The Effect of Online Interaction on the Use of Discourse Markers: A Comparison of Two Flipped Classes | ||
| Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills) | ||
| دوره 41، شماره 2، مرداد 2022، صفحه 1-35 اصل مقاله (596.49 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22099/tesl.2021.40863.3011 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Mohammad Ahmadi Safa* ؛ Nargess Zareian | ||
| Bu-Ali Sina University | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Discourse Markers (DMs) are pragmatic ties representing the relationship between different concepts in a discourse. As Fraser (2009) puts it, these lexical expressions are free morphemes that signal a special message about or in addition to the basic message. Given the importance of DMs in the written discourse of English as foreign language (EFL) learners, this study investigated the effectiveness of two methods of interaction in improving Iranian EFL learners’ use of discourse markers (DMs) in writing compositions. The data were drawn from comparing the compositions of two virtual groups of EFL learners who were exposed to two types of online interactions within which different flipped instructional activities were assigned. The data were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The results showed that the learners who engaged in online discussions used higher numbers of DM in terms of both type and token. The results also showed an increase in the length of compositions in the case of those groups who embarked on online interactions and discussions of flipped content. The findings suggest that once supported by the provision of flipped content, online interactions help create authentic opportunities for learner-centered discussions, which lead to an increased authenticity level of the EFL learners’ language production. The findings might also underscore the significance of flipped content and online interactions in developing other aspects of EFL learners’ pragmatic competence. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Online Interaction؛ Flipped Learning؛ Written Discourse؛ Discourse Markers؛ EFL Learners | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Allen, D. (2004). Oxford Placement Test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Allwood, J. (1998). Some frequency-based differences between spoken and written Swedish. In Proceedings of the 16th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, Turku University, Department of Linguistics (pp. 18-29). The University of Turku.
Amiryousefi, M. (2019). The incorporation of flipped learning into conventional classes to enhance EFL learners’ L2 speaking, L2 listening, and engagement. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 13(2), 147-161.
Apedoe, X. S., Long, S. A., Morris, J. A., Wilson, A. A., Morris, R. J., Kroeger, S. D., Vogt, E., Spector, B.S., Leard, C. & Strycker, J. (2017). Flipping education. In L. Santos Green et al. (Eds.), The flipped college classroom (pp. 89-123). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Awada, G., Burston, J., & Ghannage, R. (2020). Effect of student team achievement division through WebQuest on EFL students’ argumentative writing skills and their instructors’ perceptions. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(3), 275-300.
Bates, J. E., Almekdash, H., & Gilchrest-Dunnam, M. J. (2017). The flipped classroom: A brief, brief history. In L. Santos Green et al. (Eds.), The flipped college classroom (pp. 3-10). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Blau, I., & Shamir-Inbal, T. (2017). Re-designed flipped learning model in an academic course: The Role of co-creation and co-regulation. Computers & Education, 115, 69-81.
Buitrago, C. R. & Díaz, J. (2018). Flipping your writing lessons: Optimizing time in your EFL writing classroom. In J. Mehring & A. Leis (Eds.), Innovations in flipping the language classroom (pp. 69-91). Singapore: Springer.
Carrell, P. (1982). Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly, 16/4,479- 488
Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22(1), 17-31.
Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2010). The second educational revolution: Rethinking education in the age of technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 18-27.
Dalili, M. V., & Dastjerdi, H. V. (2013). A contrastive corpus-based analysis of the frequency of discourse markers in NE and NNE media discourse: Implications for a “universal discourse competence”. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 9(1), 39-69.
Dashtestani, R. (2016). Moving bravely towards mobile learning: Iranian students’ use of mobile devices for learning English as a foreign language. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4), 815-832.
Eslami, Z. R. & Eslami-Rasekh, A. (2007). Discourse markers in academic lectures. Asian EFL Journal, 9(1), 22-38.
Faghih, E., & Mousaee, A. (2015). English writing skill in terms of discourse markers in INTERPOL electronic messages written by nonnative and native police officers: A comparative and contrastive study. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(7), 10-23.
Faramarzi, S., Tabrizi, H. H., & Chalak, A. (2019). Telegram: An instant messaging application to assist distance language learning. Teaching English with Technology, 19(1), 132-147.
Findlay-Thompson, S., & Mombourquette, P. (2014). Evaluation of a flipped classroom in an undergraduate business course. Business Education and Accreditation, 6(1), 63–71.
Fitze, M. (2006). Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face and written electronic conferences. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 67-86.
Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6(2), 167 - 190.
Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics. 31, 931–952.
Fraser, B. (2009). An account of discourse markers. International Review of Pragmatics, 1(2), 293-320.
Fung, L. & Carter, R. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 410-439.
Green, L. S., Banas, J. R., & Perkins, R. A. (Eds.). (2016). The flipped college classroom: Conceptualized and re-conceptualized. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Haghighi, H., Jafarigohar, M., Khoshsima, H., & Vahdany, F. (2019). Impact of flipped classroom on EFL learners’ appropriate use of refusal: Achievement, participation, perception. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(3), 261-293.
Jalilifar, A. (2008). Discourse markers in composition writings: The case of Iranian learners of English as a foreign language. English Language Teaching, 1(2), 114-122.
Kalajahi, S., Abdullah, A. N. B., & Baki, R. (2012). Constructing an organized and coherent text: How discourse markers are viewed by Iranian post-graduate students. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(9), 196-202.
Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 457-476.
Khatib, M. (2011). Comprehension of discourse markers and reading comprehension. English Language Teaching, 4(3), 243-250.
Kukulska‐Hulme, A., & Viberg, O. (2018). Mobile collaborative language learning: State of the art. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(2), 207-218.
Lee, L. (2001). Online interaction: Negotiation of meaning and strategies used among learners of Spanish. ReCALL: The Journal of EUROCALL, 13(2), 232.
Lee, L. (2002). Synchronous online exchanges: A study of modification devices on nonnative discourse. System, 30(3), 275-288.
Lee, L. (2009). Exploring native and nonnative interactive discourse in text-based chat beyond classroom settings. In L. Abraham & L. Williams (Eds.), Electronic discourse in foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 263–289). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Li, M. (2018). Computer-mediated collaborative writing in L2 contexts: An analysis of empirical research. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(8), 882-904.
Liu, P. L., & Chen, C. J. (2015). Learning English through actions: A study of mobile-assisted language learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(2), 158–171.
Ma, Q. (2020). Examining the role of inter-group peer online feedback on wiki writing in an EAP context. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(3), 197-216.
McLaughlin, J. E., Roth, M. T., Glatt, D. M., Gharkholonarehe, N., Davidson, C. A., Griffin, L. M., & Mumper, R. J. (2014). The flipped classroom: A course redesign to foster learning and engagement in a health professions school. Academic Medicine, 89, 236–243.
Maschler, Y., & Schiffrin, D. (2015). Discourse markers, language, meaning, and context. In, D. Tannen, H.E. Hamilton, D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 2nd ed. (pp. 189- 221). UK: WILEY Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2010). Learning outcomes and students’ perceptions of online writing: Simultaneous implementation of a forum, blog and wiki in an EFL blended learning setting. System, 38(2), 185-199.
Mohd Nor, N. F., Hamat, A., & Embi, MA. (2012). Patterns of discourse in online interaction: seeking evidence of the collaborative learning process. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(3), 237-256.
Nassaji, H. (2016). Anniversary article: Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 535–562.
Ozer, H. Z., & Okan, Z. (2018). Discourse markers in EFL classrooms: A corpus-driven research. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(1), 50-66.
Park, J. R. (2007). Interpersonal and affective communication in synchronous online discourse. The Library Quarterly, 77(2), 133-155.
Pink, D. (2010). Think tank: Flip-thinking-the new buzzword sweeping the US. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fi nance/businessclub/7996379/Daniel-PinksThink-Tank-Flip-thinking-the-new-buzz-word-sweeping-the-US.html
Povolná, R. (2012). Causal and contrastive discourse markers in novice academic writing. Brno Studies in English. 38(2), 131-148.
Pratt, K., & Kovatcheva, E. P. (2018). Designing blended, flexible, and personalized learning. In J. Voogt, G. Knezek, R. Christensen, K.W. Lai (Eds.), Second Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education (pp.1–18). Cambridge: Springer International Handbooks of Education.
Rahimi, F. & Riasati, M. J. (2012). The effect of explicit instruction of discourse markers on the quality of oral output. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 1(1), 70-81.
Rahimi, M. (2011). Discourse markers in argumentative and expository writing of Iranian EFL learners. World Journal of English Language, 1(2), 68-78.
Roehl, A., Reddy, S. L., & Shannon, G. J. (2013). The flipped classroom: an opportunity to engage millennial students through active learning strategies. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 105(2), 44–49.
Schiffrin, D., (1987). Discourse markers (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Trillo, J. R. (2002). The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in nonnative speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(6), 769-784.
Tse, W. S., Choi, L. Y., & Tang, W. S. (2019). Effects of video‐based flipped class instruction on subject reading motivation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 385-398.
Turan, Z., & Akdag-Cimen, B. (2020). Flipped classroom in English language teaching: A systematic review. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(5-6), 590-606.
Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., Ing, M., Chan, A., Battey, D., Freund, D., & Shein, P. (2007). The role of teacher discourse in effective group work. American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Williams, J. (2012). The potential role (s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321-331.
Wu, W. C. V., Hsieh, J. S. C., & Yang, J. C. (2017). Creating an online learning community in a flipped classroom to enhance EFL learners’ oral proficiency. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(2), 142-157.
Wu, W.-C. V., Chen Hsieh, J. S., & Yang J. C. (2017). Creating an online learning community in a flipped classroom to enhance EFL learners’ oral proficiency. Educational Technology & Society, 20 (2), 142–157.
Yilmaz, R. (2016). Exploring the role of e-learning readiness on student satisfaction and motivation in flipped classrooms. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 251-260. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 787 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 615 |
||