1 پیشرفت در روانی، صحت و پیچیدگی مهارت‌های تولیدی در بین زنان و مردان با سطوح زبانی مختلف: رویکرد پیچیدگی آشوب Development of Fluency, Accuracy, and Complexity in Productive Skills of EFL learners across Gender and Proficiency: A Chaos Complexity Approach https://jtls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_3956.html 10.22099/jtls.2017.3956 1 This study was an attempt to investigate the developmental rate of fluency, accuracy and complexity among 12 EFL learners within the framework of chaos complexity theory. To carry out this study, 6 female and 6 male participants in two levels of proficiency (pre-and upper-intermediate) were put in two classes taught by the same teacher and following the same course. Every two months (for a period of four months) they were asked to write a narrative using the pictorial sequence of a story, and they were also asked to tell the same story orally after three days. Their productions were analyzed for fluency, accuracy and complexity (lexical and grammatical). The results, compared inter and inrta-individually, revealed that there was no common pattern of development among different learners with different proficiency or gender. A closer examination of the oral and written productions of these learners showed that the emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy could be seen as a system adapting to a changing context, in which the language resources of each individual were uniquely transformed through use and in which chaos, dynamicity, unpredictability, and self-organization were clearly observed in the participants’ productions. 0 این مقاله با هدف بررسی میزان رشد در روانی، صحت و پیچیدگی در مهارت‌های تولیدی در بین ۱۲ زبان آموز سطح متوسط در قالب نظریه پیچیده و آشوب انجام شد. ابتدا از بین زبان‌آموزان ۶ نفر دختر (۳ نفر در سطح متوسط پایین و ۳ نفر متو سط بالا) و ۶ نفر پسر (۳ نفر در سطح متوسط پایین و ۳ نفر متو سط بالا) از طریق آزمون بسندگی انتخاب و در۲ کلاس آموزشی که تحت آموزش یک معلم و یک دوره آموزشی یکسانی بودند قرار داده شدند. هر ۲ ماه یک بار (به مدت ۴ ماه) از هر زبان‌آموز خواسته شد که از روی یک تصویر که یک داستانی را نشان می‌داد اتفاقات داستان را بنویسد. سپس بعد از ۳ روز از هر زبان‌آموز خواسته شد که همان داستان را به صورت شفاهی از روی تصاویر بیان کند. تولیدات کتبی و شفاهی زبان‌آموزان مورد سنجش قرار گرفت و شاخص‌های روانی، صحت و پیچیدگی در تولیدات آنها اندازه‌گیری شد. نتایج بدست آمده که در دو شکل درون فردی و بین فردی مورد مقایسه قرار گرفت نشان داد که یک الگوی مشترک در رشد برای زبان‌آموزان با سطح زبانی مشترک و جنسیت مشترک نمی‌توان متصور شد. همچنین بررسی دقیق تولیدات کتبی و شفاهی نشان داد که پیشرفت روانی، صحت و پیچیدگی یک سیستمی است که خود را با هر بافت در حال تغییری تطبیق می‌دهد. همچنین مشخص شد که توانایی زبانی هر فرد به طور منحصر به فردی هنگام استفاده تغییر شکل می‌یابد. نتایج بدست آمده همچنین وجود اصول پویایی، غیرقابل پیش‌بینی بودن و خود نظم بخشی در تولیدات زبانی هر فردی را اثبات نمود. 1 35 سید طاهر علوی Seyyed Taher Alavi Urmia University Iran neta.7529@gmail.com کریم صادقی karim Sadeghi Urmia University Iran ksadeghi03@gmail.com chaos complexity fluency accuracy complexity proficiency oral and written production Ahmadian, M. J. (2012). The effects of guided careful online planning on complexity, accuracy and fluency in intermediate EFL learners’ oral production: The case of English articles. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 129-149. Doi: 10.1177/1362168811425433.##Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2005). Second language acquisition: An advanced resource book. Abingdon: Routledge.##Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing learner language (1st ed.). London: Oxford University Press.##Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in l2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474-509. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp042.##Hawkins, B. (2016). Using sociocultural theory to examine the context(s) of language learning and teaching. Working papers in TESOL and applied linguistics. Retrieved September 26, 2016, from http://tesolal.columbia.edu/article/using-sociocultural-theory/##Hsu, H. (2015). The effect of task planning on l2 performance and l2 development in text-based synchronous computer-mediated communication. Applied Linguistics. doi: 10.1093/applin/amv032.##Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). Second language acquisition research staking out territory. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 315-350.##Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18, 141-165.##Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 590-619.##Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Research methodology on language development from a complex systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 200-213. Doi: 10.1111/j.1540- 4781.2008.00714.x.s##Marchman, V., & Thal, D. (2005). Words and grammar. In M. Tomasello and D. Slobin (Eds), Beyond nature-nurture: Essays in honor of Elizabeth Bates, (pp. 224–226). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.##Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555-578.##Polat, B., & Kim, Y. (2013). Dynamics of complexity and accuracy: A longitudinal case study of advanced untutored development. Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 1-25. doi:10.1093/applin/amt013.##Revesz, A., Ekiert, M., & Torgersen, E. (2014). The effects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency on communicative adequacy in oral task performance. Applied Linguistics. 37(6), 828-848. doi:10.1093/applin/amu069.##Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research. New York: Basic Books, Inc. New York: Basic Books, Inc.##Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510-532.##Soars, L., & Soars, J. (2011). New Headway (4th Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.##Soleimani, H., & Alavi, M. (2013). A dynamical system approach to research in second language acquisition. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 5(11), 127- 143.##Spoelman, M., & Verspoor, M. (2010). Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy and complexity: A longitudinal case study in the acquisition of Finnish. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 532-553.##Steenbeek, H. W., & Van Geert, P.(2005). A complexity and dynamic systems approach to development: Measurement, modeling and research. In K.W. Fischer, A. Battro and P. Lena (Eds.). Mind, Brain and Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##Thelen, E., & Smith, L. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.##Tomasello, M. (2000). First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition, Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 61-82.##TOEFL Equivalency Table. (2016, March). Retrieved from: http://secure.vec.bc.ca/toefl-equivalency-table.cfm##ESOL EXTRAS. (2016, March). Retrieved from: http://esolepacks.com/language-levels/##Vercellotti, L.M. (2012). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency as properties of language performance: The development of the multiple subsystems over time and in relation to each other. Doctoral dissertation, Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences. Retrieved from: file:///E:/system%20chaos%20complexity/Vercellotti_CAF_v3.pdf##Vercellotti, L.M. (2015). The development of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language performance: A longitudinal study. Applied Linguistics. doi: 10.1093/applin/amv002.##Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445-466. Doi: 10.1177/0265532209104670.##Xi, W. (2016). The discursive construction of intercultural understanding in China: A case study of an international baccalaureate diploma program (Emerging perspectives on education in China). London: Rowman and Littlefield.##

1 بررسی نقش تفاوت‌های فردی در مهارت نگارش انگلیسی زبان‌آموزان ایرانی An Empirical Examination of the Association between Individual Differences Variables and Writing Performance of Iranian EFL Learners https://jtls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_3957.html 10.22099/jtls.2017.3957 1 The present study was designed to initially test a model of the role of a set of cognitive (namely, aptitude and working memory) and motivational (namely, language learning goals, self-efficacy beliefs and self-regulation strategy use) individual differences variables in writing performance of a group of Iranian undergraduate EFL learners and, subsequently, to identify the possible differences in the writing quality and composing behavior of learners with different individual characteristics. A convenient sample of 125 BA level students of English Language Teaching and Literature from three state universities in Iran took part in the study. As for the data collection procedure, these participants, in various time intervals, wrote an argumentative essay, responded to the composing process scale, completed the aptitude and working memory measures and filled in the questionnaires exploring their motivational propensities, self-efficacy beliefs and self-regulatory strategy use in writing. The collected data were analyzed by using Path Analysis and Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA). Due to some problems like small sample size and idiosyncratic nature of the data, the model did not give satisfactory fit indexes. However, it was found that cognitive variables were more strongly correlated with the writing competence of the learners than the motivational ones. More specifically, the construct of foreign language aptitude had the highest potential to account for the writing competence of the learners and the learners having different levels of this construct were different from each other in terms of writing quality and composing processes employed while writing. 0 هدف تحقیق کنونی آزمون مدل نقش مجموعه‌ای از متغیرهای تفاوت‌های فردی شناختی (حافظه‌کاری و استعداد فراگیری زبان) و انگیزشی (اهداف فراگیری زبان، عقاید خوداتکایی و راهبردهای خودتنظیمی) در مهارت نگارش و یافتن تفاوت‌های احتمالی در کیفیت نگارش و فرایند نوشتار فراگیران ایرانی بود. شرکت‌کنندگان تحقیق کنونی 125 نفر دانشجوی سطح کارشناسی رشته‌های آموزش زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی از سه دانشگاه دولتی ایران بودند که به مجموعه‌ای از پرسش‌نامه‌ها و آزمون‌ها در طول یک‌سال تحصیلی پاسخ دادند. برای ارزیابی داده‌ها از روش‌های تحلیل مسیر و تحلیل واریانس چندمتغیره استفاده شد. به علت برخی مسائل همچون کوچک بودن نمونه آماری و ماهیت خاص داده‌های جمع‌آوری شده مدل موردنظر شاخص بر ارزش مناسبی ارایه نداد. با این وجود، مشخص شد که متغیرهای شناختی در مقایسه با متغیرهای انگیزشی همبستگی بیشتری با مهارت نگارش زبان‌آموزان ایرانی داشتتند. به طور خاص، متغیر استعداد فراگیری زبان از بیشترین توان برای پیش‌بینی مهارت نگارش برخوردار بود و فراگیران که از سطوح مختلفی از این توانایی برخوردار بودند با هم در کیفیت نگارش و راهبردهای استفاده شده در فرایند نگارش متفاوت بودند. 37 70 امید ملاحی Omid Mallahi Ph.D student of TEFL at Hakim Sabzevari University (Former Tarbyat-Moalleme Sabzevar) Iran mallahiomid68@gmail.com سید محمدرضا امیریان Seyyed Mohammadreza Amirian Hakim Sabzevari University Iran sm.amirian@hsu.ac.ir غلامرضا زارعیان Gholamreza Zareian Hakim Sabzevari University Iran zareian22@gmail.com سید محمدرضا عادل Seyyed Mohammadreza Adel Hakim Sabzevari University Iran adelzero@yahoo.co.uk cognitive individual differences writing performance path analysis Archibald, A., & Jeffery, C. G. (2000). Second language acquisition and writing: A multidisciplinary approach. Learning and Instruction, 10, 1–11.##Aronin, L., & Bawardi, B. (2012). Individual differences in the light of new linguistic dispensation. In M. Pawlak (Ed.), New perspectives on individual differences in language learning and teaching (pp. 15-32). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.##Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.##Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Multivariate Software.##Bentler, R.P. Bagozzi, R. Cudeck, D. Iacobucci, D. (2001).Structural equation modeling-SEM using correlation or covariance matrices. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10(2), 85–87.##Casanave, C. P. (2012). Heading in the wrong directions: A response to Porte and Richards.Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 296-297.##Cumming, A. & Riazi, A. (2000). Building models of adult second-language writing instruction. Learning and Instruction, 10, 55-71.##Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second-language proficiency. Language Learning, 39(1), 81-141.##De Smet, M. J. R., Brand-Gruwel, S., Leijten, M. & Kirschner, P. A. (2014). Electronic outlining as a writing strategy: Effects on students’ writing products, mental effort and writing process. Computers & Education, 78, 352-366.##Dörnyei, Z., & Kormos, J. (2000).The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance. Language Teaching Research, 4, 275-300.##Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.##Dörnyei, Z. (2009). Individual differences: Interplay of learner characteristics and learning environment. In N. C. Ellis & D. Larsen–Freeman (Eds.), Language as a complex adaptive system (pp. 230–248). Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons.##Dörnyei, Z. (2010). The relationship between language aptitude and language learning motivation. In E. Macaro (Ed.), Continuum companion to second language acquisition (pp. 247-267). London: Continuum##Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In J. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589–630). Oxford: Blackwell.##Ehrman, M. E., & Oxford, R. L. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning success. Modern Language Journal, 79(1), 67–89.##Ehrman, M. E., Leaver, B. L., & Oxford, R. L. (2003). A brief overview of individual differences in second language learning. System, 31, 313–330.##Ellis, R. (2004). Individual differences in second language learning. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 525–551). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.##Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nded.). New York: Oxford University Press.##Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. John Wiley & Sons.##Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013).Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 307–329.##Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.##Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##Grabe, W. & Kaplan, R. B. (1996).Theory and practice of writing. London: Longman.##Graham, S., Berninger, V., & Fan, W. (2007). The structural relationship between writing attitude and writing achievement in first and third grade students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(3), 516-536.##Guan, C. Q., Ye, F., Wagner, R. K., & Meng, W. (2013). Developmental and individual differences in Chinese writing. Reading and Writing, 26(6), 1031-1056.##Gustilo, L., & Magno, C. (2015).Explaining L2 Writing performance through a chain of predictors: A SEM approach.3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 21(2), 115 – 130.##Hayes, J.R. & Flower, L.S. (1980).Identifying the organisation of writing processes, In L. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive Processes in Writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.##Kanlapan, T. C. E., & Velasco, J. C. (2009).Constructing a self-regulation scale contextualized in writing. TESOL Journal, 1, 79-94.##Kellogg, R. T., Turner, C. E, Whiteford, A. P., & Mertens, A. (2016).The role of working memory in planning and generating written sentences. Journal of Writing Research, 7(3), 397-416.##Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57-71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.##Kerlinger, F. N., & Pedhazur, E. J. (1973). Multiple regression in behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.##Klein, P.D., & Boscolo, P. (2016).Trends in research on writing as a learning activity. Journal of Writing Research, 7(3), 311-350.doi: 10.17239/jowr-2016.07.3.01##Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 390-403.##Kormos, J., & Dörnyei, Z. (2004). The interaction of linguistic and motivational variables in second language task performance. ZeitschriftfürInterkulturellenFremdsprachenunterricht [Online], 9(2), 19. http://www. ualberta.ca/~german/ejournal/kormos2.htm##Kormos, J., & Sáfár, A. (2008).Phonological short term-memory, working memory and foreign language performance in intensive language learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(2), 261–271.##Kormos, J., & Trebits, A. (2012).The role of task complexity, modality and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 62(2), 439-472.##Kunnan, A. J. (1998). An introduction to structural equation modelling for language assessment research. Language Testing, 15(3), 295-332.##Lee, J. (2013). Can writing attitudes and learning behavior overcome gender difference in writing? Evidence from NAEP. Written Communication, 30(2), 164-193.##Lee, S. Y. (2002). The influence of cognitive/affective factors on L1/L2 literacy transfers. Studies in English Language and Literature, 10, 17-32.##Lee, S. Y. (2005). Facilitating and inhibiting factors on EFL writing: A model testing with SEM. Language Learning, 55(2), 335-374.##Leki, L., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2010). A synthesis of research on second language writing in English. New York: Routledge.##Lu, Y. (2010). Cognitive factors contributing to Chinese EFL learners’ L2 writing performance in timed essay writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Georgia State University.##Magno, C. (2008). Reading strategy, amount of writing, metacognition, metamemory, and apprehension as predictors of English written proficiency. Asian EFL Journal, 29, retrieved from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/PTA/pta_July-08_cm.php.##Matsuda, P. K., Ortmeier-Hooper, C., & Matsuda, A. (2009).The expansion of second language writing. R. Beard, D. Myhill & M. Nystrand (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of writing development (pp. 457-471). London: SAGE Publications.## Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (1999). Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##Nishino, T., & Atkinson, D. (2015).Second language writing as sociocognitive alignment. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 37-54. ##Oxford, R., L. (1992). Who Are Our Students? A Synthesis of Foreign and Second Language Research on Individual Differences with Implications for Instructional Practice. TESL CANADA Journal, 9(2), 30-49.##Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs motivation and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 139-158.##Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 265–289.##Pawlak, M. (2012).New perspectives on individual differences in language learning and teaching. New York: Springer.##Rahimi, M. (2015).The Role of individual differences in L2 learners’ retention of written corrective feedback. Journal of Response to Writing, 1(1), 19–48.##Revelle, W. (2000).Individual differences. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (pp. 249–252). Oxford: American Psychological Association and Oxford University Press.##Saadat, M., & Fayaz Datgerdi, M. (2014). Correlates of L2 writing ability of Iranian students majoring in English. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1572 – 1579.##Sasaki, M. (2002). Building an empirically-based model of EFL learners’ writing processes. In S. Ransdell & M. L.Barbier (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing (pp. 49–80). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.##Sasaki, M. (2004).A multiple-data analysis of the 3.5-year development of EFL student writers. Language Learning, 54(3), 525-582.##Sasaki, M., & Hirose, K. (1996). Explanatory variables for EFL students’ expository writing. Language Learning, 46, 137–174.##Schoonen, R., Gelderen, A. V., Glopper, K. D., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., & Stevenson, M. (2003). First language and second language writing: The role of linguistic knowledge, speed of processing, and metacognitive knowledge. Language learning, 53(1), 165-202.##Schoonen, R., Snellings, P., Stevenson, M., & Van Gelderen, A. (2009). Towards a blueprint of the foreign language writer: The linguistic and cognitive demands of foreign language writing. Writing in Foreign Language Contexts: Learning, Teaching, and Research, 77-101. Retrieved from http://dare.uva.nl/search?identifier=dd67fb55-f28c-45c9-9eea-e4296b33559a.##Shahnazari, M. (2011). The role of working memory in second language reading comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Auckland, UK.##Silva, T. (2013). Second language writing: Talking points. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 432–434.##Sivo, S. A., Fan, X. T., Witta, E .L. and Willse, J. T. (2006). The Search for ‘Optimal’ Cutoff Properties: Fit Index Criteria in Structural Equation Modeling, the Journal of Experimental Education, 74(3), 267-289.##Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(02), 275-298.##Teng, S.L., & Zhang, J.L. (2016). Fostering strategic learning: The development and validation of the Writing Strategies for Motivational Regulation Questionnaire (WSMRQ).Asia-Paciﬁc Edu Res, 25(1), 123–134.##Torrance, M., Thomas, G. V., & Robinson, E. J. (2000). Individual differences in undergraduate essay-writing strategies: A longitudinal study. Higher Education, 39(2), 181-200.##Ullman, J. B. (2006). Structuralequation modeling: Reviewing the basics and moving forward. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87(1), 35-50. ##Vieira, A. L. (2011). Interactive LISREL in practice. New York, NY: Springer.##Wardle, E., & Roozen, K. (2012). Addressing the complexity of writing development: Towards an ecological model of assessment. Assessing Writing, 17, 106-119.##Weigle, S. C. (2005). Second language writing expertise. In K. Johnson (Ed.), Expertise in second language learning and teaching (pp. 128-149). Basingstoke, Hampshire/ New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.##Winke, P. (2013). An investigation into Second Language Aptitude for advanced Chinese language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 97(1), 109- 130.##Wong, A. S. C. (2012). An investigation of the predictors of L2 writing among adult ESL students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Canterbury, New Zealand.##Yavuz-Erkan, D. (2004). Efficacy of cross-cultural e-mail exchange for enhancing EFL writing: A perspective for tertiary-level Turkish EFL learners. Unpublished Dissertation Abstract. Çukurova University, the Institute of Social Sciences English Language Teaching, Adana/Turkey.##Zamel, V. (1983). The composing process of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165-187.##Zhang, C., Yanb, X., & Liu, X. (2015).The development of EFL writing instruction and research in China: An update from the International Conference on English Language Teaching. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 14–18.##Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82-91.##

1 وضعیت فعالیت و تفاوت‌های فردی زبان‌آموزان انگلیسی به عنوان زبان خارجی: تاثیر واسطه‌ای تحمل ابهام و خودباوری Task Condition and EFL Learners’ Individual Differences: The Mediation of Tolerance of Ambiguity and Self-efficacy https://jtls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_3973.html 10.22099/jtls.2017.3973 1 Drawing on Robinson’s cognition hypothesis, the study attempted to examine how task conditions influence EFL learners’ oral performance and whether learners’ individual differences in terms of tolerance of ambiguity and self-efficacy mediate the effects of such conditions. To this end, 62 Iranian intermediate EFL learners from private language institutes in Tehran performed four dyadic decision-making tasks manipulated along task conditions of information distribution and goal orientation. Their performance was measured through complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF) indices. Their tolerance of ambiguity and self-efficacy were assessed using separate questionnaires. The results indicated that information distribution and goal orientation could significantly impact the participants’ performance on the tasks. As to the CAF indices, it seemed that Skehan’s (2016) trade-off hypothesis was a better fit than Robinson’s (2015) cognition hypothesis since trade-offs were found between complexity and accuracy/fluency. The results of the correlations revealed that there were a number of significant positive relationships between tolerance of ambiguity and the CAF indices on the one hand and self-efficacy and the CAF indices on the other. While the former relationships did not confirm the specific prediction of the cognition hypothesis, the latter relationships did. Overall, the findings contribute to Robinson’s hypothesis concerned with the effects of task conditions on oral performance and the mediating role of individual differences, and have implications for task sequencing and task-based teaching. 0 پژوهش حاضر که برگرفته از نظریه شناختی رابینسون است چگونگی تاثیر وضعیت‌های فعالیت بر عملکرد شفاهی زبان‌آموزان انگلیسی به عنوان زبان خارجی را مورد مطالعه قرار می‌دهد. هدف دیگر این پژوهش بررسی تاثیر واسطه‌ای تفاوت‌های فردی زبان‌آموزان به لحاظ تحمل ابهام و خودباوری بر تاثیرات وضعیت‌های فعالیت می‌باشد. بدین منظور، ۶۲ نفر زبان‌آموز ایرانی حد متوسط زبان انگلیسی به عنوان زبان خارجی از موسسات خصوصی زبان در تهران چهار فعالیت دو نفره تصمیم‌گیری را انجام دادند. این فعالیت‌ها در راستای وضعیت‌های فعالیت توزیع اطلاعات و گرایش هدف مورد تغییراتی قرار گرفته بودند. عملکرد زبان‌آموزان با استفاده از شاخص‌های پیچیدگی، درستی، و روانی (کاف)؛ و تحمل ابهام و خودباوری آنها با بهره‌گیری از پرسشنامه‌های جداگانه سنجیده شدند. نتایج نشان داد که توزیع اطلاعات و گرایش هدف به صورت معناداری بر عملکرد زبان‌آموزان در اجرای فعالیت‌ها تاثیر می‌گذارند. در توضیح نتایج شاخص‌های کاف به‌‌نظر می‌رسد نظریه جایگزینی اسکهان (۲۰۱۶) در مقایسه با نظریه‌شناختی رابینسون (۲۰۱۵) گزینه مناسب‌تری است چرا که جایگزینی‌هایی بین پیچیدگی و درستی/روانی مشاهده شد. نتایج همبستگی‌ها مشخص کرد که از طرفی تعدادی رابطه معنادار مثبت بین تحمل ابهام و شاخص‌های کاف و از طرفی دیگر بین خودباوری و شاخص‌های کاف وجود دارند. برخلاف روابط بین تحمل ابهام و شاخص‌های کاف، روابط بین خودباوری و شاخص‌های کاف توانستند پیش‌بینی نظریه‌شناختی را تایید کنند. در مجموع، یافته‌های این پژوهش به نظریه رابینسون درباره تاثیرات وضعیت‌های فعالیت بر عملکرد شفاهی و نقش واسطه‌ای تفاوت‌های فردی کمک می‌کنند. همچنین، یافته‌ها شامل نتایج مثبتی برای مرتب کردن فعالیت و تدریس فعالیت- محور هستند. 71 102 محمودرضا عطایی Mahmoud Reza Atai Kharazmi University, Department of Foreign Languages Iran atai@khu.ac.ir علیرضا زارع آلانق Alireza Zaré Alanagh Kharazmi University, Department of Foreign Languages Iran alireza_zarea@hotmail.com task condition individual differences tolerance of ambiguity self-efficacy CAF Allan, D. (2004). Oxford Placement Test. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ##Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press.##Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.##Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are they really? Educational Psychology Review, 15, 1–40.##Brown, R. (1991). Group work, task difference, and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 21, 1-12.##Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30, 29-50.##Chapelle, C. & Roberts, C. (1986). Ambiguity tolerance and field independence as predictors of proficiency in English as a second language. Language Learning, 36, 27-45.##Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner. Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.##Dörnyei, Z., & Kormos, J. (2000). The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance. Language Teaching Research, 4, (3), 275-300.##Doughty, C. and Pica, T. (1986) “Information gap” tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20, 305-325.##Ehrman, M. E., Leaver, B. L., & Oxford, R. L. (2003). A brief overview of individual differences in second language learning. System, 31, 313-330.##El-Koumy, A. S. A. (2000). Differences in FL reading comprehension among high-, middle-, and low-ambiguity tolerance students. Paper presented at the National Symposium on English Language Teaching in Egypt, Cairo.##Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ##Ellis, R. & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.##Ely, C. M. (1989). Tolerance of ambiguity and use of second language strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 22, 437-445.##Ely, C. M. (1995). Tolerance of ambiguity and the Teaching of ESL. In J. M. Reid (Ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 87-95). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.##Foster, P. (1998) A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics 19, 1-23.##Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299-323. ##Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (2013). Anticipating a post-task activity: The effects on accuracy, complexity, and fluency of second language performance. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69, 249-273.##Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21, 354-375.##Gass, S.M. and Varonis, M. (1985) Task variation and non-native/non-native negotiation of meaning. In S. M. Gass and C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 149-161). Boston, Heinle and Heinle.##Gilabert, R., Barón J. & Levkina, M. (2011). Manipulating task complexity across task types and modes. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 105-138). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.##Iwashita, N. (2001). The effect of learner proficiency on interactional moves and modified output in nonnative-nonnative interaction in Japanese as a foreign language. System, 29, 267-287.##Julkunen, K. (1990). Open and closed vocabulary tasks in foreign language learning. In Tommola, J. (Ed.), Foreign language comprehension and production (pp. 7-25). Turku, Finland: Finnish Association of Applied Linguistics.##Kazamina, V. (1999). How tolerant are Greek EFL learners of foreign language ambiguities. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics, 7, 69-78.##Kim, Y. & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2011). Task complexity, language anxiety, and the development of the simple past. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 287-306). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.##Kormos, J. & Dörnyei, Z., (2004). The interaction of linguistic and motivational variables in second language task performance. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht. 9, (2),19-40.##Kormos, J., & Trebits, A. (2012). The role of task complexity, modality and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 62, 439-472.##Lambert, C. P. & Engler, S. (2007). Information distribution and goal orientation in second Language task design. In M. P. Garcia-Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 27-43). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.##Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.##Long, M.H. (1989) Task, group and task-group interactions. In S. Anivan (Ed.) Language Teaching Methodology for the Nineties (pp. 31-50). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.##Mannheimer, R. (1993). Close the task, improve the discourse. Estudios de Linguistica Aplicada 17, 18-40.##McLain, D. L. (1993). The MSTAT-I: a new measure of an individual’s tolerance for ambiguity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 183-189.##Nourzadeh, S. (2015). Investigating individual differences in narrative task performance through the CAF model: The case of working memory, foreign language anxiety, willingness to communicate, and learner age. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran.##Oxford, R. (1992). Who are our students? A synthesis of foreign and second language research on individual differences with implications for instructional practice. TESL Canada, 9, 30-49.##Oxford, R. & Ehrman, M. (1992). Second language research on individual differences. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 188-205. ##Qian, L. (2014). Get it right in the end: The effects of post-task transcribing on learners’ oral performance. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing Perspectives on task performance (pp. 129-154). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.##Rahimpour, M. (2009). Impact of task condition on L2 learners’ oral performance. Journal of Faculty of Letters & Humanities, 51, 13-23.##Rankin J. (1990).A case for close-mindedness: Complexity, accuracy and attention in closed vs. open tasks.University of Hawaii (mimeo).##Rankin J. (1995). The effects of task design on accuracy and self-monitoring. American Association of Applied Linguistics (mimeo).##Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 237-257.##Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 3-37). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.##Robinson, P. (2015). The Cognition Hypothesis, second language task demands and the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in TBLT: Plenaries from a decade of the international conference (pp. 87-122). Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.##Shehadeh, A. (2001). Self- and other-initiated modified output during task-based interaction. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 433-457.##Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 275-298.##Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task based instruction. Applied Linguistics 17, (1), 38-62.##Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.##Skehan, P. (2014). The context for researching a processing perspective on task performance. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing Perspectives on Task Performance (pp. 1-26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.##Skehan, P. (2016). Tasks versus conditions: Two perspectives on task research and their implications for pedagogy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 34-49. ##Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185-211.##Trebits, A. (2016). Sources of individual differences in L2 narrative production: The contribution of input, processing, and output anxiety. Applied Linguistics, 37, 155-174.##Wang, C. (2004). Self-regulated leaning strategies and self-efficacy beliefs of children learning English as a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ohio State University. Ohio, USA.##Wang, C., Kim, D. H., Bai, R., & Hu, J. (2014). Psychometric properties of a self-efficacy scale for English language learners in China. System, 44, 24-33.##Wang, C., Wang, L., & Li, Y. (2007). Chinese secondary school self-regulated learners of English. Paper presented at TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) 2007 convention. Seattle, WA.##Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 202-231). New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.##

1 مدیریت پیچیدگی فعالیت و صحت در تولید نوشتار Task Complexity Manipulation and Accuracy in Writing Performance https://jtls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_3943.html 10.22099/jtls.2017.3943 1 This study aimed to investigate the impact of task sequencing, along +/- reasoning demands dimension, on writing task performance in terms of accuracy. The study was motivated by Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis (CH) as well as previous studies investigating the relationships between task complexity and second language production. The participants of the study were 90 intermediate students at the Islamic Azad University, Shahr-e-Qods Branch, chosen from three classes based on their performance on the Preliminary English Test (PET). The participants in the three classes were assigned to three groups: Experimental 1, Experimental 2, and a Control group. At first, the students in all groups took part in the writing pre-test. Next, the treatment sessions including 8 sessions of picture description task performance began, during which the first experimental group received a series of picture description tasks based on a randomized order of cognitive complexity. The second experimental group received the same tasks, but ordered from simple to complex, based on their required reasoning demands. The control group, however, received some writing activities from the course book. Finally, during the last session, the post- test was administered to all participants. The results of the data analysis showed a significant positive impact for sequencing tasks from simple to complex on accuracy in writing task performance. 0 هدف از این مطالعه بررسی تاثیر مدیریت درجه پیچیدگی فعالیت (از لحاظ میزان استدلال مورد نیاز) بر روی صحت نوشتار زبان‌آموزان می‌باشد. این مطالعه بر مبنای نظریه‌شناختی رابینسون و همچنین مطالعات گذشته بر روی تاثیر پیچیدگی فعالیت از جنبه‌های مختلف بر عملکرد زبانی زبان‌آموزان صورت گرفته است. افراد مورد مطالعه 90 نفراز دانشجویان مقطع کارشناسی رشته مترجمی زبان انگلیسی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد شهر قدس بودند که این افراد از بین تعداد بیشتری از دانشجویان این رشته بر اساس عملکرد آنها در آزمون زبان مقدماتی (پت) انتخاب شدند. بمنظور انجام تحقیق زبان‌آموزان انتخاب شده به سه گروه سی نفره تقسیم شدند: دو گروه آزمایش و یک گروه کنترل. در ابتدا پرسشنامه‌های مربوط به اضطراب نوشتاری و شیوه یادگیری به زبان‌آموزان در هر سه گروه داده شد. علاوه بر این همه زبان‌آموزان در یک پیش‌آزمون که شامل یک فعالیت نوشتاری توصیف تصاویر بود شرکت کردند. سپس در طی 8 جلسه زبان‌آموزان در گروه آزمایش اول 8 فعالیت نوشتاری توصیف تصاویر را با ترتیب تصادفی از لحاظ پیچیدگی شناختی فعالیت (ازجنبه میزان استدلال مورد نیاز) در طی 8 جلسه کلاسی انجام دادند. گروه آزمایش دوم همین 8 فعالیت را دریافت کردند. با این تفاوت که فعالیت‌ها براساس درجه پیچیدگی شناختی‌شان (ازجنبه میزان استدلال مورد نیاز) به ترتیب از آسان به سخت مرتب شده بودند. گروه کنترل هیچ‌گونه فعالیت توصیف تصاویری را انجام ندادند و صرفا فعالیت‌های رایج نوشتاری و تمرین‌های کتاب را انجام دادند. در پایان 8 جلسه تمامی زبان‌آموزان در پس آزمون که مشابه پیش آزمون بود شرکت کردند. عملکرد زبان‌آموزان در پیش‌آزمون و پس‌آزمون براساس مقیاس صحت نوشتاری مورد ارزیابی قرار گرفت. نتایج تجزیه و تحلیل آماری داده‌ها با استفاده از نرم‌افزار اس‌پی‌اس اس نشان داد که گروه آزمایشی که فعالیت‌ها را به ترتیب پیچیدگی شناختی (از آسان به مشکل) دریافت کرده بودند از لحاظ صحت نوشتار عملکرد فابل توجه بهتری نسبت به دو گروه دیگر داشتند. 103 132 لاله فخرائی فاروجی Laleh Fakhraee Faruji Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran Iran fakhraeelaleh@yahoo.com فرید قائمی Farid Ghaemi Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, Islamic Azad University, Karaj Branch, Alborz, Iran Iran ghaemi@kiau.ac.ir accuracy cognition hypothesis (CH) reasoning demands task complexity triadic componential framework (TCF) Abdollahzadeh, S., & Kashani, F. A. (2011). The effect of task complexity on EFL learners’ narrative writing task performance. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 8, 1-28.##Bailey, E. P., & Powell, P. A. (2008). The practical writer with readings. New York: Heinle & Heinle.##Choong, K. W. P. (2014). Effects of task complexity on written production in L2 English. (Doctoral Dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University). Retrieved February 2015 from http://gigalib.org/index.aspx##Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language## Teaching Research, 4(3), 193-220.##Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language teaching and learning. Oxford: OUP.##Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 141-172.##Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: OUP.##Ellis, R. (2009a). Task‐based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221-246.##Ellis, R. (2009b). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474–509.##Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299-324.##Frear, M. W. (2013). The effects of cognitive task complexity on writing. Doctoral dissertation, Auckland University of Technology. Retrieved August 15, 2014 from http://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/handle/10292/7309##Gilabert, R. (2007a). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 215-40.##Gilabert, R. (2007b). The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity planning time and [+-Here-and-Now]. In M.D.P. Garcia-Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 44-68). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.##Iwashita, N., McNamara, T., & Elder, C. (2001). Can we predict task difficulty in an oral proficiency test? Exploring the potential of an information processing approach to task design. Language Learning, 51(3), 401–436.##Kim, Y. (2009). The effects of task complexity on learner-learner interaction. System, 37(2),254–268.##Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45(3), 261-284.##Long, M. H. (1989). Task, group and task-group interactions. Unıversıty of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, 8(2), 1-26. Retrieved August 21, 2014 from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED366184.pdf##Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task‐based syllabus design. Tesol Quarterly, 26(1), 27-56.##Masrom, U. K., Alwi, N., & Daud, N. M. (2015). The effects of task complexity on the complexity of the second language written production. Journal of Second Language Teaching & Research, 4(1), 38-66.##Michel, M. C., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45(3),241–259.##Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555-578.##Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom.##Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##Nunan, D. (1991). Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 25(2),279-295.##Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: CUP.##Preliminary English Test (PET) (2015). Retrieved March 3, 2016 from http://www.cambridgeenglish.org/exams/preliminary/exam format##Rahimi, M. (2009). The role of teachers’ corrective feedback in improving Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy over time: Is learners' mother tongue relevant? Reading and Writing, 22(2), 219-243.##Rahimpour, M. (2007). Task complexity and variation in L2 learners' oral discourse. The University of Queensland Working Papers in Linguistics, 1, 1-9. Retrieved from https://www.library.uq.edu.au/##Rahimpour, M., & Hosseini, P. (2010). The impact of task complexity on L2 learners’ written narratives. English Language Teaching, 3(3), 198-205.##Révész, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(3), 437–470.##Révész, A. (2014). Towards a fuller assessment of cognitive models of task- based learning: Investigating task-generated cognitive demands and processes. Applied Linguistics, 35, 87–92.##Révész, A., & Han, Z. (2006). Task content familiarity, task type, and efficacy of recasts. Language Awareness, 15(3), 160 – 179.##Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287- 318). Cambridge: CUP.##Robinson, P. (2001b). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27-57.##Robinson, P. (2003). The cognition hypothesis, task design, and adult task- based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21(2), 45-105.##Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43(1), 1–32.##Robinson, P. (2007a). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, and perceptionsof task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 191-213.##Robinson, P. (2007b). Criteria for classifying and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In M. G. Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 7-27). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.##Robinson, P. (2010). Situating and distributing cognition across task demands: The SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In M. Putz & L. Sicola (Eds.), Cognitive processing in second language acquisition: Inside the learner’s mind (pp. 243-268). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.##Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Researching task complexity: Task demands, task-based language learning and performance (pp. 3-38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.##Robinson, P., Ting, S., & Urwin, J. J. (1995). Investigating second language task complexity. RELC Journal, 26(2), 62–79.##Romanko, R., & Nakatsugawa, M. (2010). Task sequencing based on the cognition hypothesis. In A. M. Stoke (Ed.), JALT2009 Conference Proceedings (pp. 436-445). Tokyo: JALT.##Salimi, A., Alavinia, P., & Hosseini, P. (2012). The effect of strategic planning time and task complexity on L2 written accuracy. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(11), 2398-2406.##Salimi, A., & Dadashpour, S. (2012). Task complexity and SL development: Does task complexity matter? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 726-735.##Salimi, A., Dadashpour, S., & Asadollahfam, H. (2011). The effect of task complexity on EFL learners' written performance. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1390–1399.##Sercu, L., De Wachter, L., Peters, E., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2006). The effect of task complexity and task conditions on foreign language development and performance: Three empirical studies. ITL-Review of Applied Linguistics, 152, 55–84.##Shehadeh, A., & Coombe, C. A. (2012). Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implementation.##Amsterdam: John Benjamins.##Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied linguistics, 17(1), 38-62.##Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185-211.##Soleimani, H., & Rezazadeh, M. (2013). The impact of increase in task cognitive complexity on Iranian EFL learners’ accuracy and linguistic complexity: A test of Robinson’s cognition hypothesis. International Journal of Basic Sciences & Applied Research, 2(5), 459-469.##Steenkamp, A., & Visser, M. (2011). Using cognitive complexity analysis for the grading and sequencing of isiXhosa tasks in the curriculum design of a communication course for education students. Per Linguam, 27(1), 11-29.##Thompson, C. (2014). Guided planning, task complexity and second language oral development. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Central Lancashire). Retrieved August 2014 from http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/10568/2/Thompson.##Van den Branden, K. (2006). Task-based language teaching: from theory to practice. Cambridge: CUP.##Vercellotti, M. L. (2012). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency as properties of language performance: The development of multiple subsystems over time and in relation to each other (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh). Retrieved March 9, 2015 from www. http://d-cholarship.pitt.edu/12071/1/Vercellotti_CAF_v3.pdf##Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S. & Kim H. -Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.##

1 آیا سازوکارهای حمایتی ساختاردهنده و مسأله‌ساز بر انتقال دانش مبتنی بر ژانر به گفتمان دیگر تاثیر دارد؟ Can Scaffolding Mechanisms of Structuring and Problematizing Facilitate the Transfer of Genre-based Knowledge to Another Discourse Mode? https://jtls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_3999.html 10.22099/jtls.2017.3999 1 A pivotal issue in research on writing concerns whether the knowledge of how genres are constructed and learned in one discipline/genre can be transferred to other contexts, genres, and disciplines. Yet, studies conducted so far have not presented a unified and complete view of how various writing instructional techniques can result in transferability. This study examined the effect of structuring and problematizing scaffolding mechanisms and the mediating effect of learners’ proficiency level on a cohort of Iranian English learners’ ability to transfer the acquired genre-based knowledge to a new discourse mode. Four groups of thirty pre-intermediate learners chosen from eight intact classes and four groups of advanced learners selected from eight intact classes participated in this study. The performance of the participants in structuring scaffolds, problematizing scaffolds, and combined structuring and problematizing scaffolds conditions were compared to that of the control groups. The results of a two-way ANCOVA revealed that scaffolding mechanisms could significantly result in genre-transferability. The results also suggested that scaffolding mechanisms brought about the best results when offered simultaneously. Besides, the result yielded no significantly moderating effect for learners’ proficiency level. Implications for classrooms are discussed. 0 یکی از موضوعات محوری در پژوهش در حیطه نگارش این است که آیا دانش چگونگی ساخت و آموختن گونه متن در یک رشته آموزشی یا سبک نگارش می‌توانند به بافت‌ها و سبک‌های دیگر انتقال یابد. مطالعات انجام شده تاکنون دیدگاهی واحد و کامل درباره چگونگی انتقال این دانش از طریق روش‌های مختلف آموزشی ارائه نداده‌اند. این مطالعه به بررسی تأثیر حمایت‌‌های ساختاردهنده و مسأله‌ساز بر توانایی انتقال دانش مبتنی بر سبک و اثر تعدیلی سطح زبانی در یک گروه از فراگیران زبان انگلیسی در ایران پرداخته است. چهار گروه 30 نفره در 8 کلاس دست‌نخورده سطح پیش متوسطه و چهار گروه 30 نفره در 8 کلاس دست‌نخورده سطح پیشرفته در این مطالعه شرکت کردند. عملکرد پیش‌آزمون و پس‌آزمون شرکت‌کنندگان در گروه‌های حمایت‌های ساختاردهنده، حمایت‌های مسأله‌ساز و ترکیب حمایت‌های ساختاردهنده و مسأله‌ساز با عملکرد گروه شاهد مقایسه گردید. نتایج حاصل از تحلیل کواریانس نشان داد که سازوکارهای حمایتی به طور قابل توجهی می‌توانند منجر به انتقال دانش مبتنی بر ژانر شود. این نتایج همچنین نشان داد که سازوکارهای حمایتی زمانی بهترین نتیجه را به ارمغان داشتند که با هم و به صورت ترکیبی ارائه شدند. علاوه بر این، سطح مهارت زبان‌آموزان این نتیجه را تعدیل ‌نمی‌کرد. 133 156 - - Mahboobeh Mortazavi Payame Noor University Iran m.mortazavi1981@yahoo.com - - Manoochehr Jafarigohar Payame Noor University Iran jafari@pnu.ac.ir - - Afsar Roohi Payame Noor University Iran afsar.rouhi@gmail.com genre-transferability problematizing scaffolds structuring scaffolds Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition – implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33, 367−379.##Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 52(2), 153−160.##Baleghizadeh, S., Timcheh Memar, A., & Timcheh Memar, H. (2011). A sociocultural perspective on second language acquisition: The effect of high-structured scaffolding versus low-structured scaffolding on the writing ability of EFL learners. Reflections on English Language Teaching, 10(1), 43−54.##Beaufort, A. (2007). College writing and beyond. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.##Bruning, R., & Horn, C. (2000). Developing motivation to write. Educational Psychologist, 35, 25−38.##Cheng, F., & Chen, Y. (2009). Taiwanese argumentation skills: Contrastive rhetoric perspective. Taiwan International ESP Journal, 1(1), 23−50.##Cho, K., & Schunn, C. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers and Education, 48(3), 409–426.##Choi, J. (2013). Does peer feedback affect L2 writers’ L2 learning, composition skills, metacognitive knowledge, and L2 writing anxiety? English Teaching, 68(3), 187−213.##Clark, I. L., & Hernandez, A. (2011). Genre-awareness, academic argument, and transferability. The WAC Journal, 22, 65−78.##Devitt, A. J. (2004). Writing genres. Corbondale: South Illinios, UP.##Englert, C. S., & Hiebert, E. H. (1984). Children’s developing awareness of text structure in expository materials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 65−74.##Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365−387.##Hammann, L. A., & Stevens, R. S. (2003).Instructional approaches to improving students' writing of compare-contrast essays: an experimental study. Journal of Literacy Research, 35(2), 731−756.##Hassan, M. K., & Akhand, M. M. (2010). Approaches to writing in EFL/ESL context: Balancing product and process in writing class at tertiary level. Journal of NELTA, 15(1), 77−88.##Hill, H. (2012). Telling what they know; performing what they say: Genre awareness and the transferability of writing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Washington, Washington, USA.##Hyland, K. (1990). A genre description of the argumentative essay. RELC Journal, 21(1), 67−78.##Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20, 341− 367.##Kamimura, T. (2000). Integration of process and product orientations in EFL writing instruction. RELC Journal, 31 (2), 1−28.##Kanlapan, T. C. E., & Velasco, J. C. (2009). Constructing a self-regulation scale contextualized in writing. TESOL Journal, 1(1), 79−94.##Khodabandeh, F. (2014). Argumentation across L1 and L2: Examination of three instructional treatments of genre-based approach to teaching writing. Prodcedia˗Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 968−975.## Khodabandeh, F., Jafarigohar, M., Soleimani, H. & Hemmati, F. (2013). The impact of explicit, implicit, and no-formal genre-based instruction on argumentative essay writing, The Linguistics Journal, 7(1), 134-166.##Kutz, E., Groden, S., & Zamel, V. (1993). The discovery of competence: Teaching and learning with diverse student writers. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.##Lai, G., & Calandra, B. (2010). Examining the effects of computer-based scaffolds on novice teachers’ reflective journal writing. Education Tech Research Development, 58, 421–437.##Meyer, B. J. F. (1999). The importance of text structure in everyday reading. In A. Ram & K. Moorman (Eds.), Understanding language understanding: Computational models of reading and understanding (pp. 227−252). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.##Meyer, J. H. F., Land, R., & Bailie, C. V. (2010). Threshold concepts and transformational learning (Editors preface). Roterdam: Sense publisher.##Monem, R. (2010). Metacognitive functions, interest, and student engagement in the writing process: A review of the literature. In M. S. Plakhotnik, S. M. Nielsen, & D. M. Pane (Eds.), Proceedings of the ninth annual college of education and GSN research conference (pp. 64−68). Miami: Florida International University. ##Muncie, J. (2002). Finding a place for grammar in EFL composition classes. EFL Journal, 56,180−186.##Meyer, B. J. F. (1999). The importance of text structure in everyday reading. In A. Ram & K. Moorman (Eds.), Understanding language understanding: Computational models of reading and understanding (pp. 227−252). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.##Mustafa., Z. (1995). The effect of genre awareness on linguistic transfer. ESP, 14(3), 247−256.##Myles, J. (2002).Second language writing and research: The writing process and error analysis in student texts. TESL-EJ, 6(2), 1−20.##Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1988). Teaching for transfer. Educational Leadership, 46(1), 22–32.##Qian, L. (2013). A comparative genre analysis of English argumentative essays written by English major and non-English major students in an EFL context. Arab World English Journal, 4(1), 213−223.##Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (4th ed.). London: Pearson Longman.##Rounsaville, A., Goldberg, R., & Bawarshi, A. (2008). From incomes to outcomes: FYW students’ prior genre knowledge, meta-cognition, and the question of transfer. Writing Program Administration, 32(1), 97−112. ##Reiser, B. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Science, 13(3), 273–304.##Ruan, Z. (2013). Metacognitive awareness of EFL student writers in a Chinese ELT context. Language Awareness, 23(1−2), 76−91.##Russell, D. R. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory analysis. Written Communication, 14(4), 504-554.##Samana, W., (2013). Teachers’ and students’ scaffolding in an EFL classroom. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 2(8), 338−343.##So, B. P. C. (2005). From analysis to pedagogic applications: Using newspaper genres to write school genres. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(1), 67−32.##Spivey, N. N. (1991). The shaping of meaning: Options in writing the comparison. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 390−418.##Stein, N., Bernas, R. S., Calicchia, D. J., & Wright, A. (1995). Understanding and resolving arguments: The dynamics of negotiation. In B. Britton & A. G. Graesser (Eds.), Mode/s of understanding (pp. 257−286). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.##Veerappan, V. A. L., Suan, W. H., & Sulaiman, T. (2011). The Effect of scaffolding technique in journal writing among the second language learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(4), 934−940.##Vyotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.##Wardle, E. (2007). Understanding ‘transfer’ from FYC: Preliminary results from a longitudinal study. Writing Program Administration, 31(1), 65−85.##Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). Role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89–100.##Yang, W. (2011). Can genre-based instruction be ‘promising’ for transferability?English for Specific Purposes World, 11(33), 1−10.##Yang, W. (2012). A study of students’ perception and attitudes towards genre- based ESP writing instruction. Asian ESP Journal, 18(3), 50−73.##

1 رویکرد چند منظوره در آموزش با هدف انتقال مهارت‌های نوشتاری به موقعیت‌های حرفه‌ای: مطالعه‌ی موردی آموزش گروهی در رشته‌های علوم‌پزشکی A Multimodal Approach toward Teaching for Transfer: A Case of Team-Teaching in ESAP Writing Courses https://jtls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_3944.html 10.22099/jtls.2017.3944 1 This paper presents a detailed examination of learning transfer from an English for Specific Academic Purposes course to authentic discipline-specific writing tasks. To enhance transfer practices, a new approach in planning writing tasks and materials selection was developed. Concerning the conventions of studies in learning transfer that acknowledge different learning preferences, the instructional resources were designed to be multimodal to engage all participants in construing the principles of academic writing. To promote the relevance of writing practices and their transferability to future professional settings and to ensure the success of the multimodal presentations, a practice of team-teaching between the English Language and content lecturers was rigorously embraced. A sample population of 28 postgraduate medical students from Jondi Shapur University of Medical Sciences in Ahvaz participated in this research. The data were collected through interviews and writing samples throughout a whole semester and were subsequently analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively based on James' (2009) checklist of writing outcomes. The results indicated that the instruction did stimulate transfer from the course to the authentic tasks notably in the skills associated with organization and language accuracy; however, the transfer of some outcomes appeared to be constrained particularly the use of punctuation marks. Implications of the findings for theory, practice, and future research in discipline-specific writing practices are discussed. 0 این مطالعه مقوله انتقال یادگیری بر اساس دوره‌ی آموزشی انگلیسی برای اهداف خاص دانشگاهی (ESAP) را بررسی می‌کند. به منظور افزایش انتقال، رویکرد جدیدی در طراحی مهارت‌های نوشتاری و انتخاب مطالب آموزشی اتخاذ شد. با توجه به روند مطالعات موجود در انتقال یادگیری که اذعان بر ترجیحات یادگیری دارند، منابع آموزشی بصورت چندمنظوره با هدف جلب دانشجویان برای استنباط مؤثر اصول نگارش دانشگاهی طراحی شدند. برای اطمینان از مرتبط بودن مهارت‌های نگارشی با رشته‌های تحصیلی منتخب و انتقال آنها به موقعیت‌های پیش‌رو، یک دوره آموزشی با طراحی مشترک استادان زبان انگلیسی و تخصصی علوم پزشکی در نظر گرفته شد. بدین ترتیب، جمعیتی 28 نفره از دانشجویان تحصیلات تکمیلی دانشگاه علوم پزشکی جندی شاپور اهواز در این پژوهش شرکت کردند. داده‌ها طی آزمون‌های متعدد مقاله‌نویسی و مصاحبه در طول یک ترم جمع‌آوری شده پس از آن بر اساس چک لیست جیمز (2009) تجزیه و تحلیل کمّی و کیفی شدند. تجزیه و تحلیل آماری داده‌ها نشان می‌دهد که روش آموزشی اتخاذ شده، انتقال یادگیری را به‌ویژه در مهارت‌های مرتبط با ساختار متن و دستور زبان افزایش داده است؛ با این حال، انتقال برخی از مهارت‌ها به ویژه علائم نگارشی محدود بوده است. 157 190 زهره گونی بند شوشتری zohreh Shooshtari academic member of Shahid Chamran Univ Iran zshooshtari@yahoo.com - - Alireza Jalilifar English Department of Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz Iran ar.jalilifar@gmail.com - - Somaye Biparva Haghighi Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz Iran biparva_somayeh@yahoo.com academic writing ESAP learning transfer multimodality team-teaching Abasi, A. R., Akbari, N., & Graves, B. (2006).Discourse appropriation, construction of identities, and the complex issue of plagiarism: ESL students writing in graduate school. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 102-117.##Aidinlou, N. A. (2011). A discourse-based teaching of writing for Iranian EFL students: A systemic perspective. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 3(8), 53-70.##Anderson, R. (2014). A parallel approach to ESAP teaching. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 136, 194-202.##Baily, S. (2010).Academic writing: A handbook for international students. London: Routledge.##Baradaran, A., & Sarfarazi, B. (2011). The impact of scaffolding on the Iranian EFL learners’ English academic writing. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 5(12), 2265-2273. ##Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612-637.##Bjork, L., Brauer, G., Rienecker, L., & Jorgensen, P. S. (2003). Teaching academic writing in European higher education: An introduction. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.##Camiciottoli, B. C., & Fortanet-Gómez, I. (2015). Multimodal analysis in academic settings. London: Routledge.##Cohen, M., & DeLois, K. (2001). Training in tandem: Co-facilitation and role modeling in a group work course. Social Work in Groups, 24(1), 21-36.##Conderman, G., & McCarty, B. (2003). Shared insights from university co-teaching. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 7(4). Retrieved from https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-114168055/shared-insights-from-university-co-teaching##Evans, S., & Green, C. (2007). Why EAP is necessary: A survey of Hong Kong tertiary students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(1), 3-17.##Fenollera, M., Lorenzo, J., Goicoechea, I., & Badoui, A. (2012). Interdisciplinary team teaching. In B. Katalinic (Ed.), DAAAM International Scientific Book (pp. 585-600). Austria: DAAAM International.##Fregeau, L. A. (1999). Preparing ESL students for college writing: Two case studies. The Internet TESL Journal. Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Fregeau-CollegeWriting.html.##Friend, M. (2008). Co-teach! A manual for creating and sustaining effective classroom partnerships in inclusive schools. Greensboro: Marilyn Friend.##Gee, J. P. (2005). Learning by design: Good video games as learning machines, E-Learning, 2(1), 5-16.##Gimenez, J. (2008). Beyond the academic essay: Discipline-specific writing in nursing and midwifery. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(3), 151-164.##Górska-Poręcka, B. (2013). The role of teacher knowledge in ESP course design. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 34(1), 27-42.##Graziano, K. J., & Navarrete, L. A. (2012). Co-teaching in a teacher education classroom: collaboration, compromise, and creativity. Issues in Teacher Education, 21, 109-126.##Green, J. H. (2015). Teaching for transfer in EAP: Hugging and bridging revisited. English for Specific Purposes, 37(1), 1-12.##Guan, Y. H. (2009). A study on the learning efficiency of multimedia-presented, computer-based science information. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 62-72.##Hansen, J. G. (2000). Interactional conflicts among audience, purpose, and content knowledge in the acquisition of academic literacy in an EAP course. Written Communication, 17(1), 27-52.##Hirvela, A., Nussbaum, A., & Pierson, H. (2012). ESL students’ attitudes toward punctuation. System, 40(1), 11-23.##Hüttner, J. (2008). The genres of student writing: developing writing models. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 146-165.##Institute for Learning Styles (2008). Overview of the seven perceptual styles. Retrieved from http://www.learningstyles.org.##Issa, N., Schuller, M., Santacaterina, S., Shapiro, M., Wang, E., Mayer, R. E., & Da Rosa, D. A. (2011). Applying multimedia design principles enhances learning in medical education. Medical Education, 45(8), 818-826.##Jamalinesari, A., Rahimi, F., Gowhary, H. & Azizifar, A. (2015). The effects of teacher-written direct vs. indirect feedback on students' writing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 116-123.##James, M. A. (2006). Teaching for transfer in ELT. ELT Journal, 60(2), 151-159.##James, M. A. (2009). “Far” transfer of learning outcomes from an ESL writing course: Can the gap be bridged? Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(2), 69-84.##James, M. A. (2010). Transfer climate and EAP education: Students’ perceptions of challenges to learning transfer. English for Specific Purposes, 19(4), 183-206.##James, M. A. (2012). An investigation of motivation to transfer second language learning. Modern Language Journal, 96(1), 51-69.##James, M. A. (2014). Learning transfer in English-for-academic-purposes contexts: A systematic review of research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14(1), 1-13.##Kalyuga, S. (2005) Prior knowledge principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.##Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13(4), 351-371.##Kuusisaari, H. (2014). Teachers at the zone of proximal development e Collaboration promoting or hindering the development process. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 46-57.##Larsen-Freeman. (2013).Transfer of Learning Transformed. Language Learning, 63(1), 107-129.##Levine, B. (1980). Co-leadership approaches to learning group-work. Social Work with Groups, 3(1), 35-39.##Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R.E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31-48).New York: Cambridge University Press##Mayer, R. E., & Sims, K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 389-401.##Mayer, R. E., Dow, G., & Mayer, R. E. (2003). Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based micro-worlds? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 806-813.##Mayer, R. E. (2003) Learning and instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.##Mayer, R. E. (2005) Introduction to multimedia learning. In R.E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 1-24).New York: Cambridge University Press.##Mayer, R. E. (2008). Representation of the dual-channel theory. American Psychologist, 63(8), 760-769.##McCourt, F. (2003). Foreword. In: L.Truss, (Ed.), Eats shoots & leaves: The zero tolerance approach to punctuation (pp. xii-xiv). New York: Gotham Books.##Meirink, J. A., Imant, J., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop N. (2010) Teacher learning and collaboration in innovative teams. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40(2), 161-181.##Memari Hanjani, A., & Li, L. (2014). Exploring L2 writers’ collaborative revision interactions and their writing performance. System, 44, 101-114.##Mohamadifar, M. (2002). Punctuation Guide. Tehran: Diba.##Montazemi, A.R. (2006). The effect of video presentation in a CBT environment. Educational Technology & Society, 9(2), 123-138.##Murata, R. (2010). What does team teaching mean? A case study of interdisciplinary teaming. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(2), 67-77.##Norman, G. Dore, K., & Grierson, L. (2012). The minimal relationship between simulation fidelity and transfer of learning. Medical Education, 46(7), 636-647.##Perkins, D. (1992). Smart schools: Better thinking and learning for every child. New York: The Free Press.##Pollock, E., Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (2002) Assimilating complex information. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 61–86.##Rasch, T., & Schnotz, W. (2009). Interactive and non-interactive pictures in multimedia learning environments: Effects on learning outcomes and learning efficiency. Learning and Instruction, 19(5), 411-422.##Reiter-Palmon, R. & Illies, J. J. (2004). Leadership and creativity: Understanding leadership from a creative problem-solving perspective. Psychology Faculty Publications, 15(1), 55-77.##Robinson, B. & Schaible, R. (1995). Collaborative teaching: Reaping the benefits. College Teaching, 43(2), 57-60.##Rothman, B. (1980). Study of patterns of leadership in group work field instruction. Social Work with Groups, 3(1), 11-17.##Ruiz, J. G., Cook, D. A., & Levinson, A. J. (2009). Computer animations in medical education: A critical literature review. Medical Education, 43(9), 838-846.##Salem, N. & Lawless, M., (2011). The effect of language differences on Arab learners’ ESL writing. TESL Ontario, 37(4), 21-24.##Sojudifar, Z., Nemati, A., & Falahati, M. R. (2015). A comparative study of the novel ‘A Tale of Two Cities’ and Its Persian translation in terms of textual cohesion: The cases of punctuation marks, sentencing and paragraphing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(11), 2304-2314.##Souzandehfar, M., Saadat, M., & Sahragard, R. (2014). The significance of multimodality/multiliteracies in Iranian EFL learners’ meaning-making process. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(2), 115-143.##Staples, S., Egbert, J., Biber, D., & McClair, A. (2013). Formulaic sequences and EAP writing development: Lexical bundles in the TOEFL IBT writing section. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(3), 214-225.##Stuart, M. (2007).The complete guide to medical writing. London: Pharmaceutical Press.##Subedi, B. S. (2004). Emerging trends of research on transfer of learning. International Education Journal, 5(4), 591-599.##Swales, J. M. & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.##Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123-138.##Taylor, R. B. (2011). Medical writing: A guide for clinicians, educators, and researchers. New York: Springer.##Tillema, H., & van der Westhuizen, G. J. (2006). Knowledge construction in collaborative enquiry among teachers. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12(1), 51-67.##Truss, L. (2003). Eats shoots & leaves: The zero tolerance approach to punctuation. New York: Gotham Books.##Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education. New York: Macmillan.##Williams, J. G. (2003). Providing feedback on ESL students' written assignments. The Internet TESL Journal. Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Williams-Feedback.html##