ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
INVESTIGATING THE VALIDITY OF PHD ENTRANCE EXAM OF ELT IN IRAN IN LIGHT OF ARGUMENT-BASED VALIDITY AND THEORY OF ACTION
Although some piecemeal efforts have been made to investigate the validity and use of the Iranian PhD exam, no systematic project has been specifically carried out in this regard. The current study, hence, tried to attend to this void. As such, to ensure a balanced focus on test interpretation and test consequence, and to track evidence derived from a mixed–method study on the validity of Iranian PhD entrance exam of TEFL (IPEET), this study drew on a hybrid of two argument-based structures: Kane's (1992) argument model and Bennett's (2010) theory of action. Resting on the network of inferences and assumptions borrowed from the hybridized framework, the study investigated the extent to which the proposed assumptions would be supported by empirical evidence. It also examined the unintended consequences that may possibly be revealed through this validity investigation. Three sources of data informed the present study: (a) Test score data from about 1000 PhD applicants' taking IPEET test administered in 2014, (b) questionnaires completed by university professors and PhD students of TEFL, and finally, (c) telephone and focus-group interviews with university professors and PhD students of TEFL, respectively. The results from the analysis of mixed-method data indicated that all the inferences proposed for this study were rebutted, suggesting that some unintended consequences have happened to the technical as well as the decision quality of this test, hence its invalidity. Findings also provided valuable insights and suggestions for the betterment of the present content and current policy of IPEET in Iran.
https://tesl.shirazu.ac.ir/article_3581_a2141f991ad5ee2c286df4098ba86e95.pdf
2015-06-22
1
37
10.22099/jtls.2015.3581
mixed method study
argument-based validity
theory of action
unintended consequences
Alireza
Ahmadi
arahmadi@shirazu.ac.ir
1
Faculty member at Shiraz university
AUTHOR
Ali
Darabi Bazvand
alidarabi1350@gmail.com
2
PhD ca universityndidate at Shiraz
LEAD_AUTHOR
Rahman
Sahragard
rahman.sahragard@gmail.com
3
Shiraz Univeristy
AUTHOR
Ayatollah
Razmjoo
arazmju@yahoo.com
4
Shiraz University
AUTHOR
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C. & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8th Ed.). New York, NY: Wadsworth.
1
Azmoon.Net. (2014). PhD entrance examination news. Retrieved 2014, October, 15th from www. Phd.Azmoon.Net. www. PhD Test.
2
Bennett, R. E. (2010). Cognitively based assessment of, for, and as learning: A preliminary theory of action for summative and formative assessment. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 8, 70-91.
3
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (sixth Ed.) London: Routledge.
4
Cronbach, L. J. (1980). Validity on parole: How can we go straight? New directions for testing and measurement: Measuring achievement over a decade. In Proceedings of the 1979 ETS Invitational Conference (pp. 99-108). San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.
5
Douglas, D. (2014). Understanding language testing. Oxon.Hodder Education.
6
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7
Drasgow, F. (1987). Study of the measurement bias of two standardized psychological tests. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 19–29.
8
Farhady, H., Jafarpur, A. J., & Birjandi, P. (2014). Testing Language Skills from Theory to Practice. Tehran: SAMT.
9
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.
10
Green, A. (2007). Washback to the learners: Learners and teacher perspectives on IELTS preparation course expectation and outcomes. Assessing Writing, 11, 113 -134.
11
Haertel, E. (2013). How is testing supposed to improve schooling? Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 11(1-2), 1-18.
12
Johnson, R.C., & Riazi, M. (2013). Assessing the assessments: Using an argument-based validity framework to assess the validity and use of an English placement system in a foreign language context. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment. 2(1), 31-58.
13
Kane, M. T. (1992). An argument-based approach to validity. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 527-535.
14
Kane, M., Crooks, T., & Cohen, A. (1999). Validating measures of performance. Educational Measurement: issues and practice, 18(2), 5-17.
15
Kane, M. T. (2006). Validation. Educational Measurement, 4, 17-64.
16
Kane, M.T. (2011). Validating score interpretations and uses. Language Testing 29(1), 3– 17.
17
Kane, M.T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement. 50(1), 1–73
18
Kiany, R., Shayestefar, P., Ghafar Samar, R., Akbari, R. (2013). High-rank stakeholders’ perspectives on high- stakes University entrance examinations reform: priorities and problems. High Educ 65, 325–340
19
Kline, P. (2000). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd Ed.). London: Routledge.
20
Kunnan, A. J. (2000). Fairness and justice for all. In A. J. Kunnan, (Ed.). Fairness and Validation in Language Assessment: Selected Papers from the 19th Language Testing Research Colloquium, Orlando, Florida (pp. 1-14). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21
Kunnan, A. J. (2003). Test fairness. In M. Milanovic & C. Weir (Eds.), Select Papers from the European Year of Languages Conference, Barcelona. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
23
Monk, T H. (1990). The relationship of chronobiology to sleep schedules and performance demands. Work and Stress, 4(3), 227-236.
24
NOET. (2013). PhD entrance examination news. Retrieved 2013, December, 20th from http://www.eao.ir/eao/Full Story.aspx? gid=1&id=730
25
Shulman, H C., Boster, F J., & Carpenter, C J. (2011). Do data collection procedures influence political knowledge test performance? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Political Science Association in Chicago, IL. Oaks, CA: Sage.
26
Sireci, S.G., & Rios, J.A. (2013). Decisions that make a difference in detecting differential item Functioning. Educational Research and Evaluation, 19, 170–187. DOI: 10.1080/13803611.2013.767621.
27
Takala, S., & Kaftandjieva, F. (2000). Test fairness: A DIF analysis of an L2 vocabulary test. Language Testing, 17, 323–40.
28
Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2003).Major Issues and Controversies in the Use of Mixed Methods in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. In Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29
Teddlie, Ch. & Tashakkori, A. (2006). A general typology of research designs featuring mixed methods. Research in Schools, 13 (1), 12-28.
30
Weir, C. J. (2005).Language testing and validation. Hampshire: Palgrave McMillan.
31
Wise, S L., Kingsbury, G., Hauser, C., & Ma, L. (2010). An investigation of the relationship between time of testing and test-taking effort. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Denver, CO.
32
Xi, X. (2010). How do we go about investigating test fairness? Language Testing, 27(2), 147- 170.
33
Zumbo, B. D. (1999). A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF): Logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and Likert-type (ordi­nal) item scores. Ottawa ON: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense
34
Zumbo, B. D. (2008, July). Statistical methods for investigating item bias in self-report measures. Florence Lectures on DIF and Item Bias. Lectures Conducted from Universita degli Studi di Firenze, Florence, Italy.
35
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
EFL TEACHERS’ BELIEFS ABOUT ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND THEIR FEEDBACK-PROVIDING PRACTICES ACROSS LEARNERS’ PROFICIENCY LEVELS
The present study investigated EFL teachers’ beliefs about oral corrective feedback (CF), their CF-provision practices across elementary and intermediate levels, and their beliefs-practices correspondence. To this end, the researchers conducted a semi-structured interview with the teachers and went on an overall forty-hour observation of their classrooms across both levels. The findings revealed that there was a significant difference in the teachers’ employment of CF strategies across the two levels with more frequent presence of explicit correction, elicitation, metalinguistic clues, clarification request, and repetition at elementary level. Moreover, it was demonstrated that the teachers did not differentiate in their focus on morpho-syntactic, phonological, and lexical errors at both levels. The results further highlighted some areas of belief-practice mismatch in teachers’ sensitivity to students’ errors, their employment of different CF strategies, use of explicit and implicit CF, application of immediate and delayed CF, correction of global and local errors, focus on different linguistic targets, and reliance on self, peer, and teacher correction. The paper concludes with some pedagogical implications.
https://tesl.shirazu.ac.ir/article_3582_758ccb6bc252b0fb706c3f0575c45451.pdf
2015-06-22
39
68
10.22099/jtls.2015.3582
CF strategies
Elementary
intermediate
linguistic targets
belief-practice correspondence
Mohammad Nabi
Karimi
karimi_mn@yahoo.com
1
Kharazmi (Tarbiat Moallem) University, Tehran, Iran
LEAD_AUTHOR
Fatemeh
Asadnia
asadnia.fatemeh@gmail.com
2
Kharazmi University, Department of Foreign Languages
AUTHOR
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543-574.
1
Basturkmen, H. (2012). Review of research into the correspondence between language teachers' stated beliefs and practices. System, 40(2), 282-295.
2
Basturkmen, H., Loewen,S., & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers’ stated beliefs about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 243-272.
3
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191-205.
4
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and teacher education: Research and practice. London: Continuum.
5
Dilans, G. (2010). Corrective feedback and L2 vocabulary development: Prompts and recasts in the adult ESL classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 787-815.
6
Dlaska, A., & Krekeler, C. (2013). The short-term effects of individual corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation. System, 41, 25-37.
7
Ekembe, E.E. (2014). Interaction and Uptake in Large Foreign Language Classrooms. RELC Journal, 45(3), 237-251.
8
Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focused instruction on L2 acquisition. AILA Review, 19, 18-41.
9
Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 339-360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1, 3-18.
11
Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
12
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(3), 339-368.
13
Elwood, J.A., & Bode, J. (2014). Student preferences vis-à-vis teacher feedback in university EFL writing classes in Japan, System, 42, 333-343.
14
Ene, E., & Upton, T.A. (2014). Learner uptake of teacher electronic feedback in ESL Composition, System, 46, 80-95.
15
Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 127-165.
16
Hancock, M., & McDonald, A. (2013). English Result. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17
Jean, G., & Simard, D. (2011). Grammar learning in English and French L2: Students’ and teachers’ beliefs and perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 44(4), 465-492.
18
Johnson, K.E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. New York: Routledge.
19
Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99 (1), 1-18.
20
Kim, J., & Han, Z. (2007). Recasts in communicative EFL classes: Do teacher intent and learner interpretation overlap? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 269-297). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lee, A.H., & Lyster, R. (2015). The effects of corrective feedback on instructed L2 speech perception. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, doi: 10.1017/S027226311500019.
21
Leeman, J. (2007). Feedback in L2 learning: Responding to errors during practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 111-137). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22
Li, Sh. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60 (2), 309-365.
23
Li, Sh. (2014). Oral corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 68 (2), 196-198.
24
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399-432.
25
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269-300.
26
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010).Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265-302.
27
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013).Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46 (1), 1-40.
28
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407-452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29
Mori, R. (2011). Teacher cognition in corrective feedback in Japan. System, 39, 451-467.
30
Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59(2), 411-452.
31
Nakata, T. (2015). Effects of feedback timing on second language vocabulary learning: Does delaying feedback increase learning? Language Teaching Research, 19 (4), 416-434.
32
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573-595.
33
Ranta, L., & R. Lyster (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive Psychology (pp.141-160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34
Roothooft, H. (2014). The relationship between adult EFL teachers' oral feedback practices and their beliefs. System, 46, 65-79.
35
Russell, V. (2009). Corrective feedback, over a decade of research since Lyster and Ranta (1997): Where do we stand today? Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 6(1), 21-31.
36
Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006).The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. Norris, & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp.133–162). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
37
Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Feedback training in classrooms. The Modern Language Journal, 97 (3),611-633.
38
Saito, K. (2013). Re-examining effects of form-focused instruction on L2 pronunciation development: The role of explicit phonetic information. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 1-29.
39
Saito, K, (2015).Variables affecting the effects of recasts on L2 pronunciation development. Language Teaching Research, 19 (3), 276-300.
40
Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2012a). Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /®/ by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62(2), 595-633.
41
Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2012b). Investigating the pedagogical potential of recasts for L2 vowel acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 385-396.
42
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 301-322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43
Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 201-234.
44
Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. New York: Springer.
45
Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp.593-610). New York: Routledge.
46
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2015). Does language analytical ability mediate the effect of written feedback on grammatical accuracy in second language writing? System, 49, 110-119.
47
Tomita, Y., & Spada, N. (2013). Form-focused instruction and learner investment in L2 communication. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 591-610.
48
Vasquez, C., & Harvey, J. (2010). Raising teachers’ awareness about corrective feedback through research replication. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 421-443.
49
Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 235-263.
50
Yilmaz, Y. (2013). The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback in the acquisition of English articles, System, 41, 691-705.
51
Yilmaz, Y. (2015). The role of exposure condition in the effectiveness of explicit correction, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, doi: 10.1017/S0272263115000212.
52
Yoshida, R. (2008a). Learners’ perception of corrective feedback in pair work. Foreign Language Annals, 41(3), 525-541.
53
Zhang, L.J., & Rahimi, M. (2014). EFL learners’ anxiety level and their beliefs about corrective Feedback in oral communication classes. System, 42, 429-439.
54
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
THE IMPACT OF TEACHING SUMMARIZING ON EFL LEARNERS’ MICROGENETIC DEVELOPMENT OF SUMMARY WRITING
Summary writing is associated with lots of cognitive and metacognitive complexities that necessitates instruction (Hirvela & Du, 2013). Contrary to majority of studies carried out on summarization instruction, the present study addressed the underlying processes or microgenetic developments of the Iranian EFL learners’ summary writing. To this end, 41 male and female undergraduate students received instruction on summary writing for eight weeks. They were required to write five summaries during the first, second, fourth, sixth, and eighth sessions. The participants’ summaries were analyzed holistically by the TOEFL-iBT scoring guidelines and in terms of the number of instances of deletion, sentence combination, topic sentence selection, syntactic transformation, paraphrasing, generalization, invention, minor verbatim copying, and major verbatim copying. The findings revealed that some summarization strategies like invention, syntactic transformation, and generalization are more problematic and develop at later stages. The participants gave up major verbatim copying as they obtained a full appreciation of the conventions of authorship. However, many of them still used minor verbatim copying and patchwriting in their summary writing. The results imply that the students’ lack of awareness of the consequences of plagiarism as well as their insufficient general English and summary writing knowledge culminates in plagiarism.
https://tesl.shirazu.ac.ir/article_3531_fe78ccd730fda136ddb0932a3f0d6d27.pdf
2015-06-22
69
92
10.22099/jtls.2015.3531
Summary writing
minor verbatim copying
major verbatim copying
microgenetic development
Rasoul
Mohammad Hosseinpur
rmhosseinpur@gmail.com
1
University of Qom
LEAD_AUTHOR
Abasi, A. R., Akbari, N. & Graves, B. (2006). Discourse appropriation, construction of identities, and the complex issue of plagiarism: ESL students writing in graduate school. Journal of Second Language Writing 15(2), 102-117.
1
Baba, K. (2009). Aspects of lexical proficiency in writing summaries in a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(3), 191–208.
2
Banwell, J. (2003). Chinese and South East Asian students’ perceptions of plagiarism and collusion. Northumbria University, Retrieved 9, October, 2013 from www.jiscpas.ac.uk
3
Brown, A. L. & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22 (1), 1–14.
4
Brown, A. L., Day, J. D., & Jones, R. (1983). The development of plans for summarizing for texts. Child Development, 54(4), 968-979.
5
Calais, G. (2008). Microgenetic analysis of learning: Measuring change as it occurs. National Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal, 21(3), 1-7.
6
Casazza, M. E. (1993). Using a model of direct instruction to teach summary writing in a college reading class. Journal of Reading 37(3), 202–208.
7
Chen, Y. & Su, S. (2012). A genre-based approach to teaching EFL summary writing. ELT Journal, 66(2), 184–192.
8
Choy, S. & Lee, M. (2012). Effects of teaching paraphrasing skills to students learning summary writing in ESL. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 77-89.
9
Cohen, A. D. (1994). English for academic purposes in Brazil: The use of summary tasks. In: C. Hill & K. Parry (Eds.), From testing to assessment: English as an international language (pp. 174–204). London: Longman.
10
Currie, P. (1998). Staying out of trouble: Apparent plagiarism and academic survival. Journal of Second Language Writing 7(1), 1-18.
11
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12
Esmaeili, H. (2002). Integrating reading and writing tasks and ESL students’ reading and writing performance in an English language test. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(4), 599–622.
13
Friend, R. (2001). Effects of strategy instruction on summary writing of college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(1), 3-24.
14
Gebril, A. & Plakans, L. (2009). Investigating source use, discourse features, and process in integrated writing tests. Spaan Working Papers in Second or Foreign Language Assessment, 7, 47–84.
15
Graham, S. (1997). Executive control in the revising of students with learning and writing difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 223-234.
16
Graham, S. & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high school. New York: Carnegie Corporation.
17
Hedgcock, J. S. & Ferris, D. R. (2009). Teaching readers of English: Students, texts, and contexts. New York: Routledge.
18
Hidi, S. & Anderson, V. (1986). Producing written summaries: Task demands, cognitive operations, and implications for instruction. Review of Educational Research, 56(4), 473-93.
19
Hill, M. (1991). Writing summaries promotes thinking and learning across the curriculum-but why are they so difficult to write? Journal of Reading, 34(7), 536-539.
20
Hirvela, A. & Du, Q. (2013). Why am I paraphrasing? Undergraduate ESL writers’ engagement with source-based academic writing and reading. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(2), 87–98.
21
Howard, R. M. (1995). Plagiarisms, authorships and the academic death penalty. College English, 57(7), 788-806.
22
Howard, R. M. (1999). The new abolitionism comes to plagiarism. In L. Buranen & A. M. Roy (Eds.), Perspectives on plagiarism and intellectual property in a postmodern world (pp. 87–95). New York: State University of New York Press.
23
Hyland, F. (2001). Dealing with plagiarism when giving feedback. ELT Journal, 55(4), 375–381.
24
Idris, N., Baba, S., & Abdullah, R. (2011). Identifying students’ summary writing strategies using summary sentence decomposition algorithm. Malaysian Journal of Computer Science, 24(4), 180-194.
25
Johns, A. & Mayes, P. (1990). An analysis of summary protocols of university ESL students. Applied Linguistics, 11(3), 253-271.
26
Keck, C. (2006). The use of paraphrase in summary writing: A comparison of L1 and L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(4), 261–278.
27
Kim, S. A. (2001). Characteristics of EFL readers’ summary writing: A study with Korean university students. Foreign Language Annals, 34(6), 569–580.
28
Kintsch, W. & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363–394.
29
Langan, J. (1993). Ten steps to advancing college reading skills. Marlton, NJ: Townsend Press.
30
Lantolf, J. P. & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31
Lavelli, M., Pantoja, A., Hsu, H., Messinger, D., & Fogel, A. (2004). Using microgenetic designs to study change processes. In D. M. Teti (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in developmental psychology (pp. 40-65). Baltimore, Md.: Blackwell Publishers.
32
Lee, L. (2010). Exploring wiki-mediated collaborative writing: A case-study in an elementary Spanish course. CALICO Journal, 27(2), 260–276.
33
Liao, M. & Tseng, C. (2010). Students’ behaviors and views of paraphrasing and inappropriate textual borrowing in an EFL academic setting. Pan- Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 187–211.
34
Manchon, R. M., Murphy, L., & Roca de Larios, J. (2007). Lexical retrieval processes and strategies in second language writing: A synthesis of empirical research. International Journal of English Studies, 7(4), 147–172.
35
McDonough, K., Crawford, W. J., & De Vleeschauwer, J. (2014). Summary writing in a Thai EFL university context. Journal of Second Language Writing, 24(1), 20-32.
36
Ohta, A. S. (2005). Interlanguage pragmatics in the zone of proximal development. System, 33(3), 503-517.
37
Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second-language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(4), 317-345.
38
Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others’ words: Text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 201-230.
39
Plakans, L. (2009). The role of reading strategies in integrated L2 writing tasks. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(4), 252–266.
40
Rivard, L. P. (2001). Summary writing: A multi-grade study of French immersion and Francophone secondary students. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 14(2), 171–186.
41
Robinson, L. K. & Howell, K. W. (2008). Best practices in curriculum-based evaluation and written expression. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (pp. 439-452). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
42
Roig, M. (2001). Plagiarism and paraphrasing criteria of college and university professors. Ethics and Behavior, 11(3), 307-323.
43
Saddler, B. (2005). Sentence combining: A sentence-level writing intervention. The Reading Teacher, 58(5), 468-471.
44
Saddler, B. & Graham, S. (2005). The effects of peer-assisted sentence-combining instruction on the writing performance of more and less skilled young writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 43-54.
45
Saddler, B. & Saddler, K. (2010). Writing better sentences: Sentence-combining instruction in the classroom. Preventing School Failure, 54(3), 159-163.
46
Savage, A. (2010). Read this! 3: Fascinating stories from the content areas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47
Shi, L. (2004). Textual borrowing in second-language writing. Written Communication, 21(2), 171-200.
48
Siegler, R. S. (2006). Microgenetic analyses of learning. In D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler, Handbook of child psychology (6th Ed.) (pp. 464-510). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
49
Spack, R. (2004). The acquisition of academic literacy in a second language: A longitudinal case study. In V. Zamel, & R. Spack (Eds.), Crossing the curriculum: Multilingual learners in college classrooms (pp. 19–46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
50
Sun, Y. (2009). Using a two-tier test in examining Taiwan graduate students’ perspectives on paraphrasing strategies. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10(3), 399–408.
51
Van Compernolle, R. A., & Williams, L. (2012). Promoting sociolinguistic competence in the classroom zone of proximal development. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 39-60.
52
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
53
Vygotsky, L. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky volume I: Thinking and speaking. New York: Plenum Press.
54
Werner, H. (1956). Microgenesis and aphasia. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 52(3), 347-353.
55
Wheeler, G. (2009). Plagiarism in the Japanese universities: Truly a cultural matter? Journal of Second Language Writing 18(1), 17-29.
56
Wichadee, S. (2010). Using wikis to develop summary writing abilities of students in an EFL class. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 7(12), 5–10.
57
Wichadee, S. (2013). Improving students’ summary writing ability through collaboration: A comparison between online wiki group and conventional face-to-face group. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(3), 107-116.
58
Yu, G. (2008). Reading to summarize in English and Chinese: A tale of two languages? Language Testing, 25(4), 521–551.
59
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
LEARNER INITIATIVES ACROSS QUESTION-ANSWER SEQUENCES: A CONVERSATION ANALYTIC ACCOUNT OF LANGUAGE CLASSROOM DISCOURSE
This paper investigates learner-initiated responses to English language teachers’ referential questions and learner initiatives after teachers’ feedback moves in meaning-focused question-answer sequences to analyze how interactional practices of language teachers, their initiation and feedback moves, facilitate learner initiatives. Classroom discourse research has largely neglected learner initiative in this pedagogically crucial arena. Addressing this pedagogical issue and drawing on sociocultural theory and situated learning theory, this qualitative study focuses on meaning-focused question-answer sequences to understand whether unfolding sequences, as structured by teachers, solicit learner-initiated participation. The data come from 10 videotaped and transcribed lessons from seven English teachers and their intermediate level students, at four private language institutes in Iran, which were analyzed within conversation analysis framework. Based on detailed analysis of classroom episodes, a very small number of learner initiatives was uncovered. The analysis revealed that several interactional practices by teachers (addressing the whole class, extending wait-time, encouraging student-student interaction, acknowledging response, giving positive feedback, and using continuers) tend to prompt learners’ initiation and learners can also create learning opportunities for themselves (following silence or following their own or other initiation). To characterize the findings, a typology of interactional acts that prompt solicited and unsolicited learner initiation is also provided. Some episodes are analyzed and the implications for teachers and teacher educators are also discussed.
https://tesl.shirazu.ac.ir/article_3579_feba7187d578eb151a20a4a7a7693a43.pdf
2015-06-22
93
125
10.22099/jtls.2015.3579
Classroom discourse
conversation analysis
learner initiative
question-answer sequence
interactional practice
Fatemeh
Mozaffari
mozaffari.fatemeh@gmail.com
1
Yazd University
LEAD_AUTHOR
Baqer
Yaqubi
yaqubi@umz.ac.ir
2
University of Mazandaran
AUTHOR
Alduais, A. M. S. (2012). An account of teaching strategies which promote student-initiation. Journal of Sociological Research, 3(2), 489-501.
1
Anton, M. (1999). The discourse of a learner-centered classroom: Sociocultural perspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second-language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 83(3),303-318.
2
Azubike, N. (2000). The effects of increased teacher wait time on students’ achievement in science. Journal of Experimental Education, 45, 16-18.
3
Bell, N. D. (2007). How native and non-native English speakers adapt to humor in intercultural interaction. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 20(1), 27-48.
4
Brock, C. A. (1986). The effects of referential questions on ESL classroom discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 47-5.
5
Chika, O, P. (2012). The extent of students’ initiation of ideas in the classroom. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 2(1), 293-300.
6
Davies, C. E. (2003). How English-learners joke with native speakers: An interactional sociolinguistic perspective on humor as collaborative discourse across cultures. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(9),1361-1385.
7
Domakani, M, R., & Mirzaei, A. (2013). Exploring dialogism and multivocality in L2 classroom discourse architecture in Iran. Issues in Language Teaching, 2(1), 83-100.
8
Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 27-50). New York: Oxford University Press.
9
Garton, S. (2002). Learner initiative in the language classroom. ELT journal, 56(1),47-56.
10
Garton, S. (2012). Speaking out of turn? Taking the initiative in teacher-fronted classroom interaction. Classroom Discourse, 3(1), 29-45.
11
Goodwin, M. H. (2007). Occasioned knowledge exploration in family interaction. Discourse and Society, 18(1), 93-110.
12
Hale, C. (2011). Breaking with the IRF and EPA: Facilitating student initiated talk. In A. Stewart (Ed.), JALT2010 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT.
13
Have, P. ten. (1999). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. London: Sage.
14
He, A. W. (2004). CA for SLA: Arguments from the Chinese language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 568-582.
15
Hellerman, J. (2009). Looking for evidence of language learning in practices for repair: A case study of self‐initiated self‐repair by an adult learner of English. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53 (2), 113-132.
16
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
17
Jacknick, C. M. (2009). A conversation analytic account of student-initiated participation in an ESL classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University.
18
Jacknick, C. M. (2011a). “But this is writing”: post-expansion in student-initiated sequences. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 5(1), 39-54.
19
Jacknick, C. M. (2011b). Breaking in is hard to do: How students negotiate classroom activity shifts. Classroom Discourse, 2(1), 20-38.
20
Jefferson, G. (1984). Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens “Yeah” and “Mm hm”. Papers in Linguistics, 17, 197-206.
21
Lantolf, J., & Poehner, M. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education: Vygotskian praxis and the research/theory divide. New York: Routledge.
22
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23
Lee, Y. (2007). Third turn position in teacher talk: Contingency and the work of teaching. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), 180-206.
24
Li, H. (2013). Student initiatives and missed learning opportunities in an IRF sequence: A single case analysis. L2 Journal, 5, 68-92.
25
Long, M. H., & Sato, C. J. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions of teachers’ questions. In H. W. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom-oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 268-285). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
26
Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27
McNeil, L. (2011). Using talk to scaffold referential questions for English language learners. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(3), 396-404.
28
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29
Mori, J. (2002). Task design, plan, and development of talk-in-interaction: An analysis of a small group activity in a Japanese language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 23(3),323-347.
30
Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What’s the use of ‘Triadic Dialogue’? An investigation of teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 376-406.
31
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.
32
Reinders, H., & Loewen, S. (2013). Autonomy and language learning behavior: The role of student initiation and participation in l2 classrooms. Study in English Language Teaching, 1(1), 1-7.
33
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematic for the organization of turn- taking in conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.
34
Saikko, V. (2007). Different student-strategies for interactional power in the IRF pattern in an EFL classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Jyväskylä University.
35
Schegloff, E. A. (1981). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of “Uh huh” and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Georgetown University rounds on language linguistics: Analyzing discourse-text and talk (pp. 71-93). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
36
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37
Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361-382.
38
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Blackwell Publishing: University of Michigan.
39
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-12.
40
Shepherd, M. A. (2011). A quantitative discourse analysis of student-initiated checks of understanding during teacher-fronted lessons. Linguistics and Education, 23(1), 145-159.
41
Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
42
Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
43
Sullivan, P. (2000). Spoken artistry: Performance in a foreign language classroom. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 73-90). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
44
Sunderland, J. (2001). Student initiation, teacher response, student follow-up: Towards an appreciation of student-initiated IRFs in the language classroom. Center for Research in Language Education. Working papers 54, Lancaster University.
45
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some role of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235-256).Cambridge: Newbury House.
46
Tsui, A. B. M. (1996). Reticence and anxiety in second language learning. In K.M. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.). Voices from the Language Classroom (pp. 145-167). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47
van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman.
48
van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum. London: Longman Group Limited.
49
van Lier, L. (2008). Agency in the classroom. In J. Lantolf & M. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp.163-186). London: Equinox.
50
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
51
Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52
Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. Abingdon: Routledge.
53
Waring, H. Z. (2008). Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF, feedback, and learning opportunities. The Modern Language Journal, 92(8), 577-594.
54
Waring, H. Z. (2009). Moving out of IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback): A single-case analysis. Language Learning,59(4), 796-824.
55
Waring, H. Z. (2011). Learner initiatives and learning opportunities in the language classroom. Classroom Discourse, 2(2), 201-218.
56
Waring, H. Z. (2012). “Any questions?”: Investigating the nature of understanding-checks in the language class room. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4),722-752.
57
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
58
Yaqubi, B., Annani Sarab, M., & Mozaffari, F. (2010). Language teachers’ questioning practice in EFL classroom discourse: Constructive or Obstructive? Iranian Journal of TEFL, 2(2), 53-70.
59
Yaqubi, B., & Mozaffari, F. (2011). EFL Teacher Questions to Scaffold Learning Process: A Conversation Analytic Study. The Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 228-260.
60
Young, R. F., & Miller, E. R., (2004). Learning as changing participation: Discourse roles in ESL writing conferences. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 519-535.
61
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
THE IMPACT OF USING COMPUTER-AIDED ARGUMENT MAPPING (CAAM) ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF IRANIAN EFL LEARNERS’ WRITING SELF-REGULATION
The present study was conducted to investigate the impact of using computer-aided argument mapping (CAAM) on the improvement of Iranian learners’ writing self-regulation. To this end, 90 participants out of 127 senior university students in English translation were selected after administrating language proficiency test, as well as an essay writing test for the purpose of homogenizing the learners. Then all participants completed the self-regulation questionnaire in writing skill. As the homogeneity of responses was checked, the participants were randomly categorized into three equal groups as control, experimental 1, and experimental 2. During the course, as the participants in the experimental groups accomplished their writing assignments via CAAM software (in person and in pairs), the participants in the control group did their assignments traditionally. At the end of the course, all participants completed the same writing self-regulation questionnaire again. Using SPSS 21, the one-way ANOVA statistical procedure was utilized to determine the effectiveness of CAAM on writing self-regulation. The findings revealed that using CAAM in writing classes improved learners’ self-regulation. Moreover, the Post-Hoc statistical procedure between two experimental groups showed that collaborative learning in a computer hands-on learning environment led to higher writing self-regulation.
https://tesl.shirazu.ac.ir/article_3528_7bd32c54205e026c35e2a7dc6e1ef6a3.pdf
2015-06-22
127
152
10.22099/jtls.2015.3528
second language writing
self-regulation
computer aided argument mapping (CAAM)
pantea
pahlavani
panteapahlavani@yahoo.com
1
Department of English, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
AUTHOR
parviz
maftoon
pmaftoon@gmail.com
2
Department of English, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
LEAD_AUTHOR
Anderson, A. (2005). Affective influences on the attentional dynamics supporting awareness. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 134, 258–281.
1
Ausubel, D. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune & Stratton.
2
Bandura, A. (1989). Perceived self-efficacy in the exercise of personal agency. The Psychologist: Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 2, 411-424.
3
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
4
Boykin, A. (2015). The impact of computer-based graphic organizers with embedded self-regulated learning strategies on the content area argumentative writing of typical and struggling Writers. Retrieved
5
September, 2015 from http://digilib.gmu.edu/dspace/handle/1920/2811/browse?value=Graphic+organizer&type=subject Cañas, A. J., Hill, G., Carff, R., Suri, N., Lott, J., Eskridge, T. (2004). CmapTools: A knowledge modeling and sharing environment.In A. J. Cañas, J. D. Novak & F. M. González (Eds.), Concept maps: Theory, methodology, technology. Proceedings of the first international conference on concept mapping (Vol. I, pp. 125-133). Pamplona, Spain: Universidad Pública de Navarra. Chao, Y. (2011). Students' perceptions of Wiki-based collaborative writing for learners of English as a foreign language. Interactive Learning Environments, 19 (4), 395-411.
6
Conati, C., Heffernan, N., Mitrovic, A., & Verdejo, M. (2015). Proceedings of the 17th international conference on artificial intelligence in education. Springer-Verlag: Berlin Heidelberg.
7
Davies, W. M. (2014). Computer-aided argument mapping as a tool for teaching critical thinking. Retrieved June, 2014 from
8
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/IJLM_a_00106
9
Davies, W. M. (2011). Mind mapping, concept mapping, and argument mapping: What are the differences and do they matter?Higher Education, 62(3), 279-301.
10
Davies, W.M. (2009). Computer-assisted argument mapping: A rational approach. High Education, 58, 799-820.
11
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13
Giuliana, D. (2010). Fostering self-regulated learning through ICT. NY: Information Science Reference. Giuliana, D. (2005). CMC environments supporting self-regulated learning. Retrieved September, 2014 fromhttp://www.researchgate.net/publication/32231405_CMC_environments_supporting_self-regulated_learning
14
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Writing better: Effective strategies for teaching students with learning difficulties. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
15
Harris, K., Graham, S., Mason, L., & Friedlander, B. (2008). Powerful writing strategies for all students. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
16
Kanlapan, M., Theresa Carmela, E., & Velasco, J. C. (2009). Constructing a self-regulationscale contextualized in writing. Retrieved October 2012, from www.tesol-journal.com/PDF/A6V1_TESOL%5B1%5D.pdf
17
Kessler, G., Bikowski, D., & Boggs, J. (2012). Collaborative writing among second language learners in academic web-based projects. Language Learning and Technology, 16 (1), 91-109.
18
Kung, S. C. (2002). A framework for successful key-pal programs in language learning. CALL-EJ Online, 3(2). Retrieved December 2013, from http://www.clec.ritsumei.ac.jp/english/callejonline/6-2/SCKung.html
19
Lai, (2006). The advantages and disadvantages of computer technology in second language acquisition. National Journal for Publishing and Mentoring Doctoral Student Research, 3(1), Retrieved December 2013, from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED492159.pdf
20
Lapan, R. T. (2010). Empowering students to become self-regulated learners.
21
Retrieved March, 2014, from http://www.sfu.ca/~sbratt/ SRL/Empowering%20students%20to%20become%20self%20regulated%20learners.pdf Larkin, J.H. , & Simon, H. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand word. Cognitive Science, 11(1), 65-100.
22
Lonchamp, J. (2010). Customizable Computer-based Interaction Analysis for Coaching and Self-Regulation in Synchronous CSCL Systems. Educational Technology & Society, 13 (2), 193–205.
23
Maftoon,P., Birjandi, P., & Pahlavani, P. (2014). The impact of using computer-aided argument mapping on the improvement of writing achievement of Iranian learners of English. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(5), 982-988.
24
Maftoon,P., & Pahlavani, P. (2014). The impact of using computer-aided argument mappin on Iranian EFL learner’ writing self-efficacy. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 7 (3), 1-12.
25
Magno,C. (2009). Self-regulation and approaches to learning in English composition writing. TESOL Journal, 1, 1-16.
26
Manchón, R. M., (2009). Individual differences in foreign language learning: The dynamics of beliefs about L2 writing. RESLA, 22, 245-268.
27
Marjanovic, O. (1998). Learning and teaching in a synchronous collaborative environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15, 129-138.
28
Mayer, R. E. & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 715-726.
29
McCombs, B. L. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A phenomenological view. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd Ed.) (pp. 67-123). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30
Mezei, G. (2008). Motivation and self-regulated learning: A case study of pre-intermediate and upper-intermediate students. WoPaLP, 2, 79-104.
31
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge: CUP.
32
Orhan, F. (2007). Applying self-regulated learning strategies in a blended learninginstruction. World Applied Sciences Journal, 2(4), 390- 398.
33
Quick Oxford Placement Test (2006). Oxford university press and university of Cambridge local examination syndicate. Retrieved April 2013, from http://www.vhsaschaffenburg.de/documents/5000/Oxford_Test.pdf
34
Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (2010). The role of self-regulated learning in contextual teaching: Principles and practices for teacher preparation. Retrieved December 2013, from
35
http://www.ciera.org/library/archive/ 2001 04/0104parwin.html
36
Pennington, M. (2003). The impact of the computer in second language writing. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing. (pp. 287-311). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 452-502). New York: Academic Press.
38
Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.
39
Rationale (2012). Austhink. Retrieved February 2012, fromhttp://rationale.austhink.com/download.
40
Schunk, D. H. (2005). Self-regulated learning: The educational legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational Psychologist, 40, 85-94.
41
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409-426). Cambridge: CUP.
42
TOEFL Writing Scoring Guide (2007). Educational testing service. Retrieved October 30, 2012 from http://www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/menuitem.1488512ecfd5b8849a77b13bc3921509/?vgnextoid=e7d72d3631df4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD&vgnextchannel=db35197a484f4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD
43
Twardy, C. (2004). Argument maps improve critical thinking. Teaching Philosophy, 27(2), 95-116.
44
Tseng, W., Dörnyei, Z., & Schmitt, N. (2006). A new approach to assessing strategic learning: The case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 27(1). 78-102.
45
Van Gelder, T. J. (2007). Rationale: Making people smarter through argument mapping. Retrieved November 2013, from http://www.austhink.com/pdf/vangelder_submitted.pdf
46
Wegerif, R. (1996).Collaborative learning and directive software. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 12, 1, 22-32,
47
Winne, P. H. (1989). Internal details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologists, 30, 173-187.
48
Wolters, C. (1998). Self-regulated learning and college students’ regulation of motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 224–235.
49
Wolters, C. (2011). Regulation of motivation: Contextual and social aspects. Teachers College Record, 113(2), 265-283.
50
Yarling, H. (2011). The perceptions of cooperative learning in computer assisted language learning environments. International Conference on Education and control Engineering (ICECE), Retrieved October 2013, from
51
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6056758&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Ficp.jsp%3Farnumber%3D6056758
52
Zimmerman, B.J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are the key subprocesses? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 307-313.
53
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 1-23.
54
Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82-91.
55
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64-70.
56
Zimmerman, B.J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166-183.
57
Zimmerman,B. & Campillo, M.(2002). Motivating self-regulated problem solvers, in The Nature of Problem Solving, J. E. Davidson and R. J. Sternberg, Eds., New York: Cambridge University Press.
58
Zimmerman, B. & Kitsantas, A. (2002). Acquiring writing revision and self-regulatory skill through observation and emulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 660- 668.
59
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 51-59.
60
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
INVESTIGATING L2 TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGICAL SUCCESS: THE ROLE OF SPIRITUAL INTELLIGENCE
Teachers can influence the complex process of learning in education, in general, and in second/foreign language (L2) learning in particular. In this light, understanding the factors influencing teachers’ pedagogical success can help L2 teachers achieve more effective teaching. This study then investigated the role of spiritual intelligence (SI) in L2 teachers’ pedagogical success. In so doing, it explored the relationship between teachers’ SI and their L2 pedagogical success assessed by students. Additionally, it examined the extent to which SI could contribute to L2 teachers’ pedagogical success. To these ends, following a sequential mixed-methods design, quantitative data were gathered through Spiritual Intelligence Questionnaire (SIQ) and Characteristics of Successful Teachers’ Questionnaire (CSTQ) from a sample of 130 EFL (English as a foreign language) teachers and 780 EFL learners respectively. Semi-structured interviews with 45 EFL teachers, classroom observation, and syllabus analysis were also used to triangulate the qualitative data. The results of Pearson product correlation coefficients revealed a significant and positive relationship between SI and L2 teachers’ pedagogical success. Also, multiple regression indicated a unique and moderately high contribution of three components of SI (transcendent self-realization, spiritual experiences, and patience) to the teachers ‘pedagogical success. Moreover, follow-up qualitative analysis indicated that the more spiritually intelligent teachers were more responsible, courageous, creative, confident and conscious; they were better at interpersonal relationship and less anxious about pursuing their educational goals. Such findings imply that high level of SI can help L2 teachers promote their success and, in turn, improve their students’ L2 achievement in classroom.
https://tesl.shirazu.ac.ir/article_3529_f1beedc81ce16117f0fb0fc64d01f7d4.pdf
2015-06-22
153
180
10.22099/jtls.2015.3529
spiritual intelligence
pedagogical success
L2 teachers
Ali
Roohani
roohani.ali@gmail.com
1
English Department, Faculty of Literature & Humanities, Shahr-e-Kord University, Saman Road, Shahr-e-Kord.
LEAD_AUTHOR
Tayyebeh
Darvishy
tefl.darvishy@gmail.com
2
Shahrekord University
AUTHOR
Amram, Y. (2007). The seven dimensions of spiritual intelligence: An ecumenical, grounded theory. Paper Presented at the 115th Annual Conference of the American Psychological Association San Francisco, CA.
1
Amram, Y., & Dryer, C. (2007). The development and preliminary validation of the integrated spiritual intelligence scale (ISIS). Palo Alto, CA: Institute of Transpersonal Psychology Working Paper.
2
Bhardwaj, A. (2009). Role of personality factors for teaching effectiveness. Pacific Business Review: A Quarterly Journal of Management, 2, 75-80.
3
Bowell, R. (2004). The seven steps of spiritual intelligence: The practical pursuit of purpose, success, and happiness. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
4
Bradley, C. (2011). An inquiry into relationships between spirituality and language pedagogy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Temple University, UK.
5
Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Effective teaching. San Francisco: Jossy-Bass.
6
Brown, H. D., & Lee, H. (2015). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (4th Ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
7
Brown, T., & Marks, J. (1994). Inside teaching. New York: Macmillan.
8
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives 8 (1). Retrieved January 1, 2014, from: http://epaa.asu.eud/epaa/v8n1
10
Emmons, R. A. (1999). The psychology of ultimate concerns: Motivation and spirituality in personality. New York: Guilford Press.
11
Emmons, R. (2000). Is spirituality and intelligence? Motivation, cognition and the psychology of the ultimate concern. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 10(1), 3-26.
12
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.
13
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
14
Ghanizadeh, A., & Moafian, F. (2010). The role of EFL teachers’ emotional intelligence in their success. ELT Journal, 64(4), 424-435.
15
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam.
16
Harung, H., D. Heaton, & Alexander, C. (1995). A unified theory of leadership: Experiences of higher states of consciousness in world-class leaders. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 16(7), 44-60.
17
Jacob, B. A. (2007). The challenges of staffing urban schools with teachers. The Future of Children, 17(1), 129-153.
18
Kaur, M. (2013). Spiritual intelligence of secondary school teachers in relation to their job satisfaction. International Journal of Educational Research and Technology, 4(3), 104-109.
19
King, D. B. (2008). Rethinking claims of spiritual intelligence: A definition, model, & measure (Unpublished master’s thesis). Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada.
20
Koenig, H. G., McCullough, M., & Larson, D. B. (2000). The handbook of religion and health. New York: Oxford University Press.
21
Lowman, J. (1996). Characteristics of exemplary teachers. New Direction for Teaching and Learning, 65, 33-40.
22
Mayer, J. D. (2000). Spiritual intelligence or spiritual consciousness? The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 10, 47-56.
23
Mishra1, P., & Vashist, K. (2014). A review study of spiritual intelligence, stress and well-being of adolescents in 21st century. International Journal of Research in Applied Natural and Social Sciences, 2(4), 11-24.
24
Moafian, F., & Pishghadam, R. (2009). Construct validation of a questionnaire on characteristics of Successful Iranian EFL teachers. Pazhuhesh-e Zabanhaye Khareji, 54,127-142.
25
Nasseri I. (2008). Study of concept and components of spiritual intelligence and making a tool to measure it among the students of Allameh Tabatabai University (Unpublished master’s thesis). Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran, Iran.
26
Noble, K.D. (2000). Spiritual intelligence: A new frame of mind. Advanced Development, 9, 1-29.
27
Noble, K. D. (2001). Riding the windhorse: Spiritual intelligence and the growth of the self. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
28
Palmberg, R. (2008). Multiple intelligence revisited. Finland: Palmsoft Publications.
29
Palmer, P. (1999). The grace of great things: Reclaiming the sacred in knowing, teaching, and learning. In S. Glazer (Ed.), The heart of learning: Spirituality in education (pp. 15-32). New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam.
30
Penrose, A., Perr, C., & Ball, I. (2007). Emotional intelligence and teacher self-efficacy: The contribution of teacher status and length of experience. Issues in Educational Research, 17(1), 107-126.
31
Pishghadam, R., & Moafian, F. (2008). The role of Iranian EFL teachers' multiple intelligences in their success in language teaching at high schools. Pazhuhesh-e- Zabanhaye Khareji, 42, 5-19.
32
Rezaeyan, M., & Nikoopour, J. (2013). The relationship between reflectivity of foreign language teachers with Iranian students’ achievement. Journal of Language Sciences & Linguistics, 1(1), 9-20.
33
Ruiz, R. (2005). Spiritual dimension in educational leadership. Dissertation Abstract International, 66(2), 518.
34
Ryans, D. G. (1967). Teacher behaviour can be evaluated. In M. Madan, & E. H. Ronald (Eds.), Teaching effectiveness: Its meaning, assessment, and improvement (pp. 43-66). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.
35
Saldaña, J. (2012): The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: Sage Publications.
36
Salicru, S. (2010). The business case for spiritual intelligence (SQ). Melbourne: Business and Performance Psychologist.
37
Sanders, W. L. (2000). Value-added assessment from student achievement data: Opportunities and hurdles. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14(4), 329-339.
38
Shabani, M. B. (2014). An investigation into the role of Iranian EFL teachers’ critical pedagogical views in their educational success. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(1), 144-153.
39
Snow D. B. (2001). English teaching as Christian mission. An applied theology. Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press.
40
Suwandee, A. (1995). Students’ perceptions of university instructors’ effective teaching characteristic. SLLT Journal, 5, 6-22.
41
Vaughan, F. (2002). What is spiritual intelligence? Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 42(2), 16-33.
42
Wigglesworth, C. (2004). Spiritual intelligence & why it matters. New York: Conscious Pursuits, Inc.
43
Yahyazadeh-Jeloudar, S., & Lotfi-Goodarzi, F. (2012). What is the relationship between spiritual intelligence and job satisfaction among MA and BA teachers? International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(8), 299-303.
44
Zohar, D., & Marshall, I. (2000). SQ: Connecting with our spiritual intelligence. New York: Bloomsbury.
45