ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Pragmatic Criteria in the Holistic and Analytic Rating of the Disagreement Speech Act of Iranian EFL Learners by Non-native English Speaking Teachers
Conveying a strong message within a language stems from not only a linguistically appropriate utterance but also a pragmatically appropriate discourse. Broadly considering various facets of pragmatics, pragmatic assessment has not been potentially brought into perspective. To address this discourse gap, this study, guided by the principles of mixed-method design, pursued three purposes: to inspect the matches and mismatches, to explore rating variations, and to assess the rater consistency between the holistic and analytic rating methods of disagreement speech acts in L2 by non-native English teachers. As a result, 12 different pragmatic situations for disagreement DCTs accompanied by EFL learners' responses to each situation were rated by 50 non-native English teachers. Initially, they were asked to rate it holistically, incorporating both ratings and providing comments. The content analysis of raters' comments indicated sixteen disagreement criteria. The descriptive statistics also revealed variations across different situations. Moreover, the teachers were asked to rate it analytically based on the assessment rubrics adopted from Ishihara and Cohen (2010). The findings of intra-class correlations implied that respondents were more consistent in analytic rating. Moreover, the results indicated that there was a convergence between the two rating methods suggesting that the raters adopted the same level of leniency and severity in rating. Overall, the results accentuated the significance of pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic aspects of language for EFL raters. Finally, the results of the present study place a premium on the importance of pragmatic assessment training as well as cultural awareness.
https://tesl.shirazu.ac.ir/article_5517_967157c366dc0d1cc8ab3db4969ee7d6.pdf
2019-05-01
1
36
10.22099/jtls.2020.34820.2738
Interlanguage pragmatic assessment
ILP rating criteria
Non-native English speaking raters
Speech act
Disagreement
Minoo
Alemi
alemi@sharif.ir
1
West Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University
LEAD_AUTHOR
Mohammad
Motamedi
mohammed.motamedi@gmail.com
2
Sharif University of Technology
AUTHOR
Alcon Soler, E, & Martinez Flor, A. (Eds.), (2008). Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching, and testing. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
1
Alemi, M. (2012). Patterns in interlanguage pragmatic rating: Effects of rater training, intercultural Proficiency, and self-assessment.Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Allameh Tabataba’i University,Tehran, Iran.
2
Alemi, M., Eslami, Z. R. & Rezanejad, A. (2014). Rating EFL learners’ interlanguage pragmatic competence by non-native English speaking teachers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 171-174.
3
Alemi, M., Khanlarzadeh, N. (2015). Rating EFL Learners' Production of Request and Complaint by Native and Nonnative English Speaking Teachers. (Unpublished master's thesis). The Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.
4
Alemi, M., & Tajeddin, Z. (2013). Pragmatic rating of L2 refusal: Criteria of native and non-native English teachers. TESL Canada Journal, 30, 63–81.
5
Alemi, M., & Tajeddin, Z. (2014). Pragmatic rating of L2 refusal: Criteria of native and non- native English teachers. TESL Canada Journal, 30, 63-81.
6
Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. New York: Oxford University Press.
8
Bachman, L. F., Lynch, B. K., & Mason, M. (1995). Investigating variability on tasks and rater judgment in a performance test of foreign language speaking. Language Testing, 12 (2), 238-257.
9
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10
Beebe, L. M., & Takahashi, T. (1989). Sociolinguistic variation in face-threatening speech acts. New York: Springer.
11
Chastisement and disagreement. In M. R. Eisenstein (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language variation (pp. 199-218). New York: Plenum Press.
12
Behnam, B., & Niroomand, M. (2011). An investigation of Iranian EFL learners’ use of politeness strategies and power relations in disagreement across different proficiency levels. English Language Teaching, 4(4), 204-220. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n4p204
13
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 196-213.
14
Brown, J. D. (2001). Pragmatics tests: Different purposes, Different tests. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16
Carr, N. T. (2000). A Comparison of the Effects of Analytic and Holistic Rating Scale Types in the Context of Composition Tests. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 207-229.
17
Cohen, A. D. (2008). Teaching and assessing L2 pragmatics: What can we expect from learners? Language Teaching, 41, 213-235.
18
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd Ed.). California: Sage.
19
Douglas, D., & Smith, J. (1997). Theoretical underpinnings of the Test of Spoken English Revision Project (TOEFL Monograph Series Report No. 9).Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service.
20
Eslami, A., Jafari, D. S., & Mehregan, M. (2012). How do you react to the breakdown after it happens? Do you complain about it?: A contrastive study on the complaint behavior in American English and Persian. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 34-40.
21
Eslami, Z.R., & Eslami-Rasekh, A. (2008). Enhancing the pragmatic competence of non-native English-speaking teacher candidates (NNESTCs) in an EFL context. In E. Alcón Soler & A. Martínez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing (pp. 178-197). Great Britain: Cromwell Press.
22
Fraser, B. (1981). On apologizing. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational Routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and pre-patterned speech (pp. 259–271). New York: Mouton.
23
Holmes, J. (1990). Apologies in New Zealand English. Language in Society, 19(2), 155–199.
24
Hudson, T., Detmer, E., & Brown, J. D. (1995). Developing prototypic measures of cross-cultural pragmatics. (Tech. Rep. No. 7). Honolulu: the University of Hawai'i at Manoa, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
25
Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge Cambridge University Press.
26
Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
27
Ishihara, N. (2013). Teacher-based assessment of L2 Japanese pragmatics: Classroom applications. In S. Ross & G. Kasper (Eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics (pp. 124–148). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
28
Jalilifar, A. (2009). Request strategies: a cross-sectional study of Iranian EFL learners and Australian native speakers. English Language Teaching, 2(1), 46-61.
29
Jianda, L. (2006b). Assessing EFL Learners' Interlanguage Pragmatic Knowledge: Implications for Testers and Learners. Reflections on English Language Teaching 5 (1), 1-22.
30
Kasper, G. (1997). The role of pragmatics in language teaching education. In K. Bardovi-Harlig and B. Hartford (Eds.) Beyond Methods: Components of Second Language Teacher Education (pp. 113-136). New York: McGraw-Hill.
31
Kasper, G. (1998). Interlanguage pragmatics. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Learning foreign and second languages: Perspectives in research and scholarship (pp. 183-208). New York: The Modern Language Association of America.
32
Klein, S. P., Stecher, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., McCaffrey, D., Ormseth, T., Bell, R. M., & Othman, A. R. (1998). Analytic versus holistic scoring of science performance tasks. Applied Measurement in Education, 11(2), 121-137.
33
Knoch, U. (2007) Diagnostic writing assessment. The development and validation of a writing scale (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Auckland, New Zealand. Retrieved from https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz
34
Kreutel, K. (2007). I'm Not Agree with You. ESL Learners' Expressions of Disagreement. TESL-EJ, 11(3), 1-35.
35
Liu, J. (2007). Developing a pragmatic test for Chinese EFL learners. Language Testing, 24(3), 391-415.
36
Liu, J., & Xie, L. (2014). Examining rater effects in a WDCT pragmatics test. Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 4(1), 50–65.
37
Locastro, V. (1986). Yes, I agree with you, but…: Agreement and disagreement in Japanese and American English. Paper presented at the JapanAssociation Language Teachers' International Conference on Language Teaching andLearning, Hamamatsu, Japan.
38
Locher, M. (2004). Power and Politeness in action: Disagreements in oral communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
39
Murphy, B., & Neu, J. (1996). My grade is too low: The speech act set of complaining. In S. M. Gass, & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language (pp. 191-216). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
40
Olshtain, S., & Cohen, A. D. (1983). Apology: A speech act set. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 18–35). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
41
Paramasivam, S. (2007). Managing disagreement while managing not to disagree: Polite disagreement in negotiation discourse. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 36(2), 91-116.
42
Pattrawut, C. (2014). A Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Study: Politeness Strategies and Realizations of the Strategies Used to Perform Student-Lecturer Multiple Disagreements by Native Speakers of Thai and English. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 4(1), 147-158.
43
Pearson, E. (1986). Agreement/disagreement: An example of the results of discourse analysis applied to the oral English classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 74(1), 47-61.
44
Roever, C. (2008). Rater, item, and candidate effects in discourse completion tests: A FACETS approach. In E. Alcon Soler & A. Martinez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 249–266). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
45
Rose, K. R. & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
46
Samar, R. G., Abaszadeh, A., & Pourmohamadi, F. (2013). Investigating Disagreement through a Context-Specific Approach: A Case of Iranian L2 Speaker. Applied Research on the English Language, 3(1), 87100.
47
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S.W. (2001). 27 Discourse and Intercultural Communication. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis, (pp. 538-547). Oxford: Blackwell.
48
Stalpers, J. (1995). The expression of disagreement. In K. Ehrlich & J. Wagner (Eds.), The discourse of business negotiation (pp. 275–289). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
49
Sydorenko, T., Maynard, C., & Guntly, E. (2015). Rater Behaviour When Judging Language Learners’ Pragmatic Appropriateness in Extended Discourse. TESL Canada Journal, 32(1), 19-41.
50
Taguchi, N. (2006). Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2 English. Pragmatics, 16(4), 513-533.
51
Taguchi, N. (2011). Rater variation in the assessment of speech acts. Pragmatics, 21(3), 453–471.
52
Tajeddin, Z., Alemi, M., & Pashmforoosh, R. (2011). Non-native teachers’ rating criteria for L2 speaking: Does a rater training program make a difference. Teaching English Language and Literature Society of Iran (TELLSI), 5(1), 125-153.
53
Tajeddin, Z., & Alemi, M. (2014). Criteria and bias in native English teachers’ assessment of L2 pragmatic appropriacy: Content and FACETS analyses. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 23(3), 425-434.
54
Tajeddin, Z., Alemi, M., & Razzaghi, S. (2014). Cross-cultural Perceptions of Impoliteness by Native English Speakers and EFL Learners: The Case of Apology Speech Act. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 43(4), 304-326.
55
Tajeddin, Z., & Alemi, M. (2015). Functional Communication in English. Tehran, Jungle Press.
56
Walkinshaw, I. (2007). Power and disagreement: Insights into Japanese learners of English. RELC Journal, 38(3), 278–301
57
Walters, F. S. (2007). A conversation-analytic hermeneutic rating protocol to assess L2 oral pragmatic competence. Language Testing, 24(2), 155-183. doi: 10.1177/0265532207076362
58
Weigle, S. C. (1994b). Effects of training on raters of ESL compositions. Language Testing, 11(2), 197–223.
59
Widdowson, H. G. (2007). Discourse analysis, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
60
Yamashita, S. (2008). Investigating interlanguage pragmatic ability: What are we testing? In E. AlcónSoler & A. Martínez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing (pp. 201–223). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
61
Youn, S. J. (2007). Rater bias in assessing the pragmatics of KFL learners using facets analysis. Second Language Studies, 26(1), 85–163.
62
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Challenges of Conducting Qualitative Inquiry in the Iranian ELT Higher Education Context: Ph.D. Students’ and Faculty Members’ Voices
This study aims at investigating the challenges of conducting qualitative research (QLR) from Iranian ELT (English Language Teaching) Ph.D. students’ and ELT faculty members’ viewpoints in the Iranian higher education context. The participants of the study consisted of 100 Ph.D. students majoring in ELT and 50 ELT faculty members. The study followed a mixed-methods approach with the exploratory design. The instruments utilized for collecting the data were a semi-structured interview and a researcher-made questionnaire. To analyze the qualitative data, a grounded theory approach was employed (Charmaz, 2006), and to analyze quantitative data, both descriptive and inferential statistics were utilized. The results of the study indicated that from the ELT Ph.D. students' perspectives, the Iranian educational system, professors, and lack of time, respectively, are factors affecting the possible weaknesses in undertaking QLR. While from the ELT faculty members' points of view, lack of time is the only reason for weaknesses in undertaking QLR. The results also demonstrated that from the viewpoint of ELT Ph.D. students, data interpretation, data analysis, data collection, data coding, and determining the validity of research, respectively, are the most challenging parts of conducting QLR.
Moreover, from the perspective of ELT faculty members, data analysis, data collection, data interpretation, and data coding, respectively, are the most challenging parts of undertaking QLR. The implications of the present study for the universities in the context under investigation are discussed. At the end of the paper, some suggestions for further research are presented.
https://tesl.shirazu.ac.ir/article_5474_89847f839ea91f7b3a0abd58a9335b65.pdf
2019-05-01
37
78
10.22099/jtls.2019.34516.2725
Qualitative Research
Ph.D. Students’ Perspectives
Faculty Members’ Perspectives
Qualitative Research Challenges
Iranian ELT Context
Hossein
Bakhshi
h.bakhshi53@gmail.com
1
Razi university
AUTHOR
Hiwa
Weisi
hiwaweisi@gmail.com
2
English Language and Literature Department, Faculty of Human Sciences, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran
LEAD_AUTHOR
Nouroddin
Yousofi
nyousofi@yahoo.com
3
Razi University
AUTHOR
Amini Farsani, M. (2017). Exploring three decades of ELT research in Iran: Conceptions and Practices (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.
1
Arani, A. M., Kakia, L., & Malek, M. J. (2018). Higher education research in Iran: Quantitative development and qualitative challenges. In J. Jung, H. Horta, & A. Yonezawa (Eds.), Researching higher education in Asia: History, development, and future (pp. 315-326). Singapore: Springer.
2
Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., Sorensen, C.K. & Walker, D. (2019). Introduction to research in education (10th Ed.), Wadsworth: London.
3
Atai, M. R., Karimi, M.N. & Asadnia, F. (2018). Conceptions of Research Publication among Iranian Doctoral Students of Applied Linguistics: Cherish the Wish to Publish or Rush to Perish. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 21(1), 29-65.
4
Barrett, J. R. (2007). The researcher as an instrument: Learning to conduct qualitative research through analyzing and interpreting a choral rehearsal. Music Education Research, 9(3), 417-433.
5
Booker, K. C. (2009). Shifting priorities: Reflections on teaching qualitative research methods. The Qualitative Report, 14(3), 389-394.
6
Brandao, A. M. (2009). “I’ve found more difficulties than I expected to”: Raising questions from field experience. Qualitative Sociology Review, 5(3), 93-99.
7
Champagne, A. B., Gunstone, R. F., & Klopfer, L. E. (1985). Instructional consequences of students’ knowledge about physical phenomena. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure, and conceptual change (pp. 61-90). New York: Academic Press.
8
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9
Cooper, R., Fleisher, A., & Cotton, F. A. (2012). Building Connections: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of Qualitative Research Students’ Learning Experiences. The Qualitative Report, 17(17), 1-16.
10
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A.Tashakkori & C.Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13
Croninger, R. G. & Valli, L. (2009). Mixing it up about methods. Educational researcher, 38(7), 541-545.
14
Dearnley, C. (2005). A reflection on the use of semi-structured interviews. Nurse Researcher, 13(1), 19-28.
15
Denzin, N. K. (1994). The art and politics of interpretation. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 500–515). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, (2nd ed., pp. 1-29). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
17
Elliot, R., Fischer, C. T., & Rennie, D. L. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(3), 215-229.
18
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255–274.
20
Hammersley, M. (2009). Against the ethicists: On the evils of ethical regulation. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(3) ·
21
Hanson, W. E., Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Petska, K.S. & Creswell, J. D. (2005). Mixed-Methods Research Design in Counseling Psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology 52:2, 224–235.
22
Hein, S. F. (2004). "I don't like ambiguity": An exploration of students' experiences during a qualitative methods course. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 50(1), 22-38.
23
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sinkovics, R.R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In: Sinkovics, R.R., Ghauri, P.N. (Eds.), Advances in International Marketing, 20, 277–320. Emerald, Bingley.
24
Hinton, P.R., Brownlow, C., McMurray, I. & Cozens, B. (2004). SPSS Explained. Hove: Routledge.
25
Hoshmand, L. T. (1989). Alternative research paradigms: A review and teaching proposal. The Counseling Psychologist, 17, 3-79.
26
Hoskins, M. L., & White, J. (2013). Relational inquiries and the research interview: Mentoring future researchers. Qualitative Inquiry, 19(3), 179-188.
27
Hunt, M. R., Mehta, A., & Chan, L. S. (2009). Learning to think qualitatively: Experiences of graduate students conducting qualitative health research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(2), 129-135.
28
Johnson, B., & Clarke, J. M. (2003). Collecting sensitive data: The impact on researchers. Qualitative Health Research, 13(3), 421-434.
29
Kelly, M. A., & Kaczynski, D. J. (2007). Misconceptions students bring to qualitative research. Qualitative Research Journal, 6(2), 31-44.
30
Khankeh, H., Ranjbar, M., Khorasani-Zavareh, D., Zargham-Boroujeni, A., Johansson, E. (2015). Challenges in conducting qualitative research in health: A conceptual paper. Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research, 20(6), 635–641.
31
Li, S., & Searle, C. (2007). Learning to do qualitative data analysis: An observational study of doctoral work. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 1442-1452.
32
Locke, L. T., Spirduso, W. W., & Siverman, S. J. (2000). Proposals that work. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
33
Meloy, J. M. (1994). Writing the qualitative dissertation: Understanding by doing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
34
Mirhosseini, S. A. (2017). Introduction: Qualitative research in language and literacy education. In S. A. Mirhosseini (Ed.), Reflections on qualitative research in language and literacy education (pp. 1–13). Switzerland: Springer.
35
Mitchell, T., Friesen, M., Friesen, D., & Rose, R. (2007). Leaning against the grain: Reflections on the challenges and revelations of studying qualitative research methods in an undergraduate psychology course. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 4(3), 227-240.
36
Prior, P. (1995). Redefining the task: An ethnographic examination of writing and response in graduate seminars. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language (pp. 47–82). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
37
Raddon, M.-B., Raby, R., & Sharpe, E. (2009). The challenges of teaching qualitative coding: Can a learning object help? International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(3), 336-350.
38
Rahimi, M., Yousofi, N. & Moradkhani, S. (2019). How research is conceived and practiced in higher education? Assumptions of Masters/doctoral students and instructors, Research Papers in Education, 34, 1-26.
39
Reisetter, M., Yexley, M., Bonds, D., Nikels, H., & McHenry, W. (2003). Shifting paradigms and mapping the process: Graduate students respond to qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8(3), 462-480
40
Riazi, A. (1997). Acquiring disciplinary literacy: A social-cognitive analysis of text production and learning among Iranian graduate students of education. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 105–137.
41
Richards, J. C. (2011). "Every word is true:" Stories of our experiences in a qualitative research course. The Qualitative Report, 16(3), 782-819.
42
Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
43
Rimando, M., Brace, A. M., Namageyo-Funa, A., Parr, T. L., Sealy, D., Davis, T. L., Martinez, L. M., & Christiana, R. W. (2015). Data Collection Challenges and Recommendations for Early Career Researchers. The Qualitative Report, 20(12), 2025-2036.
44
Roshan, B. & Deeptee, P. (2009). Justifications for qualitative research in organizations: a step forward. The Journal of Online Education, 1, 1-7.
45
Sallee, M. W., & Flood, J. T. (2012). Using qualitative research to bridge research, policy, and practice. Theory into Practice, 51(2), 137-144.
46
Schell, K., Ferguson, A., Hamoline, R., Shea, J., & Thomas-Maclean, R. (2009). Photovoice as a teaching tool: Learning by doing with visual methods. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(3), 340-352
47
Shakouri, N. (2014). Qualitative Research: Incredulity toward Metanarrativeness, Journal of Education and Human Development, 3(2), 671-680.
48
Smith, J., & Hodkinson, P. (2009). Challenging neorealism: A response to Hammersley. Qualitative Inquiry, 15(1), 30-39.
49
Triandis, H. C., Adamopoulos, J., & Brinberg, D. (1984).Perspectives and issues in the study of attitudes. In R. L. Jones (Ed.), Attitudes and attitude change in special education: Theory and practice. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
50
Van Manen, M. (2006). Writing Qualitatively or the Demands of Writing. Qualitative Health Research. 16(5), 713-722.
51
Wang, F. (2013). Challenges of learning to write qualitative research: students’ voices. International journal of qualitative methods, 12: 637-651.
52
Watt, D. (2007). On Becoming a Qualitative Researcher: The Value of Reflexivity. The Qualitative Report, 12(1), 82-101.
53
Zokaei, M.S. (2008). The challenges of qualitative research in Iranian social sciences. Resaneh Journal, 73(1), 12-25.
54
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
An Investigation into the Effective Factors in Comprehending English Garden-Path Sentences by EFL Learners
The present study aimed at highlighting the possible effects of age, proficiency level, and the structural composition of Garden-Path (GP) sentences on EFL learners' comprehension. 80 Iranian EFL learners were recruited from the initial pool of 114 participants based on the results of an English proficiency test; 40 advanced, and 40 intermediate learners were selected. Moreover, two age-groups of teenagers and adults were specified based on the study's necessities. In order to determine the accuracy and also the time needed for comprehension of GP sentences, a software application was designed, which provided learners with a set of GP and non-GP sentences and depicted the elapsed time for each participant to show the correct understanding of the presented sentences on the screen. As statistical analyses revealed, the participants, apart from age and proficiency levels, had less difficulty in comprehending non-GP items. It was also concluded that different types of GP sentences imposed different degrees of difficulty for the participants to comprehend. Furthermore, "proficiency level," unlike "age," was found to be a determining factor for the comprehension of GP sentences for Iranian EFL learners.
https://tesl.shirazu.ac.ir/article_5523_5b95ee54a87ab62cf0e85a6677f4e86f.pdf
2019-05-01
79
118
10.22099/jtls.2020.34657.2731
Age
comprehension
EFL learners
Garden-path sentences and their structures
proficiency level
Ghaffar
Barahuyee
ghaffar.barahuee@gmail.com
1
department of foreign languages and linguistics, Shiraz University, Iran
AUTHOR
Mohammad Saber
Khaghaninejad
saber.khaghani@yahoo.com
2
Department of foreign languages and linguistics, Shiraz University, Iran
LEAD_AUTHOR
Amirsaeid
Moloodi
amirsaeid.moloodi@gmail.com
3
Department of foreign languages and linguistics, Shiraz University, Iran
AUTHOR
Abbasian, G. R. & Moeenian, S. (2015). Validation and Investigation of Sentence Parsing Strategies: a Study of EFL Learners Psych and Language Processing. Journal of social science research, 6(3), 1099-1122.
1
Akmajian, A., Demeres, R., Farmer, A., & Harnish, R. (2001). Linguistics: An introduction to language and communication (5th Ed.). Cambridge, CA: MIT Press.
2
Aldama, F. L. (2010). Toward a cognitive theory of narrative acts. University of Texas Press.
3
Beare, A. M. (2017). Cognitive aging. Gerontology perspectives, 3, 89-109.
4
Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. Cognition and the development of language, 279(362), 1-16.
5
Carreiras, M., Clifton, C. & Meseguer, E. (2002). Overt reanalysis strategies and eye movements during the reading of mild garden path sentences. Memory & Cognition, 30(4), 551-561.
6
Choi, Y. & Trueswell, J. C. (2010). Referential and syntactic processes: what develops? The Processing and Acquisition of Reference, 65-108.
7
Christianson, K., Williams, C. C., Zacks, R. T., & Ferreira, F. (2005). Younger and older adults' ‘good-enough’ interpretations of garden-path sentences. Discourse processes, 42(2), 205-238.
8
Crain, S., & Coker, P. (1979). A Semantic Constraint on Parsing. Linguistic Society of America: University of California Press.
9
Engelhardt, P. E. (2014). Children’s and adolescents’ processing of temporary syntactic ambiguity: An eye movement study. Child Development Research, 6, 56-78.
10
Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance 12: The psychology of reading (p. 559–586). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
11
Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6(4), 291-325.
12
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1987). Resolution of syntactic category ambiguities: Eye movements in parsing ambiguous sentences. Journal of memory and language, 26(5), 505-526.
13
Gerth, S., & Graben, P. (2009). Unifying syntactic theory and sentence processing difficulty through a connectionist minimalist parser. Cognitive neurodynamics, 3(4), 297-316.
14
Harley, B. (2008). Age in second language acquisition. College-Hill publications.
15
Hickok, G. (1993). Parallel parsing: Evidence from reactivation in garden-path sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22(2), 239-250.
16
Jovanovic J. C. (2013). Taking your own path: Individual differences in executive function and language processing skills in child learners. Journal of experimental child psychology, 141, 187-209.
17
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87(4), 329.
18
Khosravizadeh, P., & Pashmforoosh, R. (2012). How are parts of speech learned? A lexical-driven or a structure-driven model. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 32, 275-282.
19
Khosravizadeh, P., Latifi, A., & Ghaziani, G., Ahmadi, A. (2015). Your gender may lead you down the garden path. Journal of Language and Literature, 6(1), 20-45.
20
Marcus, M. P. (1980). Theory of syntactic recognition for natural languages. MIT press.
21
Marzban, A. & Sepassi, F. (2005). On the effects of economization and disambiguation in the production of EFL learners. Asian EFL Journal, 25, 45-76.
22
Osterhout, L., Holcomb, P. J., & Swinney, D. A., Fodor, J. D. (1994). Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. Journal of experimental psychology, 20(4), 786-798.
23
Parpanchi, Z. S. (2014). The Comprehension of Garden-Path Structures by Iranian EFL Learners. Iranian EFL Journal, 34, 54-78.
24
Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. (2016). Second language processing and revision of garden-path sentences: a visual word study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(3), 636-643.
25
Rayner, K., Kambe, G., & Duffy, S. A. (2000). The effect of clause wrap-up on eye movements during reading. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 53(4), 1061-1080.
26
Reisberg, J. (2010). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition, 2(1), 15-47.
27
Roberts, L. (2012). Individual differences in second language sentence processing. Language Learning, 62(2), 172-188.
28
Shooshtari, Z. G. & Shahri, S. (2014). Down the garden path: an effective kind of EFL grammar instruction. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1777-1784.
29
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic approaches to bilingualism, 1(1), 1-33.
30
Tabor, W., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1999). Dynamical models of sentence processing. Cognitive Science, 23(4), 491-515.
31
Townsend, D. J., & Bever, T. G. (2001). Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. MIT Press.
32
Traxler, M. J. (2014). Trends in syntactic parsing: Anticipation, Bayesian estimation, and good-enough parsing. Trends in cognitive sciences, 18(11), 605-611.
33
Traxler, M. J., & Tooley, K. M. (2007). Lexical mediation and context effects in sentence processing. Brain Research, 1146, 59-74.
34
Van Gompel, R. P., Pickering, M. J. (2006). The activation of inappropriate analyses in garden-path sentences: Evidence from structural priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(3), 335-362.
35
Van Gompel, R. P., Pickering, M. J., Pearson, J., & Liversedge, S. P. (2005). Evidence against the competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(2), 284-307.
36
Yoo, H., & Dickey, M. W. (2011). Aging Effects and Working Memory in Garden-Path Recovery. Clinical Archives of Communication Disorders, 2(2), 91-102.
37
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Applied Linguistics Faculty Members’ Perceptions of (Im)politeness and (In)appropriateness of L2 Learners’ E-Mail Requests
A significant amount of contribution to pragmatics research comes from cross-cultural and developmental pragmatic studies with L2 learners in focus; however, despite broad interest in such analyses, the role of lecturers has been relatively ignored. As the lectures’ perceptions/opinions of L2 learners’ e-mail requests are important, L2 learners must become familiar with their lecturers’ perceptions of (in)appropriateness and (im)politeness of e-mail requests. Therefore, through examining Iranian applied linguistics lecturers’ perceptions of (in)appropriateness and (im)politeness of L2 learners’ e-mail requests, this study was an attempt to provide insights into lecturers’ ideal norms of (in)appropriateness and (im)politeness of L2 learners’ e-mail requests. To this aim, a purposive sample of 38 university lectures participated in this study. A questionnaire was utilized to collect the data. The lecturers’ comments in the questionnaire served as the basis to identify the major themes (e.g., directness, language use accuracy, etc.). An in-depth qualitative analysis of the lecturers’ comments revealed that the perceptions of the lecturers were greatly influenced by the use of appropriate openings and closings of the e-mails. Also, language use accuracy and appropriateness were among the most recurring reasons mentioned by the lecturers to regard the e-mails as (in)appropriate and (im)polite. Overall, the results stress the importance of pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic aspects of language for applied linguistics lecturers. Findings have implications for L2 learners, teachers, and researchers.
https://tesl.shirazu.ac.ir/article_5473_1c7e059a6150ba693184b5b90d5ae7cf.pdf
2019-05-01
119
155
10.22099/jtls.2019.34578.2729
E-mail
(Im)politeness
(In)appropriateness
Politeness
Request
Mahmood
Hashemian
hashemian-m@sku.ac.ir
1
Shahrekord University
LEAD_AUTHOR
Maryam
Farhang-Ju
farhang.mariam@gmail.com
2
Shahrekord University
AUTHOR
Abdi, R., Tavangar Rizi, M., & Tavakoli, M. (2010). The cooperative principle in discourse communities and genres: A framework for the use of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1669-1679.
1
Alemi, M., Eslami, Z. R. & Rezanejad, A. (2015). Iranian nonnative English-speaking teachers’ rating criteria regarding the speech act of compliment: An investigation of teachers’ variables. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 33(3), 21-49.
2
Biesenbach-Lucas, S. (2005). Communication topics and strategies in e-mail consultation: Com­parison between American and international university students. Language Learning & Technology, 9(2), 24-46.
3
Biesenbach-Lucas, S. (2007). Student writing e-mails to faculty: An examination of e-politeness among native and nonnative speakers of English. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2), 59-81.
4
Bloch, J. (2002). Student/teacher interaction via e-mail: The social context of Internet discourse. Online Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 117-134.
5
Bolkan, S., & Holmgren, J. L. (2012). "You are such a great teacher, and I hate to bother you but . . .'': Instructors' evaluations of students and their use of e-mail messages with varying politeness strategies. Communication Education, 61(3), 253-270.
6
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). The CCSARP coding manual. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 273-294). Norwood: Ablex.
7
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8
Bunz, U., & Campbell, S. W. (2004). Politeness accommodation in electronic mail. Communication Research Reports, 21, 11-25.
9
Byron, K., & Baldridge, D. C. (2007). E-mail recipients’ impressions of senders’ likability: The interactive effect of nonverbal cues and recipients’ personality. Journal of Business Communication, 44(2), 137-160.
10
Chen, C. F. E. (2001). Making e-mail requests to professors: Taiwanese vs. American students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, St. Louis, United States.
11
Coulmas, F. (2005). Sociolinguistics: The study of speakers’ choices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12
Crowther, G., & Goldhaber, G. (2001). Face-to-face or e-mail: The medium makes a difference. Communication World, 18, 25-26.
13
Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14
Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., & Kadar, D. Z. (2017). The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness. Macmillan, Basingstoke: Palgrave.
15
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2011). Please answer me as soon as possible: Pragmatic failure in nonnative speakers’ e-mail requests to faculty. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(13), 3193-3215.
16
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2016). Variation in evaluations of the (im)politeness of e-mails from L2 learners and perceptions of the personality of their senders. Journal of Pragmatics, 106, 1-19.
17
Eslami, Z. R. (2013). Online communication and students’ pragmatic choices in English. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 9, 71-92.
18
Eslami, Z. R. & Eslami-Rasekh, A. (2008). Enhancing the pragmatic competence of nonnative English-speaking teacher candidates in an EFL context. Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing, 30(2), 178-197.
19
Eslami, Z., R., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Fatahi, A. (2004). The effect of explicit metapragmatic instruction on the speech act awareness of advanced EFL students. TESL-EJ, 8(20), 1-12.
20
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2012). E-mail requests to faculty: E-politeness and internal modification. In M. Economidou-Kogetsidis & H. Woodfield (Eds.), Interlanguage request modifiers (pp. 87-118). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
21
Fraser, B. (1975). Hedged performatives. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 44-68). New York: Academic Press.
22
Fraser, B. (2010). Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging. In G. Kaltenböck, W. Mihatsch, & S. Schneider (Eds.), New approaches to hedging (pp. 15-34). London: Emerald.
23
Hashemian, M. (2012). Cross-cultural differences and pragmatic transfer in English and Persian refusals. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 31(3), 23-46.
24
Hashemian, M., & Farhang-Ju, M. (2017). A pragmatic study of speech acts by Iranian and Spanish English learners. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 8, 14-20.
25
Haugh, M., & Schneider, K. P. (2012). Im/politeness across English. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1017-1022.
26
Hendriks, B. (2010). An experimental study of native speaker perceptions of nonnative request modification in e-mails in English. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(2), 221-255.
27
Jalilifar, A. (2009). Request strategies: Cross-sectional study of Iranian EFL learners and Australian native speakers. ELT Journal, 2(1), 46-61.
28
Jessmer, S., & Anderson, D. (2001). The effect of politeness and grammar on user perceptions of electronic mail. North American Journal of Psychology, 3, 331-346.
29
Izadi, A., & Zilaie, F. (2012). Politeness strategies in e-mail exchanges in Persian. Journal of Comparative Literature and Culture, 2(1), 86-90.
30
Kadar, D. Z., & Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman.
32
Locher, M. (2004). Power and politeness in action: Disagreements in oral communication. Berlin: Mouton.
33
McAndrew, F., & De Jonge, C. (2011). Electronic person perception: What do we infer about people from the style of their e-mail messages? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(4), 403-407.
34
Mills, S. (2003). Gender and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35
Najeeb, Z. M., Maros, M., & Nor, N. F. M. (2012). Politeness in e-mails of Arab students in Malaysia. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, 12(1), 125-145.
36
Hayati, M., Shokouhi, H., & Hadadi, F. (2012). A genre analysis of reprint request e-mails written by EFL and physics professionals. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 30(3), 21-42
37
Mohammadi, R. (2016). A cross-cultural pragmatic study of salutation strategies and small talks in students’ requestive e-mails to faculty: Iranian EFL and American contexts. Unpublished master’s thesis, Shahrekord University, Shahrekord, Iran.
38
Parviz, M. (2012). Politeness accommodation in e-mail requests among Iranian postgraduate students of EFL. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 1(7), 127-136.
39
Rue, Y. J. & Zhang, G. Q. (2008). Request strategies. A comparative study in MandarinChinese and Korean. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
40
Tajeddin, Z., & Alemi, M. (2012). Pragmatic rater training: Does it affect rating accuracy and consistency? Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 4(1), 66-83.
41
Savic, M. (2018). Lecturer perceptions of im/politeness and in/appropriateness in student e-mail requests: A Norwegian perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 124, 52-72.
42
Stephens, K., Houser, M., & Cowan, R. (2009). R U able to meat me: The impact of students’ overly casual e-mail messages to instructors. Communication Education, 58(3), 303-326.
43
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. New York: Cambridge University Press.
44
Trager, G. L. (1958). Paralanguage: A first approximation. Studies in Linguistics, 13, 1-12.
45
Waldvogal, J. (2007). Greetings and closings in workplace e-mail. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 456-477.
46
Zarei, G., & Mohammadi, M. (2012). E-politeness in Iranian English electronic requests to the faculty. Research in Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 3-24.
47
Zou, X., & Leung, A. K. (2015). Enriching cultural psychology with research insights on norms and intersubjective representations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46, 1238-1244.
48
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Developing EFL Learners' Oral Proficiency through Animation-based Instruction of English Formulaic Sequences
The current pretest-posttest quasi-experimental study attempts, firstly, to probe the effects of teaching formulaic sequences (FSs) on the second or foreign language (L2) learners' oral proficiency improvement and secondly, to examine whether teaching FSs through different resources (i.e. animation vs. text-based readings) have any differentially influential effects in augmenting L2 learners' oral proficiency or not. To this end, a cohort of 60 young L2 learners of an immersion program school in the southwest of Iran was randomly divided into three groups, two experimental and one control. During 24 instructional sessions, one experimental group received the FSs instruction through animation, and the second experimental group noticed FSs through text-based readings. The control group was taught using the school mainstream L2 textbooks without any focus on FSs. The results indicated that both FSs groups outperformed the control group. Moreover, animation-based instruction significantly increased the efficacy of FSs instruction, pointing to the issue that educational technology is a better strategy for teaching FSs rather than the traditional way of reading.
https://tesl.shirazu.ac.ir/article_5512_ac129ff8e8350d0029528d33c6360ac1.pdf
2019-05-01
157
190
10.22099/jtls.2019.33176.2678
Animation-based instruction
text-based readings
formulaic sequences
oral proficiency
Maryam
Rajaei Najafabadi
maryamraj@yahoo.com
1
Chabahar Maritime University
LEAD_AUTHOR
Yousef
Bakhshizadeh
yousefbakhshizadeh@cmu.ac.ir
2
Chabahar Maritime University
AUTHOR
Azizullah
Mirzaei
mirzaei-a@lit.sku.ac.ir
3
Shahrekord University
AUTHOR
AlHassan, L., & Wood, D. (2015). The effectiveness of focused instruction of formulaic sequences in augmenting L2 learners’ academic writing skills: A quantitative research study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 17, 51– 62.
1
Appel, R., & Wood, D. (2016). Recurrent word combinations in EAP test-taker writing: Differences between high-and-low-proficiency levels. Language Assessment Quarterly, 13(1), 55–71.
2
Alsagoff, L. (2018). Describing Proficiency. In John I. Liontas (Ed.), (Project Editor: Margo DelliCarpini; Volume Editor: Shahid Abrar-ul-Hassan), The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching (Vol. 1, pp. 87-99). Hoboken, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
3
Bakhshizadeh, Y., Rahimi Domakani, M., & Rajaei, M. (2015). The effect of explicit instruction of formulaic sequences on oral proficiency improvement of young Iranian EFL students. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 3(10), 44–52.
4
Bisson, M.-J., van Heuven, W. J. B., Conklin, K., & Tunney, R. J. (2014). The Role of Repeated Exposure to Multimodal Input in Incidental Acquisition of Foreign Language Vocabulary. Language Learning, 64(4), 855–877.
5
Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, M. (2006). Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting an approach to the test. Language Teaching Research 10(3), 245–261.
6
Chan, T. P., & Liou, H. C. (2005). Effects of web-based concordancing instruction on EFL students’ learning of verb-noun collocations. Computer-assisted Language Learning, 18(3), 231–250.
7
Doughty, C & Williams, J (1998). Focus on form in classroom SLA. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
8
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9
Ellis, N. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(1), 91–126.
10
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
11
Hall, I. & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students’ perceptions of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21, 102–117.
12
Huemer, S., Landerl, K., Aron, M., & Lyytinen, H. (2008). Training reading fluency among poor readers of German: Many ways to the goal. Annals of Dyslexia, 58, 115–137.
13
Hunston, S., & Francis, G. (2000.) Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
14
Jones, M., & Haywood, S. (2004). Facilitating the acquisition of formulaic sequences. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences (pp. 269–292). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
15
Karemaker, A., Pitchford, N. J. & O’Malley, C. (2010). Enhanced recognition of written words and enjoyment of reading in struggling beginner readers through whole-word multimedia software. Computers and Education, 54, 199–208.
16
Keller, R. (1979). Gambits: Conversational strategy signals. Journal of Pragmatics, 3, 219-237.
17
Kuiper, K. (2009). Formulaic genres. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
18
Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach: The state of ELT and a way forward. Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications.
19
Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the lexical approach: Putting theory into practice. Hove, England: Language Teaching Publication.
20
Lewis, M. (2000). Learning in the lexical approach. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Teaching collocation: further development in the lexical approach (155–184). Hove, England: Language Teaching Publication.
21
Lynch, T. (2001). Seeing what they mean: Transcribing as a route to noticing. ELT Journal, 55(2), 124–132.
22
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classroom, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19 (1), 37–66.
23
McCarthy, M. (1990). Vocabulary. Oxford University Press.
24
Mirzaei, A., Hashemian, M., Azizi Farsani, M. (2016). Lexis-Based Instruction and IELTS Candidates’ Development of L2 Speaking Ability: Use of Formulaicity in Monologic Versus Dialogic Task. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 35(2), 69-98. doi: 10.22099/jtls.2016.3816
25
Moudraia, O. (2001). Lexical approach to second language teaching. Eric Digest EDO-FL-01-02. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. Retrieved from http:// www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/0102lexical.html
26
Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
27
O'Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2007). From corpus to classroom: Language use and language teaching. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
28
Omaggio, A. C. (1986). Methodology in transition: The new focus on proficiency — the Modern Language Journal, 67(4), 330–341.
29
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
30
Palmér, A. (2010). Muntligt i klassrummet- om tal, samtal och bedömning. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.
31
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and native-like fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–226). London, England: Routledge.
32
Perera, N.S. (2001). The role of prefabricated language in young children’s second language acquisition. Bilingual Research Journal, 25(3), 327–356.
33
Rieber, L. P. (1989). A Review of Animation research in Computer-based Instruction. In Proceedings of Selected Research Papers presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Dallas, Texas. (ERIC Document Service No. ED 308 832).
34
Rieber, L. P. (1990). Effects of animated visuals on incidental learning and motivation. Proceedings of Selected Paper Presentations at the Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (pp. 479-489).
35
Saine, N. L., Lerkkanen, M.-K., Ahonen, T., Tolvanen, A., & Lyytinen, H. (2011). Computer-assisted remedial reading intervention for school beginners at risk for reading disability. Child Development, 82, 1013–1028.
36
Saine, N. L., Lerkkanen, M.-K., Ahonen, T., Tolvanen, A., & Lyytinen, H. (2013). Long-term intervention effects of spelling development for children with compromised preliteracy skills. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 29, 333–357.
37
Schmitt, N. (2004). (Ed.). Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing, and use. Amsterdam: the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
38
Schmidt, R. (1990). The Role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.
39
Schmidt, R. (2010). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. In W. M. Chan, S. Chi, K. N. Cin, J. Istanto, M. Nagami, J. W. Sew, T. Suthiwan, & I. Walker, Proceedings of CLaSIC 2010, Singapore, December 2-4 (pp. 721–737). Singapore: the National University of Singapore, Centre for Language Studies.
40
Schmidt, R., Boraie, D., & Kassabgy, O. (1996). Foreign language motivation: Internal structure and external connections. In R. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning motivation: Pathways to the new century (pp. 9–70). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
41
Serrano, R., Stengers, H., & Housen, A. (2015). Acquisition of formulaic sequences in intensive and regular EFL programs. Language Teaching Research, 1–18.
42
Singh, S. (2015). Self-assessment of oral proficiency among ESL learners. ELT Voices - India’ International Journal for Teachers of English, 5(1), 1–7.
43
Sundberg, P. (1998). Animation in CALL: Learning to think in the fourth dimension. Paper Presented at CALICO '98 Symposium, San Diego, California. The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
44
Taguchi, N. (2008). Building language blocks in L2 Japanese: Chunk learning and the development of complexity and fluency in spoken production. Foreign Language Annals, 41(1), 130–154.
45
Tomasello, M. (2000). The item-based nature of children’s early syntactic development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), 156–163.
46
Vihman, M. M. (1982). Formulas in first and second language acquisition, In L. K. Obler & L. Menn (Eds.), Exceptional language and Linguistics (pp. 261–284, New York, NY: Academic Press.
47
Walker-Tileston, D., 2004. What every teacher should know about media and technology Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
48
Wong-Fillmore, L. (1976). The second time around: Cognitive and social strategies in second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
49
Wood, D. (2007). Measuring the link between formulaic sequences and speech fluency: Implications for the language classroom. Contact, 33 (2), 97 –117.
50
Wood, D. (2010). Formulaic language and second language speech fluency: background, evidence, and applications. London, England: Continuum.
51
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
52
Wray, A., & Fitzpatrick, T. (2008). Why can’t you just leave it alone? Deviations from memorized language as. Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching, 123.
53
Yoffe, L. (1997). An overview of ACTFL proficiency interviews: A test of speaking ability. Shiken: JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 1(2), 2-13.
54
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Features of Language Assessment Literacy in Iranian English Language Teachers' Perceptions and Practices
Language assessment literacy (LAL), mainly defined as knowledge and skills of language assessment, in the last two decades, has started to receive the attention it deserves. As one of the significant findings, based on a plethora of research, many second language (L2) teachers have been indicated to be professionally incompetent in terms of LAL. To investigate the status of LAL among Iranian English teachers, the present study was conducted. Three hundred and nine English teachers participated in answering a questionnaire. Besides, 24 teachers were interviewed based on a semi-structured interview. Both qualitative and quantitative data analysis and interpretation techniques were employed to find answers to the research questions which sought to investigate the features of language assessment literacy in language teachers' perceptions. The findings indicated that, overall, LAL is of concern to Iranian L2 (English) teachers. However, they also agree that their current level of both knowledge and practice in terms of LAL is not ideal. Furthermore, it was found that, as the teachers perceive it, assessment promotes learning and teaching; the nature of teacher-learner relationships affects evaluation; and, testing and assessment are seen as challenging notions due to their mathematical concepts and statistics. The findings will contribute to a more profound perception of LAL and better planning and executing the programs for L2 teachers regarding the issue.
https://tesl.shirazu.ac.ir/article_5518_4720200a4e7fed55dc601c55cbff92ae.pdf
2019-05-01
191
223
10.22099/jtls.2020.34843.2739
Assessment literacy
Language assessment literacy
EFL teachers
Mohammad
Shah Ahmadi
m.r.shahahmadi@gmail.com
1
Language Department, Sheikh Bahaee University, Isfahan, Iran.
LEAD_AUTHOR
Saeed
Ketabi
ketabi@fgn.ui.ac.ir
2
Department of English, Faculty of Foreign Languages, University of Isfahan.
AUTHOR
Ahmed, A., & Pollitt, A., & Rose, L. (1999). Assessing Thinking and Understanding: Can Oral Assessment Provide a Clearer Perspective? Retrieved March 21, 2019, from https://www.researchgate.net /publication /237117218
1
Armes, J. W., & Popal, S. (2016). Quantifying the Qualitative: Increasing the Reliability of Subjective Language Assessments (Doctoral dissertation, University of San Francisco).
2
Ayesha, A. Alastair Pollitt, Leslie Rose. (1999). Assessing Thinking and Understanding: Can Oral Assessment Provide a Clearer Perspective? Paper presented at 8th International Conference on Thinking, Edmonton Canada, July 1999.
3
Bachman, L. F. (2000). Modern language testing at the turn of the century: assuring that what we count counts — Language Testing, 17(1), 1–42.
4
Bass, H. (1993). Measuring what counts: A conceptual guide for mathematics assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
5
Bayat, K., & Rezaei, A. (2015). Importance of Teachers’ Assessment Literacy. International Journal of English Language Education, 3(1), 139.
6
Berry, R. (2008). Assessment for Learning (Hong Kong teacher education series). Hong Kong University Press, HKU.
7
Boyles, P. (2005). Assessment literacy. In M. Rosenbusch (Ed.), National assessment summit papers, 11–15. Ames, IA: Iowa State University.
8
Brindley, G. (2001). Language assessment and professional development. In E. Elder
9
Brown, J. D., & Bailey, K. M. (2008). Language testing courses: What are they in 2007? Language Testing, 25(3), 349–383.
10
Brown, E., Hill, K., Iwashita, N., Lumley, T., McNamara, T., & O’Loughlin, K. (2004). Experimenting with uncertainty: language testing essays in honor of Alan Davies. Studies in Language Testing, 11, 126-136. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11
Coombe, C., Al-Hamly, M., & Troudi, S. (2012). Foreign and second language teacher assessment literacy: Issues, challenges, andrecommendations. In Coombe et al., 2012, 147-155. Dera.ioe.ac.uk. (2018). AssessmentforLearning.pdf. Retrieved from: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/7800/1/
12
Davies, A. (2008). Textbook trends in teaching language testing. Language Testing, 25(3), 327-347.
13
Djoub, Zineb. (2017). Teachers Attitudes Towards Technology Integration: Breakthroughs in Research and Practice. 10.4018/978-1-5225-7918-2.ch003.
14
Fulcher, Glenn. (2012). Assessment Literacy for the Language Classroom. Language Assessment Quarterly - LANG ASSESS Q. 9. 113-132.
15
Guering, E. (2010). Initial findings from an Italian pilot study of foreign language teachers'. Stated language assessment knowledge-base and needs. Papers from the Lancaster University Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics & Language Teaching
16
Jannati, S. (2015). ELT Teachers’ Language Assessment Literacy: Perceptions and Practices. International Journal of Research in Teacher Education, 6(2), 26-37.
17
Jeong, H. (2013). Defining assessment literacy: Is it different for language testers and non-language testers? Language Testing, 30(3), 345–362.
18
Jin, Y. (2010). The place of language testing and assessment in the professional preparation of foreign language teachers in China. Language Testing, 27(4), 555–584.
19
Jing, H. & Zonghui, H. (2016) Exploring Assessment Literacy. Journal of Higher Educationof social science Vol No, 18-20.
20
Herrera, L. & Macías, D. (2015). A call for language assessment literacy in the education and development of teachers of English as a foreign language. Colomb. Appl. Linguist. J., 17(2), 302-312.
21
Jones, C. A. (2009). Assessment for learning. London: Learning and Skills Network.
22
Karin, V., & Tsagari, D. (2014). Assessment Literacy of Foreign Language Teachers: Findings of a European Study, Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(4), 374-402
23
Krawczyk, R. M. (2017). Effects of Grading on Student Learning and Alternative Assessment Strategies. Retrieved on Mars 3, 1918, from Sophia, the St. Catherine University repository website. Retrieved from: https://sophia.stkate.edu/ maed/223
24
Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2015). Assessment myths: applying second language research to classroom teaching. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
25
Loumbourdi, L. (2014). The power and impact of standardized tests: Investigating the washback of language exams in Greece. New York: Peter Lang.
26
Malone, M. E. (2013). The essentials of assessment literacy: Contrasts between testers and users. Language Testing, 30(3), 329–344.
27
May, T., & Carolyn, E. T. (2015). The Impact of Communication and Collaboration between Test Developers and Teachers on a High-Stakes ESL Exam: Aligning External Assessment and Classroom Practices Language Assessment Quarterly 12(1), 29-49.
28
Muñoz, A., Palacio, M., & Escobar, L. (2012). Teachers' Beliefs about Assessment in an EFL Context in Colombia. Profile Issues in Teachers' Professional Development. 14, 143-158.
29
O'Loughlin, K. (2006). Learning about second language assessment: Insights from a postgraduate student on-line subject forum. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 1, 71-85.
30
Popham, W.J. (2004). Why assessment illiteracy is professional suicide. Educational Leadership, 62(1), 82-83.
31
Rezaei Fard, Z., & Tabatabaei, O. (2018). Investigating Assessment Literacy of EFL Teachers in Iran. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 5 (3), 91-100.
32
Rima, K., Aleksandras, K., & Natalja, K. (2011).Subjectivity Problem in Student Assessment Theoretical and Practical Aspects: Social Technologies: Research journal, 1(1), 121-138.
33
Romanowski, M. H. (2004). Student Obsession with Grades and Achievement. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 40(4), 149–151.
34
Scarino, A. (2013). Language Assessment Literacy as Self- awareness: Understanding the Role of Interpretation in Assessment and Teacher Learning. Language Testing 30(3), 309-327.
35
Shavelson, R., et al. (2008), “On the Impact of Curriculum- embedded Formative Assessment on Learning: A Collaboration between Curriculum and Assessment Developers," Applied Measurement in Education, 21, 295-314.
36
Sheehan, S., & Munro, Sonia (2017). Assessment: attitudes, practices, and needs. Project Report. British Council. Retrieved on Mars, 1, 1918 from https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/starting/ how_uni_works /differences_between_school_and_uni Stiggins, R. (1999). Assessment, Student Confidence, and School Success. The Phi Delta Kappan, 81(3), 191-198.
37
Stiggins, R. (2007). Conquering the formative assessment frontier. In J. McMillian (Ed.), Formative classroom assessment, 8 – 28. New York: Colombia University Teachers College Press.
38
Sundqvist, P., Wikström, P., Sandlund, E., & Nyroos, L. (2017). The teacher as an examiner of L2 oral tests: A challenge to standardization. Language Testing, 35(2), 217- 238.
39
Taylor, L (2009) Developing Assessment Literacy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 29, 21–36.
40
Taylor, L. (2013). Communicating the theory, practice, and principles of language testing to test stakeholders: Some reflections. Language Testing, 30(3), 403–412.
41
Tedick, D. (2003). Proficiency-Oriented Language Instruction and Assessment: Standards, Philosophies, and Considerations for Assessment. An introductory section of the Proficiency-Oriented Language Instruction and Assessment (POLIA) Curriculum Handbook for Teachers. (Tedick, 1998).
42
Tsagari, D. et al. (2018). Handbook of Assessment for Language Teachers. Nicosia, Cyprus. ISBN 978-9925-7399-0-5 (printed). Vivien Berry and Barry O’Sullivan. (2016). https://tea.iatefl.org/wp-content/uploads/.../Vivien-Berry-and-Barry-OSullivan.pdf
43
Vogt, K. & Tsagari, D. (2014). Assessment Literacy of Foreign Language Teachers: Findings of a European Study. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(4), 374-402.
44
Webb, N. (2002, April). Assessment literacy in a standards-based urban education setting. In the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. Retrieved on Mars, 24, 2018: from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu /archive/mps/AERA2002/
45
Wei, Wei. (2017). A Critical Review of Washback Studies: Hypothesis and Evidence, in Al-Mahrooqi, R., Coombe, C., Al-Maamari, F., & Thakur, V. (2017). Revisiting EFL Assessment: Critical Perspectives.
46
White, Eddy. (2009). Are you assessment literate? Some fundamental questions regarding effective classroom-based assessment. On CUE Journal, 3, 3-25.
47
Zhao, Z. (2013). An overview of studies on diagnostic testing and its implication for the development of the diagnostic speaking test. International Journal of English Linguistics, 3(1), 41-45.
48