آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 41 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 1,129 |
| تعداد مقالات | 13,882 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 48,843,413 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 12,579,267 |
Comparing Learners’ Interactions in Conventional and Virtual Classes of Distance Education University: Examining Two Approaches of Teaching Grammar (Research Article) | ||
| Two Quarterly Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning University of Tabriz | ||
| دوره 13، شماره 27، شهریور 2021، صفحه 265-294 اصل مقاله (1.16 MB) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22034/elt.2021.44749.2352 | ||
| نویسنده | ||
farzaneh khodabndeh 
| ||
| Payame Noor University | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Collaborative technologies provide opportunities for English foreign language learners (EFL) to have interactive learning and access to online interactive environments. Interactions that take place between teachers and their students in a classroom context affect learners’ language learning. As such, this research compared interactions between the instructor and her students and between students themselves that took place in conventional and Learning Management Systems (LMS) classes. Second, two different approaches of teaching grammar (implicit and explicit) in conventional and LMS classes were examined. The participants of this study were selected from 94 students of EFL freshmen at two groups of different teaching classes namely, virtual and conventional classes. Having administered a test of homogeneity, the researcher selected 60 learners. They were assigned into four groups, two experimental and two comparative groups. After the treatment, the results of the pre-and post-tests confirmed the positive effect of teaching grammar both explicitly and implicitly in LMS classes. In addition, examination of interaction patterns revealed that teaching through LMS was student-centered and dynamic in contradiction with the comparative groups. The study can help instructors understand the prospective benefits of teaching on LMS and also improve social interactions among uncommunicative students. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Classroom discourse؛ E-learning؛ Explicit instruction؛ Implicit instruction؛ IRF؛ Learning Management System (LMS) | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Alian, J., Khodabandeh, F., Soleimani, H. (2017). The effect of MALL-based tasks on EFL learners' grammar learning. Teaching English with Technology, 17(2), 29-41. Andrews, K. L. Z. (2007). The effects of implicit and explicit instruction on simple and complex grammatical structures for adult English language learners. TESL-EJ, 11 (2). Arabloo, P., Hemmati, F., Rouhi, A., & Khodabandeh, F. (2020). The Effect of Technology-aided Project-based English Learning on Critical Thinking and Problem Solving as Indices of 21st Century Learning. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies. Asadi, N., Khodabandeh, F., & Yekta, R. R. (2019). Comparing and contrasting the interactional performance of teachers and students in traditional and virtual classrooms of advanced writing course in distance education university. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 20(4), 135-148. Baleghizadeh, S., & Derakhshesh, A. (2017). Measuring the Effectiveness of Explicit and Implicit Instruction through Explicit and Implicit Measures. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 81-111. Banafshi, M., Khodabandeh, F., & Hemmati, F. (2020). Comparing EFL learners’ responses in online and traditional classes.A mixed method approach. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 21(4), 124-142. Barbaux, M. T. (2006). From lifelong learning to m-learning. Association for Learning Technology, 132. Behtash E. Z., & Azania T. (2015). A case study of teacher talk time and student talk time in an Iranian language school. International Journal of English Language, 2, 274 -285. Candela, A. (1999). Students’ power in classroom discourse. Linguistics and Education, 10 (2), 139-163. Domalewska, D. (2015). Classroom Discourse Analysis in EFL Elementary Lessons. International Journal of Languages, Literature and Linguistics,1(1), 6-9. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fasel Lauzon, V., & Berger, E. (2015). The multimodal organization of speaker selection in classroom interaction classroom interaction. Linguistics and Education, 31, 14–29. Gabriel, R. (2009). The Efficacy of Explicit Grammar Instruction and Its Impact on L2 RulE-learning: A Literature Review. Online Submission. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509345.pdf Gharbavi A., & Iravani H. (2014). Is teacher talk pernicious to students? A discourse analysis of teacher talk. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 552-561. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.451 Grgurovic, M. (2010). Technology-enhanced blended language learning in an ESL class: A description of a model and an application of the Diffusion of Innovations theory. Retrieved from https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2639&context=etd Hall, J. K., & Walsh, M. (2002). Teacher-student interaction and language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 186-203. Heidari, J., Khodabande, F., & Soleimani, H. (2018). A comparative analysis of face to face instruction vs. telegram mobile instruction in terms of narrative writing. Jaltcall Journal, 14(2), 143-156. Hellermann, J. (2003). The interactive work of prosody in the IRF exchange: Teacher repetition in feedback moves. Language in Society, 32(1), 79-104. Hellermann, J. (2009). Practices for dispreferred responses using no by a learner of English. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47, 95-126. Hitotuzi, N. (2005). Teacher talking time in the EFL classroom. Profile Issues in Teachers Professional Development, (6), 97-106. Hobbs, V., Matsuo, A., & Payne, M. (2010). Code-switching in Japanese language classrooms: An exploratory investigation of native vs. non-native speaker teacher practice. Linguistics and Education, 21, 44-59. Holmes, B., & Gardner, J. (2006). E-learning: Concepts and Practice. London: SAGE Publications. Hosoda, Y. (2006). Repair and relevance of differential language expertise in second language conversations. Applied Linguistics, 27, 25-50. Jones, A. (2003). ICT and Future Teachers: Are We Preparing for E-learning? In D. Carolyn & K.W. Lai (Eds), Information and Communication Technology and the Teacher of the Future (pp.65-83). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Khodabandeh, F. (2018). The impact of storytelling techniques through virtual instruction on English students’ speaking ability. Teaching English with Technology, 18(1), 24-36. Khodabandeh, F. (2020). The Effect of Social Network Use on EFL Learners’ Second Language Achievement: An Investigation into their Attitudes. IAU International Journal of Social Sciences, 10(1). Khodabandeh, F., & Tharirian, M. H. (2020). Exploring the Impact of Blended, Flipped, and Traditional Teaching Strategies for Teaching Grammar on Iranian EFL Learners through English Newspaper Articles. Journal of Teaching Language Skills. Kumari, D. S. (2001). Connecting graduate students to virtual guests through asynchronous discussions: Analysis of an experience. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 53–63. Levin, J.A., Kim, H., & Riel, M. (1990). Analyzing instructional interactions on electronic message networks. In L.M. Harasim (Ed.), Online education: Perspectives on a new environment (pp. 185-213). New York: Praeger. Luk, J.C. M., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2007). Classroom interactions as cross-cultural encounters: Native speakers in EFL lessons. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Publishers. Macaro, E., & Masterman, L. (2006). Does intensive explicit grammar instruction make all the difference? Language Teaching Research, 10 (3), 297–327. McQuade, F. (1980). Examining a grammar course: The rationale and the result. English Journal, 69, 26-30. Masjedi, H., & Tabatabaei, S. P. (2018). Discoursal Features of Classroom Interaction: Yesterday vs. Today's EFL Teachers. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 5(3), 231-246. Miyazoe, T. (2008). LMS-based EFL blended learning: Blackboard vs. Moodle. In K. Bradford Watts, T. Muller, & M. Swanson (Eds.), JALT2007 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT. Naseri, E. & Khodabandeh, F., (2019). Comparing the impact of audio-visual input enhancement on collocation learning in conventional and mobile learning contexts. Applied Research on English Language, 8(3), 388-422. Nezakat-Alhossaini, M., Youhanaee, M., & Moinzadeh, A. (2014). Impact of explicit instruction on EFL learners’ implicit and explicit knowledge: A case of English relative clauses. Dil ve Dilbilimi Çalışmaları Dergisi, 10(2). Oberli, C. (2003). Questioning and feedback in the interactive classroom. Retrieved on March 10, 2015, from http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-artslaw/cels/essays/languageteaching/oberliM1A.pdf Petrides, L.A. (2002). Web-based technologies for distributed (or distance) learning: Creating learning-centered educational experiences in the higher education classroom. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(1), 69–77. Radwan, A. A. (2005). The effectiveness of explicit attention to form in language learning. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 33 (1), 69-87. Rajabi, P., & Dezhkam, E. (2014). The effect of explicit grammar instruction on improving writing accuracy of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of ELT and Applied Linguistics (JELTAL), 2(1), 61-76. Rashidi, N., & Rafieerad, M. (2010). Analyzing patterns of classroom interaction in EFL classrooms in Iran. Journal of Asia TEFL, 7(3). Rodríguez, C. A. V., & Arellano, R. F. A. (2018). Teacher talk and student talk, who is in charge? A study on classroom discourse and pedagogical interactions. The LEC Journal, 5, 1-25. Rustandi, A., Mubarok, A.H. (2017). AN ANALYSIS OF IRF (INITIATION-RESPONSE-FEEDBACK) ON CLASSROOM INTERACTION IN EFL SPEAKING CLASS. EduLite: Journal of English Education, Literature and Culture, 2(1), 239-250. Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press. Sari, F. M. (2019). Patterns of Teaching-Learning Interaction in the EFL Classroom. TEKNOSASTIK, 16(2). Shirzad, S. (2016). Explicit versus implicit grammar instruction. International Journal of Modern Language Teaching and Learning, 1, 212-215. Smith D., Hardaker G. (2000). E-learning innovation through the implementation of an Internet supported learning environment. Educ. Technol. Soc. 3, 1–16 Available online at: http://www.ifets.info/journals/3_3/e04.html Song, L. & McNary, S. (2011). Understanding students' online interaction: Analysis of discussion board postings. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 10(1), 1-14.http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/10.1.1.pdf Suter, C. (2001). Exploring teachers’ questions and feedback. Retrieved on September 18, 2015, from http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-artslaw/cels/essays/languageteaching/suter1.pdf Tode, T. (2007). Durability problems with explicit instruction in an EFL context: The learning of the English copula be before and after the instruction of the auxiliary be. Language Teaching Research, 11 (1), 11-30. Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: A case study. Internet and Higher Education, 6, 77–90. Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring Classroom Discourse: Language in Action. Abingdon: Routledge. Warschauer, M. (2000). The death of cyberspace and the rebirth of CALL. English Teachers’ Journal, 53, 61–67. Widodo, H.P (2006). Approaches and procedures for teaching grammar. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 5, (1), p. 122-141. Retrieved from education.waikato.ac.nz. Woods, R. H. (2002). How much communication is enough in online courses? Exploring the relationship between frequency of instructor-initiated personal email and learners' perceptions of and participation in online learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(4), 377–394. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the development of children, 23(3), 34-41.
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 459 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 393 |
||
