The Impact of Multiple Intelligence-Oriented Writing Tasks on the Accuracy, Fluency, and Organization of ELT Students’ Writing
محورهای موضوعی : English Language Teaching (ELT)میترا زراعت پیشه 1 , زهره سیفوری 2 , نسرین حدیدی تمجید 3
1 - گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی، واحد مشهد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، مشهد، ایران
2 - گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی، واحد تبریز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تبریز، ایران
3 - گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی، واحد تبریز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تبریز، ایران
کلید واژه: Writing, Accuracy, Organization, Task-supported Instruction, Fluency, MI-oriented writing tasks,
چکیده مقاله :
Correlational studies supporting the link between learners’ multiple intelligences and their learning are superseded by interventionist attempts to explore direct applications of Multiple Intelligence (MI) Theory in language teaching and learning. This quasi-experimental study examined the extent to which engaging ELT major university students in writing tasks, compatible to their dominant intelligences, might enhance the accuracy, organization, and fluency of their writing. The participants were 64 male and female English major sophomores. They were in three intact classes, randomly assigned to a control no task (NT) group, a task-supported (TS) group, and an MI-oriented task (MIT) group after their initial homogeneity was assessed. The fifteen-session treatment comprised pre-writing brainstorming activities in the NT group and a set of pre-writing tasks performed by the TS group. In the MIT group, however, individuals with the same dominant intelligences were grouped together to perform tasks that were compatible with their dominant intelligences. The one-way ANOVA analysis of the research data obtained from the post-test writing scores revealed that the MIT group surpassed the other groups in accuracy, fluency and organization. The findings underscore the necessity of taking learners’ intelligences into consideration as a criterion for task selection and offer important pedagogical implications for teaching writing.
پس از تایید رابطه بین هوشهای قالب زبان آموزان و یادگیری آنها در پژوهشهای همبستگی، تحقیقات حاضر بیشتر به بررسی کاربردهای مستقیم نظریه هوشهای چندگانه در امر آموزش می پردازد. تحقیق شبه تجربی حاضر نیز به بررسی میزان تاثیر کاربرد کارهای نوشتاری منطبق با هوشهای قالب دانشجویان زبان انگلیسی در بهبود صحت دستوری، ساختارمندی، و روانی کلام نوشتاری آنان می پردازد. آزمودنی های این تحقیق شامل 64 زبان آموز مونث و مذکر سال دوم در سه کلاس نگارش در دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی مشهد بودند که در طیف سنی 19 تا 30 قرار داشتند. پس از تعیین همگنی اولیه گروههای تحقیق در زبان انگلیسی، آنها را به صورت تصادفی به سه گروه بدون کار آموزشی، کار آموزشی، و کار آموزشی منطبق بر هوشهای چندگانه تعیین کردیم. دوره آموزشی 15 جلسه ایی با مرحله پیش نوشتار شروع شد. در گروه اول از فعالیتهای سیال سازی ذهنی و در گروه دوم از مجموعه ایی از کارهای نوشتاری استفاده گردید. در گروه سوم ابتدا هوش قالب افراد شناسایی و گروههای همگن هوشی شکل داده شد. سپس کارهای نوشتاری منطبق با هوش هر گروه برای مرحله پیش نوشتار آنها تعیین و اجرا گردید. تحلیل واریانس یکطرفه نمرات صحت دستوری ، ساختارمندی، و روانی کلام به دست آمده از نوشتار پس آزمون نشانگر پیشرفت معنادار گروه سوم در هر سه حوزه و تاثیر استفاده از کارهای منطبق با هوش بر رشد مهارت نوشتار ی بود. نتایج این تحقیق ضرورت توجه به هوشهای قالب زبان آموزان را در مرحله انتخاب کارهای آموزشی نوشتاری مورد تاکید قرار می دهد. کاربردهای آموزشی این تحقیق مورد بحث قرار خواهد گرفت.
Ahmadian, M., & Hosseini, S. (2012). The relationship between Iranian English learners’ linguistic intelligence and their writing ability, and writing assessment criteria. Journal of Language, Culture, and Translation, 1(2), 1-22.
Ahour, T., & Abdi, M. (2015). The relationship between EFL learners’ multiple intelligences and vocabulary learning strategy use with a focus on gender. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(4), 800-809.
Al-Balhan, E. M. (2006). Multiple intelligence styles in relation to improved academic performance in Kuwaiti middle school reading. Digest of Middle East Studies, 15(1), 18-34.
Armstrong, T. (2009). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Arnaudet, M.L., & Barret. M.E. (1990). Paragraph development: A guide for students of English. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Bachman, L. F. (2005). Statistical analysis for language assessment. (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Christison, M. A. (1996). Applying multiple intelligence theory in the foreign language classroom. MEXTESOL Journal, 19(3), 27-43.
Ekstrom, R.B., French, J. W., Harman, H. H., & Derman, D. (1976). Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. New Jersey: Educational Testing Service.
Faravani, A., Atai, M. R. (2015). Merging multiple intelligences with dialogic-based portfolio assessment to expedite Iranian EFL learners’ higher order thinking skills. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 6(4), 19-44.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rded.). London: SAGE.
Fleetham, M. (2006). Multiple intelligences in practice: Enhancing self-esteem and learning in the classroom. London: MPG Books Ltd.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299-324.
Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (2003). Multiple intelligences after twenty years. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed. New York: Basic Books.
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, K. (2003). Designing language teaching tasks. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Mahdavi, B. (2008). The role of multiple intelligences (MI) in listening proficiency: A comparison of TOEFL and IELTS listening tests from an MI perspective. The Asian EFL Journal, 10(3), 109–126.
McKenzie, W. (1999). Multiple intelligences survey. Retrieved from http://surfaquarium.com/MI/inventory.htm
Naseri, F., & Nejad Ansari, D. (2013). The relationship between MI and Iranian high school students’ L2 writing achievement. International Journal of Psychology and Behavioural Research, 2(5), 282-290.
Ong, J., & Zhang, L.J. (2010). Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 218–233.
Pakdel Estalkhbijari, Z., & Khodareza, M. (2012). The effects of warm-up tasks on the Iranian EFL students' writing ability. International Education Studies, 5(2), 190-203.
Parrott, M. (1993). Tasks for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Piri, F., Barati, H., & Ketabi, S. (2012). The effects of pre-task, on-line, and both pre-task and on-line planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy: The case of Iranian EFL learners’ written production.’ English Language Teaching, 5(6), 158-168.
Pourdana, N., & Karimi Behbahani, S. M. (2012). Task types in EFL context: Accuracy, fluency, and complexity in assessing writing performance. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 2(1), 80-84.
Razmjoo, S. A. (2008). On the relationship between multiple intelligences and language proficiency. The Reading Matrix, 8(2), 155-174.
Razmjoo, S. A., Sahragard, R., & Sadri, M. (2009). On the relationship between multiple intelligences, vocabulary learning knowledge and vocabulary learning strategies among the Iranian EFL learners. The Iranian EFL Journal Quarterly 3, 82-110.
Rezazadeh, M., Tavakoli, M., & Eslami Rasekh, A. (2011). The role of task type in foreign language written production: Focusing on fluency, complexity, and accuracy. International Education Studies, 4(2), 169-176.
R.I.C. Publication. (2004). Multiple intelligences: A thematic approach. RIC Publication. Richards, J.C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2002). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sadeghi, K., & Fazelijou, E. (2012). The role of task-supported language teaching in EFL learner’s writing performance and grammar gains. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 18(1), 117–127.
Sajjadi Rad, R., Khojasteh, L., & Kafipour, R. (2014). The relationship between MIs and writing skill of medical students in Iran. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 7(3), 1-10.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson, (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Seifoori, Z., & Vahidi, Z. (2012). The impact of fluency strategy training on Iranian EFL learners’ speech under online planning conditions. Language Awareness, 21(1-2), 101-112.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38-62.
Soleimani, H., Moinnzadeh, A., Kassaian, Z., & Ketabi, S. (2012). The effect of instruction based on multiple intelligences theory on the attitude and learning of general English. English Language Teaching, 5(9), 45-53.
Stankov, L. (2000). Structural extensions of a hierarchical view on human cognitive abilities. Learning and Individual Differences, 12, 35–51.
Thornbury, S. (1997). Reformulation and reconstruction: Tasks that promote ‘noticing’. ELT Journal, 51(4), 326-335.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.
