The Impact of Task-supported Interactive Feedback on the Accuracy, Fluency, and Organization of Iranian EFL Learners’ Writing
محورهای موضوعی : language teaching
زهره سیفوری
1
(
)
میترا زراعت پیشه
2
(
)
سعیده آهنگری
3
(
)
کلید واژه: Writing, Accuracy, Organization, Task-supported Instruction, interactive feedback, Fluency,
چکیده مقاله :
Controversy has not been yet resolved among researchers in second language research over the pedagogical efficacy of feedback in enhancing various features of learners’ writing skill. Research findings highlighting the significance of interactive tasks and learners’ engagement in improving the learning process stimulated the present study, the purpose of which was to explore the effect of task-supported interactive feedback on the accuracy, fluency, and organization of seventy two Iranian English major sophomores at Islamic Azad University-Mashhad Branch. It was hypothesized that engaging learners in both tasks and providing feedback would enhance their writing performance. The participants in three intact classes were randomly assigned to three groups: a control group, with no task (NTG), and two experimental groups: the task-supported group (TG), and the task-supported group with interactive feedback (TFG). Four one way analyses of variance tests were run on the research data indicated that the apparent gain in the task-supported interactive group over the other groups did not reach significance level. However, the TG group outperformed the control group in all three aspects of writing. The findings have pedagogical implications and can be interpreted in terms of socio-cultural characteristics of Iranian students.
محققان آموزش زبان دوم هنوز در مورد کارایی بازخورد در بهبود جنبه های مختلف آموزش نگارش به زبان انگلیسی به اتفاق نظر نرسیده اند. نتایج تحقیقات اخیر مبین اهمیت کارهای آموزشی تعاملی در درگیر کردن زبان آموزان در فرآیند آموزش انگیزه اصلی پژوهش حاضر را فراهم نمود که به بررسی تاثیر بازخورد تعاملی کارمحور بر صحت دستوری، روانی کلام، و ساختار 72 دانشجوی سال دوم زبان انگلیسی در دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد مشهد می پردازد. فرضیه تحقیق اصلی این بود که درگیر کردن زبان آموزان در کارهای آموزشی و نیز در ارائه بازخورد موجب بهبود نگارش آنها خواهد شد. شرکت کنندها در سه کلاس نگارش به شکل تصادفی به یک گروه کنترل، آموزش نگارش به روش رایج و بدون کار آموزشی، و دو گروه تحقیق، اولی آموزش نگارش همراه با کار آموزشی و دومی آموزش نگارش همراه کار آموزشی ونیز بازخورد تعاملی، تعیین شدند. پس از اجرای یک پیش آزمون زبان عمومی و نوشتارو یک پس آزمون نوشتار، انجام چهار تست آنالیز واریانس یک طرفه بر داده های تحقیق نشان داد که برتری ظاهری گروه تحقیق کار آموزشی همراه با تعامل بازخوردی نسبت به گروههای دیگر معنادار نبود ولی گروه تحقیق کار آموزشی نسبت به گروه کنترل برتری معناداری را در پیشرفت صحت دستوری، روانی کلام، و ساختار متنی نشان داد. نتایج تحقیق کاربردهای آموزشی دارند و با توجه به ویژگیهای فرهنگی اجتماعی زبان آموزان ایرانی قابل تفسیرند.
Arnaudet, M.L. & Barret, M.E. (1990). Paragraph development: A guide for students of English. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Ashwell, T. (2000). ‘Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draftcomposition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method?’ Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227-257.
Agustin Llach, M.P. (2011). Lexical errors and accuracy in foreign language writing. USA, Multilingual Matters.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. New York: Pearson Education.
Cahyono, B. Y. (2001). ‘Research studies in second language writing and in contrastive rhetoric.’ k@ ta 3(1), 39-52.
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of second language writing, 12(3), 267-296.
Duong, M. T., N. T. K. Cuc. & P. Griffin. (2011). ‘Developing a framework to measure process-oriented writing competence: A case of Vietnamese EFL students' formal portfolio assessment.’ RELC Journal, 42(2), 167-185.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2006). The methodology of task-based teaching. Asian EFL journal, 8(3).
Falchikov, N. (2005). Improving assessment through student involvement: Practical solutions for learning in higher and further education. USA and Canada: Routledge Falmer.
Fazio, L. L. (2001). The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal writing accuracy of minority-and majority-language students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 235-249.
Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 Writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime…?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 49-62.
Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes. How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161–184.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. 3rd ed. SAGE. London.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299-324.
Frantzen, D. (1995). The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an intermediate Spanish content course. The Modern Language Journal, 79(3), 329-344.
Furneaux, C. (2000). Process writing. Available on-line [www.rdg.ac.uk/acadept/ Cl / slas / process. Html, 1-4.
Jeon, I. J., & Hahn, J. W. (2006). Exploring EFL teachers' perceptions of task-based language teaching: A case study of Korean secondary school classroom practice. Asian EFL Journal, 8(1), 123-143.
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keh, C.L. (1990). Feedback in the Writing Process: a Model and Methods for implementation. ELT Journal, 44(4), 294-304.
Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66,140–149.
Li, Y. (1998). Unpublished Thesis. Using task-based email activities in developing academic writing skills in English as a second language. USA: University of Arizona.
Montgomery, J. L., & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 82-99.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ong, J. & L.J. Zhang. (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. & M. Khodareza. (2012). ‘The effects of warm-up tasks on the Iranian EFL students' writing ability.’ International Education Studies, 5(2), 190-203.
Peyton,J.K., J. Staton, G. Richardson, & W. Wolfram. (1990). ‘The influence of writing tasks on ESL students' written production.’ Research in the Teaching of English, 24(2), 142-171.
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), 158-167.
Pourdana, N. & S. M. Karimi Behbahani. 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.
Rezazadeh, M., M. Tavakoli, & A. Eslami Rasekh. 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, & T. S. Rodgers. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd edition), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 152–244.
Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (Eds.). (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge University Press.
Robb T., S. Ross & I. Shortreed. (1986). ‘Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality.’ TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83-95.
Sadeghi, K. & E. Fazelijou. (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.
Skehan, P. (1996). ‘A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction.’ Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38-62.
Skehan, P. (2002). A non-marginal role for tasks. ELT Journal, 56(3), 289-295.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185-211.
Skehan, P., Xiaoyue, B., Qian, L., & Wang, Z. (2012). The task is not enough: Processing approaches to task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 16(2), 170-187.
Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111-122.
Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 337-343.
Truscott, J. & Hsu, A. P. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292 –305
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford University Press.
Ziahosseini, S. M., & Salehi, M. (2008). An Investigation of the relationship between motivation and language learning strategies. Pazhouhesh-e Zabanha-ye Kareji, 41, 85-107.
Zhu, W. (1995).Effects of Training for peer response on student’s comments and
interaction. Written communication, 12(4), 492-528.
