ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Monologic vs. Dialogic Assessment of Speech Act Performance: Role of Nonnative L2 Teachers’ Professional Experience on Their Rating Criteria
Few, if any, studies have investigated the effect of professional experience as a rater variable and type of assessment as a task variable on raters’ criteria in the assessment of speech acts. This study aimed to explore the impact of nonnative teachers’ professional experience on the use of criteria in monologic and dialogic assessment of 12 role-plays of 3 apology speech acts. To this end, 60 raters were divided into 2 subgroups of raters with under and over 5 years of professional experience and rated the role-plays monologically and dialogically. A content analysis of the raters’ descriptions of the ratings showed 3 groups of criteria: the general criterion (appropriateness), pragmalinguistic criteria (linguistic features, L1 effect, paralinguistic features, directness, and adequacy), and sociopragmatic criteria (politeness, repair, truthfulness, promise, thanking, reasoning, personal trait formality, genuineness, and expression of apology). We also discovered that neither the more experienced nor the less experienced raters paid due attention to the sociopragmatic criteria in the monologic and dialogic ratings of pragmatic performances. Both groups of raters based their ratings primarily on the general criterion of appropriateness in the dialogic ratings. However, in the monologic ratings, the more experienced ones preferred pragmalinguistic criteria, and the less experienced ones opted for the appropriateness criterion. An analysis of the influence of the type of rating on the raters’ application of criteria showed that the raters differed in the use of all the 3 groups of criteria in the monologic ratings, whereas in the dialogic ratings, their difference in the application of criteria narrowed down to the sociopragmatic criteria. The findings have implications for teacher education programs on pragmatic assessment, urge considerations for the role of teachers’ experience in pragmatic assessment, and stress the inclusion of dialogic ratings in the assessment of speech acts for improving the quality of raters’ assessments.
https://rals.scu.ac.ir/article_11257_832712c36b9a5883a20080397cb58a8d.pdf
2015-07-01
3
27
10.22055/rals.2015.11257
Pragmatic Assessment
Professional Experience
Monologic Rating
Dialogic Rating
Apology Speech Act
Rating Criteria
Zia
Tajeddin
zia_tajeddin@yahoo.com
1
Allameh Tabataba’i University
LEAD_AUTHOR
Iman
Alizadeh
iman_alizadeh87@yahoo.com
2
Allameh Tabataba’i University
AUTHOR
Alemi, M., & Tajeddin, Z. (2013). Pragmatic rating of L2 refusal: Criteria of native and nonnative English teachers. TESL Canada Journal, 30(7), 65-83.
1
Bachman, L. F., Lynch, B. K., & Mason, M. (1995). Investigating variability in tasks and rater judgments in a performance test of foreign language speaking. Language Testing, 12(2), 238-257.
2
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics. In K. R. Rose, & G. Kasper (Eds). Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 13-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3
Barnwell, D. (1989). “Native” native speakers and judgments of oral proficiency in Spanish. Language Testing, 6(2), 152-163.
4
Bergman, M. L., & Kasper, G. (1993). Perception and performance in native and nonnative apology. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka. (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 82-107). New York: Oxford University Press.
5
Billmyer, K., & Varghese, M., (2000). Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability: Effects of enhancing discourse completion tests. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 517-552.
6
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns. Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 196-213.
7
Brown, A. (1995). The effect of rater variables in the development of an occupation-specific language performance test. Language Testing, 12(1), 1-15.
8
Brown, P., & Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9
Caban, H. L. (2003). Rater group bias in the speaking assessment of four L1 Japanese ESL students. Working Papers in Second Language Studies, 21(3), 1-44.
10
Chau, J. (2005). Effects of collaborative assessment on language development and learning. The Language Learning Journal, 32(1), 27-37.
11
Cohen, A., & Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: The case of apology. Language Learning, 31(1), 113-134.
12
Cohen, A. D., & Shively, R. L. (2007). Acquisition of requests and apologies in Spanish and French: Impact of study abroad and strategy-building intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 91(2), 189-212.
13
Dickinson, L. (1988). Collaborative assessment: An interim account. In H. Holec (Ed.), Autonomy and self-directed learning: Present fields of application (pp. 121-128). Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.
14
Eckes, T. (2005). Examining rater effects in TestDaF writing and speaking performance assessments: A many-facet Rasch analysis. Language Assessment Quarterly, 2(3), 197-221.
15
Eckes, T. (2008). Rater types in writing performance assessments: A classification approach to rater variability. Language Testing, 25(2), 155-185.
16
Elder, C., Barkhuizen, G., Knock, U., & Randow, J. (2007). Evaluating rater response to an online training program for L2 writing assessment. Language Testing, 24(1), 37-64.
17
Engelhard, G. Jr., & Myford, C. M. (2003). Monitoring faculty consultant performance in the Advanced Placement English Literature and Composition program with a many-faceted Rasch model (College Board Research Report No. 2003-1). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
18
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1976). Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in society, 5(1),25-66.
19
Galloway, V. B. (1980). Perceptions of the communicative efforts of American students of Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 64(4), 428-433.
20
Holmes, J. (1990). Apologies in New Zealand English. Language in Society, 19(2), 155-199.
21
Hudson, T. (2001). Indicators for pragmatic instruction. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 283-300). Cambridge: Cambridge University.
22
Hudson,T., Detmer, E., & Brown, J., D. (1995). Developing prototypic measures of cross-cultural pragmatics. Honolulu, Hawai’i: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
23
Johnson, J. S., & Lim, G. S. (2009). The influence of rater language background on writing performance assessment. Language Testing, 26(4), 485-505.
24
Kasper, G., & Roever, C. (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 317-334). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25
Kim, Y-H. (2009). An investigation into native and nonnative teachers’ judgments of oral English performance: A mixed methods approach. Language Testing, 26(2), 187-217.
26
Knoch, U., Read, J., & von Randow, J. (2007). Retraining writing raters online: How does it compare with face-to-face training? Assessing Writing, 12(1), 26-43.
27
Kondo-Brown, K. (2002). A FACETS analysis of rater bias in measuring Japanese L2 writing performance. Language Testing, 19(1), 3-31.
28
Lee, H. K. (2009). Native and nonnative rater behavior in grading Korean students’ English essays. Asia-Pacific Education Review, 10(3), 387-397.
29
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
30
Li, D. (2000). The pragmatics of making requests in the L2 workplace: A case study of language socialization. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(1), 58-87.
31
Lim, G. S. (2011). The development and maintenance of rating quality in performance writing assessment: A longitudinal study of new and experienced raters. Language Testing, 28(4), 543-560.
32
Liu, J. (2006). Assessing EFL learners’ interlanguage pragmatic knowledge: Implications for testers and teachers. Reflections on English Language Teaching, 5(1), 1-22.
33
Lumley, T., & McNamara, T. F. (1995). Rater characteristics and rater bias: Implications for training. Language Testing, 12(1), 54-71.
34
Matsumura, S. (2007). Exploring the aftereffects of study abroad on interlanguage pragmatic development. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2),167-192.
35
McNamara, T. F. (1996). Measuring second language performance. Harlow: Longman.
36
McNamara, T., & Roever, C. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension. Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell.
37
Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. D. (1983). Apology: A speech act set. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 18-35). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
38
Plough, I. C., Briggs, S. L., & van Bonn, S. (2010). A multi-method analysis of evaluation criteria used to assess the speaking proficiency of graduate student instructors. Language Testing, 27(2), 235-260.
39
Roever, C. (2001). A Web-based test of interlanguage pragmalinguistic knowledge: Speech acts, routines, and implicatures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai’i, Honolulu, Hawai’i.
40
Rose, K. R., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41
Schaefer, E. (2008). Rater bias patterns in an EFL writing assessment. Language Testing, 25(4), 465-493.
42
Shohamy, E., Gordon, C., & Kraemer, R. (1992). The effect of raters’ background and training on the reliability of direct writing tests. Modern Language Journal, 76(1), 27-33.
43
Schoonen, R. (2005). Generalizability of writing scores: An application of structural equation modeling. Language Testing, 22(1), 1-30.
44
Taguchi, N. (2006). Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2 English. Pragmatics, 16(4), 513-535.
45
Taguchi, N. (2010). Longitudinal studies in interlanguage pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Pragmatics across languages and cultures (pp. 333-361). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
46
Taguchi, N. (2011). Rater variation in the assessment of speech acts. Pragmatics, 21(3), 453-471.
47
Tajeddin, Z, & Alemi, M. (2014). Criteria and bias in native English teachers’ assessment of L2 pragmatic appropriacy: Content and FACETS analyses. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 23(3), 425-434.
48
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. London: Longman.
49
Youn, S. J. (2007). Rater bias in assessing the pragmatics of KFL learners using facets analysis. Second Language Studies, 26(1), 85-163.
50
Weigle, S. C. (1998). Using FACETS to model rater training effects. Language Testing, 15(2), 263-287.
51
Wigglesworth, G. (1993). Exploring bias analysis as a tool for improving rater consistency in assessing oral interaction. Language Testing, 10(3), 305-335.
52
Wigglesworth, G. (1994). Patterns of rater behaviour in the assessment of an oral interaction test. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 17(2), 77-103.
53
Winke, P., Gass, S., & Myford, C. (2012). Raters’ L2 background as a potential source of bias in rating oral performance. Language Testing, 30(2), 231-252.
54
Zhang, Y., & Elder, C. (2011). Judgments of oral proficiency by nonnative and native English-speaking teacher raters: Competing or complementary constructs? Language Testing, 28(1), 31-50.
55
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Master’s Thesis Writing: Cinderella of Iranian ELT Education
For the vast majority of the Iranian M.A. students of TEFL, thesis writing is the first individual engagement with research. Despite having some pedagogical merits, such an academic activity generally poses some intellectual and affective challenges to such students. During thesis completion, if students are not effectively scaffolded by supervisors and not supported by universities, they are likely to encounter serious problems that might result in their disengagement, frustration, and withdrawal from doing their theses themselves. This study was an attempt to explore the factors that dissuaded some Iranian M.A. students of TEFL from carrying out their theses themselves. In effect, the study aimed to shed light on the reasons why some Iranian M.A. students of TEFL go to other agents to do their theses in exchange for money. Adopting a purposive sampling procedure, we found 13 M.A. graduates who did not do their theses themselves, but they paid some agents to do so in their stead. Semistructured interviews were used to gather the data. Findings revealed 3 dominant themes including supervisor-related, supervisee-related, and higher education-related factors responsible for the issue under investigation.
https://rals.scu.ac.ir/article_11258_c3a2e0b64d51c479b13e57d5b38f94d7.pdf
2015-07-01
28
39
10.22055/rals.2015.11258
Thesis Supervision
Supervisors
Supervisees
TEFL
Rouhollah
Askari Bigdeli
raskari90@gmail.com
1
Yasouj University
LEAD_AUTHOR
Ali
Rahimi
ali.r@bu.ac.th
2
Bangkok University
AUTHOR
Ali
Kazemi
akazemi@yu.ac.ir
3
Yasouj University
AUTHOR
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
1
Day, K., Grant, R., & Hounsell, D. (1998). Reviewing your teaching. United Kingdom : University of Edinburgh, Center for Teaching, Learning, and Further Education.
2
de Kleijn, R. A. (2013). Master’s thesis supervision: Feedback, interpersonal relationships, and adaptivity. Unpublished dicroral dissertation, Utrecht University. Retrieved June 13, 2013, from the World Wide Web: http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/283068
3
de Kleijn, R. A., Mainhard, M. T., Meijer, P. C., Pilot, A., & Brekelmans, M. (2014). The relation between feedback perceptions and the supervisor-student relationship in master’s thesis projects. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(4), 336-349.
4
Delamont, S., Atkinson, P., & Parry, O. (2001). Supervising the Ph.D. Buckingham: Open University Press.
5
Hasrati, M. (2005). Academic writing in Iranian university: The lost ring of the chain. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 11(1), 103-138.
6
Hasrati, M. (2013). Why bother about writing a master’s dissertation? Assumptions of faculty and master students in an Iranian setting. Asia-Pacific Education Review, 14(3), 455-465.
7
James, R., & Baldwin, G. (2006). Eleven practices of effective postgraduate supervisors. Australia: University of Melbourne, Center for the Study of Higher Education and the School of Graduate Studies.
8
Ketteridge, S., & Shiach, M. (2009). Supervising research students. In H. Fry, S. Ketteridge, & S. Marshall (Eds.), A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: Enhancing academic practice (pp. 166-185). London: Routledge.
9
Marshall, S. (2009). Supervising projects and dissertations. In H. Fry, S. Ketteridge, & S. Marshall (Eds.), A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: Enhancing academic practice (pp. 150-165). London: Routledge.
10
Murray, R. (1998). Research supervision. Scotland: University of Strathclyde, Center for Academic Practice.
11
Powles, M. (1992). Policy and program issues in research recruitment and training. In O. Zuber-Skerritt (Ed.), Starting research-supervision and training (pp. 25-49). Brisbane: University of Queensland, Tertiary Education Institute.
12
Rahimi, A., & Askari Bigdeli, R. (2014). Iranian EFL learners at loggerheads with perceived social support. Iranian Journal of Research in English Language Teaching, 1(3), 31-38.
13
Rahimi, A., & Askari Bigdeli, R. (2015). Student authorship in applied linguistics: A case of ghost authors. Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning (RPLTL), 6(1)25-34.
14
Reynolds, J. A., & Thompson, R. J. (2011). Want to improve undergraduate thesis writing? Engage students and their faculty readers in scientific peer review. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 10(2), 209-215.
15
Sachs, J. (2002). A path model for students’ attitude to writing a thesis. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 46(1), 99-108.
16
Semeijn, J. H., Semeijn, J., & Gelderman, K. J. (2009). Master’s thesis supervision. In Daly, P. & Gijbels, D. (Eds.), Real learning opportunities at business school and beyond (pp. 211-222). Routledge: London.
17
Semeijn, J. H., Velden, R. V. D., Heijke, H., Vleuten, C. V. D., & Boshuizen, H. P. (2006). Competence indicators in academic education and early labour market success of graduates in health sciences. Journal of Education and Work, 19(4), 383-413.
18
Strauss, P. (2012). The English is not the same: Challenges in thesis writing for second language speakers of English. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(3), 283-293.
19
Thomas, C. (1995). Helping students complete master’s theses through active supervision. Journal of Management Education, 19(2), 240-249.
20
Todd, M., Bannister, P., & Clegg, S. (2004). Independent inquiry and the undergraduate dissertation: Perceptions and experiences of final‐year social science students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(3), 335-355.
21
Wisker, G. (2005). The good supervisor: Supervising postgraduate and undergraduate research for theses and dissertations. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
22
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Exploring Relationships Between Field (In)dependence, Multiple Intelligences, and L2 Reading Performance Among Iranian L2 Learners
L2 learners’ individual differences are crucial factors that deserve attention in L2 education. Focusing on 2 main areas of individual differences (i.e., field (in)dependence and multiple intelligences), this study explored their relationships with L2 reading performance. Participants were 64 TEFL undergraduates and postgraduates. To assess the participats’ degree of field (in)dependence and multiple intelligences profiles, GEFT (Witkin, Oltman, Raskin, & Karp, 1971) and McKenzie’s Multiple Intelligences Inventory (1999) were administered, respectively, and their L2 reading performance was assessed through a task-based reading test (Salmani-Nodoushan, 2003), which measures performance on 5 reading tasks of true-false, sentence completion, outlining, elicitation of writer’s views, and scanning. Data were quantitatively analyzed using Pearson product-moment correlation. Results revealed significant positive relationships between field independence and performance on the 4 reading tasks of true-false, sentence completion, outlining, and scanning. Moreover, intrapersonal intelligence was found to correlate significantly and positively with the scanning performance.
https://rals.scu.ac.ir/article_11259_327ddac9bf944b293043f3fefb08f683.pdf
2015-07-01
40
63
10.22055/rals.2015.11259
Individual Differences
Field (In)dependence
Multiple Intelligences
L2 Reading Performance
Mahmood
Hashemian
m72h@hotmail.com
1
Shahrekord University
LEAD_AUTHOR
Aliakbar
Jafarpour
aliakbarjafarpour@yahoo.com
2
Shahrekord University
AUTHOR
Maryam
Adibpour
maryam.adibpour87@gmail.com
3
Shahrekord University
AUTHOR
Abraham, R. G. (1983). Relationship between use of the strategy of monitoring and the cognitive style. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(1), 17-32.
1
Adejumo, D. (1983). Effect of cognitive style on strategies for comprehension of prose. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 56(3), 859-863.
2
Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (1996). The role of importance and interest in the processing of text. Educational Psychology Review, 8(1), 89-121.
3
Allan, D. (1992). Oxford placement test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4
Alptekin, C., & Atakan, S. (1990). Field dependence-independence and hemisphericity as variables in L2 achievement. Second Language Research, 6(2), 135-149.
5
Altun, A., & Cakan, M. (2006). Undergraduate students’ academic achievements, field dependent/independent cognitive styles and attitude toward computers. Educational Technology and Society, 9(1), 278-297.
6
Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
7
Armstrong, T. (2009). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
8
Azar, A. (2006). Relationship of multiple intelligence profiles with area of constitution in high school and university entrance exam scores. Educational Administration: Theory & Practice, 46, 157-174.
9
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10
Barrington, E. (2004). Teaching to student diversity in higher education: How multiple intelligence theory can help. Teaching in High Education, 9(4), 421-434.
11
Bas, G. (2010). Effects of multiple intelligences instruction strategy on students’ achievement levels and attitudes towards English lesson. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 5, 167-180.
12
Behnam, B., & Fathi, M. (2009). The relationship between reading performance and field dependence/independence cognitive styles. Journal of Teaching English as a Foreign Language and Literature, 1(1), 49-62.
13
Berger, E., & Goldberger, L. (1979). Field dependence and short-term memory. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 49(1), 87-96.
14
Blake, M. (1985). The relationship between field dependence-independence and the comprehension of expository and literary text types. Reading World, 24(4), 53-62.
15
Blanton, E. L. (2004). The influence of students’ cognitive style on a standard reading test administered in three different formats. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida, Orlando.
16
Bongaerts, T., van Summeren, C., Planken, B., & Schils, E. (1997). Age and ultimate attainment in the pronunciation of a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(4), 447-465.
17
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). White Plains, New York: Longman.
18
Campbell, L., Campbell, B., & Dickinson, D. (2004). Teaching and learning through multiple intelligence. Chicago, IL: Merill Company.
19
Carter, E. F. (1988). The relation of field dependent-independent cognitive style to Spanish language achievement and proficiency: A preliminary report. The Modern Language Journal, 72(1), 21-30.
20
Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
21
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). Grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
22
Chan, D. W. (2006). Perceived multiple intelligences among male and female Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong: The structure of the student multiple intelligences profile. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(4), 325-338.
23
Chapelle, C., & Roberts, C. (1984). Ambiguity tolerance and field independence as predictors of proficiency in English as a second language. Language Learning, 36(1), 27-45.
24
Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second language skills: Theory to practice. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
25
Checkley, K. (1997). The first seven . . . and the eighth: A conversation with Howard Gardner. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 8-13.
26
Chen, J. Q., & Gardner, H. (2012). Assessment of intellectual profile: A perspective from multiple-intelligences theory. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 145-155), New York: The Guilford Press.
27
Chen, S. F. (2005). Cooperative learning, multiple intelligences, and proficiency: Application in college English language teaching and learning. Unpublished master’s thesis, Australian Catholic University.
28
Christison, M. A. (1996). Teaching and learning languages through multiple intelligence. TESOL Journal, 6(1), 10-14.
29
Currie, K. L. (2003). Multiple intelligence theory and the ESL classroom preliminary considerations. The Internet TESL Journal, 4(4), 263-270.
30
Curtin, E. (2005). Instructional styles used by regular classroom teachers while teaching. Forum, 36(2). Retrieved February 14, 2013, from the World Wide Web: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ727798.pdf
31
Davey, B. (1990). Field dependence-independence and reading comprehension questions: Task and reader interactions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15(3), 241-250.
32
Davis, J. K., & Frank, B. M. (1979). Learning and memory of field independent-dependent individuals. Journal of Research in Personality, 13(4), 469-479.
33
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
34
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). Individual differences: Interplay of learner characteristics and learning environment. Language Learning, 59(1), 230-248.
35
Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589-630). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
36
Educational Testing Service. (1983). TOEFL test and score manual. Princeton, NJ: ETS.
37
Eggen, P. D., & Kauchak, D. P. (2012). Educational psychology: Windows on classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
38
Ehrman, M. E. (1996). Understanding second language difficulties. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
40
Ellis, R. (1989). Classroom learning styles and their effect on second language acquisition: A study of two learners. System, 17(2), 249-262.
41
Ellis, R. (2004). Individual differences in second language learning. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 525-551). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
42
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
43
Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple intelligences go to school: Educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 4-9.
44
Genesee, F. (1976). The role of intelligence in second language learning. Language Learning, 26(2), 267-280.
45
Guilford, J. P. (1964). Zero correlations among tests of intellectual abilities. Psychological Bulletin, 61(6), 401-404.
46
Hajhashemi, K., & Eng, W. B. (2012). MI as a predictor of students’ performance in reading competency. English Language Teaching, 5(3), 240-251.
47
Haley, M. H. (2001). Understanding learner-centered instruction from the perspective of multiple intelligences. Foreign Language Annals, 34(4), 355-367.
48
Haley, M. H. (2004). Learner-centered instruction and the theory of multiple intelligences with second language learners. The Teachers College Record, 106(1), 163-180.
49
Hamayan, E., & Pfleger, M. (1987). Developing literacy in English as a second language: Guidelines for teachers of young children from nonliterate backgrounds. WA: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
50
Hansen, J., & Stansfield, C. (1981). The relationship between field dependence-independence cognitive styles to foreign language achievement. Language Learning, 31(2), 349-367.
51
Hashemi, A. (2007). On the relationship between multiple intelligences and reading comprehension tasks: An authentic MI theory-based assessment. English Language Teaching and Literature. Retrieved May 31, 2014, from the World Wide Web: http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/aljarf/Documents/English%20Language% 20Teaching%20Confe rence%20-%20Iran%202008/Akram%20Hashemi.pdf
52
Hite, C. (1993). The relationship of cognitive style and gender of unsuccessful first-time examinees to performance on reading comprehension tasks as measured by a required college examination. (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, 1231.
53
Hite, C. E. (2004). Expository content area texts, cognitive style, and gender: Their effects on reading comprehension. Reading Research and Instruction, 43(4), 41-74.
54
Hoerr, T. R. (2000). Becoming a multiple intelligence school. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
55
Jamieson, A. (1992). The cognitive style of reflection/impulsivity and field independence/dependence and ESL success. The Modern Language Journal, 76(4), 491-501.
56
Johnson, J., Prior, S., & Artuso, M. (2000). Field dependence as a factor in second language communicative production. Language Learning, 50(3), 529-567.
57
Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (2012). Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instruction. Hillsdale, New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
58
Khalili Sabet, M., & Mohammadi, S. (2013). Field independence/dependence styles and reading comprehension abilities of EFL readers. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(11), 2141-2150.
59
Kim, I. S. (2009). The relevance of multiple intelligences to CALL instruction. The Reading Matrix, 9(1), 1-21.
60
Kok, I. (2010). The relationship between students’ reading comprehension achievement and their attitudes toward learning English and their abilities to use reading strategies with regard to hemispheric dominance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 3, 144-151.
61
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Leaning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(2), 193-212.
62
Marefat, F. (2007). Multiple intelligences: Voices from an EFL writing class. Pazhuheshe-e Zabanha-ye Khareji, 32,145-162.
63
McKenzie, W. (1999). Multiple intelligences inventory. Retrieved July 12, 2012, from the World Wide Web: http://surfaquarium.com/MI/inventory.htm
64
McNaught, S. (1992). An analysis of the relationship between the preferred cognitive style of field independence/ field dependence and success in learning English as a second language among postsecondary Japanese students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis.
65
Messick, S. (1984). The nature of cognitive styles: Problems and promise in educational practice. Educational Psychologist, 19(2), 59-74.
66
Moran, S. (2009). Purpose: Giftedness in intrapersonal intelligence. High Ability Studies, 20(2), 143-159.
67
Mowat, J. G. (2011). The development of intrapersonal intelligence in pupils experiencing social, emotional, and behavioral difficulties. Educational Psychology in Practice, 27(3), 227-253.
68
Muir, D. J. (2001, July). Adapting online education to different learning styles. Paper presented at National Educational Computing Conference: Building on the Future, Chicago, IL.
69
Ngeow, K. (1999). Classroom practice: Enhancing and extending learning styles through computers. In J. Egbert & E. Hansen-Smith (Eds.), Call environments: Research, practice, and critical issues (pp. 302-314). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
70
Nolen, J. L. (2003). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Education, 124(1), 115-119.
71
Oflaz, M. (2011). The effect of right and left-brain dominance in language learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 1507-1513.
72
Palmberg, R. (2002). Catering for multiple intelligences in EFL course-books. Humanizing Language Teaching, 4(1). Retrieved July 12, 2012, from the World Wide Web: http://www.hltmag.co.uk/jan02/sart6.htm
73
Pawlak, M. (Ed.). (2012). Second language learning and teaching. New York: Springer.
74
Pitts, M. M., & Thompson, B. (1984). Cognitive styles as mediating variables in inferential comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(4), 426-435.
75
Rayner, S., & Riding, R. (1997). Towards a categorization of cognitive styles and learning styles. Educational Psychology, 17(1), 5-27.
76
Razmjoo, S. A. (2008). On the relationship between multiple intelligences and language proficiency. The Reading Matrix, 8(2), 155-174.
77
Rickards, J. P., Fajen, B. R., Sullivan, J. F., & Gillespie, G. (1997). Signaling, note taking, and field independence-dependence in text comprehension and recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 508-517.
78
Rivers, W. M. (1981). Teaching foreign language skills. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
79
Robinson, J. A., & Bennink, C. D. (1978). Field articulation and working memory. Journal of Research in Personality, 12(4), 439-449.
80
Robinson, P. (2001). Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes, and learning conditions in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 17(4), 368-392.
81
Robinson, P. (2002). Individual differences and instructed language learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
82
Rosa, M. H. (1991). Relationships between cognitive styles and reading comprehension of narrative and expository prose of fourth-grade students in an urban school district. (Doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 1275A.
83
Rosa, M. H. (1994). Relationships between cognitive styles and reading comprehension of expository text of African American male students. The Journal of Negro Education, 63(4), 546-555.
84
Salmani-Nodoushan, M. A. (2003). Text familiarity, reading tasks, and ESP test performance: A study on Iranian LEP and non-LEP university students. Reading Matrix, 3(1), 1-14.
85
Salmani-Nodoushan, M. A. (2007). Is field dependence or independence a predictor of EFL reading performance? TESL Canada Journal, 24(2), 82-108.
86
Saricaoğlu, A., & Arikan, A. (2009). A study of multiple intelligences, foreign language success and some selected variables. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 5(2), 110-122.
87
Shearer, C. B. (1996). Multiple intelligences developmental scales. Dayton, OH: Greyden Press.
88
Shearer, C. B. (2009). Exploring the relationship between intrapersonal intelligence and university students’ career confusion: Implications for counseling, academic success, and school-to-career transition. Journal of Employment Counseling, 46, 52-61.
89
Shore, J. R. (2001). An investigation of multiple intelligences and self-efficacy in the university English as a second language classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Washington University, Washington, Columbia.
90
Skehan, P. (1986). The role of foreign language aptitude in a model of school learning. Language Testing, 3(2), 188-221.
91
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
92
Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in second language acquisition, 13(2), 275-298.
93
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
94
Smith, E. (2001). Implications of multiple intelligence theory for second language learning. Post-Script, 2(1), 32-52.
95
Snow, R. E., & Lohman, D. F. (1984). Toward a theory of cognitive aptitude for learning from instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 347-376.
96
Spearman, C. (1904). “General intelligence,” objectively determined and measured. The American Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 201-292.
97
Spiro, R. J., & Tirre, W. C. (1980). Individual differences in schema utilization during discourse processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 204-208.
98
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
99
Talbot, A. M. (2004). A comparison of a multiple intelligences curriculum and a traditional curriculum on students’ foreign language test performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kalamazoo College, Michigan.
100
Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
101
Viens, J., & Kallenbach, S. (2004). Multiple intelligence and adult literacy: A source book for practitioners. New York: Teachers College Press.
102
Wallace, C. (2001). Reading. In D. Nunan & R. Carter (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 21-27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
103
Ward, T. J., & Clark III, H. T. (1987). The effect of field dependence and outline condition on learning high and low-structure information from a lecture. Research in Higher Education, 27(3), 259-272.
104
Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. (1977). Field dependence and interpersonal behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 84(4), 661-689.
105
Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. (1981). Cognitive styles: Essence and origins. New York: International Universities Press.
106
Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S. A. (1971). A manual for the embedded figures tests. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
107
Xu, W. (2011). Learning styles and their implications in learning and teaching. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(4), 413-416.
108
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Impact of Reciprocal Teaching on EFL Learners’ Reading Comprehension
This study investigated the effect of reciprocal teaching (RT) on EFL learners’ reading comprehension. Fifty intermediate learners participated in the study and were sampled as the experimental (n = 25) and control groups (n = 25). Participants were male and ranged in age from 15 to 16. The Reading section of Key English Test (KET, 2010) was used as the pretest to assess the participants’ entry-level reading ability. MANOVA results for comparing the 2 groups’ mean scores in the pretest were not significant, indicating that they were at the same level of reading ability prior to the study. RT strategies (i.e., predicting, questioning, clarifying, summarizing) were taught to the experimental group in reading classes for 6 months. Meanwhile, the control group received conventional reading instruction (i.e, prereading, while-reading, and postreading procedure). The Reading section of KET was used as the posttest to explore the improvement of both groups after the experiment. MANOVA results revealed a significant difference between the general reading ability of the experimental and control groups, in favor of the experimental group at the end of the course [F(5, 44)= 55.740, p = .000; Wilks’ Lambda = .136; partial eta squared = .864]. Moreover, examining Tests of Between-Subjects Effects revealed that the experimental group outperformed the control group in all 5 parts of the posttest.
https://rals.scu.ac.ir/article_11260_6e2278545243728b7b626f69f00a6074.pdf
2015-07-01
64
86
10.22055/rals.2015.11260
Reading Comprehension
Reciprocal Teaching (RT)
Reading Strategies
Mehrak
Rahimi
mehrakrahimi@yahoo.com
1
Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University
LEAD_AUTHOR
Negar
Sadeghi
negar_6824@yahoo.com
2
Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University
AUTHOR
Aarnoutse, C. A. J., van den Bos, K. P., & Brand-Gruwel, S. (1998). Effects of listening comprehension training on listening and reading. The Journal of Special Education, 32, 115-126.
1
Adams, T. L., & Lowery, R. M. (2007). An analysis of children’s strategy for reading mathematics. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23, 161-177.
2
Afflerbach, P. (2002). Teaching reading self-assessment strategies. In C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 96-111). New York: Guilford Press.
3
Alfassi, M. (2004). Reading to learn: Effects of combined strategy instruction on high school students. Journal of Educational Research, 97, 171-184.
4
Amin, I., A. R., Aly, M. A. S., & Amin, M. M. (2011). The effectiveness of using an explicit language learning strategy-based instruction in developing secondary school students’ EFL listening comprehension skills. Available online: files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED527447.pdf
5
Anderson, N. (2003). Reading. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Practical English language teaching (pp. 67-86). U.S.: McGraw-Hill.
6
Anjomshoaa, L., & Golestan, S. (2012). The influences of metacognitive awareness on reading comprehension in Iranian English undergraduate students in Kerman, Iran. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 1, 193-198.
7
Bastanfar, A., & Hashemi, T. (2010). Vocabulary learning strategies and ELT materials: A study of the extent to which VLS research informs local coursebooks in Iran. International Education Studies, 3, 158-166.
8
Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (2005). Text talk: Levels A & B. New York: Scholastic.
9
Best, R. M., Rowe, M., Ozuro, Y., & McNamara, D. S. (2005). Deep-level comprehension of science texts: The role of the reader and the text. Topics in Language Disorders, 25, 65-83.
10
Birjandi, P., Soheili, A., Norouzi, M., & Mahmoudi, G. (2013). English book 1. Iran: Ministry of Education.
11
Block, C., & Pressley, M. (Eds.). (2002). Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices. New York: Guilford Press.
12
Bowey, J. (2005). Predicting individual differences in learning to read. In M. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 155-175). Oxford: Blackwell.
13
Brand-Gruwel, S., Aarnoutse, C., & van den Bos, K. P. (1998). Improving text comprehension strategies in reading and listening settings. Learning and Instruction, 8, 63-81
14
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (22nd ed.). U.S.: Pearson Education.
15
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning (pp. 289-325). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16
Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1-14.
17
Brown, A., & Palincsar, A. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393-451). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18
Bruer, J. T. (1993). The mind’s journey from novice to expert: If we know the route we can help students negotiate their way. American Educator, 17, 6-46.
19
Carter, C. (2001). Reciprocal teaching: The application of a reading improvement strategy on urban students in Highland Park, Michigan. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
20
Chamot, A. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research and teaching. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1, 14-26.
21
Chamot, A. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 112-130.
22
Chamot, A., & O’Malley, M. (1996). The academic cognitive language learning approach: A model for linguistically diverse classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 259-273.
23
Chen, J. C. (2005). Explicit instruction of reading strategies at senior high school in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University. Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
24
Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. U.K.: Longman.
26
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1987). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. Technical Report No 403. U.S.: Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
27
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction. Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
28
Cooper, J. D., Boschken, I., McWilliams, J., & Pistochini, L. (2000). A study of the effectiveness of an intervention program designed to accelerate reading for struggling readers in the upper grades. In T. Shanahan & F. V. Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.), 49th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 477-486). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
29
Cunningsworth, A. (1998). Choosing your course book. U.K.: Macmillan Heinmann.
30
Davis, F. B. (1968). Research in comprehension in reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 3, 499-545.
31
Dole, J. A., Nokes, J. D., & Drits, D. (2009). Cognitive strategy instruction. Available online: www.ucrl.utah.edu/researchers/pdf/cognitive_strategy_instru ction.pdf
32
Doolittle, P., Hicks, D., Triplett, C., Nichols, W., & Young, C. (2006). Reciprocal teaching for reading comprehension in higher education: A strategy for fostering the deeper understanding of texts. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17, 106-118.
33
Dreyer, C., & Nel, C. (2003). Teaching reading strategies and reading comprehension within a technology-enhanced learning environment. System, 31, 349-365.
34
Duffy, G. (2002). The case for direct explanation of strategies. In C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 28-41). New York: Guilford Press.
35
Duke, N. K., & Pearson, D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Fastrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.). What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed.; pp. 205-242) Newark, DE: International reading association.
36
Ediger, A. M. (2001). Teaching children literacy skills in a second language. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 153-169). U.S.: Heinle & Heinle, Thomson Learning.
37
Eidger, A. M. (2006). Developing strategic L2 readers . . . by reading for authentic purposes. In A.Martínez-Flor & E. Usó-Juan (Eds.), Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills (pp. 303-327). Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
38
Eskey, D. (2005). Reading in a second language. In E. Hinkel (Eds.), Handbook of research on second language teaching and learning (pp. 563-580). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
39
Fitzgerald, J. (1994). How literacy emerges: Foreign language implications. Language Learning Journal, 9, 32-35.
40
Freihat, S., & Almakhzoomi, K. (2012). The effects of reciprocal teaching procedure on enhancing EFL students reading comprehension behavior in a university setting. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2, 279-291.
41
Fung, I., Wiklinson, A., & Moore, D. (2003). L1-assisted reciprocal teaching to improve ESL students’ comprehension of English expository text. Learning and Instruction, 13(1), 1-31
42
Garner, R. (1994). Metacognition and executive control. In R. Ruddell, M. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed.; pp. 715-732). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
43
Grabe, W. (2006). Areas of research that influence L2 reading instruction. In A.Martínez-Flor & E. Usó-Juan (Eds.), Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills (pp. 279-301). Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
44
Grabe, W. (2009). Teaching and testing reading. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 441-462). U.S.: Wiley-Blackwell.
45
Grasha, A. (2002). Teaching with style. U.S.: Alliance Publishers.
46
Grenfell, M., & Harris, V. (1999). Modern languages and learning strategies: In theory and practice. U.K.: Routledge.
47
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., & Davis, M. H. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 403-423.
48
Hacker, D. J., & Tenent, A. (2002). Implementing reciprocal teaching in the classroom: Overcoming obstacles and making modifications. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 699-718.
49
Hadley, A. O. (2003). Teaching language in context. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
50
Haffie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.
51
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. Pearson Education Limited.
52
Harris, V., & Gasper, A. (2001). Helping learners learn: Exploring strategy instruction in language classrooms across Europe. France: European Center of Modern Languages, Counsel of Europe.
53
Heimlich, E., & Norland, E. (1994). Developing teaching style in adult education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
54
Idol, L. (1987). Group story mapping: A comprehension strategy for both skilled and unskilled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 196-205.
55
Janzen, J., & Stoller, F. (1998). Integrating strategic reading in L2 instruction. Reading in a Foreign Language, 12(1), 251-269.
56
Jimenez, R. T., Garcia, G. E., & Pearson, D. P. (1996). The reading strategies of bilingual Latino students who are successful English readers: Opportunities and obstacles. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 90-112.
57
Key English Test 5. (2010). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
58
Krashen, S. D. (1981). The “fundamental pedagogical principle” in second language teaching. Studia Linguistica, 35, 50-70.
59
Lems, K., Miller, L. D., & Soro, T. M. (2010). Teaching reading to English language learners. U.S.: The Guilfrod Press.
60
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. U.S.: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
61
Mcmahon, M, & Oliver, R. (2003). Teaching metacognitive regulation of reading comprehension in an on-line environment. Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia, and Telecommunications 2003 (pp. 2464-2471). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
62
Meichenbaum, D. (1985). Teaching thinking: A cognitive-behavioral perspective. In S. F Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.). Thinking and learning skills, Vol. 2: Research and open questions (pp. 407-426). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
63
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 249-259.
64
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (2004). Investigating the strategic reading processes of first and second language readers in two different cultural contexts. System, 32, 379-394.
65
Mottley, R., & Telfer, R. (1995). Storytelling to promote emergent literacy: Prospective teachers’ storytelling experiences and expectations. Available online: http://americanreadingforum.com/yearbook/yearbooks/97_yearbook/p df/11_mottley.pdf
66
Nation, I. S. P. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL reading and writing. U.S.: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
67
Oxford, R. (2001). Language learning strategies. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.). The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 166-172). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
68
Palincsar, A. S. (1991). Scaffolded instruction of listening comprehension with first graders at risk for academic difficulty. In J. Bruer (Ed.), Toward the practice of using sound instruction (pp. 50-65). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
69
Palincsar, A. S, & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175
70
Palincsar, A. S., Ransom, K., & Derber, S. (1988). Collaborative research and development of reciprocal teaching. Educational Leadership, 46, 37-40
71
Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual (3rd ed.).U.K.: Open University press.
72
Pang, E. S., Muaka, A., Bernhardt, E. B., & Kamil, M. (2003). Teaching reading. Brussels: International Academy of Education.
73
Pearson, P. D. (2011). Point of view: Life in the radical middle. In R. F. Flippo (Ed.), Reading researchers in search of a common ground: The expert study revisited (pp. 99-106). U.K.: Routledge.
74
Pressley, G. M. (1976). Mental imagery helps eight-year-olds remember what they read. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 355-359.
75
Pressley. G. M. (2002). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (2nd ed.). New York: The Guildford Press.
76
Pressley, G. M. (2006). Reading instruction that works (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
77
Rahimi, M., & Nabilou, Z. (2009). Globalization and EFL curriculum reform in Iran: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Technology of Education, 3, 115-124.
78
Rahimi, M., & Katal, M. (2013). The impact of metacognitive instruction on EFL learners’ listening comprehension and oral language proficiency. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 5, 69-90.
79
Rahimi, M., & Soryani, M. (2013). The relationship between EFL teachers’ critical thinking skills and vocabulary learning strategy instruction across gender. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 3, 107-114.
80
Rasekh, Z. E., & Ranjbary, R. (2003). Metacognitive strategy training for vocabulary learning. TESL-EJ, 7(2). Available online: tesl-ej.org/ej26/a5.html
81
Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read. (2000). U.S.: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
82
Richards, J. C. (2008). Teaching listening and speaking: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
83
Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthropology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
84
Seymour, J. R., & Osana, H. P. (2003). Reciprocal teaching procedures and principles: Two teachers’ developing understanding. Teaching & Teacher Education, 19, 325-344.
85
Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and nonnative readers. System, 29, 431-449.
86
Shokrpour, N., & Fotovatian, S. (2007). Comparison of the efficiency of reading comprehension strategies on Iranian university students’ comprehension. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 37, 47-63.
87
Shokrpour, N., & Fotovatian, S. (2009). Effects of consciousness raising of metacognitive strategies on EFL students’ reading comprehension. ITL ̶ International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 157, 75-92.
88
Simpson, M. L., & Nist, S. L. (2000). An update on strategic learning: It’s more than textbook reading strategies. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43, 528-541.
89
Singer, H., & Donlan, D. (1982). Active comprehension: Problem-solving schema with question generation for comprehension of complex short stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 166-186.
90
Spörer, N., Brunstein, J., & Kieschke, U. (2009). Improving students’ reading comprehension skills: Effects of strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching. Learning & Instruction, 19, 272-286.
91
Stahl, K. A. D. (2004). Proof, practice, and promise: Comprehension strategy instruction in the primary grades. The Reading Teacher, 57, 598-609.
92
Stahl, S., & Nagy, W. (2006). Teaching word meanings. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
93
Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. U.S.: Pearson.
94
Taylor, B. M., & Beach, R.W. (1984). The effects of text structure instruction on middle-grade students’ comprehension and production of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 134-136.
95
Todd, R., & Tracey, D. (2006). Reciprocal teaching and comprehension: A single subject research study. ERIC Document Reproduction Service(No. ED491502).
96
Trabasso, T., & Bouchard, E. (2002). Teaching readers how to comprehend text strategically. In C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 176-200). New York: Guilford Press.
97
Urquhart, S., & Weir, C. (1998). Reading in a second language: Process, product, and practice. U.S.: Longman.
98
van Garderen, D. (2004). Reciprocal teaching as a comprehension strategy for understanding mathematical word problems. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 20, 225-229.
99
van den Broek, P., & Kremer, K. E. (2000). The mind in action: What it means to comprehend during reading. In B. M. Taylor, M. F. Graves, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Reading for meaning: Fostering comprehension in the middle grades (pp. 1-31). New York: Teachers CollegePress.
100
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
101
Wallace, C. (2001). Reading. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 21-27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
102
Wallace, C. (1992). Reading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
103
Yang, Y.F. (2010). Developing a reciprocal teaching/learning system for college remedial reading instruction. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1193-1201
104
Yousefvand, Z., & Lotfi, A. (2011). The effect of strategy-based reading instruction on Iranian EFL graduate students’ reading comprehension and their attitudes toward reading strategies instruction. Journal of Academic & Applied Studies, 1, 39-55.
105
Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Academic studying and the development of personal skill: A self-regulatory perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33, 73-86.
106
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Utility of Complex Alternatives in Multiple-Choice Items: The Case of All of the Above
This study investigated the utility of all of the above (AOTA) as a test option in multiple-choice items. It aimed at estimating item fit, item difficulty, item discrimination, and guess factor of such a choice. Five reading passages of the Key English Test (KET, 2010) were adapted. The test was reconstructed in 2 parallel forms: Test 1 did not include the abovementioned alternative, whereas Test 2, administered 2 weeks later, included such an alternative. The 2 tests, 32 items each, were administered to 142 high school third-graders. Results, analyzed through 3-parameter logistic model, indicated that the multiple-choice questions, including the alternative all of the above, were easier. Results also revealed that the option all of the above increased the guess factor. Because guess factor is a source of measurement error, it may threaten test validity and reliability.
https://rals.scu.ac.ir/article_11261_48b8749b51475326668ecadd26755ebe.pdf
2015-07-01
87
97
10.22055/rals.2015.11261
Multiple-Choice Questions, All of the Above
Item Fit
Item Difficulty
Item Discrimination
Guess Factor
Item Response Theory
Reza
Nejati
reza.nejati@sru.ac.ir
1
Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University
LEAD_AUTHOR
Mohammad
Moradi
mohammadmoradi79@yahoo.com
2
Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University
AUTHOR
Baker, F. B. (2001). The basics of item response theory. Maryland: RIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.
1
Bruno, E. J., & Dirkzwager, A. (1995). Determining the optimal number of alternatives to a multiple-choice test item: An information theoretic perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(6), 959-966.
2
Burton, S. Sudweeks, Merrill, P., & Wood, B. (1991). How to prepare better multiple-choice test items: Guidelines for university faculty. Utah: Brigham Young University Testing Services and Department of Instructional Science.
3
Cambridge Key English Tests (2010). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4
Crehan, K. D., Haladyna, T. M., & Brewer, E. W. (1993). Use of an inclusive option and the optimal number of options for multiple-choice items. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(1), 241-247.
5
DeMars, C. (2010). Item response theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6
Dudycha, A. L., & Carpenter, J. B. (1973). Effects of item formats on item discrimination and difficulty. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 116-121.
7
Farhady, H., Jafarpur, A., & Birjandy, P. (2011). Testing language skills: From theory to practice. Tehran: Center for Studying and Compiling University books in Humanities (SAMT).
8
Haladyna, T. M., Downing, S. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 15, 309-334.
9
Harasym, P. H., Leong E. J., Violato, C., Brant, R., & Lorscheider, F. L. (1998). Cuing effect of all of the above on the reliability and validity of multiple-choice test items. Evaluation Health Professional, 21(1), 120-133.
10
Mousavi, S. A. (2009). An encyclopedic dictionary of language testing. Tehran: Rahnama Publications.
11
Mueller, D. J. (1975). An assessment of the effectiveness of complex alternatives in multiple-choice achievement test items. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 35, 135-141.
12
Musial, D., Nieminen, G., Thomas, J., & Bruke, K. (2009). Foundations of meaningful educational assessment. New York: McGraw-Hill.
13
Osterlind, S. J. (2002). Constructing test items: Multiple-choice, constructed-response, performance, and other formats. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
14
Owen, S. V., & Freeman, R. D. (1987). What is wrong with three option multiple items? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 513-22.
15
Pashasharifi, H., & Kiyamanesh, A. (1984). Shivehaye arzeshyabi az amookhtehaye danesh amoozan.Tehran: Sherkat-e Chap va Nashre Iran.
16
Rossi, J. S., McCrady, B. S., & Paolino Jr., T. J. (1978). A and B but not C: Discriminating power of grouped alternatives. Psychological Reports, 42(2), 13-46.
17
Tripp, A., & Tollefson, N. (1985). Are complex multiple-choice options more difficult and discriminating than conventional multiple-choice options? Journal of Nursing Education, 24(3), 92-98.
18
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Application of Frame Semantics to Teaching Seeing and Hearing Vocabulary to Iranian EFL Learners
A term in one language rarely has an absolute synonymous meaning in the same language; besides, it rarely has an equivalent meaning in an L2. English synonyms of seeing and hearing are particularly grammatically and semantically different. Frame semantics is a good tool for discovering differences between synonymous words in L2 and differences between supposed L1 and L2 equivalents. Vocabulary teaching based on synonymous or bilingual equivalents has confused EFL Iranian students. Frame semantics has shown to improve L2 comprehension of EFL learners. Hence, teachers are recommended to either explain the meaning of each word or provide them with synonyms and bilingual equivalents together with complementary explanations concerning the differences between the words.
https://rals.scu.ac.ir/article_11262_ba16f31929dd2f2eb6b51a10b07c9f04.pdf
2015-07-01
98
117
10.22055/rals.2015.11262
Frame Semantics
Vocabulary
EFL Learners
Frames
Seyed Hamzeh
Mousavi
mousavi.hamzeh@gmail.com
1
University of Isfahan
LEAD_AUTHOR
Mohammad
Amouzadeh
amoozadeh@yahoo.com
2
University of Isfahan
AUTHOR
Vali
Rezaei
vali.rezai@fgn.ui.ac.ir
3
University of Isfahan
AUTHOR
Atzler, J. K. (2011). Twist in the list: Frame semantics as vocabulary teaching and learning tool. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
1
Baker, C. F. (1999). Seeing clearly: Frame semantics, psycholinguistic, and cross-linguistic approaches to the semantics of the English verb see. Unpulished doctoral dissertation, Berkeley University.
2
Cienki, A. (2007). Frames, idealized cognitive models, and domains. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 170-187). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
5
Fillmore, C. J (1982). Frame semantics. In H. Ŏ. Hakhoe (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111-138). Seoul: Hanshin.
6
Fillmore, C. J. (2007). Valency issues in FrameNet. In T. Herbst & K. Götz-Votteler (Eds.), Valency: Theoretical, descriptive, and cognitive issues 187 (pp. 129-160). Berlin: Walter de Guyter.
7
Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T. (1992). Toward a frame-based organization of the lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer & K. Eva (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrast: New essays in semantics and lexical organization (pp. 75-102). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8
Haghshenas, A. M., Samei, H., & Entekhabi, N. (2005). Millennium English-Persian dictionary. Tehran: Farhang Moaser Publishers.
9
Mackey, D. (2010). Read this! Fascinating stories from the content areas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10
Perception Frame. (2001). In FrameNet. Retrieved August 7, 2014, from the World Wide Web: https://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/fndrupal/index.php?q=frameIn dex.
11
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12
Trusler, J. (1766). The difference between words, esteemed synonyms in the English language, and the proper choice of them determined together with, so much of Abbe Girard’s treatise, on this subject, as would agree, with our mode of expression (Vols 1 & 2). Michigan: University of Michigan Library.
13
Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H. J. (2006). An introduction to cognitive linguistics. London: Longman.
14
Xu, F., & Li, T. (2011). Semantic frame and EVT for Chinese EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(3), 649-654.
15
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Iranian Scholars’ Revision of Their Submitted Manuscripts: Signaling Impersonality in Text
Nonnative English-speaking scholars have often been reported to be at a disadvantage vis-à-vis their English native counterparts when it comes to writing a publishable research article (RA). When they submit their manuscripts to English-language journals, they sometimes receive comments criticizing their faulty English. One area of difficulty for these authors is the grammaticalization of neutrality, impersonality, and objectivity. Relying on systemic functional linguistics (SFL), as the analytic framework, and by comparing the transitivity systems of the manuscripts written by the scholars prior to submission with their after-publication version, this study investigated how this is achieved during the revision process. Results suggest that revisions tend to put the authors in the background of the text. This involves increasing the presence of relational processes and reducing the number of material ones, and as far as voice is concerned, the proportion of passive processes in relation to the active ones increases.
https://rals.scu.ac.ir/article_11263_ad198ac195ab3d2329c0ccc9faf4298d.pdf
2015-07-01
118
140
10.22055/rals.2015.11263
Academic Publishing
Revision
Impersonality
Transitivity
Mahmood
Maniati
maniatim@yahoo.com
1
Shahid Chamran University of AhvazAhvaz
LEAD_AUTHOR
Alireza
Jalilifar
ar.jalilifar@gmail.com
2
Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz
AUTHOR
Abdolmajid
Hayati
majid_hayati@yahoo.com
3
Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz
AUTHOR
Babaii, E., & Ansary, H. (2005). On the effect of disciplinary variation on transitivity: The case of academic book reviews. Asian EFL Journal, 7(3), 113-126.
1
Banks, D. (2008). The development of scientific writing: Linguistic features and historical context. London: Equinox.
2
Biber, D., & B. Gray. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 2-20.
3
Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S. Spinks S., & Yallop, C. ( 2000). Using functional grammar: An explorer’s guide (2nd ed.). Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University.
4
Christie, F. (2012). Language education throughout the school years: A functional perspective. Chichester, West Sussex; Malden, MA: Wiley‐Blackwell.
5
Coffin, C., & Donohue, J. P. (2012) Academic literacies and systemic functional linguistics: How do they relate? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 64-75.
6
Curry, M. J., & Lillis, T. M. (2004). Multilingual scholars and the imperative to publish in English: Negotiating interests, demands, and rewards. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 663-688.
7
Eggins, S. (1994). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Continuum.
8
ElMalik, A., & Nesi, H. (2008). Publishing research in a second language: The case of Sudanese contributors to international medical journals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(2), 87-96.
9
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.
10
Flowerdew, J. (1999a). Writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 123-145.
11
Flowerdew, J. (1999b). Problems in writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 243-264.
12
Flowerdew, J. (2001). Attitudes of journal editors to nonnative speaker contributions. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 121-149.
13
Flowerdew, J., & Li, Y. Y. (2009). English or Chinese? The trade-off between local and international publication among Chinese academics in the humanities and social sciences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 1-16.
14
Gosden, H. (1995). Success in research article writing and revision: A social-constructionist perspective. English for Special Purposes, 14, 37-57.
15
Gosden, H. (2003). “Why not give us the full story?”: functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(2), 87-101.
16
Gross, A. G., Harmon, J. E., & Reidy, M. S. (2002). Communicating science: The scientific article from the 17th century to the present. West Lafayette: Parlor Press.
17
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985, 1994). An introduction to functional grammar (1st and 2nd eds.). London: Edward Arnold.
18
Halliday, M. A. K. (2000). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold/Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
19
Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). The language of science. New York/London, Continuum.
20
Halliday, M. A. K. (2008). Complementarities in language. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
21
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
22
Hanauer, D. I., & Englander, K. (2013). Writing science in a second language. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
23
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 123-139.
24
Jalilifar, A. R. (2011). World of attitudes in research article Discussion sections: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Technology & Education, 5(3), 177-186.
25
Kharabaf, S., & Abdollahi, M. (2012). Science growth in Iran over the past 35 years. Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 17(3), 275-279.
26
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon.
27
Lachowicz, D. (1981). On the use of the passive voice for objectivity, author responsibility and hedging in EST. Science of Science, 2(6), 105- 115.
28
Marco, M. J. (2000). Collocational frameworks in medical research papers: a genre-based study. English for Specific Purposes, 19, 63-86.
29
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003, 2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (1st and 2nd eds.).London: Contiuum.
30
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R., (2005). The language of evaluation, appraisal in English. London & New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
31
Martínez, I. A. (2001). Impersonality in the research article as revealed by analysis of the transitivity structure. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 227-247.
32
Master, P. (1991). Active verbs with inanimate subjects in scientific prose. ESP Journal, 10, 15-33.
33
Myers, G. (1992). “In this paper, we report . . .”: Speech acts and scientific facts. Journal of Pragmatics, 16, 295-313.
34
Pérez-Llantada Auría, C. (2011). Heteroglossic (dis)engagement and the construal of the ideal readership: dialogic spaces in academic texts. In V. Bhatia, P. S. Hernández & P. Pérez-Paredes (Eds.) Researching specialized languages (pp. 25-45). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
35
Salager-Meyer, F. (2008). Scientific publishing in developing countries: Challenges for the future. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 121-132.
36
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2005). Helping content area teachers work with academic language: Promoting English Language learners’ literacy in history. Santa Barbara, CA: UC Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
37
Shaw, P., & Vassileva., I. (2009). Coevolving academic rhetoric across culture: Britain, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany in the 20th century. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(2), 290-305.
38
Simpson, P. (1993). Language, ideology and point of view. London: Routledge.
39
Sinclair, J. (1990). English grammar. London: Harper-Collins Publishers.
40
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41
Swales, J. M. (1996). Occluded genres in the academy: The case of the
42
submission letter. In E. Ventola & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing:
43
Intercultural and textual issues (pp. 45-58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
44
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: A course for nonnative speakers of English. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
45
Thompson, B. (1993). The use of statistical significance tests in research: Bootstrap and other alternatives. Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 361-377.
46
Thompson, G. (1996). Introducing functional grammar. London: Arnold
47
Uzuner, S. (2008). Multilingual scholars’ participation in core/global academic communities: A literature review. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 250-263.
48