The Comparative Effect of Authoritative vs. Facilitative Virtual Intervention Models on the Development of Second Language Speaking Components of Iranian EFL Learners
محورهای موضوعی : نشریه زبان و ترجمه
Zohreh Darabi
1
,
Nasim Shangarffam
2
,
Ahmad Mohseni
3
1 - Department of English, Tehran Central Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran. Iran
2 - Department of English, Tehran Central Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran. Iran
3 - Department of English, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran. Iran
کلید واژه: Iranian EFL learners, Authoritative Intervention, Facilitative Intervention, L2 Speaking Components,
چکیده مقاله :
This study investigated the comparative effect of authoritative vs. facilitative virtual intervention models on the development of second language speaking components of Iranian EFL Learners. The study participants were 60 intermediate male and female EFL learners at Imam Reza University in Mashhad who were selected out of the total number of 80 participants taking a standard Preliminary English Test (PET) as a language proficiency test. Subsequently, the participants were randomly divided into two experimental groups and received a standard speaking pretest. Next, one experimental group received authoritative intervention and the other one received facilitative intervention. After ten sessions of treatment, the speaking section of another version of PET, as the posttests, was given to the participants. Finally, the learners took part in a semi-structured interview. The use of SPSS examined the quantitative data, and the outcomes were examined through a series of t-tests and MANOVA. The results of quantitative analyses revealed that Facilitative Intervention (FI) model was more effective than the Authoritative Intervention (AI) for the L2 speaking development of Iranian EFL learners. Another point of variance was concentrating on the grammatical accuracy in measuring L2 speaking. For the AI group, grammatical errors and pronunciation were more important, whereas for the FI group, pronunciation and lexical resources were more central, followed by discourse management and interactive communication.
این مطالعه به بررسی اثر مقایسه ای مدل های مداخله مجازی مقتدر و تسهیل کننده بر توسعه مولفه های گفتاری زبان دوم زبان آموزان ایرانی زبان انگلیسی پرداخته است. شرکت کنندگان در این مطالعه 60 زبان آموز زبان انگلیسی مرد و زن متوسط در دانشگاه امام رضا مشهد بودند که از بین 80 شرکت کننده در آزمون استاندارد مقدماتی انگلیسی (PET) به عنوان آزمون مهارت زبان انتخاب شدند. سپس شرکت کنندگان به طور تصادفی به دو گروه آزمایشی تقسیم شدند و پیش آزمون گفتاری استاندارد دریافت کردند. سپس یک گروه آزمایشی مداخله مقتدرانه و گروه دیگر مداخله تسهیلی دریافت کردند. پس از ده جلسه درمان، بخش گفتاری نسخه دیگری از PET به عنوان پس آزمون به شرکت کنندگان داده شد. در نهایت، فراگیران در یک مصاحبه نیمه ساختاریافته شرکت کردند. استفاده از SPSS داده های کمی را مورد بررسی قرار داد و نتایج از طریق یک سری آزمون t و MANOVA مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. نتایج تحلیل‌های کمی نشان داد که مدل مداخله تسهیل‌کننده (FI) نسبت به مداخله مقتدرانه (AI) برای توسعه گفتاری L2 زبان‌آموزان ایرانی موثرتر است. یکی دیگر از نقاط واریانس، تمرکز بر دقت دستوری در اندازه‌گیری صحبت کردن L2 بود. برای گروه هوش مصنوعی، خطاهای دستوری و تلفظ مهم‌تر بودند، در حالی که برای گروه FI، تلفظ و منابع واژگانی مرکزی‌تر بودند و به دنبال آن مدیریت گفتمان و ارتباطات تعاملی قرار داشتند.
Albino, G. (2017). Improving speaking fluency in a task-based language teaching approach: The case of EFL learners at PUNIV-Cazenga. Sage open, 7(2), 1-11.
AlRamadhan, M. H. (2020). L1 textual glosses and word repetition: facilitative interventions for incidental vocabulary acquisition. International Journal of Instruction, 13(4), 815-832.
Anderson, T., Perlman, M. R., McCarrick, S. M., & McClintock, A. S. (2020). Modeling therapist responses with structured practice enhances facilitative interpersonal skills. Journal of clinical psychology, 76(4), 659-675.
Asaei, S. M., & Rahimi, R. (2021). Appropriation-based syllabus and speaking ability: Evidence from Iranian EFL context. Biannual Journal of Education Experiences, 4(1), 1-20.
Ashmore, R. (1999). Heron’s intervention framework: An introduction and critique. Mental Health Nursing, 19(1), 24-27.
Astutik, I. (2019). Inter-correlation among speaking components of the fourth semester students' speaking ability of English education program. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(2), 19-30.
Baker, F. S. (2015). Emerging realities of text-to-speech software for nonnative-English-speaking community college students in the freshman year. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 39(5), 423-441.
Casan, H. B. (2020). The effects of facilitative e-tools on listening comprehension and attitudes towards English language. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 3(8), 93-105.
Chambers, M., & Kantaris, X. (2017). Enhancing the therapeutic interaction skills of staff working in acute adult inpatient psychiatric wards: Outcomes of a brief intervention education programme. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 7(11), 123.
Chambers, M., & Long, A. (1995). Supportive clinical supervision: A crucible for personal and professional change. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 2(5), 311-316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2850.1995.tb00097.x
Colcher, D. (2021). Corrective feedback and the ideological co-construction of expertise. In L. Czerwionka, R. Showstack, & J. Liskin-Gasparro (Eds.), Contexts of co-constructed discourse (pp. 68-89). Routledge.
Cutcliffe, J., & Epling, M. (1997). An exploration of the use of John Heron’s confronting interventions in clinical supervision: Case studies from practice. Psychiatric Care, 4(4), 174-180
Ellis, R.W. (2008). Principles of instructed second language acquisition. Washington, DC. Pergamon.
Flood, R. L., & Romm, N. R. (2018). A systemic approach to processes of power in learning organizations: Part II–triple loop learning and a facilitative intervention in the “500 schools project”. The Learning Organization. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-11-2017-0106
Fowler, J. (1996). Clinical supervision: What do you do after you say hello? British Journal of Nursing, 5(6), 382-385.
Ge, X. (2017). Restudying oral corrective feedbacks in EFL classes of Jinan university- a statistical analysis of discrepancies via SAS software. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(6), 473-482.
Hamid, B. A., & Azman, H. (1992). Adapting the six category intervention analysis to promote facilitative type supervisory feedback in teaching practice. In S. Eugenius (Ed.), Language teacher education in a fast-changing world; Anthology series, 29 (pp. 88-99). ERIC, ED 369-280.
Heron, J. (1976). A six-category intervention analysis. British Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 4 (2), 143-55.
Heron, J. (2001). Helping the client: A creative practical guide (5th ed.). London: Sage Publication.
Huang, F. L., Olsen, A. A., Cohen, D., & Coombs, N. (2021). Authoritative school climate and out-of-school suspensions: Results from a nationally-representative survey of 10th grade students. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 65(2), 114-123.
Ivashkevych, E., & Antyukhova, N. (2021). Innovative principles of facilitative teaching using modern approaches in teaching English in primary schoolchildren. Інноватика у вихованні, 2021(Вип. 13), 81-94.
Krejcie, R.V., & Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(1), 607-610.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2016). Second language research: Methodology and design (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Manan, N. A., & Emzir, A. R. (2020). Moodle-based speaking learning model. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 4(17), 42-59.
Melissa, K., Smith, M. K., & Lewis, M. (2015). Toward facilitative mentoring and catalytic interventions. ELT Journal, 69(2), 140-150
Mirahmadi, S. H., & Alavi, S. M. (2016). The role of traditional and virtual scaffolding in developing speaking ability of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of English Linguistics, 6(2), 43-56.
Mitchell, M. D., & Butler, S. K. (2021). Acknowledging intersectional identity in supervision: The multicultural integrated supervision model. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 49(2), 101-115.
Nakata, T. (2015). Are learners aware of effective ways to learn second language vocabulary from retrieval? Perceived effects of relative spacing, absolute spacing, and feedback timing on vocabulary learning. Vocabulary Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 66-73.
Nakatani, Y. (2010). Identifying strategies that facilitate EFL learners' oral communication: A classroom study using multiple data collection procedures. The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 116-136.
Nekoda, K. (2020). Promoting student teachers’ reflections in an English teaching practicum: An analysis of after-class supervisory conferences in the Netherlands. Casele Journal, 50, 37-49.
Papageorgiou, A. (2015). Models of the doctor-patient consultation. Clinical Communication in Medicine, 1(2), 21-29.
Parlamis, J., & Dibble, R. (2019). Teaming: Are two communication modes better than one?. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 25(5/6), 318-333. https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-10-2018-0065
Possú, M. C. F. (2021). Implementing English speaking skills with EFL large groups: Challenges and useful strategies. Doctoral dissertation, Greensboro College. North Carolina, The USA.
Rabab’ah, G., & Rumman, R. A. (2015). Hedging in Political Discourse: Evidence from the Speeches of King Abdullah II of Jordan. Prague Journal of English Studies, 4(1), 157-185.
Rakhshan, A., & Yazdani Moghaddam, M. (2015). Intervention analysis in teaching reading comprehension through dynamic assessment: Heron’s perspective. Journal of Language and Translation, 5(2), 23-41.
Rassaei, E. (2015). Oral corrective feedback, foreign language anxiety and L2 development. System, 49(2), 98-109.
Ribeiro, A., & Jiang, W. (2020). Enhancing ELLS’ second language acquisition with interactions. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 56(2), 77-81.
Richards, J. C. (2005). Materials development and research: Making the connection. Paper presented at a colloquium on research and materials development, at the TESOL Convention, San Antonio, March, 2005.
Schein, E. H. (2006). Facilitative process interventions. Organizational Development: A Jossey-Bass Reader, 1(2), 286-308.
Shah, R. K. (2020). Concepts of learner-centred teaching. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 8(3), 45-60.
Sloan, G., & Watson, H. (2001). ‘John Heron’s six category intervention analysis: Towards understanding interpersonal relations and progressing the delivery of clinical supervision for mental health nursing in the United Kingdom’. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 36(2), 206-14.
Sloan, G., & Watson, H. (2002). Clinical supervision models for nursing: Structure, research and limitations. Nursing Standard, 17(4), 41-46. http:// dx. doi. org/10.7748/ns2002.10.17.4.41.c3279
Smith, M. K., & Lewis, M. (2017). Supporting the professional development of English language teachers: Facilitative mentoring. Routledge.
Suikkala, A., Koskinen, S., Katajisto, J., & Leino-Kilpi, H. (2021). Congruence between nursing students’ and patients’ views of student–patient relationships. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 26(1), 79-115.
Suikkala, A., Leino‐Kilpi, H., Katajisto, J., & Koskinen, S. (2020). Nursing student–patient relationship and related factors—A self‐assessment by nursing students. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 29(21-22), 4030-4044.
Toro, V., Camacho-Minuche, G., Pinza-Tapia, E., & Paredes, F. (2019). The Use of the Communicative Language Teaching Approach to Improve Students' Oral Skills. English Language Teaching, 12(1), 110-118.
Yaghchi, M. A., Ghafoori, N., & Nabifar, N. (2016). The effects of authoritative vs. facilitative interventions on EFL learners’ willingness to communicate. Nashriyeh Elmi Pazhouheshiyeh Amoozaeh va arzyabi, 9(5), 177-194.
Yürekli, A. (2013). The six-category intervention analysis: A classroom observation reference. ELT Journal, 67(3), 302-312.
