تعداد نشریات | 44 |
تعداد شمارهها | 1,313 |
تعداد مقالات | 16,160 |
تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 52,725,031 |
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 15,391,331 |
The impact of portfolios and conferencing on Iranian EFL learners’ writing skill | ||
Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning | ||
مقاله 6، دوره 3، شماره 8، اسفند 2011، صفحه 115-141 اصل مقاله (232.25 K) | ||
نوع مقاله: Research Paper | ||
نویسندگان | ||
Abbas Moradan* 1؛ Seyyed Nasibeh Hedayati2 | ||
1Associate professor at semnan university | ||
2M.A student in TEFL at semnan university | ||
چکیده | ||
The main purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of portfolios and conferencing techniques on Iranian EFL learners' writing skill. The experiment involved Iranian intermediate students that were randomly assigned to two experimental groups and one control group. The participants of the first experimental group were asked to provide portfolios of their 4 paragraphs during the course and after each paragraph they were supposed to assess themselves and answer a self-assessment checklist (they were supposed to write four paragraphs during the course). The participants in the second experimental group were asked to take part in four whole class and two individual conferences after writing each paragraph. The participants of control group based on the traditional approach just received their scoured writings without any oral and written feedback by the teacher. The result of the study showed that there was significant difference between performance of the two experimental groups and that of the control group on the post test. No significant difference was found between the performance of the two experimental groups after implementing portfolios and conferencing techniques | ||
کلیدواژهها | ||
: alternative assessment؛ portfolios and conferencing | ||
مراجع | ||
Alderson, J. C. (1993). The relationship between grammar and reading in English for academic purposes test battery. In D. Douglas, & C. Chapelle (Eds.), A new decade of language testing research: Selected papers from the 1990 Language Testing Research Colloquium (pp. 203-219). Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Adams, M. J., & Collins, A. (1979). A schema-theoretic view of reading. In Roy O. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (pp.1-22) . Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Anderson, R. C. & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P. L. Carrell, J. Davine, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ausubel, D. P. (1963). Some psychological considerations in the objectives and design of an elementary-school science program. Science Education , 47(3), 278-284. Barnitz, J. G. (1986). Toward understanding the effects of crosscultural schemata and discourse structure on second language reading comprehension. Journal of Literacy Research, 18 (2), 95- 116. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Oxford: Macmillan. Berman, R.A. (1984). Syntactic components of the foreign language reading process. In C.J. Alderson, & A.H. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a Foreign Language (pp. 139-156). New York: Longman. Bossers, B. (1992). Reading in two languages. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. Brisbois, J. E. (1995). Connections between first- and secondlanguage reading. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27, 565-584. Carrell, P. L., & Eisterhold, J. C. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 17(4), 553-573. 110 Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning.No,8 /Autumn & Winter 2011 Carrell, P. L. (1984). Schema theory and ESL reading: Classroom implications and applications. The Modern Language Journal, 68,332-343. Carrell, P. L. (1988 a). Some causes of text-boundedness and schema interference in ESL reading. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carrell, Patricia L. (1988 b). Interactive text processing: implications for ESL/second language reading classrooms. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cook, G. (1997). Key concepts in ELT. ELT Journal, 51(1), 86. Eskey, D. E. (1971). Advanced reading: The structural problem. English Teaching Forum, 9(5), 15-19. Eskey, D. E. (1988). Holding in the bottom: an interactive approach to the language problems of second language readers. In Patricia L. Carrell., J. Devine, &D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goodman, K. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist, 6(4), 126-135. Goodman, K. (1988). The reading process. In P. L. Carrell, J. D., & D. E. Eskey (Ed.), Interactive approaches to second language reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haynes, M., & Carr, T. H. (1990). Writing system background and second language reading: A component skills analysis of English reading by native speaker-readers of Chinese. In T. Carr, & B. A. Levy (Eds.), Reading and its development: Component skills approaches (pp. 375-421). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Hyde, C. L. (2002). A comparison of the effect of two types of prereading vocabulary lists on learner reading comprehension: The Effect of Grammar vs. Vocabulary … 111 Glossed difficult words vs. key cohesive lexical chains. Retrieved October 15, 2010, from the World Wide Web: http://www.surrey.ac.uk/ALRG/dissertations/Hyde-C-2002.pdf. Jahangard, A. (2010). Form-focused second language vocabulary as the predictor of EFL learners’ achievement: A case for translation. BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 1(4). Kennedy, E. C. (1974). Methods in teaching developmental reading. Illinois: F. E. Peacock Publishers, Inc. Lyons, J. (1981). Language and linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matthews, C. (2002). Understanding the process of reading comprehension. Retrieved August 14, 2009, from the World Wide Web: http://home.gwu.edu/~cmatt. Mirhassani, A., & Khosravi, A. A. (2002). Issues on reading comprehension: Part One. Roshd Foreign Language Teaching Journal, 16 (65), 12-24. Nassaji, H. (2003). Higher-level and lower-level text processing skills in advanced ESL reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 261-276. Noor, N. M. (2006). Reading academic text: Awareness and experiences among university ESL learners. GEMA OnlineTM Journal of Language Studies, 6(2), 65-78. Norris, S., & Phillips, L. (1987). Explanations of reading comprehension: Schema theory and critical thinking theory. Teachers College Record, 89 (2), 281-306. Oller, J. W. (1995). Adding abstract to formal and content schemata: Results of recent work in peircean semiotics. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 273-306. Pulido, D. (2009). Vocabulary processing and acquisition through reading: Evidence for the rich getting richer. In Z.-H. Han, & N. J. Anderson (Eds.), Second language reading research and 112 Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning.No,8 /Autumn & Winter 2011 instruction: Crossing the boundaries (pp. 65-82). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Ruddell, M.R. (1994). Vocabulary knowledge and comprehension: A comprehension-process view of complex literacy relationships. In R.B. Ruddell, M.R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 414–447). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Shiotsu, T., & Weir, C. J. (2007). The relative significance of syntactic knowledge and vocabulary breadth in the prediction of reading comprehension test performance. Language Testing, 24, 99-128. Singhal, M. (1998). A comparison of L1and L2 reading: Cultural differences and schema. The Internet TESL Journal: (On-line). Available: http://iteslj.org/Articles/Singhal-ReadingL1L2.html Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(1), 32-71. Stæ hr, L. S. (2008). Vocabulary size and the skills of listening, reading, and writing. Language Learning Journal, 36, 139-152. Stott, N. (2001). Helping ESL students become better readers: Schema theory applications and limitations. The Internet TESL Journal: (On-line). Available: http://iteslj.org/Articles/Stott-Schema.html. Strother, J., & Ulijn, J. (1987). Does syntactic rewriting affect English for science and technology text comprehension? In J. Devine, P. L. Carrell, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Research in reading in English as a second language (pp. 89-103). Washington, DC: TESOL. Tudor, L. (1990). Pre-reading format and learner proficiency level in L2 reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 20, 93-106. Widdowson, H. G. (1979). Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Widdowson, H. G. (1983). Learning purpose and language use. The Effect of Grammar vs. Vocabulary … 113 Oxford: Oxford University Press. Widdowson, H. G. (1990). Aspects of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Widmayer, S.A. (2003). Schema theory: An introduction. Retrieved February 16, 2010, from the World Wide Web: http://chd.gse.gmu.edu/immersion/Knowledgebase/strategies/cogni tivism/SchemaTheory. | ||
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 2,751 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 5,314 |