| تعداد نشریات | 24 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 917 |
| تعداد مقالات | 8,230 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 16,275,014 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 13,752,793 |
The Effect of Integrating Metacognitive Strategies with Task Complexity in Learning English Verb Tenses by Iranian EFL Learners | ||
| Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly | ||
| مقاله 3، دوره 43، شماره 4، 2024، صفحه 57-86 اصل مقاله (546.07 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22099/tesl.2024.50565.3304 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Mohammad Sadegh Ghalibafan1؛ Shadab Jabbarpoor* 2؛ Bahram Mowlaie1 | ||
| 1Department of English Language, Tehran South Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| 2Department of English Language, Garmsar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Garmsar, Iran | ||
| چکیده | ||
| This research aims to explore how the cognitive demands of tasks affect the acquisition of English verb tenses and their association with grammatical metacognitive awareness among language learners. The study addresses two key questions: 1) Differential impacts of tasks varying in cognitive load on the acquisition of verb tenses, 2) The predictive role of learners' metacognitive strategies in task conditions. Employing a quasi-experimental design, the study involved 120 first-semester Bachelor of Arts students from Azad University South Branch in Tehran, Iran. Participants were assigned to four groups exposed to different task conditions: reading, reading with textual enhancement, cloze exercises, and reading with writing tasks. Instruments included Grammar Judgment and Editing Tests, Pawlak's (2018) Grammar Learning Metacognitive Strategies Inventory, and the Oxford Placement Test. The analysis involved the learners’ performances on the Grammar Judgment and Editing Test, which were compared from the pretest to the posttest. One-way ANOVA was utilized. Additionally, comparisons among different task conditions in the posttest revealed which tasks resulted in higher learner performance. Results indicated significant improvements in tense structure proficiency associated with higher involvement tasks. This study bridges gaps in understanding optimal task designs for language learning and underscores the importance of metacognitive strategies in the Iranian EFL context. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Cognitive Tasks؛ English Verb tenses؛ Language Grammar Learning؛ Metacognitive Strategies؛ Task Involvement Load | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Adnan, Z., Mkhelif. (2019). Investigating Iraqi EFL University Students' Productive Knowledge of Grammatical Collocations in English. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International Journal of Cognitive and Language Sciences, 13(10), 1312-1318.
Alanazi, Z. (2023). Data-Driven Learning Tasks and Involvement Load Hypothesis. World Journal of English Language, 13(2), 23. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v13n2p23
Amini, A., & Maftoon, P. (2017). The impact of skill integration on task involvement load. The Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 10(21), 29–48.
Aotani, N., & Takahashi, S. (2023). Effects of involvement load of the task on Japanese EFL learners’ lexical network changes. SEACE Official Conference Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.22492/issn.2435- 5240.2023.51
Berenji, S. (2021). Enhancing Metacognitive Scaffolding and Comprehension Ability through Problem-Based
Learning in an EFL Context. Education Research International. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6766793.
Bouknify, M. (2023b). Importance of metacognitive strategies in enhancing reading comprehension skills. Journal of Education in Black Sea Region, 8(2), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.31578/jebs.v8i2.291
Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp.65–116). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://lccn.loc.gov/86025396
Chen, Y., Li, L., Wang, M., & Wang, R. (2022). Which cognitive factors predict L2 grammar learning: cognitive control, statistical learning, working memory, or attention? Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.943988
Cohen, A. (2003). Strategy training for second language learners. Eric digest, EDO-FL, 03-02.
Ellis, R. (1999). Modified oral input and the acquisition of word meanings. Applied Linguistics, 16, 409– 441.doi:10.1093/applin/16.4.409
Esteki, M., Tavakoli, M., & Amiryousefi, M. (2020). The effects of different pedagogical interventions on EFL learners’ receptive and productive knowledge of formulaic sequences. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 12(25), 95–130. https://doi.org/10.22034/elt.2020.10677
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1987). From product to process: Introspective methods in second language research. In
Flavell, J.H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new era of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34,906–911. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
Ghorbani, M. R., & Rahmandoost, M. (2012). Higher task-induced involvement load enhances students' EFL vocabulary learning. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(6), 1202-1207
Hasibuddin, D. (2022). Neuroscience, metacognition and language teaching. Era’s Journal of Medical Research, 9(2), 224–226. https://doi.org/10.24041/ejmr2022.35
Hazrat, M. (2015). The effects of task type and task involvement load on vocabulary learning. Waikato Journal of Education, 20(2), 79–92. doi:10.15663/wje.v20i2
Hulstijn, J.H., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 539–558. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00164
Keyvanfar, A., & Badraghi, A. H. (2011). Revisiting task-cognitive load and vocabulary enhancement: Insights from the EFL setting of Iran. Man & the Word/ZmogusIrZodis, 13(3), 1–17.
Keating, G. D. (2008). Task effectiveness and word learning in a second language: The involvement load hypothesis on trial. Language teaching research, 12(3), 365-386.
Jabbarpoor, Sh., & Tajeddin, Z. (2013a). Enhanced input, individual output, and collaborative output: Effects on the acquisition of the English subjunctive mood. RevistaSignos, 46(82), 213-235. doi:10.4067/S0718- 09342013000200003
Jabbarpoor, S., & Tajeddin, Z. (2013b). The effect of input enhancement, individual output, and collaborative output on foreign language learning: The case of English inversion structures. RESLA, 26, 267-288.
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: the construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1093/APPLIN/22.1.1.
Li, J. (2014). Effect of task-induced online learning behavior on incidental vocabulary acquisition by Chinese learners—revisiting involvement load hypothesis. Theory and Practice in Language Studies,4(7),1385– 1394. doi:10.4304/tpls.4.7.1385-1394
Liu, Q., & Nesbit, J. C. (2023). The Relation between the need for Cognition and Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 003465432311604. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231160474
Niu, R. Y. (2014) Chinese EFL learners' actual word processing and lexical learning in performing a collaborative output task. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 37(3): 309-333. DOI:10.1515/cjal-2014-0020
Nunan, D. (1996). Learner strategy training in the classroom: An action research study. TESOL Journal, 6(1), 35- 41.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Pawlak, M. (2009). Grammar learning strategies and language attainment: Seeking a relationship. Research in Language, 7(1), 43-60.
Pawlak M. (2018). Grammar Learning Strategy Inventory: Another look. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8, 351–379. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.2.8
Phadungsilp, P., & Supasiraprapa, S. (2023). The effects of task-induced involvement load and gloss languages on incidental L2 vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688231176331
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Predictive validity and reliability of the
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801-813.
Pourakbari, A. A., & Biria, R. (2015). Efficacy of task-cognitive in incidental lexical development of Iranian senior EFL students. English Language Teaching, 8(5), 122–131. doi:10.5539/elt. v8n5p122
Purpura, J. E. (2004). Assessing grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733086
Rahmani, R., Jafari, S., & Izadpanah, S. (2018). The effect of task-cognitive load on unfamiliar l2 vocabulary learning: Sentence writing, summary writing, imaginary story writing, and creative sentence writing. Applied Research on English Language, 7(1), 67–88. https://doi.org/10.22108/are.2018.106950.1183
Saffari, N. (2019). Metacognitive knowledge and its Effect on second language writing: Students’ Perceptions of Writing task. International Journal of Higher Education, 8(5), 221. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v8n5p221
Sato, M. (2022). Metacognition. In Routledge eBooks (pp. 95–110). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003270546-8
Scharff, L., Draeger, J., Verpoorten, D., Devlin, M., Dvořáková, L., Lodge, J. M., & Smith,S. (2017). Exploring Metacognition as support for learning Transfer. Teaching & Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.5.1.6
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475.
Semerari A, Cucchi M, Dimaggio G, Cavadini D, Carcione A, Bottelli V, Nicolò G, Pedone R, Siccardi T,
D’Angerio S, Ronchi P, Maffei C, Smeraldi E (2012). The development of the Metacognition Assessment Interview: Instrument description, factor structure and reliability in a non-clinical sample. Psychiatry Research 200, 890-895.
Shih, H., & Huang, S. (2020). College students’ metacognitive strategy use in an EFL flipped classroom.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33, 755 - 784. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1590420.
Stebner, F., Schuster, C., Weber, X., Greiff, S., Leutner, D., & Wirth, J. (2022). Transfer of metacognitive skills in self-regulated learning: effects on strategy application and content knowledge acquisition. Metacognition and Learning, 17(3), 715–744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-022-09322-x
Sumitha, P., & Mandal, R. R. (2022). Metacognitive teaching strategies. Scholarly Research Journal for Humanity Science & English Language, 10(50), 12346–12353. https://doi.org/10.21922/srjhsel.v10i50.10158
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learn.Instr, 4, 295-312.
Sweller, J. (2023). Cognitive load theory. In Elsevier eBooks (pp. 127–134). https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-818630-5.14020-5
Teng, M., & Xu, J. (2022). Pushing vocabulary knowledge from receptive to productive mastery: Effects of task type and repetition frequency. Language Teaching Research, 136216882210770. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221077028
Tuncer, M., & Kaysı, F. (2013). The development of the metacognitive thinking skills scale. International Journal of Learning & Development, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.5296/ijld.v3i2.4078
Wongdaeng, M., & Higgins, S. (2022). Effectiveness of metacognitive interventions in tertiary EFL contexts: evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 17, 795 - 811. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2022.2146122.
Yanagisawa, A., & Webb, S. (2022). Involvement load hypothesis plus: creating an improved predictive model of incidental vocabulary learning – erratum. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44(5), 1502. https://doi.org/10.1017/s027226312200033x
Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Academic studying and the development of personal skill: A self-regulatory perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33(2–3), 73–86. doi:10.1080/00461520.1998.9653292 | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 584 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 683 |
||