, in their use of social strategies. Further, interviews exhibited some aspects that were not mentioned in the VLSQ.
