The relationship between Interaction Types and Language Learning Styles

Subject Areas : Journal of Teaching English Language Studies

Zeinab Nazari ¹ , Bahram Bagheri ²

1 - Department of English, Garmsar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Garmsar, Iran
2 - Department of English, Garmsar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Garmsar, Iran

Received: 2017-05-30 Accepted : 2017-07-01 Published : 2017-09-01

Keywords: reliability, learning styles, Second Language Acquisition, Interaction types, Grasha-Reichmann,

Abstract :

Language learning styles are among the main factors that help determine how –and how well–our students learn a second or foreign language. In the traditional classroom, the primarymode of interaction was face-to-face dialogue between the teacher and the student. This studypresents an analysis of the types of interaction in Jahad-e-Daneshgahi Institute, among 45EFL students in Miyaneh city, and the relationship between interaction types and languagelearning styles. The data were gathered through: Key English Test which consists of threeparts, Part A: Reading and writing, Part B: listening, Part C: speaking, and Grasha-Riechmann student learning style scales (Grasha, 1996) was used to determine the role oflanguage learning styles which consists of 5-point likert-scale instrument. . For analyzing thegathered data between interaction types and language learning styles Cronbach α was used.The questionnaires were distributed among participants in one session, Key English Test wastaken in the next session, and then the data was inserted into SPSS. Finally, Findingsindicated that there is negative relationship between interaction types and language learningstyles

References:

Anderson, T. (2003a). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale
for interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2).
Retrieved from
Anderson, T. (2003b). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent
developments and research questions. In D. M. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education
(pp. 129-144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, A., &Voltz, B. (2005). Elements of effective e-Learning design. The
International Review of Re-search in Open and Distance Learning, 6(1). Retrieved from.
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamin, R. M., Surkes,
M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in
distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243-1289.
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamin, R. M., Surkes,
M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in
distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243-1289.
Ehrman, M. & Oxford, R. (1990).Adult language learning styles and strategies in an
intensive training setting. Modern Language Journal, 74, 311-
JOURNAL OF TEACHING ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES, Vol. 6, NO. 1, Summer 2017
17
317.
Ehrman, M. & Oxford, R. (1995). Cognitive plus: correlations of language
learningsuccess. Modern Language Journal, 79, 67-89.
Gass, S, M, (1997). Input, interaction and second language learner, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. (pp.404)
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Long, M. H. (1996).The role of linguistic environment in second language (pp.413-
438). San Diego, CA: Academic Press Inc.
Long, M, H, (1983).Native speaker/non native speaker conversation and negotiation of
comprehensible input.Applied linguistics, 4126-141. Http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.126
Moore, M. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 3(2), 1-7.
O’Malley, J. M. &Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language
acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pica, T. (1994). Questions from the language classroom: Research perspectives.
TESOL Quarterly, 28, 49-79.
Wenden, A. L. (1987a). Conceptual background and utility.In A. L. Wenden& J. Rubin
(Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning, 3-13. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Williams, M. & Burden, R. (1997).Psychology for language teachers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.