Teaching Information Structure of Non-Canonical Sentences through a Deductive Vs. an Inductive Approach: Effects on Iranian EFL Learners’ Writing Products
محورهای موضوعی : نشریه زبان و ترجمه
Hamidreza Sheikhi
1
(Department of English, Isfahan Branch (Khorasgan), Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran)
Bahram Hadian
2
(English Language Teaching Department, Isfahan Branch (Khorasgan), Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran)
Mehdi Vaez-Dalili
3
(English Language Teaching Department, Isfahan Branch (Khorasgan), Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran)
کلید واژه: writing skill, L2 learning, deductive approach, EFL/ESL learners, Information Structure (IS), Inductive Approach,
چکیده مقاله :
This study investigates the effect of deductive versus inductive teaching of Information Structure (IS) of non-canonical sentences on Iranian EFL learners’ writing productions. To do so 69 participants majoring in English literature and English translation, fourth semester, Arak University, participated in this study in the form of two intact groups called Deductive (experimental) and Inductive (control) groups, comprising 36 and 33 participants in that order. Under the effect of twelve treatment sessions of deductive vs. inductive instructions of IS principles, six weeks, the statistical analyses of the results regarding the pretest-posttest phase disclosed significant improvement of the participants’ writing scores in both groups. Concerning the post-test results, no statistically significant difference was observed in the Deductive vs. Inductive groups’ writing scores. Regarding the posttest-delayed posttest results, the statistical analyses showed a significant decrease in the Deductive group’ writing scores while the writing scores reduction in the Inductive group was not significant. So, the findings revealed a significant retention of improved writing skills in association with the Inductive group. Possible explanations for the writing improvement and implications of the findings for language teaching have been discussed.
این پژوهش به بررسی تأثیر آموزش قیاسی در مقابل استقرایی ساختار اطلاعات (IS) جملات غیر متعارف بر تولیدات نوشتاری زبان آموزان ایرانی زبان انگلیسی می پردازد. بدین منظور 69 شرکت کننده در رشته ادبیات انگلیسی و مترجمی انگلیسی ترم چهارم دانشگاه اراک در قالب دو گروه دست نخورده به نام های قیاسی (تجربی) و استقرایی (کنترل) متشکل از 36 و 33 شرکت کننده در این پژوهش شرکت کردند. سفارش. تحت تأثیر دوازده جلسه درمانی دستورالعمل های قیاسی در مقابل استقرایی اصول IS، شش هفته، تجزیه و تحلیل آماری نتایج مربوط به مرحله پیش آزمون- پس آزمون، بهبود قابل توجهی را در نمرات نوشتاری شرکت کنندگان در هر دو گروه نشان داد. در مورد نتایج پس آزمون، تفاوت آماری معنی داری در نمرات نوشتاری گروه های قیاسی و استقرایی مشاهده نشد. با توجه به نتایج پس‌آزمون تاخیری، تحلیل‌های آماری کاهش معنی‌داری را در نمرات نوشتاری گروه قیاسی نشان داد، در حالی که کاهش نمره نوشتاری در گروه استقرایی معنی‌دار نبود. بنابراین، یافته‌ها حاکی از حفظ معنادار بهبود مهارت نوشتاری در ارتباط با گروه استقرایی بود. توضیحات احتمالی برای بهبود نوشتار و پیامدهای یافته ها برای آموزش زبان مورد بحث قرار گرفته است.
Abduljawad, S. (2020). The syntax-pragmatics interface in L2: Aspects of information structure teaching and learning in a Saudi ESL context. Manchester: Doctoral dissertation, University of Salford; School of Arts and Media. Retrieved May 22, 2022, from http://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/58661
Ahmadian, M., & Pashangzadeh, A. (2013). A atudy of the effect of using narratives on Iranian EFL learners’ reading comprehension ability. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 2(3), 153-162. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.2n.3p.153
Ahmadian, M., & Pashangzadeh, A. (2014). An investigation of the effects of text variation on EFL learners’ reading comprehension ability. Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science, 4(6), 691-707. doi:https://doi.org/10.9734/BJESBS/2014/7767
Answers to all TOEFL essay questions. (n.d.). Retrieved 3 14, 2022, from http://englishonlineclub.com/
Aronsson, M. B. (2003). On clefts and information structure in Swedish EFL writing. In S. Granger-Legrand, & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Extending the scope of corpus-based research: New applications, new challenges (pp. 195–210). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Biber, D. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2), 97-116. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001
Blau, E. K. (1982). The effect of syntax on readability for ESL students in Puerto Rico. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 517-528. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/3586469
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805226
Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21–32.
Bülow-Møller, A. (1996). Control from the background: a study of information structure in native and non-native discourse. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 21-42. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.1996.tb00087.x
Callies, M. (2009). Information highlighting in advanced learner English: The syntax–pragmatics Interface in second language acquisition (Vol. 186). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Carroll , M., Murcia-Serra, J., Watorek, M., & Bendiscioli, A. (2000). THE RELEVANCE OF INFORMATION ORGANIZATION TO SECOND LANGUAGEACQUISITION STUDIES. The Descriptive Discourse of Advanced Adult Learners of German. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(3), 441–466.
Carroll, M., Murcia-Serra, J., Watorek, M., & Bendiscioli, A. (2000). The relevance of information organization to second language acquisition: The descriptive discourse of advanced adult learners of German. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(3), 441-466. doi:https://www.jstor.org/stable/44486501
Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second-language skills : theory and practice (3 ed.). San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Cleophas, T. J., & Zwinderman, A. H. (2010). SPSS for starters. Springer.
Collins, P. C. (1991). Cleft and pseudo-cleft constructions in English (1 ed.). Routledge.
de Beaugrande, R.-A., & Dressler, W. U. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London: Routledge.
De Cock, S. (2011). Preferred patterns of use of positive and negative evaluative adjectives in native and learner speech: an ELT perspective. In A. Frankenberg-Garcia, L. Flowerdew, & G. Aston (Eds.), New Trends in Corpora and Language Learning (pp. 198-212). London: Continnuum.
Decoo, W. (1996). The induction-deduction opposition: ambiguities and complexities of the didactic reality. IRAL, 34(2), 95–118. doi:https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1996.34.2.95
Emre, D. (2015). The effects of inductive and deductive approach on written output [Master's Thesis, Bilkent University. Semantic Scholar. Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/THE-EFFECTS-OF-INDUCTIVE-AND-DEDUCTIVE-APPROACH-ON-Master-Thesis/9aa929b5efe6a0577e889fe16a9087888cfcfd1f
Erdmann, P. (1986). A note on reverse wh-clefts in English. In D. Kastovsky , & A. Szwedek (Eds.), Linguistics across Historical and Geographical Boundaries. Descriptive, Contrastive, and Applied Linguistics. In Honour of Jacek Fisiak on the Occasion of His Fiftieth Birthday (Vol. 2, pp. 851–858). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi:https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110856132
Granger, S. (1977). On identifying the syntactic and discourse features of participle clauses in academic English: Native and non-native writers compared. In J. Aarts, I. de Mönnink, & H. Wekker (Eds.), Studies in English language and teaching (pp. 185-198). Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi.
Hanks, W. F. (1996). Language and nommunicative practices. Routledge.
Hatch, E. M., & Farhady, H. (1982). Research design and statistics for applied linguistics (1 ed.). Newbury House Pub.
Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers' text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. Mahwah, New Jersey: LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES, PUBLISHERS.
Hudson, R. (1999). Grammar teaching is dead-not! In R. S. Wheeler (Ed.), Language Alive in the Classroom (pp. 101-112). Greenwood Publishing Group.
Hyland, K. (2009). Teaching and researching writing (2 ed.). London: Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2012). Bundles in academic discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 150 - 169. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000037
Hyland, K. (2021). Teaching and researching writing (4 ed.). New York: Routledge.
Jung, E. H. (2004). Topic and subject prominence in interlanguage development. Language Learning, 54(4), 713–738. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00284.x
Kasper, G., & Rose , K. R. (2003). Pragmatic development in a second language (1 ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 81-104. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190599190056
Klein, W., & Dittmar, N. (1979). Developing grammars: The acquisition of German syntax by foreign workers. Berlin: Springer.
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Pergamon Press Inc.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press Inc.
Leube, K. (2000). Information structure and word order In the advanced learner variety. An empirical study with applications for the foreign language classroom. Hamburg: Books On Demand.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. B. Ginsberg , & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins . doi:https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.2
Mueller, C. M. (2010). Effects of explicit instruction on incidental noticing of metaphorical word sequences during a subsequent reading task. International Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 81-101. doi:https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/1/113991
Nesselhauf, N. (2005). Collocations in a learner corpus. Amsterdam: Benjamins Publishing Company.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching & learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle .
Palacios-Martínez, I., & Martínez-Insua, A. (2006). Connecting linguistic description and language teaching: native and learner use of existential there. International Journal of Applied Linguistics , 16(2), 213-231. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2006.00114.x
Pallant, J. (2016). Spss survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (6 ed.). Open University Press.
Pashangzadeh, A. (2012). The effect of using narratives on Iranian EFL learners’ reading comprehension [MA thesis, Arak University]. Arak, Iran.
Pashangzadeh, A., Ahmadian, M., & Yazdani, H. (2016). From narativity to criticality: Developing EFL learners’ critical thinking skills through short narratives/stories reading. Education and Linguistics Research, 2(1), 98-119. doi:https://doi.org/10.5296/elr.v2i1.8952
Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265-289. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80117-9
Perdue , C. (Ed.). (1993). Adult language acquisition: Cross-linguistic perspectives: Vol 2. The results. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Plag , I. (1994). Avoidance in oral L2 production. The encoding of new referents in English interlanguage narratives. In G. Bartelt (Ed.), The Dynamics of Language Processes: Essays in Honor of Hans W. Dechert (pp. 33–44). Narr Francke Attempto.
Prince, E. F. (1978). A comparison of wh-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language, 54(4), 883-906. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/413238
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rutherford , W. E. (1984). Language universals and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1963). The mathematical theory of communication. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Shaw, P., & Liu, E. T.-K. (1998). What develops in the development of second-language writing? Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 225–254. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.2.225
Slobin, D. I. (1993). Adult language acquisition: A view from child language study. In C. Perdue (Ed.), Adult language acquisition: Cross-linguistic perspectives (pp. 239–252). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Smart, K. L., Witt, C., & Scott, J. P. (2012). Toward learner-centered teaching: An inductive approach. Business Communication Quarterly, 7(4), 392–.
Stage, F. K., Muller, P. A., Kinzie, J., & Simmons, A. (1998). Creating learning centered classrooms. What does learning theory have to say? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education and the Association for the Study of Higher Education.
Tottie, G. (1991). Negation in English speech and writing: A study in variation. San Diego: Academic Press.
Vallduví, E., & Engdahl, E. (1996). The linguistic realization of information packaging. Linguistics, 34, 459-519.
van Lier, L. (2001). Language awareness. In R. Carter, & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 160-165). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
von Stutterheim , C. (2003). Linguistic structure and information organisation: The case of very advanced learners. In S. H. Foster-Cohen, & S. P. Doehler (Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook (Vol. 3, pp. 183 - 206). John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.3.11stu
Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice (1 ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
White, A. H. (2007). A tool for monitoring the development of written English: T-unit analysis using the SAWL. American Annals of the Deaf, 152(1), 29-41. doi:https://www.jstor.org/stable/26234421
