The Role of Classroom Dictation Activity as a kind of Dictogloss on Improving Accuracy and Complexity of Written Performance between Iranian Male and Female EFL Learners

Subject Areas : آموزش زبان انگلیسی

Farnaz Sahebkheir ^{1 *} , Fatemeh Salehi ²

1 - Department of English Language Teaching, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
2 - Department of English Language Teaching, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran

Received: 2024-01-25 Accepted : 2025-01-12 Published : 2025-01-17

Keywords: accuracy, complexity, dictation, dictogloss, written performance,

Abstract :

Dictation is a method in which learners receive speaking input which can foster their writing skill, so this quasi - experimental study attempts to investigate the role of classroom dictation activity as a kind of dicto-gloss on improving accuracy and complexity of written performance between Iranian male and female EFL learners. For this aim, 40 male and female learners were chosen out of 59 students. Then, by administrating a Preliminary English Test (PET) 40 homogeneous participants were selected as final sample of this study. The first language of the learners was Azerbaijani Turkish and they were intermediate-level learners. Then, they were randomly divided into two intact groups, one consisting of 20 male students and the other one 20 female students. Before manipulating treatment, the participants took part in the pretest to check their accuracy and complexity of their written performance. After 10 sessions, they took part in the post-test. The data collected in this study were analyzed through independent samples t-test. Both groups in the post test had higher scores in accuracy and complexity than the pre-test. However, the findings revealed that female group significantly outperformed the male group on the post test, in terms of both their accuracy and complexity of written performance. In conclusion, it could be stated that classroom dictation activity as a kind of dictogloss can be effective method that can enhance Iranian EFL learners’ accuracy and complexity of writing. The results of the study would be significant for EFL/ESL teachers, English language institutes, and teachers.

References:

Abbasian, G. R., & Mohammadi, M. (2013). The effectiveness of dictogloss in developing general writing skill of Iranian intermediate EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(6), 1371-1380.
Ahmadian, M., Amerian, M., & Lavasani, E. (2015). The effect of the Dicto-gloss as a cooperative learning technique on EFL learners' self-efficacy in writing. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(6), 13-57.
Ajmal, M., Iqbal, I., Mahmood, R., & Zafar, A. (2020). The effectiveness of using dictogloss technique to improve students' writing: a case study from University of Lahore. Dilemas Contemporáneos: Educación, Política y Valores, 7(2). 14-19.
Alber-Morgan, S.,Hessler,T., & Konrad, M. (2007). Teaching writing for keeps. Teaching and treatment for children, 30(3), 107-128. DOI: 10.1353/etc.2007.0012
Claudia, S, Sada, B, & Wardah, E. (2017). Developing Writing Skills in Descriptive Text Using theDictogloss Technique of Senior High School Students. Didascein: Education, 4(2), 104-111.
Davis, P., & Rinvolucri, M. (2002). Dictation: New methods, new possibilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dewi, U. R. (2015). Using Digtogloss as Dictation Method to Improve Students’ Skills. Journal pendidikan,14(2),1703-1710.
Ebrahimi, F., Namaziandost, E., Ziafar, M.. (2021). The effect of teaching formulaic expressions through contrastive lexical approach on Iranian pre-intermediate EFL learners' writing skill. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 50, 1087-1105.
Gillies, R. M. (2003). Structuring cooperative group work in classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1-2), 35-49.
Heidari, P., & Salehi, M. (2021). A Comparative Study on the Effectiveness of Garden Path vs. Dictogloss technique on writing accuracy of Intermediate Iranian EFL Learners. Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English, 10(1), 69-96.
Huda, M. C., & Rahadianto, P. (2019). Using dictogloss technique to improve students’ writing skill. English Community Journal, 3 (1), 307–316.
Hunt, K. W. (1965). A synopsis of clause-to-sentence length factors. The English Journal, 54(4), 300-309.
Jacobs, G. M., & Farrell, T. S. C. (2001). Paradigm shift: Understanding and implementing change in second language education.
Jacobs, G.,& Small, J. (2003) Combining Dictogloss and Cooperative Learning To Promote Language Learning. The Reading Matrix : an International Online Journal, 2(3), 56-67.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into practice, 38(2), 67-73.
Kidd, J. K. (1992). The effects of type of written practice and time of writing sample on sixth grade students' argumentative written responses to literature (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech). literacy, 34(3), 322-340.
Kondrat, A.(2010). Importance of Good Writing. http://www.suite101. com/reference/good_writing,
Krashen, S. (2009). The comprehension hypothesis extended. Input matters in SLA, 1(4), 81- 94.
Mayhoub, M. S. O., Ali, E. A. E., & Mohamed, H. M. (2023). Using Dictogloss Strategy for Developing Secondary Stage Students' English Grammar Competence and Motivation Towards Learning English Language. BSU-Journal of Pedagogy and Curriculum, 2(3), 134-152.
Mazri, M. (2017). Dictogloss: A Collaborative Writing Task to Improve Learners’ Written Product. El-Hakika Review, 41(4), 36-61.
Moradi, M. & Sheikhzadeh, A.(2018). Dictogloss. Modern Journal, 2(3), 14-19.
Nasri, F., & Senoussi, N. (2015). Investigating EFL teachers' and Learners' perspectives towards the use of dictation as a useful technique to Enhance Students' knowledge of vocabulary. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(5), 27-47.
Nation, A.(1991). Reimagining the nation. Millennium journal of international studies, 20(3), 2-12.
Nunan, D. (1995). Closing the gap between learning and instruction. Tesol Quarterly, 29(1),
133-158.
Nurdianingsih, F., & Rahmawati, O. I. (2017, July). Running dictation as an effective technique on the teaching writing skill. In English Language And Literature International Conference (Ellic) Proceedings (Vol. 2, pp. 127-131).
Oller, J. W., & Streiff, V. (1975). Dictation: A test of grammar-based expectancies. ELT
Journal, 30(1), 25-36.
Platt, T. (1992). Writing, shamanism and identity or voices from Abya-Yala. Oxford University Press.
Pishghadam, R., & Ghadiri, S. (2011). Symmetrical or Asymmetrical Scaffolding: Piagetian vs. Vygotskyan Views to Reading Comprehension. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 7(1), 49-64.
Purnawati, P. (2017). Running Dictation to Activate Students In Speaking Class. English Education: Journal of English Teaching And Research, 2(2), 88-94.
RajjaeiNia, M. R. (2011). Effects of intensive Reading on the Mastery. The Iranian EFL Journal, 32, 145-160.
Shak, J. (2006). Children using dictogloss to focus on form. Reflections on English language teaching, 5(2), 47-62.
Sheikhzadeh, N., & Moradi, S. Z. (2018). Combined effects of and on the growth performance, digestive enzyme activity, antioxidative status, and immune genes in zebrafish. Annals of Animal Science, 4(2), 104-111.
Stansfield, C. W. (1985). A history of dictation in foreign language teaching and testing. The
Modern Language Journal, 69(2), 121-128.
Takeuchi, K. (2010). The Genealogy of Japanese" Shōjo Manga"(Girls' Comics) Studies. US- Japan Women's Journal, 38(2), 81-112.
Takeuchi, O. (1997). Dictation: Is it really effective for language teaching. Kansai University Audio Visual Education, 20, 155-161.
Tsui, L. (1995). Fostering critical thinking through effective pedagogy: Evidence from four institutional case studies. The journal of higher education, 73(6), 740-763.
Vasiljević, N. R. (2023). Written expression and school achievement of young school-age students. Norma, 28(1), 9-20.
Wahhab, M. A., & Abdul, A. (2020). The Effect of Dictogloss Technique on Iraqi EFL Secondary School Students’ Performance in English Grammar. Al-Ameed Journal, 9(4), 11-20.
Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar dictation (Vol. 3). Oxford University Press.
Zega, Y., Harefa, A. T., Zebua, E. P., & Telaumbanua, Y. A. (2023). Developing Descriptive Writing Graphic Organizers’ of the Students at the Eighth Grade of SMP Swasta Kristen Agios Nikolaus in 2022/2023. Journal of Education Research, 4(3), 1608-1616.

Full-Text:



 

 

The Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice

Vol. 17, No.35, Autumn and Winter 2024

DOI: 10.71586/jal.2024.24011539

 

Research Article

The Role of Classroom Dictation Activity as a kind of Dictogloss on Improving Iranian Male and Female EFL Learners’ Writing Accuracy and Complexity

Fatemeh Salehi1, Farnaz Sahebkheir2*

1,2Department of English Language Teaching, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran

 

       *Corresponding author: [e-mail]

       (Received: 2024/01/25; Accepted: 2025/01/12)

 

       Online publication: 2025/01/31

 

Abstract

Writing skill helps learners become independent, comprehensible, fluent and creative in writing. Dictation is a technique in which learners write after receiving speaking input which can foster their writing skill. Hence, this quasi - experimental study attempts to investigate the role of classroom dictation activity as a kind of dicto-gloss on improving Iranian male and female EFL learners’ writing accuracy and complexity. To this end, 40 male and female learners were chosen out of 59 students. Then, by administrating a Preliminary English Test (PET) 40 homogeneous participants were selected as final sample of this study. The first language of the learners was Azerbaijani Turkish and they were intermediate-level learners. There were in two intact groups, one consisting of 20 male students and the other one 20 female students. Before manipulating treatment, the participants took part in the pretest to check the accuracy and complexity of their written performance. Both groups in the post test had higher scores in accuracy and complexity than the pre-test. However, the findings revealed that the female group gained better results in comparison to the male group in the post test, in terms of both accuracy and complexity of their written performance. In conclusion, it could be stated that classroom dictation activity as a kind of dictogloss can be an effective method that can enhance Iranian EFL learners’ accuracy and complexity of written performance. Teachers can provide opportunities for dictogloss activities in their classrooms to help their students recognize areas for improvement in their writing skill. The results of the study would be significant for EFL/ESL teachers, English language institutes, and teacher trainers. 

      Keywords: accuracy, complexity, dictation, dictogloss, written performance

Introduction

The process of teaching writing is extremely difficult. According to Alber-Morgan, Hessler, and Konrad (2007), teaching and testing writing is just as complicated as writing itself. Teachers try hard to convey knowledge and take use of their students' enthusiasm, creativity, and eagerness in order to develop strong writers who produce pieces of importance. These elements aid learners in becoming autonomous writers. However, in reality, despite its importance, writing often receives less attention than other skills (Miamian Magazine, 2007). Writing Skill helps learners become independent, comprehensible, fluent and creative writing, helping learners organize their thoughts into meaningful forms and process messages correctly in their heads. It is an important skill that will help you (Kondrat, 2010). The instructor acts as a facilitator in deciding what students will write about and how to prepare their writing (Gulikers & Marten, 2005, cited in Alber-Morgan et al, 2007).

Actual writer's techniques include brainstorming, multiple drafts, editing, word choice, and pre-publication revisions. Therefore, a written text is considered a cycle rather than a program. Writing process is continuously developed by the student. Moreover, in our country, English is more of a foreign language than a second language. Therefore, there are various strategies and tools that teachers can use to facilitate the foreign language learning process, improve the quality of instruction, and promote learners' academic performance. For example, classroom dictation is as a type of dictogloss. According to Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics (2002, p.157), dictation is reading aloud a text to a language learner or test taker, pausing at regular intervals, and attempting to transcribe what is heard as accurately as possible. Applying dictation in foreign language teaching refers to the 19th century, and was primarily used alongside grammar-translation methods (Stansfield, 1985).

 

Review of Literature

Dictogloss and Second Language Teaching

The origins of Dictogloss, also known as Grammar Dictation or Dictocomp, are unknown, but it appears to have been developed in Australia. This is a relatively new technique, the classic version of which appears to start in 1960s. Dictogloss is used for teaching grammar (Kidd, 1992). Dictogloss is a popular technique for teaching writing (Wajnryb, 1990). It does not need writing sentences or paragraphs. Learners can act according to what is read aloud (Jacobs & Small, 2003). For example, fill in the graphic organizer and the presenter can find or write a description of the drawing.

Mackenzie (2011) mentions group working on tasks. Besides, scaffolding is an important element of dictogloss (Bruner, 1978, cited in Mackenzie 2011). Jacobs (2003) argues, “dictogloss is an integrative language learning skills technique in which students collaboratively rebuilt the text that the teacher read to them” (p.1, cited in Shak, 2006). Shak (2006) mentions five basic phases in dictogloss:

● Listening Level

● Note-taking phase

● Activity phase

● Review phase

● Writing Phase

Vasiljevic (2023) states that dictogloss has several advantages since it provides a chance for collaborative learning and teaching involving peers. Furthermore, Jacobs and Farrell (2003) also summarize the benefits of dictogloss as well, stating, “When implemented with integrity, dictogloss has the potential to improve language, including learner autonomy, collaboration among learners, and integration into the curriculum. It embodies sound principles of education.” (p.2)

The study of Pishghadam and Ghadiri (2011) focuses on the influence of form- and meaning-focused tasks. The results showed that the FFI (Dictogloss task) group had higher scores. Jabbarpour and Tajeddin (2013) also compared the effects of three FoF tasks: input reinforcement, individual output, and joint output, on the acquisition of subjunctive mood in English. This study shows that the influence of both input activities and joint output activities is greater than individual output tasks, and also shows that the effects of using joint activities and interactions in the process of acquiring English structures.  

Abbasian and Mohammadi (2013) found that Dictogloss technique improved learners' organization and mechanics while at the same time, can improve content and usage. Richards, Platt, and Platt (1992) explain that Dictation helps learners record audio input and hold it in short-term memory before writing it out. Listening skills, language skills, and memory skills influence writing. Dictation was extensively reviewed as a language test by Oller and Streiff (1975). Using dictation as a teaching method allows learners to focus on constructing phrases and sentences more precisely, with an emphasis on accuracy. 

Nasri and Senoussi (2015) hypothesized that dictation is considered an important technique for acquiring English vocabulary. Their study consisted of two questionnaires, one of which was administered to 20 teachers and asked questions about vocabulary instruction which Determined insights regarding the techniques and vocabulary used. The other questionnaire was distributed to 30 first-year English students in Aum El Bouaghhi, and was conducted to find out their opinions on the use of dictation. Discussion of the results confirmed the hypothesis that the use of dictation enriches students' vocabulary knowledge.

Purnawati (2017) found out that Dictation can improve students' speaking skill.  Moradi and Sheikhzadeh (2018) mentioned the effects of Dictogloss instruction on EFL learners' grammar performance and autonomy. Besides, Nurdianingsih and Rahmawati (2018) sought to find out whether implementing the running dictation method is an effective method for teaching writing skills. They found that continuous dictation techniques increase student motivation and promote the improvement of writing skills. They concluded that this technique significantly contributes and positively impacts the improvement of students' writing skills.

Huda and Rahadianto (2019) proved the positive effect of dictation on develoing writing skills. Ajmal et al. (2020) wanted to find out whether they could significantly improve their students' writing skills by teaching them to write recommendation using the Dictogloss technique. The results prove that Dictogloss teaching method is more effective and motivating compared to traditional methods.

 In addition, Wahab et al (2020) proved the positive effect of dictation on improving grammar scores. Heidari and Salehi (2020) aimed at investigating the effect of Garden path vs. Dictogloss techniques on writing accuracy of Iranian intermediate EFL learners. In order to conduct the study, 100 intermediate male English language learners whose age ranged from 12 to16 were asked to take part in the OPT test, and 60 students whose scores fell between one standard deviation below and above the mean were selected to be included in the study. They were divided randomly into three groups, two experimental and one control groups, each consisted of 20 students. The participants then took part in the pretest. The first experimental group was treated via Dictogloss, and the second one was treated via garden path. It is worth mentioning that the control group was treated via deductive teaching in grammar. After 10 sessions, they took part in the post-test. The analysis of the obtained data showed that using Dictogloss in teaching grammar outweighed the garden path technique. The results of the study would be significant for EFL/ESL teachers, English language institutes, and teacher trainers.

Mayhoub et al. (2023) in their study aimed at investigating the effect of Dictogloss strategy on developing secondary stage students’ grammar competence and motivation. To answer the questions of the study the researchers adopted the quasi- experimental design. The participants were 60 pupils of the first-year secondary drawn randomly, from Al-Helmy secondary school Ihnasia educational directorate, Beni- Suef Governorate. They were randomly assigned to two groups, a control and experimental groups. Instruments of the study consisted of a grammar pre-post-test and a motivation scale. The treatment group was taught through Dictogloss strategy and the non-treatment was taught through the regular method. The findings revealed that Dictogloss strategy had an effect on developing first year secondary school students’ grammar learning and motivation. The study has also suggested that further researches should be conducted on the effect of the suggested strategy on learning English in general and grammar in particular.

More recently, Zega et al. (2023) carried out research to examine the effect of semantic maps on improving Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ complexity of written performance. Preliminary English Test was employed to select 40 intermediate EFL learners as the participants of this research. Then, they were randomly assigned into two experimental and control groups. Prior to the treatment, the participants of both groups were given a pre-test to disclose their initial writing ability. After administering the semantic maps instruction to the experimental group and traditional method to the control group, a post-test was administered to seek the effect of materials. An independent samples t-test was used to see if the treatment was effective. Paired samples t-test was also employed to determine the amount of progression between pre-test and post-test of the experimental group. The results of the study revealed that semantic maps improved the learners’ complexity of written performance.

        Several studies have examined the effect of dictation on EFL learners' writing skills, and the results consistently show a positive impact on complexity and accuracy. For example, Catesol (2015) found that dictation exercises improved students' ability to use more complex sentence structures and grammatical features accurately. Moreover, dictation offers several advantages as a teaching method. It requires students to actively listen and process information, which helps them to develop their auditory processing skills. It also provides opportunities for feedback and correction, which can help learners, identify areas for improvement and refine their writing skills. In addition, Dictation is a widely used teaching technique in EFL classrooms around the world. It is easy to implement and adaptable to a wide range of learners, making it a practical choice for teachers and students alike.

To sum up, this research will have advantages for both educators and learners as it shows that by utilizing Dictation activities as course material, teachers can create a captivating and enjoyable learning environment which can help learners appreciate and excel at learning English. This approach can boost motivation levels and enhance student performance in writing examinations. As a result, dictation activities as a kind of dictogloss have the potential to aid researchers in conducting further studies in English-based classrooms. By considering some of the advantages and previous research results about dictogloss technique mentioned above, we can form a hypothesis that dictogloss technique can improve students' writing skills. The reason for choosing this topic is that since there are lots of studies on dictogloss and its usefulness on improving writing skill. However, there are few or no studies on dictogloss considering gender, accuracy, and complexity at the same time. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine the effect of dictogloss to improve the accuracy and complexity of written performance among male and female EFL learners in Iran. Therefore, the following research questions were posed:

1. Do dictation activities as a kind of dictogloss have any significant effect on Iranian male EFL learners' writing complexity?

2. Do dictation activities as a kind of dictogloss have any significant effect on Iranian male EFL learners' writing accuracy?

3. Do dictation activities as a kind of dictogloss have any significant effect on Iranian female EFL learners' writing complexity?

4. Do dictation activities as a kind of dictogloss have any significant effect on Iranian female EFL learners' writing accuracy?

Method

Participants

                The participants of this study were 40 students within the age range of 15 – 22 studying at Novin English institute in Tabriz. They were native speakers of Azerbaijani Turkish with an intermediate proficiency in English. They were studying English as a foreign language in Novin English institute. We selected 40 students from a total of 59 to participate in the research study. Both groups underwent a seven-week treatment period.  They had the same class hours (20), and class timing (1/5 hours). EFL teacher provided necessary instructions for the two groups. The book which was used in both groups was the same. They studied the same courses. For having homogeneous groups, we used a PET test. A modified PET test with 45 vocabulary questions and 25 grammar questions was used. We had a pilot study. So according to the level of the students and time availability, we chose these questions. Those students who get +_ 1sd over the mean score were chosen for this study. We had two intact groups.  They were assigned into two experimental groups of male (20 students) and the female (20 students). To assess their writing accuracy and complexity at the start of the study, we conducted a pre-test in which both groups were asked to write about on a given topic.

Instruments

      Three instruments were used in the present study: a sample PET test, a writing pre-test, and writing post-test. A sample PET (Preliminary English Test) test was used for homogenizing two groups. A topic for writing was used as a pre-test and post-test to assess the accuracy and complexity of writing skill. Accuracy was assessed through calculating the number of grammatical errors per the total number of T-units. Complexity was assessed through calculating the number of content words (nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs) per total number of Tunits (Hunt, 1965).

Procedure

        The same book was taught for period of 14 sessions. The teaching process in both groups was similar; both groups followed the same syllabus. The class was held two times a week and continued for 7 weeks. The researcher in this study was the teacher of both classes. The book consisted of eight units. Each unit included listening, speaking, reading and writing parts. In this research, we focused on writing parts. One week before the experiment, a proficiency test named PET Test had been administrated in order to select a homogeneous sample out of 59 EFL students at Novin English institute in Tabriz in the autumn term of 2023. A modified PET test with 45 vocabulary questions and 25 grammar questions was used.  Immediately after PET test, the researcher scored the test results. They chose the learners whose scores were one standard deviation below and above the mean score for having homogenous groups. At this phase, 40 students were selected. Writing about a topic was used as a pre-test to assess their accuracy and complexity of written performance in the beginning of the study. The title of the writing for the pre-test was “ a new Hotel is going to be built in your neighborhood. Do you agree or disagree? Why?”  There were two intact classes. The researcher assigned the learners into two experimental groups of male and female (20 students in each group). The procedure for two experimental groups was as follows:

        Learners listened to a passage of 100 to 150 words read aloud by the teacher or cd and wrote whatever they heard, using correct spelling. The listening portion had three stages: an oral reading without pauses, an oral reading with long pauses between every phrase to give the learners time to write down what was heard and the third stage was reading at normal speed to give learners a chance to check what they wrote. After the pretest, they received the same instructions. The participants, who attended 90-min English classes two days a week, had 30 min each session to complete their dictation activities. All students in both groups had to write down individually. Their final draft was collected and corrected by the teacher as the researcher. The next session, the learners got back their papers with teacher feedback. They were able to discuss their errors and mistakes with their partners and the teacher. For the post-test another writing task was used. They were asked to write about “a factory is going to be built in your neighborhood. Do you agree or disagree? Why?”

Design of the Study

                Due to the proposed research question, this study required a quasi-experimental method of research. Quasi-experimental research is a type of research design that seeks to evaluate the effects of an intervention or treatment but lacks random assignment and control groups. It contained a pre-test, a post test, and two intact experimental groups of male and female learners. Dictogloss was the independent variable, which was the major variable hoped to be investigated. Writing accuracy and complexity were the dependent variables which were observed and measured to determine the effect of the independent variable.

Data Analysis

Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) software was utilized in order to analysis the descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, etc.) and inferential statistics (paired-samples t-test, independent-samples t-test) of the data collected from the participants. Firstly, the normal distribution was checked by applying Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S). Then to explore the hypotheses, the Independent-Samples T-test was conducted in order to compare two experimental groups’ post-tests means. The Paired-Samples T-test was applied to investigate a significant difference between the pre-test and post-test scores of each group.

 

 

Results

        This chapter presents descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, etc.) and inferential statistics (paired-samples t-test, independent-samples t-test) of the data collected from the participants.

Normality with Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

To check whether the accuracy and complexity of written performance in both pretest and posttest stages between male and females were normally distributed, a Shapiro-Wilk test was conducted as shown in Table 1.

 

Table1  Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Written Performance
Stage	Groups	Kolmogorov-Smirnov
		Statistic	df	Sig.
Pretest of Complexity	Female	0.092	20	.200*
	male	0.057	20	.200*
Posttest of Complexity	Female	0.100	20	.200*
	male	0.066	20	.200*
Pretest of Accuracy	Female	0.083	20	.200*
	male	0.051	20	.200*
Posttest of Accuracy	Female	0.089	20	.200*
	male	0.054	20	.200*

 

As shown in Table 1, the results of Kolmogorov-Smirnov test indicated that written performance in the pretest of female group (p > .05) and male group (p > .05) were normally distributed. Also, the written performance in the posttest of female group (p > .05) and male group (p > .05) were found to be normally distributed.

 

Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances

   Levene’s test was conducted to check the homogeneity of variances for the dependent variables (i.e., accuracy and complexity of written performance) as shown in Table 2.

 

Table 2  Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances
Variable	F	df1	df2	Sig.
Complexity	0.099	1	38	0.754
Accuracy	0.097	1	38	0.697

According to Table 2, the results of the Levene’s test showed that variances of both accuracy and complexity were homogenous (p > .05).

Preliminary English Test

The results of participants’ scores of the Preliminary English Test are presented in the following table.

 

Table 3  Preliminary English Test
Scores		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
	20	6	2.5	2.5	2.5
	21	1	.8	.8	3.3
	22	2	1.7	1.7	5.0
	23	1	1.7	1.7	6.7
	24	2	.8	.8	7.5
	25	1	.8	.8	8.3
	26	1	2.5	2.5	10.8
	28	1	2.5	2.5	13.3
	29	4	3.3	3.3	16.7
	30	1	8.3	8.3	25.0
	31	2	3.3	3.3	28.3
	32	2	2.5	2.5	30.8
	33	4	6.7	6.7	37.5
	34	3	5.8	5.8	43.3
	35	1	11.7	11.7	55.0
	36	1	10.0	10.0	65.0
	37	1	9.2	9.2	74.2
	38	1	5.0	5.0	79.2
	39	2	4.2	4.2	83.3
	40	4	1.7	1.7	85.0
	42	1	3.3	3.3	88.3
	43	1	1.7	1.7	90.0
	44	1	.8	.8	90.8
	45	4	.8	.8	91.7
	46	1	1.7	1.7	93.3
	47	5	.8	.8	94.2
	48	1	2.5	2.5	96.7
	49	1	1.7	1.7	98.3
	50	2	1.7	1.7	100.0
	Total	59	100.0	100.0

 

As shown in the table above, the Preliminary English Test was administered to measure the homogeneity of the participants’ general English proficiency. From among 59 participants, 40 learners (20 males and 20 females) were found to be at the intermediate general English proficiency (30-39) based on the scores+_1 SD over the mean score they obtained in the Preliminary English Test, and were selected as the sample of the study, as can be observed in the table above.

Inter-Rater Reliability

To ensure the inter-rater reliability of the intermediate participants’ pretest and post-test writing scores, two raters scored the writing pretest and post-test scores. To do so, the researcher used Pearson correlation. Tables 4, 5, 6, & 7 demonstrate the results of this test.

 

Table4 Inter-rater Reliability for Iranian Intermediate Participants’ Pretest Complexity Scores
		Pretest Rater1 Pretest Rater2
Pretest of Complexity Rater1	Pearson Correlation	1		.960**
	Sig. (2-tailed) N	40		.000 40
Pretest of Complexity Rater2	Pearson Correlation	.960**		1
	Sig. (2-tailed) N	.000 40		40

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

 

Table 5  Inter-rater Reliability for Iranian Intermediate Participants’ Pretest of Accuracy Scores
		Pretest Rater1 Pretest Rater2
Pretest of Accuracy Rater1	Pearson Correlation	1		.825**
	Sig. (2-tailed) N	40		.000 40
Pretest of Accuracy Rater2	Pearson Correlation	.825**		1
	Sig. (2-tailed) N	.000 40		40

 

 

Table 6 Inter-rater Reliability for Iranian Intermediate Participants’ Post-test Accuracy Scores
		Post-test Rater1 Post-test Rater2
Post-test Accuracy Rater1	Pearson Correlation	1		.947**
	Sig. (2-tailed) N	40		.000 40
Post-test Accuracy Rater2	Pearson Correlation	.947**		1
	Sig. (2-tailed) N	.000 40		40

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

       

 

Table 7  Inter-rater Reliability for Iranian Intermediate Participants’ Post-test Complexity Scores
		Post-test Rater1 Post-test Rater2
Post-test Complexity Rater1	Pearson Correlation	1		.849**
	Sig. (2-tailed) N	40		.000 40
Post-test Complexity Rater2	Pearson Correlation	.849**		1
	Sig. (2-tailed) N	.000 40		40

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

          Regarding the results of Tables from 4 up to 7, there was a significant and strong relationship between the scores of two raters p=.000. In other words, there was a high inter-rater consistency between the scores of two raters in the pre-test and post-test scores of accuracy and complexity for male and female scores.

 

Complexity in the Pretest to Complexity in the Posttest in the female group

To see whether there is a significant difference between the pretest and posttest in terms of the classroom dictation activity effect on the Complexity of the female group, a paired-samples t-test was run, the results of which are presented in the following tables.

 

Table 8  Descriptive Statistics
		Mean	N	SD	Std. Er. Mean
Pair 1	Complexity in Pretest	13.91	20	1.62	0.468
	Complexity in Posttest	22.25	20	1.60	0.462

 

 

Table 9  Paired-Samples T-Test
	Paired Differences						t		df		Sig.
	Mean	SD	Std. E. Mean	95% Con. Int.
				Lower	Upper
Pair 1	15.05	1.99	0.333	-14.379	-15.637		-37.275		19		0

 

There was a significant difference between the pretest and posttest of Complexity (t = -37.27, p < .05) in the female group, with the posttest revealing significantly higher score compared to the pretest, indicating the significant effect of classroom dictation activity on the participants’ Complexity according to tables 8 &  9.

Complexity in the Pretest to Complexity in the Posttest in the male group

To see whether there is a significant difference between the pretest and posttest in terms of the classroom dictation activity effect on the Complexity of the male group, a paired-samples t-test was run, the results of which are presented in the following tables.

 

Table 10  Descriptive Statistics
		Mean	N	SD	Std. Er. Mean
Pair 1	Complexity in Pretest	13.03	20	1.137	0.337
	Complexity in Posttest	17.38	20	1.368	0.225

 

Table 11  Paired-Samples T-Test
	Paired Differences						t		df		Sig.
	Mean	SD	Std. E. Mean	95% Con. Int.
				Lower	Upper
Pair 1	13.35	1.75	0.49	-13.38	-16.31		-14.59		19		.000

 

There was a significant difference between the pretest and posttest of Complexity (t = -14.59, p < .05) in the male group, with the posttest revealing significantly higher score compared to the pretest according to tables 10 & 11.

 

Male Vs. female group considering Complexity in the Pretest

To see whether there is a significant difference between the male group and the female group in terms of the Complexity in the pretest, an independent-samples t-test was run, the results of which are presented in the following tables.

 

Table 12 Descriptive Statistics
		N		Mean		SD		Std. Er. Mean
Complexity in Pretest	Female		20		13.91		1.62		0.468
	Male		20		13.03		1.137		0.037

 

Table 13  Independent-Samples T-Test
		Levene's Test		t-test
		F	Sig.		t	df	Sig. (2-tailed)	Mean Difference	Std. Error Difference
Complexity in Pretest	Equal variances assumed	.000	.994		-.194	38	.846	-2.000	1.287
	Equal variances not assumed				-.194	37.891	.846	-2.000	1.287

There was no significant difference between male and female groups in terms of the Complexity in the pretest (p > .05) according to Tables 12 & 13.

Male Vs. female considering Complexity in the Post-test

To see whether there is a significant difference between the male group and the female group in terms of the Complexity in the post-test, an independent-samples t-test was run, the results of which are presented in the following tables.

 

Table 14  Descriptive Statistics
		N		Mean		SD		Std. Er. Mean
Complexity in Posttest	Female		20		22.25		1.60		0.462
	Male		20		17.38		1.36		0.225

 

 

Table 15 Independent-Samples T-Test
		Levene's Test					t-test
		F		Sig.		t		df		Sig. (2-tailed)		Mean Difference		Std. Error Difference
Complexity in Posttest	Equal variances assumed		1.084		.301		5.599		38		.000		5.475		1.909
	Equal variances not assumed						5.599		34.682		.000		5.475		1.909

 

There was a significant difference between male and female groups in terms of the Complexity in the posttest (p < .05), with the female group outperforming the male group according to tables 14 & 15.

 

Female Group from Accuracy in the Pretest to Accuracy in the Posttest

To see whether there is a significant difference between the pretest and posttest in terms of the classroom dictation activity effect on the Accuracy of the female group, a paired-samples t-test was run, the results of which are presented in the following tables.

 

Table 16 Descriptive Statistics
		Mean	N	SD	Std. Er. Mean
Pair 1	Accuracy in Pretest	14.03	20	1.854	0.408
	Accuracy in Posttest	33.85	20	1.761	0.701

 

 

Table 17 Paired-Samples T-Test
	Paired Differences						t		df		Sig.
	Mean	SD	Std. E. Mean	95% Con. Int.
				Lower	Upper
Pair 1	23.82	1.91	0.517	-9.91	-8.73	-37.275		19		0

 

There was a significant difference between the pretest and posttest of Accuracy (t = -37.27, p < .05) in the female group, with the posttest revealing significantly higher score compared to the pretest, indicating the significant effect of classroom dictation activity on the participants’ Accuracy according to Tables 16 & 17.

 

Male Group from Accuracy in the Pretest to Accuracy in the Posttest

To see whether there is a significant difference between the pretest and posttest in terms of the classroom dictation activity effect on the Accuracy of the male group, a paired-samples t-test was run, the results of which are presented in the following tables.

 

Table 18 Descriptive Statistics
		Mean	N	SD	Std. Er. Mean
Pair 1	Accuracy in Pretest	14.23	20	1.137	0.137
	Accuracy in Posttest	17.38	20	1.368	0.225

 

 

 

 

 

Table 19  Paired-Samples T-Test
	Paired Differences						t		df		Sig.
	Mean	SD	Std. E. Mean	95% Con. Int.
				Lower	Upper
Pair 1	16.35	1.75	0.49	-4.38	-3.31	-14.59		19		.000

 

There was a significant difference between the pretest and posttest of Accuracy (t = -14.59, p < .05) in the male group, with the posttest revealing significantly higher score compared to the pretest according to Tables 18 & 19.

Male group Vs. female group considering Accuracy in the Pretest

To see whether there is a significant difference between the female group and the male group in terms of the Accuracy in the pre-test, an independent-samples t-test was run, the results of which are presented in the following tables.

 

Table 20  Descriptive Statistics
		N		Mean		SD		Std. Er. Mean
Accuracy in Pretest	female		20		14.03		1.854		0.408
	male		20		14.23		1.137		0.137

 

 

Table 21  Independent-Samples T-Test
		Levene's Test		t-test
		F	Sig.	t	df	Sig. (2-tailed)	Mean Difference	Std. Error Difference
Accuracy in Pretest	Equal variances assumed	.000	.994	-.194	38	.846	-2.000	0.287
	Equal variances not assumed			-.194	37.891	.846	-2.000	0.287

 

There was no significant difference between the male and female groups in terms of the Accuracy in pretest (p > .05) according to Tables 20 and 21.

 

Male group Vs. female group considering Accuracy in the Post-test

To see whether there is a significant difference between the female group and the male group in terms of the Accuracy in the post-test, an independent-samples t-test was run, the results of which are presented in the following tables.

 

Table 22  Descriptive Statistics
		N	Mean	SD	Std. Er. Mean
Accuracy in Posttest	female	20	33.85	1.761	0.710
	male	20	17.38	1.368	0.225

 

 

Table 23 Independent-Samples T-Test
		Levene's Test		t-test
		F	Sig.		t	df	Sig. (2-tailed)	Mean Difference	Std. Error Difference
Accuracy in Posttest	Equal variances assumed	1.084	.301		5.599	38	.000	5.475	0.909
	Equal variances not assumed				5.599	34.682	.000	5.475	0.909

 

As tables 22 and 23 show there was a significant difference between the female group and the male group in terms of the Accuracy in the post-test (p < .05), with the female group outperforming the male group

 

Discussion

This study sought to identify the role of classroom dictation activities as a type of dictogloss in improving the accuracy and complexity of writing performance of Iranian male and female EFL learners. Results showed that both groups showed improvement on the posttest. However, at posttest, this improvement was higher in the female group than in the male group. What the researchers observed during the research process and treatment period was that participants appeared to engage in the dicto-gloss technique with enthusiasm, and most students considered it a task to complete in their writing courses. This means that they no longer see it as an issue. We employed Dictogloss techniques and worked very closely together during all stages of the entire treatment. Participants in both groups actively invested more energy in listening to the teacher's text and enjoyed collaborative learning, receiving support and even encouragement from their peers.

The researcher as an observer noticed that the students were actively participating. They approached Dictogloss technique as a collaborative learning activity, with each member working very hard and voluntarily, as they had to achieve the common goal of reconstructing the text read by the researcher as teacher. In each group, each member had an equal opportunity to discuss and report notes. The students did not get discouraged during group study and were very interested in the lessons. Most of the learners participated both individually and together and were highly motivated. One reason for this enthusiasm for collaboration and motivation may be related to changes in participants' attitudes towards writing skills. 

 Johnson & Johnson (1989) mention the role of cooperative learning experiences on positive attitudes toward classroom experiences. There are many other studies (e.g., Moradi & Sheikhzadeh, 2018; Pishghadam & Ghadiri, 2011) that show cooperative learning is more effective than competitive or individualistic learning. In fact, collaborative learning activities require cognitive restructuring of information (Gillies, 2003). These pleasurable experiences may have helped participants improve their positive attitudes toward the writing task, resulting in perceived usefulness by their peers and increased self-efficacy.

 Another reason for this increase in learner motivation was related to changes in the classroom. Tsui (1995) points out that providing opportunities for students whose learning styles do not fit the traditional classroom model transforms classroom authority. This encourages different kinds of conversations and provides opportunities for learning and teaching among peers and “Students are more likely to engage in Q&A with each other than with their teachers, and students' responses to peers are longer and more complex than to their teachers.” (p.110)

The obtained results could confirm that the Dicto-Gloss technique developed a stronger comparison and contrast with other members' individual strategies and techniques of text reconstruction in collaborative group work. According to Heidari and Salehi (2020), this technique is suitable for Iranian EFL learners who are reserved and shy towards teachers. The collaborative nature of the rebuilding phase, with more diverse and clear strategies, gave them the opportunity to engage in authentic communication. This kind of cooperation helped them develop their communication skills because the interaction in natural communication ways is authentic. This result is consistent with the results of Takeuchi (1997) that dictation is effective in teaching foreign languages. Additionally, Krashen (2003) believes in using this technique to improve writing since everyone works together to complete the dictation using the grammar text. This result is also consistent with Nurdianingsih and Rahmawati (2018) who considered dictation to be effective on developing writing. 

In conclusion, teachers need to pay attention to students' self-confidence and avoid blaming students' failures on weak knowledge bases or lack of skills. When students believe in themselves and their ability to complete tasks, they become more interested in learning and have the confidence to stay focused even when they encounter difficulties while learning.

 

Conclusion

This study was conducted to reveal the role of classroom dictation activities as a type of dictogloss to improve the accuracy and complexity of writing performance of Iranian male and female EFL learners. This study had four questions. Based on the results, the null hypotheses were rejected.  In the post-test accuracy and complexity in both male and female groups got higher score than the pre-test. However, the results showed that the female group performed significantly better than the male group in both accuracy and complexity of the posttest. The results can be summarized as follows. First, this study builds on the existing literature that the use of Dictogloss technique has a significant impact on the complexity and accuracy of EFL learners' writing and that EFL teachers can apply Dictogloss technique in grammar instruction to improve writing performance. Additionally, the Dictogloss technique enhances collaboration in learning when creating texts. 

According to Moradi and Sheikhzadeh (2018), Dictogloss combines affective and cognitive domains. Positive group interactions and interdependence can influence students' attitudes toward working together to achieve a common goal. By communicating and encouraging students to successfully complete activities and giving them a sense of accomplishment, you can prepare them for more active learning. In summary, many teachers and language teachers know that many students believe that writing is hard work. It's the part of the second language they never learn. Because the effective use of learning strategies is closely related to the development of self-efficacy that leads to expectations of learning success (Zimmerman, 1990, cited in Moradi & Sheikhzadeh, 2018), learning strategies associated with a particular language learning task should be taught explicitly in classrooms. 

This study is useful for teachers, learners, curriculum designers, and materials developers. The educational system in Iran may still not support dictogloss education and focuses primarily on writing practice, an approach used in any language school. Students may not be ready to fully understand the Dictogloss technique. Rajaee Nia (2011) argued that by using the Dictogloss technique, teachers can overcome the challenges of teaching and handling texts in general. To this end, teacher training workshops should emphasize the teaching of Dictogloss as an effective means of promoting writing performance. 

Since language learning is a multifaceted phenomenon, not only language teachers but also language learners must play a proper role in facilitating and optimizing this complex process. This study encourages language learners to be more aware, autonomous, and judgmental about their own optimal learning style. Especially Dictogloss lessons are useful learning tools. When students are exposed to Dictogloss techniques combined with language success, they become confident, independent, and self-directed learners. Dictogloss lessons must convey the content of the material to the language learner with appropriate exercises and guide them towards the goal of writing performance. Additionally, we need to provide some manuals for teachers to get used to teaching Dictogloss. This allows teachers to teach more effectively and students to learn the language more independently. This study was limited in several ways, so the researchers would like to make some suggestions for future studies other language skills could also be examined as dependent variables in this study. 

Moreover, further research may be conducted with advanced level EFL learners. Another demographic variable that can be adjusted for is age. This study was conducted on students between the ages of 15 and 22. It makes sense to divide the study into different age groups such as children, adolescents, and adults. The time allotted for this treatment was not sufficient. Researchers were concerned that participants were overestimating their abilities. Due to the provisions of the institute's regulations, researchers had limited time to work on this treatment. Therefore, this study can be conducted as a longitudinal study examining different variables. Researchers worked with both men and women in this study as two experimental groups. The same study can be conducted by having a control group.

Declaration of interest: None

References

 

Abbasian, G. R., & Mohammadi, M. (2013). The effectiveness of dictogloss in developing general writing skill of Iranian intermediate EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(6), 1371-1380.

Ahmadian, M., Amerian, M., & Lavasani, E. (2015). The effect of the Dicto-gloss as a cooperative learning technique on EFL learners' self-efficacy in writing. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(6), 13-57.

Ajmal, M., Iqbal, I., Mahmood, R., & Zafar, A. (2020). The effectiveness of using dictogloss technique to improve students' writing: a case study from University of         Lahore. Dilemas    Contemporáneos: Educación, Política y Valores, 7(2). 14-19.        

Alber-Morgan, S.,Hessler,T., & Konrad, M. (2007). Teaching writing for keeps. Teaching and treatment for children, 30(3), 107-128.        DOI: 10.1353/etc.2007.0012

Claudia, S, Sada, B, & Wardah, E. (2017). Developing Writing Skills in Descriptive Text Using theDictogloss Technique of Senior High School Students. Didascein:                 Education, 4(2), 104-111.

Davis, P., & Rinvolucri, M. (2002). Dictation: New methods, new possibilities. Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press.

Dewi, U. R. (2015). Using Digtogloss as Dictation Method to Improve Students’ Skills. Journal pendidikan,14(2),1703-1710.        

Ebrahimi, F., Namaziandost, E., Ziafar, M.. (2021). The effect of teaching formulaic expressions through contrastive lexical approach on Iranian pre-intermediate EFL learners' writing skill. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 50, 1087-1105.

Gillies, R. M. (2003). Structuring cooperative group work in classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1-2), 35-49.

Heidari, P., & Salehi, M. (2021). A Comparative Study on the Effectiveness of Garden Path vs. Dictogloss technique on writing accuracy of Intermediate Iranian EFL Learners. Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English, 10(1), 69-96.

Huda, M. C., & Rahadianto, P. (2019). Using dictogloss technique to improve students’         writing skill. English Community Journal, 3 (1), 307–316.

Hunt, K. W. (1965). A synopsis of clause-to-sentence length factors. The English Journal, 54(4), 300-309.

Jacobs, G. M., & Farrell, T. S. C. (2001). Paradigm shift: Understanding and implementing change in second language education.

Jacobs, G.,& Small, J. (2003) Combining Dictogloss and Cooperative Learning To Promote  Language Learning. The Reading Matrix : an International Online Journal, 2(3), 56-67.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into practice, 38(2), 67-73.

Kidd, J. K. (1992). The effects of type of written practice and time of writing sample on sixth grade students' argumentative written responses to literature (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech). literacy, 34(3), 322-340.

Kondrat, A.(2010). Importance of Good Writing. http://www.suite101.  com/reference/good_writing,

Krashen, S. (2009). The comprehension hypothesis extended. Input matters in SLA, 1(4), 81-        94.

Mayhoub, M. S. O., Ali, E. A. E., & Mohamed, H. M. (2023). Using Dictogloss Strategy for Developing Secondary Stage Students' English Grammar Competence and Motivation Towards Learning English Language. BSU-Journal of Pedagogy and Curriculum, 2(3),         134-152.

Mazri, M. (2017). Dictogloss: A Collaborative Writing Task to Improve Learners’ Written  Product. El-Hakika Review, 41(4), 36-61.

Moradi, M. & Sheikhzadeh, A.(2018). Dictogloss. Modern Journal, 2(3), 14-19.        

Nasri, F., & Senoussi, N. (2015). Investigating EFL teachers' and Learners' perspectives         towards the use of dictation as a useful technique to Enhance Students' knowledge of         vocabulary. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(5), 27-47.

Nation, A.(1991). Reimagining the nation. Millennium journal of international studies, 20(3), 2-12.

Nunan, D. (1995). Closing the gap between learning and instruction. Tesol Quarterly, 29(1),

         133-158.

Nurdianingsih, F., & Rahmawati, O. I. (2017, July). Running dictation as an effective technique on the teaching writing skill. In English Language And Literature International Conference (Ellic) Proceedings (Vol. 2, pp. 127-131).

Oller, J. W., & Streiff, V. (1975). Dictation: A test of grammar-based expectancies. ELT

         Journal, 30(1), 25-36.

Platt, T. (1992). Writing, shamanism and identity or voices from Abya-Yala. Oxford University Press.

Pishghadam, R., & Ghadiri, S. (2011). Symmetrical or Asymmetrical Scaffolding: Piagetian         vs. Vygotskyan Views to Reading Comprehension. Journal of Language and Literacy         Education, 7(1), 49-64.

Purnawati, P. (2017). Running Dictation to Activate Students In Speaking Class. English         Education: Journal of English Teaching And Research, 2(2), 88-94.

RajjaeiNia, M. R. (2011). Effects of intensive Reading on the Mastery. The Iranian EFL         Journal, 32, 145-160. 

Shak, J. (2006). Children using dictogloss to focus on form. Reflections on English language teaching, 5(2), 47-62.

Sheikhzadeh, N., & Moradi, S. Z. (2018). Combined effects of and on the growth performance, digestive enzyme activity, antioxidative status, and immune genes in zebrafish. Annals of Animal Science, 4(2), 104-111.

Stansfield, C. W. (1985). A history of dictation in foreign language teaching and testing. The

        Modern Language Journal, 69(2), 121-128.

Takeuchi, K. (2010). The Genealogy of Japanese" Shōjo Manga"(Girls' Comics) Studies. US-        Japan Women's Journal, 38(2), 81-112.

Takeuchi, O. (1997). Dictation: Is it really effective for language teaching. Kansai University         Audio Visual Education, 20, 155-161.

Tsui, L. (1995). Fostering critical thinking through effective pedagogy: Evidence from four institutional case studies. The journal of higher education, 73(6), 740-763.

Vasiljević, N. R. (2023). Written expression and school achievement of young school-age students. Norma, 28(1), 9-20.

Wahhab, M. A., & Abdul, A. (2020). The Effect of Dictogloss Technique on Iraqi EFL         Secondary School Students’ Performance in English Grammar. Al-Ameed Journal, 9(4), 11-20.

Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar dictation (Vol. 3). Oxford University Press.

Zega, Y., Harefa, A. T., Zebua, E. P., & Telaumbanua, Y. A. (2023). Developing Descriptive Writing Graphic Organizers’ of the Students at the Eighth Grade of SMP Swasta Kristen Agios Nikolaus in 2022/2023. Journal of Education Research, 4(3), 1608-1616.

 

Biodata

Farnaz Sahebkheir is an assistant professor at Islamic Azad University-Tabriz Branch. She has got her Ph.D. and MA in TEFL at Islamic Azad University. She has got her B.A. in English Translation Studies. She has been teaching English at Islamic Azad University, University of Applied Science and Technology (UAST) and Payame Noor university- Tabriz Branch. She has participated in several national and international conferences. She has published several articles and books in TEFL. Her major research interests are Model Essays; focus on form; written corrective feedback, discourse, Gender, Second Language Acquisition, self-reflection, self-regulation, self-efficacy, metacognition, think-aloud protocol, summarizing, reading and writing skill.

Fatemeh Salehi is an MA student in TEFL. She teaches English in English Institutes in Tabriz. She is interested in writing and reading strategies.

 

نقش فعالیت دیکته کلاسی به عنوان نوعی دیکتوگلاس در بهبود صحت و پیچیدگی عملکرد نوشتاری بین زبان‌آموزان مرد و زن ایرانی زبان انگلیسی

مهارت نوشتاری به زبان‌آموز کمک می‌کند تا در نوشتن مستقل، قابل فهم، روان و خلاق شود. دیکته روشی است که در آن زبان‌آموزان ورودی گفتاری دریافت می‌کنند که می‌تواند مهارت نوشتاری آن‌ها را تقویت کند، بنابراین این مطالعه شبه آزمایشی تلاش می‌کند تا نقش فعالیت دیکته کلاسی به عنوان نوعی دیکتوگلاس را در بهبود صحت و پیچیدگی عملکرد نوشتاری بین زبان‌آموزان مرد و زن ایرانی زبان انگلیسی بررسی کند. برای این هدف، 40 زبان‌آموز مرد و زن از بین 59 زبان آموز انتخاب شدند. سپس، با انجام آزمون مقدماتی انگلیسی (PET)، 40 شرکت‌کننده همگن به عنوان نمونه نهایی این مطالعه انتخاب شدند. زبان اول زبان‌آموزان ترکی آذربایجانی بود و آن‌ها زبان‌آموزان سطح متوسط بودند. دو گروه دست نخورده (intact) وجود داشت، یکی شامل 20 دانش‌آموز مرد و دیگری 20 دانش‌آموز زن. قبل از اعمال مداخله، شرکت‌کنندگان در آزمون پیش‌آزمون شرکت کردند تا صحت و پیچیدگی عملکرد نوشتاری خود را بررسی کنند. هر دو گروه در پس‌آزمون در صحت و پیچیدگی نمرات بالاتری نسبت به پیش‌آزمون داشتند. با این حال، یافته‌ها نشان داد که گروه زنان در مقایسه با گروه مردان در پس‌آزمون، از نظر صحت و پیچیدگی عملکرد نوشتاری نتایج بهتری داشتند. در نتیجه، می‌توان گفت که فعالیت دیکته کلاسی به عنوان نوعی دیکتوگلاس روشی موثر است که می‌تواند صحت و پیچیدگی عملکرد نوشتاری زبان‌آموزان ایرانی زبان انگلیسی را افزایش دهد. معلمان می‌توانند با ارائه فعالیت دیکتوگلاس به زبان آموزان در شناسایی زمینه‌های بهبود مهارت نوشتاری خود کمک کنند. نتایج این مطالعه برای معلمان زبان انگلیسی، موسسات زبان انگلیسی و مدرسان حائز اهمیت خواهد بود.

کلمات کلیدی: صحت ، پیچیدگی، دیکته، دیکتوگلاس، عملکرد نوشتاری