| تعداد نشریات | 24 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 859 |
| تعداد مقالات | 7,646 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 13,578,490 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 11,684,908 |
The Effect of Mixed and Matched Level Dyadic Interaction on Iranian EFL Learners’ Comprehension and Production of Requests and Apologies | ||
| Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills) | ||
| مقاله 1، دوره 35، شماره 1، مرداد 2016، صفحه 1-30 اصل مقاله (98.52 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22099/jtls.2016.3728 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Zahra Fakher* 1؛ Fereidoon Vahdany2؛ Manoochehr Jafarigohar3؛ Hassan Soleimani3 | ||
| 1Pyame Noor university | ||
| 2Payame Noor University of Guilan | ||
| 3Payame Noor University of Tehran | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Drawing upon sociocultural theory of Vygotsky, the current study aims to investigate the effect of dyadic interaction in mixed and matched level proficiency pairings on comprehension and production of request and apology speech acts. The participants were 125 EFL learners who were randomly assigned to control and experimental (interaction) groups. Based on their scores in the pretest including a pragmatic listening test and an Oral Discourse Completion Test (ODCT), those in the experimental groups were assigned to the mixed (H-L) and matched level (H-H and L-L) dyads. Both the control and experimental groups received metapragmatic instruction on speech acts; however, the experimental groups were engaged in collaborative problem-solving tasks on speech acts for nine sessions. Following the treatment, the posttest was administered, the results of which revealed the outperformance of the interaction groups compared with the control group. Moreover, mixed level dyads were found to outperform their matched level counterparts in both measures of comprehension and production of speech acts. The findings have pedagogical implications for L2 teachers and practitioners on how to best pair learners in collaborative activities. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| dyadic interaction؛ L2 pragmatics؛ matched level dyads؛ mixed level dyads؛ Sociocultural theory | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Alcon, E. (2002). Relationship between teacher-led versus learners’ interaction and the development of pragmatics in the EFL classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 359-377. Ansalone, G. (2000). Keeping on track: A reassessment of tracking in the schools. Race, Gender and Class, 7(3), 1-25. Baleghizadeh, S., TimchehMemar, H., & TimchehMemar, A. (2010). The effect of symmetrical versus asymmetrical scaffolding on English reading comprehension of EFL learners. Studies in Literature and Language Journal, 1(7), 104-111. Baradaran, A., & Sarfarazi, B. (2011). The impact of scaffolding on the Iranian EFL learners’ English academic writing. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 5(12), 2265-2273. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic vs. grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 233-259. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Griffin, R. (2005). L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESL classroom. System, 33, 401-415. Birjandi, P., & Rezaei, S. (2010). Developing a multiple-choice discourse completion test of interlanguage pragmatics for Iranian EFL learners. ILI Language Teaching Journal, 6(1), 43-58. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 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. Edstrom, A. (2015). Triads in the L2 classroom: Interaction patterns and engagement during a collaborative task. System, 52, 26-37. Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University press. Gass, S. M. (1988). Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics, 9, 198-217. Hawkins, B. (2015). Using sociocultural theory to examine the context(s) of language learning and teaching. Working papers in TESOL and applied linguistics. Retrieved November 23, 2015, from http://tesolal.columbia.edu/article/using-sociocultural-theory/ Jernigan, J. E. (2007). Instruction and developing second language pragmatic competence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University. Retrieved September 14, 2014, from http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2565&context=etd. Karimi, L., & Jalilvand, M. (2014). The effect of peer and teacher scaffolding on the reading comprehension of EFL learners in asymmetrical and symmetrical groups. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 5(4), 1-17. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Mahwah, NJ: Blackwell Publishing, Inc. Kim, Y. (2009). The effects of task complexity on learner-learner interaction. System, 37(2), 254-268. Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3, 73-93. Lantolf, J. (1994). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 418-420. Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (1995). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied linguistics, 15,108-124. Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education. New York: Routledge. Leeser, M.J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55-82. Liu, J. (2006). Assessing EFL learners’ interlanguage pragmatic knowledge: Liu, J. (2007). Developing a pragmatics test for Chinese EFL learners. Language Testing, 24 (3), 391-415. LoCastro, V. (2003). An introduction to pragmatics: Social action for language teachers. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Maftoon, P., & Ghafoori, N. (2009). A comparative study of the effect of homogeneous and heterogeneous collaborative interaction on the development of EFL learners’ writing skill. The Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 127-158. MemariHanjani, A., & Li, L. (2014). Exploring L2 writers’ collaborative revision interactions and their writing performance. System, 44, 101-114. Murphy, Ph. (2007). Reading comprehension exercises online: The effect of feedback, proficiency and interaction. Language Learning and Technology, 11(3), 107-129. Ohta, A. S. (1995). Applying sociocultural theory to an analysis of learner discourse: Learner-learner collaborative interaction in the Zone of Proximal Development. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6 (2), 93-121. Poorahmadi, M. (2009). The effect of employing scaffolding strategies and classroom tasks in teaching reading comprehension. Journal of Teaching English as a Foreign Language and Literature, 1(3), 87-106. Rahimi Domakani, M., & Felfelian, S. (2012). L2 learner interlanguage pragmatic development within ZPD activated proximal context. Paper presented at the first conference on interdisciplinary approaches to language learning and teaching, Mashhad, Iran. Rahimi Domakani, M., Hashemian, M., & Mansoori, S. (2013). Pragmatic awareness of the request speech act in English as an additional language: Monolinguals or bilinguals? Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 88-110. Razavi, A., & Tabatabaei, O. (2014). The effect of dynamic and non-dynamic assessment on acquisition of apology speech act among Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Academic and Applied Studies, 4(8), 1-20. Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 286-305. Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119-58. Song, L., & Liu, L. D. (2002). Apologies in Chinese and English: A research report. Intercultural Communication Studies, 11(3), 131-144. Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17, 31-48. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J.P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Taguchi, N. (2011). Rater variation in the assessment of speech acts. Pragmatics, 21(3), 453-471. Tajeddin, Z., & Tayebipour, F. (2012). The effect of dynamic assessment on EFL learners’ acquisition of request and apology. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 4(2), 87-11. van Compernolle, R. , & Kinginger, C. (2013). Promoting metapragmatic development through assessment in the zone of proximal development. Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 282-302. van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. London: Longman. Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York: Macmillan. Weir, C. J. (2005). Language testing and validation. New York: Palgrave Macmilian. Wu, M. Y. (2008). The impact of English proficiency on college learner-learners’ meaning negotiation in a Chinese EFL context. MA dissertation, Lanzhou University.Retrieved October 17, 2014, from http://mt.china-papers.com/2/?p=181471 | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 2,387 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 2,511 |
||