1 تحلیل نشانه‌شناختی کنشگرهای اجتماعی مطرح شده در نرم‌افزارهای آموزش زبان انگلیسی A Social Semiotic Analysis of Social Actors in English-Learning Software Applications https://jtls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_3922.html 10.22099/jtls.2016.3922 1 This study drew upon Kress and Van Leeuwen’s (2006, [1996]) visual grammar and Van Leeuwen’s (2008) social semiotic model to interrogate ways through which social actors of different races are visually and textually represented in four award-winning English-learning software packages. The analysis was based on narrative actional/reactional processes at the ideational level; mood, perspective, social distance, and modality at the interpersonal level; and salience, framing, and vector at the compositional level. The findings revealed that although contemporary multimodal texts have tried to be unbiased and neutral in the verbal mode, there are still traces of discrimination, bias, and stereotyping in the visual mode. The results of this research can be of potential help and use for researchers, pedagogues, material developers, software designers, teachers , and students to become visually literate and get aware of the hidden messages that can be communicated by images in textbooks and multimedia. 0 پژوهش حاضر با به کارگیری دستور زبان تصویری (کرس و ون لیوون، 2006) و مدل نشانه‌شناسی اجتماعی (ون لیوون، 2008) به بررسی چگونگی به تصویر کشیدن کنشگرهای اجتماعی از نژادهای مختلف در چهار بسته نرم‌افزاری آموزش زبان انگلیسی می‌پردازد. مولفه‌های زیر به طور اخص مورد بررسی قرار گرفته‌اند: فرایند های کنشی/ واکنشی روایتی از بعد جهان‌شناختی؛ حالت، دیدگاه و فاصله اجتماعی از بعد ارتباطات بین فردی؛ و قاب بندی، برجستگی و جهت‌دار بودن از بعد ترکیبی. نتایج حاکی از این هستند که اگرچه نرم‌افزارهای رایج تلاش کرده‌اند در سطح کلامی از تعصبات قومی و اجتماعی پرهیز کنند، نمونه‌های اینگونه تعصبات و کلیشه‌سازی‌ها همچنان در تصاویر به وفور یافت می‌شوند. یافته‌های این تحقیق به ارتقا سواد تصویری و استفاده آگاهانه از تصاویر در انتقال معانی کمک شایانی خواهد کرد. آگاهی‌بخشی در این حوزه کاربردهای بسیاری برای پژوهشگران، مولفین و طراحان نرم‌افزار و همچنین برای معلمین و فراگیران زبان انگلیسی خواهد داشت. 1 40 عصمت بابایی Esmat Babaii Kharazmi University Iran محمود رضا عطایی Mahmood Reza Atai Kharazmi University Iran mahmood.atai@gmail.com معصومه کفشگر سوته Masoumeh Kafshgarsouteh Kharazmi University Iran kafshgarm@gmail.com social actors visual and verbal modes compositional metafunctions race stereotyping Abbas-Nejad-Konjin, A. (2012). Gender analysis of Iranian middle school textbooks. (Unpublished MA thesis). UBC, Vancouver, Canada.##Adami, E. (2013). A social semiotic multimodal analysis framework for website interactivity. London: National Center for Research Methods.##Ansary, H., & Babaii, E. (2003). On the manifestation of subliminal sexism in current Iranian secondary school ELT textbooks. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6, 57-69.##Babaii, E., & Ansary, H. (2001, March). The structure of and stricture on TV Commercials in Iran. Paper presented at the 5th Conference on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. Tehran: Allameh Tabataba'i University.##Baldry, A. P. (2000). Multimodality and multimodality in the distance learning age. Campobasso, Italy: Palladino Editore.##Baldry, A. P. (2004). Phase and transition type and instance: patterns in media texts as seen through a multimodal concordancer. In K. L. O’Halloran (Ed.), Multimodal discourse analysis (pp. 83-108). London: Continuum.##Baldry, A. P., & Thibault, P. J. (2006). Multimodal transcription and text analysis. London: Equinox.##Barthes, R. (1977). Image, music, text. London: Fontana/Collins.##Belknap, P., & Leonard, W. M. (1991). A conceptual replication and extension of Erving Goffman’s study of gender advertisements. Sex Roles, 25(3/4)103-118.##Berger, J. (1972). Ways of seeing. London: BBC/Harmondsworth: Penguin.##Binns, J. C., & Branch, R. C. (1995). Gender stereotyped computer clip-art images as an implicit influence in instructional message design. ERIC: ED 3080089##Bishop, H., & Jaworski, A. (2003). We beat ‘em’: nationalism and the hegemony of homogeneity in the British press reportage of Germany versus England during Euro 2000. Discourse & Society, 14(3), 243–271.##Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##Brand, J. E., Knight, S., & Majewski, J. (2003). The diverse worlds of computer games: A content analysis of spaces, populations, styles and narratives. Paper presented at Digital Games Research Conference, The Netherlands. ISBN / ISNN: ISSN 2342-9666.##Caldas-Coulthard, C. R. (2003). Cross-Cultural Representation of ‘Otherness’ in Media Discourse. In G. Weiss & R. Wodak, (Eds.), Critical discourse analysis:Theory and interdisciplinarity (pp. 272-296). New York: Palgrave McMillan.##Caldas-Coulthard, C. R., & Iedema, R. (2008). Identity trouble: Critical discourse and contested identities. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.##Camiciottoli, B. C. (2007). The language of business studies lectures. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.##Canning-Wilson, C. (1999). Using pictures in EFL and ESL classrooms. ERIC No: ED 445526. Retrieved from the ERIC database##Chappell, K. K. (1996). Mathematics computer software characteristics with possible gender-specific impact: A content analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15, 25–35.##Chiew, A. (2004). Multisemiotic mediation in hypertext. In K. L. O’Halloran (Ed.), Multimodal discourse analysis: Systemic-functional perspectives (pp. 131-162). London: Continuum.##Coelho, Z. P. (2008). Front page layout and reading paths: The influence of age on newspaper reading. Estudos em Comunicação, 4, 1-14.##Drees, D. E., & Phye, G. D. (2001). Gender representation in children’s language arts computer software. Journal of Educational Research, 95, pp. 49–55.##Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.##Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London and New York: Longman.##Gamson, W. A., Croteau, D., Hoynes, W., & Sasson, T. (1992). Media images and the social construction of reality. Annual Review of Sociology, 18,373-393. ##Gharbavi, A. & Mousavi, S. A. (2012). The application of functional linguistics in exposing gender bias in Iranian high school English textbooks. English Language and Literature Studies, 2(1), 85-93.##Goffman, E. (1979). Gender advertisements. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.##Graci, J. P. (1989). Are foreign language textbooks sexist? Exploration of models of evaluation. Foreign Language Annals, 22, 77-86. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1989.tb02771.x##Griffiths, Th. (2010). Media representation theory. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/Tomaskas/media-representation-theory.##Guijarro, J. M., & Sanz, J. M. P. (2008). Compositional, interpersonal and representational meanings in a children’s narrative: A multimodal discourse analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 40,1601–1619.##Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.##Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). Introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.##Hartman, P. L., & Judd, E. L. (1978). Sexism and TESOL materials. TESOL Quarterly, 12(4), 383-393.##Hellinger, M. (1980). For men must work, and women must weep: Sexism in English language textbooks used in German schools. In C. Kramerae (Ed.), The voices and words of women and men (pp. 267-274).New York: Pergamon Press.##Hietala, V. (1996). The reality of the images. Introduction to the understanding and interpretation of visual culture. Helsinki: Kirjastopalvelu.##Hjorth, J. (1997). Presentation of females and males in an English textbook series for Finnish upper-secondary schools (Unpublished Pro Gradu Thesis). University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Retrieved from https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/handle/123456789/7366##Horváth Futó, H. (2011). Textbooks and stereotypes. Philologica, 3(2), 265-278.##Iedema, R. (2001). Analyzing film and television: A social semiotic account of hospital: An unhealthy business. In T. Van Leeuwen, & C. Jewitt (Eds.), Handbook of visual analysis (pp. 183-204). London: Sage. ##Iedema, R. (2003). Multimodality, resemioticization: extending the analysis of discourse as a multisemiotic practice. Visual Communication, 2(1), 29–57.##Jarić, I. (2002). Gender Stereotypes. Nova srpska politička misao, 2(Special issue), 5-19.##Jewitt, C. (2004). Multimodality and new Communication technologies. In P. LeVine & R. Scollon (Eds.) Discourse and Technology: Multimodal discourse analysis (pp. 184-195). Washington: Georgetown University Press.##Jewitt, C. (2005). Multimodality, ‘Reading’, and ‘Writing’ for the 21st Century. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 26(3), 315-331.##Jones, R. S. (2005). Sites of engagement as sites of attention: time, space and culture in electronic discourse. In S. Norris, & R. H. Jones (Eds.), Discourse in action. Introducing mediated discourse analysis (pp. 141-154). London: Routledge.##Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on Technology in Learning and Teaching Languages. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 183-210.##Knox, J. S. (2009). Punctuating the home page: image as language in an online newspaper. Discourse & Communication, 3(2), 145–172.##Kordjazi, Z. (2012). Images matter: A semiological content analysis of gender positioning in contemporary English-learning software applications. Novitas-ROYAL 6(1), 59-80.##Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, Th. (2006 [1996]). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd Ed.). London: Routledge.##Lee, J. F. K., & Collins, P. (2006). Gender Representation in Hong Kong English Textbooks. Retrieved from http://www.eoc.org.hk/eoc/upload/2006711112336211184.pdf.##Lemke, J. (1998). Multiplying meaning: visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: critical and functional perspectives on discourse and science (pp. 87-113). London: Routledge.##Lemke, J. (2002). Travels in hypermodality. Visual Communication, 1(3), 299–325.##Lester, P. (2000). Visual communication: Images with messages. Belmont. CA: Wadsworth/Thomson.##Lim Fei, V. (2007). The visual semantics stratum: making meaning in sequential images. In T. D., Royce, & W. L., Bowcher (Eds.), New Directions in the analysis of multimodal discourse (pp. 195–213).Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.##Lim Fei, V. & O‘Halloran, K. (2010, Accepted for Publication). The ideal teacher: An analysis of a teacher-recruitment advertisement. Semiotica.##Liu, Y., & O’Halloran, K. L. (2009; accepted for publication). Inter-semiotic Texture: Analyzing cohesive devices between language and images. Social Semiotics.##Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2007). Antiracism in the British government's model regional newspaper: the ‘talking cure’. Discourse & Society, 18(4), 453–477.##Machin, D., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2009). Toys as discourse: Children’s toys and the war on terror. Critical Discourse Studies, 6(1), pp. 51-63.##Mazid, B. M. (2008). Cowboy and misanthrope: a critical (discourse) analysis of Bush and bin Laden cartoons. Discourse & Communication, 2(4), 433-457.##Milburn, S.S., Carney, D. R., & Ramirez, A. H. (2001). Even in modern media, the picture is still the same: A content analysis of clipart images. Sex Roles, 44, 277-294.##Moebius, W. (1986). Introduction to picturebooks codes. Word and Image, 2, 141–158.##Nodelman, P. (1988). Words about pictures: The narrative art of children’s picturebooks. athens: The University of Georgia Press.##Nodelman, P. (1999). Decoding the images. How picture books work. In P. Hunt (Ed.), Understanding children’s literature (pp. 129–139). London/New York: Routledge. ##Norris, S. (2004). Multimodal discourse analysis: A conceptual framework. In P. LeVine, & R. Scollon (Eds.), Discourse and technology. Multimodal discourse analysis (pp. 101-115). Washington: Georgetown University Press.##O’Halloran, K. L. (2000). Classroom discourse in mathematics: a multi-semiotic analysis. Linguistics and Education, 10(3), 359–388.##O’Halloran, K. L. (2004). Multimodal discourse analysis: Systemic-functional perspectives. London: Continuum.##O'Halloran, K. L. (2005). Mathematical discourse: Language, symbolism and visual images. London and New York: Continuum.##O'Halloran, K. L. (2009). Multimodal analysis and digital technology, In A. Baldry & E. Montagna (Eds.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on multimodality: Theory and practice, proceedings of the third international conference on multimodality (pp. 1-26). Campobasso: Palladino.##O’Halloran, K. L. (in press 2011). Multimodal discourse analysis. In K. Hyland, & B. Paltridge (Eds.), Companion to discourse (pp. 1-33). London and New York: Continuum.##O’Halloran, K. L., Podlasov, A., Chua, A. & K. L. E., M. (2012). Interactive software for multimodal analysis. Visual Communication, 11(3), 363–381.##Ollivier, K. E. (1992). Gender stereotyping in elementary school textbooks (Unpublished Master’s thesis). University of British Colombia, Vancouver, Canada.##Otlowski, M. (2003). Ethnic diversity and gender bias in EFL textbooks. Asian EFL Journal 5(3), 1-15.##O'Toole, M. (2010 [1994]). The Language of displayed art (2nd Ed). London and New York: Routledge.##Pauwels, L. (2012). A multimodal framework for analyzing websites as cultural expressions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 247–265.##Peterson, S., & Kroner, T. (1992). Gender biases in textbooks for introductory psychology and human development. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16, 17-37.##Porreca, K. L. (1984). Sexism in current ESL textbooks. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 704-707.## Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3586584.##Poulou, S. (1997). Sexism in the discourse roles of textbook dialogues. Language Learning, 15, 68-73.## Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09571739785200141.##Prodromou, L. (1988). English as cultural action. ELT Journal, 42(2), 73-83.##Reese, L. (1994). Gender equality and texts. Social Studies Reviews, 33, 12-15.##Royce, T. D. (1998). Synergy on the page: Exploring intersemiotic complementarity in pagebased multimodal text. In JASFL Occasional Papers 1 (pp. 25–49). Tokyo, Japan: Association of Systemic Functional Linguistics ( JASFL).##Royce, T. D. (2002). Multimodality in the TESOL classroom: Exploring visual-verbal synergy. TESOL Quarterly, 36(2), 191-205.##Royce, T. D. (2007). Intersemiotic complementarity: A framework for multimodal discourse analysis. In T. D. Royce, & W. L. Bowcher (Eds.), New directions in the analysis of multimodal discourse (pp. 63–110). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.##Sheldon, J. P. (2004). Gender stereotypes in educational software for young children. Sex Roles, 51, 433-444.##Sunderland, J. (1992). Gender in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 46, 81-91.##Tahririan, M. H., & Sadri, E. (2013). Analysis of images in Iranian high school EFL course books. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 137-160.##Thibault, P. J. (2000). The multimodal transcription of a television advertisement: Theory and practice. In A. Baldry (Ed.), Multimodality and multimediality in the distance learning age (pp. 31-84). Lampo: Campo Basso.##Thompson, K. (2002). A critical discourse analysis of world music as the 'other' in education. Research Studies in Music Education, 19(14), 14-21.##Unsworth, L. (2008). Multiliteracies and metalanguage: describing image/text relations as a resource for negotiating multimodal texts. In D. L. D. Corio, M. Knobel, & C. Lankshear (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 377- 405). New Jersey: Erlbaum.##Unsworth, L., & Wheeler, J. (2002). Re-valuing the role of images in reviewing picture books. Reading: Language and Literacy, 36(2), 68–74.##Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin & H. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352-371). Oxford: Blackwell.##Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(2), 359–383.##Van Leeuwen, T. (2003). A multimodal perspective on composition. In T. Ensink & C. Sauer (Eds.), Framing and perspectivising in discourse (pp. 23-62). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.##Van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.##Ventola, E., Charles, C, & Kaltenbacher, M. (Eds.) (2004). Perspectives on multimodality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.##Young, K. (2009). Applying multimodal analysis to popular websites to develop students’ digital literacy. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computers in Education. Hong Kong: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.##

1 ظهور تناقضات مختلف در آموزش زبان انگلیسی در مدارس متوسطه اول تحت برنامه درسی جدید (CLT) The Emergence of Various Contradictions in Iranian High School English Education under the New CLT-Based Curriculum https://jtls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_3872.html 10.22099/jtls.2016.3872 1 Recent research has indicated that the adoption of CLT in an EFL contexts will create certain challenges. Using Engeström’s (1999) human activity system model, the present study investigated the implementation of CLT-based curriculum which was initiated in 2013 in Iranian public schools. Four groups of participants including 23 language teachers, 17 teacher directors, 23 students, and 20 parents took part in the study. Semi-structured interviews, observation of participating teachers’ classes, and analysis of relevant documents were used as data collection tools. Grounded theory analysis of the data revealed three main categories explaining the difficulty of CLT implementation in an EFL context like Iran. From an activity theory perspective, these categories indicated that the four layers of contradictions emerged in Iranian English Education as the activity system. The results suggest that not only language teachers as the subjects of the current activity system, but also other components of the activity system, and even other activity systems like teachers’ colleges and in-service programs need to work in tandem in order to overcome the challenges of implementation. 0 مطالعه حاضر با استفاده از مدل سیستم فعالیت انسانی انگستروم (1999٫1987) به عنوان چارچوب نظری، اصلاحات برنامه درسی جدید زبان انگلیسی را که بر اساس روش ارتباط‌محور می‌باشد، مورد بررسی قرار می‌دهد. نظریه فعالیت با قبول این اصل که فعالیت انسانی هدفمند و باواسطه (بوسیله ابزار) می‌باشد، امکان نشان دادن روابط پویا و پیچیده بین عوامل مختلف فردی، اجتماعی و سازمانی را میسر می‌سازد. این امر از طریق آشکار نمودن تعارضات متعددی که معلمان ممکن است موقع پیاده‌سازی روش جدید با آن مواجه شوند، صورت می‌پذیرد. علاوه بر 23 معلم زبان که شرکت‌کنندگان اصلی این پژوهش بودند، سه گروه دیگر که شامل 17 مدرس ضمن خدمت، 23 دانش‌آموزان و20 والدین بودند نیز در این تحقیق شرکت نمودند. مصاحبه‌ی فردی و گروهی، مشاهده کلاسهای درسی و اسناد مربوط به برنامه‌ی درسی جدید به عنوان ابزارهای جمع‌آوری داده مورد استفاده قرار گرفتند. نتایج تحقیق نشان داد علی‌رغم نظر مثبت و مساعدی که معلمان زبان به برنامه‌ی جدید زبان انگلیسی داشتند، قادر نبودند که روش جدید را با موفقیت کامل پیاده کنند به این دلیل که آنها نتوانستند تعارضات و تنش‌های بوجود آمده را با موفقیت حل نمایند 41 64 الیاس برآبادی Elyas Barabadi University of Bojnord Iran elyas.ba1364@gmail.com سید آیت الله رزمجو Seyyed Ayatolla Razmjoo Pprofessor in TEFL, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran. Iran arazmjoo@rose.shirazu.ac.ir activity system CLT-based curriculum Grounded Theory Ahn, k. (2009). Learning to teach within the curricular reform context: A sociocultural perspective on english student teachers’practicum experience in south korea. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.##Ahn, K. (2009). Learning to teach within the curricular reform context: A sociocultural perspective on English student teachers’practicum experience in South Korea (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.##Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavieh, A., Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8th Ed.). Orlando, FL: Hacourt Brace College Publishers.##Bartels, N. (2005). Applied linguistics and language teacher education: What we know. In N. Bartels (Ed.), applied linguistics and language teacher education (pp. 405-425). London: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2954-3##Berns, M. (1990). Contexts of competence: Social and cultural considerations in communicative language teaching. New York: Plenum Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-9838-8##Borg, S. (2011). Language teacher education. In J. Simpson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 215-228). London: Routledge.##Burns, A. (2009). Action research in second language teacher education. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 289-297). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.##Carless, D. R. (2001). A case study of curriculum implementation in Hong Kong. In D.R. Hall & A. Hewings (Eds.), Innovation in English Language Teaching (pp.263-274). NY: Routledge.##Carless, D. R. (2003). Factors in the implementation of task-based teaching in primary schools. System, 31(4), 485-500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2003.03.002##Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st century: Applications for advancing social justice studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 507-535).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.##Dahmardeh, M. (2009). English language teaching in Iran and communicative language teaching. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), The University of Warwick, Institute of Education.##Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki. (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-38). New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812774.003##Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit. Retrieved September, 2002 from http://communication.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Engestrom/expanding.##Fullan, M. (1998). Education reform: are we on the right track? Education Canada, 38(3), 1- 7.##Hiramatsu, S. (2005). Contexts and policy reform: A case study of EFL teaching in a high school in Japan. In D. J. Tedick (Ed.), Second language teacher education: International perspectives (pp. 113-134). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.##Hu, G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of communicative language teaching in China. Language Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 93-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07908310208666636##Incecay, G., & Incecay, V. (2009). Turkish university students’ perceptions of communicative and non-communicative activities in EFL classroom. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 618-622. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.110##Kim, H., R. (2004). Exploring the role of a teacher in a literature-based EFL classroom through communicative language teaching. English Teaching, 59(3), 29-52.##Kim, E.-J. (2008). In the midst of curricular reform: An activity theory analysis of teachers’ and students’ experiences in South Korea (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.##Kramsch, C., & Sullivan, P. (1996). Appropriate pedagogy. ELT Journal, 50(3), 199–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/50.3.199##Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of L2 development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.##Lee, S. (2007). Preservice EFL teachers’ perceptions of their student teaching experiences. English Teaching, 62(4), 355-371. http://dx.doi.org/10.15858/engtea.62.4.200712.355##Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.##Littlewood, W. (2013). Developing a context-sensitive pedagogy for communication-oriented language teaching. English Teaching, 68(3), 3-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.15858/engtea.68.3.201309.3##Markee, N. (1994). Curricular innovation: issues and problems. Applied Language Learning, 5(2), 1-30.##Maxwell, A. J. (1996). Qualitative research design; an interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publication, Inc.##Sakui, K. (2004). Wearing two pairs of shoes: language teaching in Japan. ELT Journal, 58(2), 155-163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/58.2.155##Secretariat of the Higher Council of Education. (2006). Collection of regulations by the Higher Council of Education. Tehran, Iran: Madrese.##Wang, H. (2006). An implementation study of the English as a foreign language curriculum policies in the Chinese tertiary context (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.##Warford, M. K. (2011). The zone of proximal teacher development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 252-258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.008##

1 استخراج و تدوین فهرست واژگان آکادمیک رشته زبان‌شناسی با رویکرد زبان‌شناسی پیکره‌ای Do We Need Discipline-Specific Academic Word Lists? Linguistics Academic Word List (LAWL) https://jtls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_3901.html 10.22099/jtls.2016.3901 1 This corpus-based study aimed at exploring the most frequently-used academic words in linguistics and compare the wordlist with the distribution of high frequency words in Coxhead’s Academic Word List (AWL) and West’s General Service List (GSL) to examine their coverage within the linguistics corpus. To this end, a corpus of 700 linguistics research articles (LRAC), consisting of approximately 4 million words from four main linguistics sub-disciplines (phonology, morphology, semantics and syntax) was compiled and analyzed based on two criteria; frequency and range. Based on the analysis, a list consisting of 1263 academic word families was produced to provide a useful linguistics academic word list for native and non- native English speakers. Results showed that AWL words account for 10.18 % of the entire LRAC, and GSL words account for 72.48% of the entire LRAC. The findings suggested that of 570 word families in Coxhead’s AWL, 381 (66.84%) word families correspond with the word selections criteria which provide 29.88% of the word families in Linguistics Academic Word List (LAWL). Furthermore, 224 word families that were frequently used in linguistic research article corpus (LRAC) were not listed in GSL and AWL. They accounted for 18.51% of the word families in LAWL with coverage of 5.07% over LRAC, and compared with the 2000 GSL, 658 word families were identified. The results have pedagogical implications for linguistics practitioners and EAP practitioners, researchers, and material designers. 0 هدف مطالعه حاضر استخراج و تدوین فهرستی از واژگان آکادمیک رشته زبان‌شناسی و مقایسه این فهرست با فهرست واژگان آکادمیک و دیگر فهرست‌های رایج بود. بدین منظور پیکره‌ای شامل چهار میلیون واژه از شاخه‌های اصلی زبان‌شناسی نظری شامل آواشناسی، واژشناسی، نحو و معناشناسی از 700 مقاله معتبر علمی منتشر شده سال‌های اخیر در ژورنال‌های شناخته‌شده رشته زبان‌شناسی گردآوری گردید و براساس معیارهای فراوانی و توزیع مناسب مورد تجزیه و تحلیل قرار گرفتند. بر اساس این معیارها تعداد 1263 واژه از پیکره بدست آمد. نتایج همچنین نشان دادند که 10.18 درصد واژگان پیکره را واژگان آکادمیک کاکس هد تشکیل می‌دهند و 72.8 درصد واژگان نیز واژگان عمومی فهرست وست می‌باشند و از 570 واژه فهرست کاکس هد تنها 381 (66.84 درصد) واژه در فهرست جدید قرار دارند. تعداد 224 (18.51 درصد) خانواده واژگانی نیز در هیچ یک از دو فهرست کاکس هد و وست وجود ندارند و فقط در فهرست واژگان زبان‌شناسی وجود دارند. نتایج مطالعه و فهرست واژگان آکادمیک استخراج شده کاربردهای متعددی برای آموزش پژوهش دانشجویان و اساتید زبان‌شناسی و تهیه نرم‌افزارهای ترجمه خواهد داشت. 65 90 محمد رئوف معینی raouf moini University of Kashan Iran raoufmoini@yahoo.com زهرا اسلامی زاده Zahra Islamizadeh University of Kashan Iran zahraeslamizade@yahoo.com academic word list general service list research articles English for academic purposes corpus linguistics academic writing Baur, L. & Nation, I. S. P. (1993). Word families. International journal of lexicography, 6(3), 1-27.##Billuroglu, A., & Neufeld, S. (2005). The bare necessities in lexis: A new perspective in vocabulary profiling. Retrieved April 20, 2015, from http://lextutor.ca/vp/BNL_Rational.doc on December 13, 2008.##Billuroglu, A., & Neufeld, S. (2007). BNL 2709: The essence of English (4th ed). Nicosia: Rustem Kitabevi.##Campion, M., & Elley, W. (1971). An academic vocabulary list. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.##Chen, Q. & Ge, G. (2007). A corpus-based lexical study on frequency and distribution of Coxhead’s AWL word families in medical research articles (RAs). English for Specific Purposes, 26, 502-514.##Chung, T. & Nation, I. S. P. (2003). Technical vocabulary in specialized texts. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(2),103-116.##Chung, T., & Nation, I. S. P. (2004). Identifying technical vocabulary, System, 32, 251-263.##Cobb, T., & Horst, M. (2004). Is there room for an Academic Word List in French? In P. Boggards, & B. Laufer (Eds.), Vocabulary in a second language (pp.15-38) . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.##Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213-238.##Engels, L., K. (1968). The fallacy of word counts. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 6, 213-231.##Farrell, P. (1990). A lexical analysis of the English of electronics and a study of semi- technical vocabulary. CLCS Occasional Paper No.25 Trinity College.##Ghadessy, P. (1979). Frequency counts, word lists, and materials preparation: A new approach. English Teaching Forum, 17, 24-27.##Heatly,A., Nation, I. S. P., Coxhead, A. (2002). Range and Frequency Programs.## Retrieved from: http://www.vuw.ac.nz/lals/staff/Paul_Nation.##Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2007). Is there an "academic Vocabulary"? TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 235-253.##Khani, R., & Tazik, K. (2013). Towards the development of an academic word list for applied linguistics research articles. RELC journal. 44(2), 195-214.##Lam, J (2001). A study of semi-technical vocabulary in computer science texts, with special reference to ESP teaching and lexicography. Research reports, Vol.3. Language Center. Hong Kong University of Science & Technology.##Li, Y., Qian, D.D. (2010). Profiling the academic word list (AWL) in a financial corpus. System 38, 402-411.##Li, S.-L., & Pemberton, R. (1994). An investigation of students’ knowledge of academic and Sub-technical vocabulary. In L. Flowerdew & A. K. K.Tong (Eds.), Entering text (pp. 183-196). Hong Kong: The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.##Liu, J. & Han, L. (2015). A corpus-based environmental academic word list building and its validity test. English for Specific Purposes, 39, 1-11.##Lynn, R. W. (1973). Preparing word lists: a suggested method. RELC Journal, 4(1), 25-32.##Martinez, I. A. Beck, S., & Panza, C.B (2009). Academic vocabulary in Agriculture: A corpus-based study. English for specific purposes, 28, 183-198.##Mudraya, O. (2006). Engineering English. A lexical frequency instruction model. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 235-256.##Mungra, P. & Canziani, T. (2013). Lexicographic studies in medicine: Academic Word List for clinical case. Lberica, 25, 39-62.##Nation, I., S., P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.##Nation, P. & Hwang, K. (1995). Where would general service vocabulary stop and special purposes vocabulary begin? System 23(1), 35-41.##Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##Nation, I. S. P. (2016). Making and using word lists for language learning and testing. John Benjamins Publishing Company.##Paquot, M. (2007). Towards a productively-oriented academic wordlist. In J. Walinski, K. Kredens, & S. Gozdz-Roszkowski (Eds.), PALC Proceedings (pp. 127- 140).Frankfurt: Peter Lang.##Praninskas, J. (1972). American university word list. London: Longman.##Shaw, P. (1991). Science research students’ composing process. English for Specific Purposes, 10, 189-206.##Swales,J. M. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##Thurstun, J., & Candlin, C. N. (1998). Concording and the teaching of the vocabulary academic English. English for Specific Purposes, 17(3), 267-280.##Valipoori, L., & Nassaji, H. (2013). A corpus-based study of academic Vocabulary in chemistry research articles. English for Academic Purposes, 12, 248-263.##Vongpumivitich, V., Huang, J., & Chung, Y. (2008). Frequency analysis of the words in the Academic Word List (AWL) and non-AWL content words in applied linguistics papers. English for Specific Purposes, 28(1), 33-41.##Wang, J., Liang, S., & Ge, G. (2008). Establishment of a medical Academic wordlist. English for Specific Purposes, 27(4), 442–458.##Ward, J. (1999). How large a vocabulary do EAP engineering students need? Reading in a foreign language, 12(2), 309-324.##Ward, J. & Chuenjundaeng, J. (2009). Suffix knowledge: Acquisition and applications. System, 37(3), 461-469.##West, M. (1953). A General Service List of English Words. London: Longman, Green & Co.##Xue, G., & Nation, I. S. P. (1984). A University word list. Language learning and communication, 3, 215-229.##Yang, M. N. (2015). A nursing academic word list. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 27-38.##

1 باورهای انگیزشی، خودتنظیمی و عملکرد شنیداری زبان‌آموزان ایرانی: تحلیل مسیر Motivational Beliefs, Self-Regulation and EFL Listening Achievement: A Path Analysis https://jtls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_3923.html 10.22099/jtls.2016.3923 1 Informed by the expectancy-value and social cognitive theories of learning, the present study proposed a path model to investigate the impact of motivational beliefs as defined by listening self-efficacy, three types of goal orientations, and task value on self-regulation of Iranian EFL learners, in addition to the unique contribution of each to the variability in the listening comprehension score. Results of path analysis revealed significant positive effect of listening self-efficacy and self-regulation on students’ listening comprehension and task value on self-regulation. Unlike performance approach goals, mastery and performance avoidance goals demonstrated a significant impact on participants’ self-regulation but no significant direct effect of any goals on listening achievement was detected. 0 تحقیق حاضر مدلی فرضی بر مبنای نظریه اجتماعی- شناختی در یادگیری و مدل ارزش- انتظار انگیزش ارایه داده است تا تأثیر باورهای انگیزشی (خودکارامدی شنیداری، سه نوع جهت‌گیری هدفی و ارزش تکلیف) بر خودتنظیمی زبان‌آموزان ایرانی و نیز تاثیر هر یک از این متغیرها بر عملکرد زبان‌آموزان در درک مطلب شنیداری را مورد بررسی قرار دهد. تجزیه و تحلیل از روش تحلیل مسیر از نوع مدل‌یابی ساختاری انجام شد. نتایج تاثیر مثبت و معنادار و مستقیم خودکارامدی و خودتنظیمی بر عملکرد زبان‌آموزان در درک مطلب شنیداری و نیز تاثیر ارزش تکلیف بر خودتنظیمی زبان‌آموزان را نشان داد. از سه نوع جهت‌گیری هدفی مورد مطالعه، جهت‌گیری تبحری و عملکرد- اجتنابی تأثیر مستقیم و معناداری را بر خودتنظیمی زبان‌آموزان نشان داد. این در حالیست که جهت‌گیری عملکرد-رویکردی قادر به پیش‌بینی مستقیم خودتنظیمی نبود. بر خلاف انتظار، هیچ کدام از جهت‌گیری‌های هدفی نتوانستند به طور مستقیم عملکرد شنیداری زبان‌آموزان را پیش‌بینی نمایند. 91 118 عالیه نصرالهی موزیرجی Alieh Nasrollahi-Mouziraji Department of English, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Teharn, Iran Iran nasrollahi.alieh@gmail.com پرویز بیرجندی Parviz Birjandi Department of English, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Teharn, Iran Iran parvizbirjandi2002@gmail.com goal orientations listening comprehension listening self-efficacy self-regulation task value Al-Harthy, I. & Was, C (2013). Knowledge monitoring, goal orientations, self-efficacy, and academic performance: A path analysis. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 10(4), 263-278. ##Al-Harthy, I., Was, C., & Isaacson, R. (2010). Goals, efficacy and metacognitive self-regulation: A path analysis. International Journal of Education, 2, 1-20. doi: 10.5296/ije.v2i1.357##Ames, C. (1992). Classroom: Goals, structure and motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261 -271. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84##Ames, C. & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom. Students’ learning strategies and motivation process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267. ##Anderman, E. M., & Young, A. J. (1994). Motivation and strategy use in science: Individual differences and classroom effects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 811-831.doi:10.1002/tea.3660310805 ##Bae, J., & Bachman, L. F. (2010). An investigation of four writing traits and two tasks across two languages. Language Testing, 27(2), 213-234. doi: 10.1177/0265532209349470 ##Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Clinical and Social Psychology, 4, 359-373.##Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy. Developmental Psychology, 25(5), 729–735.##Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248-287. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L##Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3##Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.##Bong, M. (2001). Between- and within-domain relations of academic motivation among middle and high school students: Self-efficacy, task-value and achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 23-34. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.23##Bouffard, T., Bouchard, M., Goulet, G., Denoncourt, I., & Couture, N. (2005). Influence of achievement goals and self-efficacy on students’ self-regulation and performance. International Journal of Psychology, 40(6), 373 384. doi:10.1080/00207590444000302##Brophy, J. (2005). Goal theorists should move on from performance goals. Educational Psychologist, 40(3), 167-176. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4003_3##Button, S., Mathieu, J., & Zajac, D. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational research: A conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 26–48.##Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with Amos: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd Ed.). New York: Routledge. ##Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.##Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents ‘achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 215-225. doi: 10.1177/0146167295213003##Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34(3), 169-189. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3##Elliot, A.J., & Harackiewicz, J.M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461-475. doi: 0022-3514196/53.00##Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 82, 804-818. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.804##Field, J. (2008). Listening in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##Ghanizadeh, A., & Mirzaei, S. (2012). EFL learners’ self-regulation, critical thinking, and language achievement. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(3), 451-468. doi:10.5296/ijl.v4i3.1979##Gorban Doordinejad, F., & Afshar, H. (2014). On the relationship between self-efficacy and English achievement among Iranian third grade high school students. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 6(4), 461-470.##Ghonsooly, B., & Elahi, M. (2010). Learner’ self-efficacy in reading and its relation to foreign language reading anxiety and reading achievement. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 217, 45-67.##Goh, C. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening comprehension problems. System, 28, 55–75. doi: 10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00060-3##Graham, S. (2006). Listening comprehension: The learners’ perspective. System, 34, 165-182. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2005.11.001##Graham, S. (2011). Self-efficacy and academic listening. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 113-117. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2011.04.001 ##Graham, S., & Macaro, E. (2008). Strategy instruction in listening for lower-intermediate learners of French. Language Learning, 58, 747-783. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00478.x##Kassem, H. M. (2015). The relationship between listening strategies used by Egyptian EFL college sophomores and their listening comprehension and self-efficacy. English Language Teaching, 8(2), 159-169. doi:10.5539/elt.v8n2p153##Keskin H. K. (2014). A Path analysis of metacognitive strategies in reading, self-efficacy and task value. International J. Soc. Sci. & Education 4(4), 798-808. ##Kitsantas, A., & Zimmerman, B. (2009). College students’ homework and academic achievement: The mediating role of self-regulatory beliefs. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 97–110. doi:10.1007/s11409-008-9028-y##Liem, A., Lau, S., & Nie, Y. (2008). The role of self-efficacy, task value, and achievement goals in predicting learning strategies, task disengagement, peer relationship, and achievement outcome. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 486-512. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.08.001##Meece, J.L., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Hoyle, R.H. (1988). Students’ goal orientation and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514-523.##Meece, J.L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J.S. (1990). Predictors of math anxiety and its influence on young adolescents’ course enrolment intentions and performance in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 60-70##Mendelsohn, D. (2006). Learning how to listen using learning strategies. In J. Us´o, &F. Mart´ınez (Eds.), Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills (pp.75–90). Berlin: Walter de Gryuter.##Middleton, M., Kaplan, A., & Midgley, C. (1998). Achievement goal orientation and self-efficacy: Different goals, different relations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.##Middleton, M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An underexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of educational psychology, 89, 710-718.##Midgley, C., Maehr, M., Hruda, L., Anderman, E., Anerman, L., Freeman, K., Urdan, T. (2000). Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning scales. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan.##Mills, N., Pajares, F., & Herron, C. (2006). A reevaluation of the role of self-efficacy, anxiety, and their relation to reading and listening proficiency. Foreign Language Annals, 39, 276–295. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2006.tb02266.x##Pintrich, P. R. (1986). Motivation and learning strategies interactions with achievement. Developmental Review, 6, 25-56.## Pintrich, P.R. (1989). The dynamic interplay of student motivation and cognition in the college classroom. In C. Ames & M. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement motivation enhancing environments (pp. 117-160). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.##Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31 (6), 459-70.##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. 451–502). San Diego: Academic Press.##Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40. doi: 0022-O663/90/500.75##Pintrich, P. R. & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research and applications. Englewood Cliffs: Merrill.##Pintrich, P.R., & Schunk, D.H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research and applications. NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.##Rahimpour, M., & Nariman-Jahan, R. (2010). The influence of self-Efficacy and proficiency on EFL learners’ writing. Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 7(11), 19-32.##Rezaei, A.R., Keivanpanah, S., & Najibi, S. (2015). EFL learners’ motivational beliefs and their use of learning strategies. Applied Research on English Language, 4(1), 1-17.##Rubin, J. (1994). A review of second language listening comprehension research. The Modern Language Journal, 78(2), 199-217. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02034.x##Schunk, D. H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects on children’s achievement: A self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 93-105. ##Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and cognitive achievement: Implications for students with learning problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 14-22.##Schunk, D. H. (1994). Self-regulation of self-efficacy and attributions in academic settings. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 75-99). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.##Schunk, D. H. (2005). Self-regulated learning: The educational legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational Psychologist, 40(2), 85–94.##Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.##Vandergrift, L. (2004). Learning to listen or listening to learn. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 3-25. doi: 10.1017/S0267190504000017##Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening: metacognition in action. New York: Routledge.##Wigfield, A., & Cambria, J. (2010). Students’ achievement values, goal orientations, and interest: Definitions, development, and relations to achievement outcomes. Developmental Review, 30(1), 1–35. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2009.12.001##Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992).The development of achievement task value: A theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265-310.##Wolters, C. A., Yu, S. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). The relation between goals orientation and students’ motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 211-238.##Zimmerman, B.J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329-339. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.329##Zimmerman, B. J. (2000a). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82-91. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1016##Zimmerman, B.J. (2000b). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.##Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2##Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 663-676.##Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845–862. doi:10.2307/1163397##

1 میزان فرصت مشارکت بالقوه برای زبان‌آموزان در کتب آموزش زبان انگلیسی تهیه شده در داخل و خارج Built-In Learner Participation Potential of Locally- and Globally-Designed ELT Materials https://jtls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_3924.html 10.22099/jtls.2016.3924 1 This study aims at empirically measuring a universal criterion for materials evaluation, i.e., learning opportunities, in a locally- and a globally-designed materials. Adopting the conceptual framework of sociocultural theory and its conceptualization of learning as participation (Donato, 2000), the researchers utilized the methodological power of conversation analysis to examine how opportunities for learner participation and, by extension, learning are created whilst the materials are being used. Thirty teachers’ naturally-occurring classroom interactions, evolving from the two types of materials, was videotaped and transcribed line-by-line to identify the interactional contexts in which learner participation opportunities are embedded. Four interactional contexts affording different levels of learner interactional space were prompted by both types of materials. Examining the distribution of contexts revealed that management-oriented and form-oriented contexts were sustained significantly longer in classes with the locally-designed material. The globally-designed material, however, tended to unfold significantly longer skill-oriented and meaning-oriented contexts suggesting higher levels of built-in learner participation potential. The findings of this study raise materials developers’ awareness, especially in periphery communities, about how materials can either marginalize or empower learners in classroom interaction. 0 هدف مطالعه‌ی حاضر مقایسه‌ی کتب آموزش زبان انگلیسی تهیه شده در داخل و خارج از ایران از طریق سنجش یکی از معیارهای اساسی ارزیابی کتب آموزش زبان که همان ایجاد فرصت یادگیری برای زبان‌آموزان است، می‌باشد. با تکیه بر نظریه‌ی اجتماعی فرهنگی و تعریف آن از یادگیری به عنوان مشارکت (دونیتو، 2000) و بکارگیری توان متدولوژیکی گفتمان‌کاوی، چگونگی ایجاد و میزان فرصت مشارکت زبان‌آموزان در خلال استفاده از دو کتاب آموزش زبان انگلیسی مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. تعاملات کلاسی سی معلم در حال تدریس یک کتاب تولید داخل و یک کتاب تولید خارج ضبط و سپس به صورت جزء به جزء به رشته تحریر در آمد تا در ابتدا بافت‌های تعاملی که در آن فرصت‌های مشارکت شکل می‌گیرند شناسایی شوند. تحلیل اطلاعات تحریری نشان داد که هر دو کتاب مورد بررسی چهار بافت تعاملی مشترک ایجاد می‌کنند. بررسی توزیع بافت‌های شناسایی شده نشان داد که بافت‌های مدیریت‌محور و ساختارمحور که فرصت مشارکت کمتری برای زبان‌آموزان ایجاد می‌کنند بیشتر در کلاس‌هایی که از کتاب تولید داخل استفاده کردند پی‌ریزی و بسط داده شده در حالی که کتاب تولید خارج بیشتر بافت‌هایی با محوریت معنا و مهارت‌های زبانی که اهداف و ساختار تعاملی آنها افزایش فرصت مشارکت می‌باشد، را پی‌ریزی می کند. یافته‌های مطالعه‌ی حاضر آگاهی تولیدکنندگان کتب آموزش زبان را نسبت به این مساله که چگونه کتاب می‌تواند در نقش‌آفرینی زبان‌آموزان در تعاملات کلاسی تاثیرگذار باشد، افزایش می‌دهد. 119 156 مصطفی پورحاجی Mostafa Pourhaji University of Tehran Iran m.pourhaji@ut.ac.ir سید محمد علوی Seyed Mohammad Alavi University of Tehran Iran smalavi@ut.ac.ir صدیقه کریم پور Sedigheh Karimpour University of Tehran Iran sedighehkarimpour1367@yahoo.com conversation analysis interactional contexts learner participation materials evaluation Sociocultural theory Akbari, R. (2008). Postmethod discourse and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 42(4), 641–652.##Brown, D. (2014). The power and authority of materials in the classroom ecology. The Modern Language Journal, 98(2), 658–661.##Brown, J. B. (1997). Textbook evaluation form. The Language Teacher, 21(10), 15–21.##Canagarajah, A. S. (Ed.). (2004). Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.##Candlin, C. N., & Breen, M. (1980). Evaluating and designing language teaching materials. Practical Papers in English Language Education Vol. 2. Lancaster: Institute for English Language Education, University of Lancaster.##Cunningsworth, A. (1984). Evaluating and selecting EFL teaching materials. London: Heinemann.##Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing your coursebook. Oxford: Heinemann.##Daoud, A. M., & Celce-Murcia, M. (1979). Selecting and evaluating a textbook. In M. Celce-Murcia & L. McIntosh (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 302–307). New York: Newbury House.##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.##Ellis, R. (1997). The empirical evaluation of English language teaching materials. ELT Journal, 51(1), 36–42.##Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.##Fernandez del Viso Roman, V. (2012). Optimizing classroom interaction: An interview with Steve Walsh. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching and Learning Language and Literature, 5(4), 69–74.##Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2010). Responses to wh-questions in English conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(2), 133–156.##Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). New York: Continuum.##Garton, S., & Graves, K. (2014). Identifying a research agenda for language teaching materials. Modern Language Journal, 98(2), 654–657.##Grant, N. (1987). Making the most of your textbook. Harlow, UK: Longman.##Guerrettaz, A. M., & Johnston, B. (2013). Materials in the classroom ecology. Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 779–796.##Harwood, N. (Ed.). (2010). English language teaching materials: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##Heritage, J. (1999). CA at century’s end: Practices of talk-in-interaction, their distributions and their outcomes. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32, 69–76.##Heritage, J. (2005). Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In K. L. Fitch & R. E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 103–147). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.##Hutchinson T., & Torres E. (1994). The textbook as agent of change. ELT Journal, 48(4), 315–328.##Islam, C., & Mares, C. (2003). Adapting classroom materials. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (pp. 86–100). London: Continuum.##Jacknick, C. M. (2011). But this is writing: Post-expansion in student-initiated sequences. Novitas-Royal (Research on Youth and Language), 5(1), 39–54.##Jefferson, G. (1983). Notes on some orderliness of overlap onset. Tilburg Paper in Language and Literature, No. 28. Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University.##Jarvis, J., & Robinson, M. (1997). Analyzing educational discourse: An exploratory study of teacher response and support to pupils’ learning. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 212–228.##Jolly, D., & Bolitho, R. (2011). A framework for materials writing. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching (2nd ed., pp. 107–134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##Kasper, G. (2004). Participant orientations in German conversation-for-learning. Modern Language Journal, 88, 551–567.##Kasper, G. (2006). Beyond repair: Conversation analysis as an approach to SLA. AILA Review, 19, 83–99.##Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.##Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.##Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.##Larsen-Freeman, D. (2014). It’s about time. Modern Language Journal, 98(2), 665–666.##Littlejohn, A. (2011). The analysis of language teaching materials: Inside the Trojan horse. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching (2nd ed., pp. 179–211). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##Markee, N., & Kasper, G. (2004). Classroom talks: An introduction. Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 491–500.##Masuhara, H., Hann, M., Yi, Y., & Tomlinson, B. (2008). Adult EFL courses. ELT Journal, 62(3), 294–312.##McDonough, J., & Shaw, C. (2003). Materials and methods in ELT. Oxford: Blackwell.##McDonough, J., Shaw, C., & Masuhara, H. (2013). Materials and methods in ELT (3rd Ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.##McGrath, I. (2002). Materials evaluation and design for language teaching. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.##Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.##Mukundan, J., & Ahour, T. (2010). A review of textbook evaluation checklists across four decades (1970–2008). In B. Tomlinson & H. Masuhara (Eds.), Research for materials development in language learning: Evidence for best practice (pp. 336–352). London: Continuum.##Nation, I. S. P., & Macalister, J. (2010). Language curriculum design. New York: Routledge.##Nunan, D. (1988). Syllabus design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.##Pourhaji, M. & Alavi, S. M. (2015). Identification and distribution of interactional contexts in EFL classes: The effect of two contextual factors. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 7(15), 93–123.##Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##Richards, J. C. (2010). Series editor’s preface. In N. Harwood (Ed.), English language teaching materials: Theory and practice (pp. ix–xi). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##Rowe, M. B. (1974). Wait time and rewards as instructional variables, their influence in language, logic, and fate control: Part 1. Wait time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11(2), 81–94.##Roberts, J. T. (1996). Demystifying materials evaluation. System, 24(3), 375–389.##Rubdy, R. (2003). Selection of materials. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (pp. 72–85). London: Continuum.##Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematic for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.##Saslow, J., & Ascher, A. (2011). Top notch: English for today’s world. NY: Pearson Education Inc.##Schegloff, E. A. (1993). Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26, 99–128.##Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.##Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.##Sheldon, L. E. (1988). Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT Journal, 42(4), 237–246.##Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.##Skierso, A. (1991). Textbook selection and evaluation. In M. Celce-Murcia, (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 432–453). Boston: Heinle and Heinle.##Slimani, A. (1989). The role of topicalization in classroom language learning. System, 17, 223–234.##Tarone, E. (2014). The issue: Research on materials and their role in classroom discourse and SLA. Modern Language Journal, 98(2), 652–653. ##Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide (2nd ed.). London: Sage.##Thornbury, S. (2014). Correspondence. ELT Journal, 68(1), 109–110.##Tomlinson, B. (2001). Materials development. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 66–71). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.##Tomlinson, B. (2003). Materials evaluation. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (pp. 15–36). London: Continuum.##Tomlinson, B. (2010). Principles of effective materials development. In N. Harwood (Ed.), English language teaching materials: Theory and practice (pp. 81–108). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##Tomlinson, B. (Ed.). (2011). Materials development for language teaching (2nd Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##Tomlinson, B. (2012). Materials development for language learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 45(2), 143–179.##Tomlinson, B. (Ed.). (2013). Developing materials for language teaching (2nd Ed.). New York: Bloomsbury Academic. ##Tomlinson, B., & Masuhara, H. (2004). Developing language course materials. Singapore: RELC Portfolio Series.##Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##Van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman.##Van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social- interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 245–260). New York: Oxford University Press.##Vine, E. W. (2008). CA and SCT: Strange bedfellows or useful partners for understanding classroom interactions? Discourse Studies, 10, 673–693.##Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.##Wallace, M. J. (1998). Action research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or obstruction: Teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 3–23.##Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. New York: Routledge.##Walsh, S. (2012). Conceptualising classroom interactional competence. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 6(1), 1-14. ##Waring, H. Z. (2008). Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF, feedback, and learning opportunities. Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 577–594.##Waring, H. Z. (2009). Moving out of IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback): A single case analysis. Language Learning, 59(4), 796–824.##Williams, D. (1983). Developing criteria for textbook evaluation. ELT Journal, 37(3), 251–255.##Wong, J., & Waring, H. Z. (2010). Conversation analysis and second language pedagogy: A guide for ESL/EFL teachers. New York: Routledge.##Xie, X. (2011). Turn allocation patterns and learning opportunities. ELT Journal, 65(3),240–250.##Yaqubi, B., & Pourhaji, R. M. (2012). Teachers’ limited wait-time practice and learners’ participation opportunities in EFL classroom interaction. Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 4(10), 127–161.##

1 تفکر نقادانه در روایتهای شخصی و یادداشت‌های مدبرانه توسط معلمان زبان انگلیسی Critical Thinking in Personal Narrative and Reflective Journal Writings by In-service EFL Teachers in Iran: Assessment of Reflective Writing https://jtls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_3900.html 10.22099/jtls.2016.3900 1 Recently, there is a need for fostering the critical reflective side of L2 teacher education. This study investigated the implications of personal narrative (PN) and reflective journal (RJ) writing for Iranian EFL teachers’ reflective writing. Sixty (36 women and 24 men) in-service secondary school EFL teachers were selected based on the convenience sampling from Iran. L2 teachers equally divided into PN and RJ writing groups were provided with particular short stories. L2 teachers in the PN writing group engendered PN writings in response to themes of stories; however, L2 teachers in the RJ writing group had to write their reflections on stories in RJ writings. Hatton and Smith’s (1995) framework was used for the content analysis of data. The quantitative analysis indicated that PN writings were lengthier than RJ writings. Also, there was a statistically significant difference between mean ranks of descriptive and critical reflection writing types signified in PN and RJ writings. However, no statistically significant difference was observed between mean ranks of descriptive reflection and dialogic reflection writing types. Moreover, PN and RJ writings were more descriptive, less descriptive reflective, less and less dialogic reflective, and still less critical reflective. The qualitative analysis revealed that EFL teachers’ PN and RJ writings enjoyed dialogicity. Despite their unwillingness to express voice, findings indicated that Iranian English teachers adopted a more critical perspective through generating PN writings than via engendering RJ writings. In general, the English language teacher education domain in Iran needs a thinking renewal to foster critical L2 teaching. 0 اخیرا پرورش جنبه نقادانه آموزش معلمان زبان انگلیسی مساله ای لازم قلمداد می شود. این تحقیق اثرات نگارش رواﯾﺖهای ﻣﺒﺘﻨﻲ بر تجربه شخصی و نگارش یادداشت‌های روزانه ﺗﺄملی در برانگیختن نگارش ﺗﺄملی دبیران ایرانی زبان انگلیسی را بررسی نمود. شصت نفر (36 زن و 24 مرد) از دبیران ضمن خدمت زبان انگلیسی دوره دبیرستان در ایران بر مبنای شیوه نموﻧﻪگیری در دسترس انتخاب شدند. چارچوب هاتن و اسمیت برای تجزیه و تحلیل محتوایی داده‌ها مورد استفاده قرار گرفت. نتایج تجزیه و تحلیل کمی نشان داد که رواﯾﺖهای ﻣﺒﺘﻨﻲ بر تجربه شخصی از یادداشت‌های روزانة ﺗﺄملی طولاﻧﻲتر بودند. همچنین، از لحاظ آماری تفاوت معناداری بین میانگین رتبه تعداد جمله‌واره‌های نوشتار توصیفی و میانگین رتبه تعداد جمله‌واره‌های نوشتار تفکر نقادانه مشخص شده در رواﯾﺖهای ﻣﺒﺘﻨﻲ بر تجربه شخصی و یادداشت‌های روزانه ﺗﺄملی وجود داشت. ولیکن، از لحاظ آماری تفاوت معناداری بین میانگین رتبه‌های جمله‌واره‌های نوع نگارشی تفکر توصیفی و نوع نگارشی تفکر دو گفتاره مشاهده نشد. به‌علاوه، منطق گفتگویی رواﯾﺖهای ﻣﺒﺘﻨﻲ بر تجربه شخصی و یادداشت‌های روزانه ﺗﺄملی بیشتر توصیفی، کمتر توصیفی ﺗﺄملی، کمتر و کمتر ﺗﺄملی دوگفتاره بود، چه رسد به انتقادی. تجزیه و تحلیل کیفی آشکار ساخت که روایت‌های ﻣﺒﺘﻨﻲ بر تجربه شخصی و یادداشت‌های روزانه ﺗﺄملی دبیران زبان انگلیسی محصول چند صدایی بودند. ﺑﻪرغم عدم تمایل دبیران ایرانی زبان انگلیسی به بیان نظراتشان، نتایج نشان داد که آنها از رهگذر نگارش رواﯾﺖ‌های ﻣﺒﺘﻨﻲ بر تجربة شخصی دیدگاهی انتقادی‌تر را اقتباس نمودند تا از طریق نگارش یادداشت‌های روزانه ﺗﺄملی. ﺑﻪطور کلی، عرصه آموزش معلمان زبان انگلیسی در ایران نیازمند نوسازی تفکر برای برانگیختن آموزش نقادانه زبان انگلیسی است. 157 182 سمیه صباح Somayyeh Sabah Department of English Language, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran Iran somayyeh_sabah@yahoo.com مژگان رشتچی Mojgan Rashtchi Islamic Azad University, North Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran Iran m_rashtchi@iau-tnb.ac.ir critical L2 teacher education critical thinking personal narrative writing reflective journal writing Abednia, A. (2012). Teachers’ professional identity: Contributions of a##critical EFL teacher education course in Iran. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 706-717.##Abednia, A., Hovassapian, A., Teimournezhad, S., & Ghanbari, N. (2013). Reflective journal writing: Exploring in-service EFL teachers’ perceptions. System, 41(3), 503-514.##Achebe, C. (1953). Dead men’s path. Retrieved September 20, 2012, from http://www.sabanciuniv.edu/HaberlerDuyurular/Documents/ F_Courses_ Courses_/2012/Dead_ Mens_ Path.pdf##Akbari, R. (2007). Reflections on reflection: A critical appraisal of##reflective practices in L2 teacher education. System, 35(2), 192-207.##Allin, L., & Turnock, C. (2007). Reflection on and in the work place.##Retrieved April 16, 2014, from www.practicebasedlearning.org/##resources/resources/materials/intro.htm ##Amer, A. A. (2003). Teaching EFL/ESL literature. The Reading Matrix, ##3(2), 63-73.##Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.##Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin, TX:##University of Texas Press.##Barkhuizen, G. (2011). Narrative knowledging in TESOL. TESOL##Quarterly, 45(3), 391-414.##Brown, B., Matthew-Maich, N., & Royle, J. (2001). Fostering reflection and reflective practice. In E. Rideout (Ed.), Transforming nursing education through problem-based learning (pp. 119-164). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett. ##Chan, E. Y. (2012). The transforming power of narrative in teacher##education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(3), 111-127.##Chopin, K. (1894). The story of an hour. Retrieved March 25, 2014,##from http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/webtexts/hour/##Clark, R., & Ivanič, R. (1999). Raising critical awareness of language: A##curriculum aim for the new millennium. Language Awareness, 8(2), 63- 70.##Colby, F. M. (1941). Confessions of a gallomaniac. Retrieved April 18,##2014, from http://lektsii.org/3-38478.html##Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. New York: Longman.##Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.##Giroux, H. A. (1992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education. New York, NY: Routledge. ##Grace, P. (1987). Electric city and other stories. Harmondsworth: Penguin.##Guzula, X. (2011). Interactive reflective journal writing as a tool for mentoring and teacher professional development: A case-study. Unpublished master’s thesis. Faculty of Humanities, University of Cape Town, South Africa.##Halpern, D. F. (1999). Teaching for critical thinking: Helping college ##students develop the skills and dispositions of a critical thinker. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 8, 69-74.##Hampton, M. (2010). Reflective writing: A basic introduction. Retrieved##July 12, 2014, from the http: www.port.ac.uk/media/contacts-and-##departments/student-supportservices/ask/downloads/Reflective writing---a-basic-introduction.pdf##Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards##definition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33-49. ##Hawkins, M., & Norton, B. (2009). Critical language teacher education. In A. Burns & J. Richards (Eds.), Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 30-39). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.##Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (2002). Inquiry into experience:##Teachers’ personal and professional growth. In K. E. Johnson & P. R. Golombek (Eds.), Teachers’ narrative inquiry as professional##development (pp. 1-14). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.##Karimvand, P., Hessamy, G., & Hemmati, F. (2014). The place of##postmethod pedagogy in teacher education programs in EFL language centers of Iran. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 17(2), 59-91.##Khordkhili, S. R., & Mall-Amiri, B. (2015). The correlation between school EFL teachers’ effectiveness and their narrative intelligence. Journal of Studies in Education, 5(1), 36-51.##Kok, J., & Chabeli, M. M. (2002). Reflective journal writing: How it##promotes reflective thinking in clinical nursing education: A students’ perspective. Curations, 25(3), 35-42.##Koven, M. (2002). An analysis of speaker role inhabitance in narratives of personal experience. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 167-217.##Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. London: Yale University Press.##Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From##method to postmethod. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. ##Labov, W. (1997). Some further steps in narrative analysis. Journal of##Narrative and Life History, 7(1), 395-415.##Labov, W. (2010). Oral narratives of personal experience. In P. C. Hogan##(Ed.), Cambridge encyclopedia of the language sciences (pp. 546-548). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Lakshmi, S. (2009). Journal writing: A means of professional development in ESL classroom at undergraduate level. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 5(2), 9-20.##Liaw, M. L. (2007). Content-based reading and writing for critical thinking skills in an EFL context. English Teaching & Learning, 31(2), 45-87.##Lowe, G. M., Prout, P., & Murcia, K. (2013). I see, I think I wonder: An##evaluation of journaling as a critical reflective practice tool for aiding teachers in challenging or confronting contexts. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(6), 1-16.##Maarof, N. (2007). Telling his or her story through reflective journals.##International Education Journal, 8(1), 205-220.##Marsh, C. J. (2004). Key concepts for understanding curriculum (3rd Ed.). New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer. ##Maynard, S. K. (2007). Linguistic creativity in Japanese discourse:##Exploring the multiplicity of self, perspective, and voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.##O. Henry. (1907). The last leaf. Retrieved April 18, 2014, from http://##americanenglish.state.gov/files/ae/resource_files/the-last-leaf.pdf##Reagon, T. G., & Osborn, T. A. (2002). The foreign language educator in society: Toward a critical pedagogy. Mahwah, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.##Said, E. W. (1983). The world, the text, and the critic. Cambridge, MA:##Harvard University Press.##Shokouhi, H., Daram, M., & Sabah, S. (2011). Shifting between third and##first person points of view in EFL narratives. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 10(4),433-448.##Slattery, P. (2006). Curriculum development in the postmodern era (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.##Tang, R. (2009). Developing a critical ethos in higher education: What##undergraduate students gain from a reader response task? Reflections on English Language Teaching, 8(1), 1-20.##