Journal of Language Horizons

Submit Manuscript

شماره جاری

بر اساس شماره‌های نشریه

بر اساس نویسندگان

بر اساس موضوعات

نمایه نویسندگان

نمایه کلیدواژه ها

درباره نشریه

اهداف و چشم انداز

اعضای هیات تحریریه

کارکنان اجرایی

اصول اخلاقی انتشار مقاله

بانک ها و نمایه نامه ها

پیوندهای مفید

پرسش‌های متداول

اطلاعات آماری نشریه

فرایند پذیرش مقالات

اطلاعات آماری نشریه

اخبار و اعلانات

راهنمای نویسندگان

فرم تعهدنامه

فرم تعارض منافع

راهنمای ثبت داوری در Publons

داوران نشریه در سال 1399

لیست داوران 1400

داوران سال 1401

لیست داوران 1402

تأثیر برنامه‌ریزی برخط و برنامه‌ریزی راهبردی در آموزش زبان تکلیف‌-محور به‌ کمک ‌رایانه بر تمایل زبان‌آموزان به برقراری ارتباط

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 کارشناس ارشد آموزش زبان انگلیسی، گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشکده علوم انسانی، واحد سنندج، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، سنندج، ایران

2 استادیار، گروه زبان انگلیسی ، دانشکده علوم انسانی، واحد سنندج، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، سنندج، ایران

چکیده

تحقیق حاضر به بررسی تأثیر برنامه‌ریزی برخط و برنامه‌ریزی راهبردی در بافت زبان‌آموزی تکلیف‌-محور به ‌کمک ‌رایانه بر تمایل به برقراری ارتباط می‌پردازد. در ابتدا، آزمون تعیین سطح آکسفورد میانِ 120 نفر از فراگیران زبان انگلیسی در سطح متوسط توزیع شد. سپس، بر اساس مقیاس تعیین سطح آکسفورد، ۹۰ زبان‌آموز انتخاب شدند و به دو گروه آزمایشی و یک گروه کنترل تقسیم شدند. از شرکت‌کنندگان در گروه‌های تعیین‌شده‌ درخواست شد تا پرسشنامه تمایل به برقراری ارتباط را به عنوان پیش‌آزمون تکمیل کنند. به دنبال آن، یکی از گروه‌های آزمایشی، برنامه‌ریزی برخط زبان‌آموزی به‌ کمک ‌رایانه و گروه دیگر برنامه‌ریزی راهبردی زبان‌آموزی به ‌کمک‌ رایانه را دریافت کردند. در گروه برنامه‌ریزی راهبردی، زبان‌آموزان  در هر جلسه مقاله‌ای در مورد یک موضوع مشخص نوشتند در حالی‌که اجازه داشتند در مورد آنچه می‌خواستند بنویسند (محتوا) و صورت‌های زبانی (واژه‌ها، دستور زبان و غیره) که می‌خواستند به کار برند، بیاندیشند. در گروه آزمایشی دیگر، زبان‌آموزان زمانی برای تفکر دربارة انجام تکلیف در طول تکلیف داشتند، ولی به آن‌ها آموزش داده شد که طرح خود را یادداشت نکنند. آموزش سنتی رایج برای شرکت کنندگان در گروه کنترل به کار گرفته شد. پس از ده جلسه، به زبان‌آموزان در سه گروه، پرسش‌نامه تمایل به برقراری ارتباط به عنوان پس‌آزمون داده شد. نتایج تحلیل کوواریانس نشان داد که برنامه‌ریزی برخط و برنامه‌ریزی راهبردی تأثیر قابلِ توجهی بر تمایل فراگیران زبان انگلیسی ایرانی به برقراری ارتباط دارد. افزون بر این، مشخص شد که تأثیر برنامه‌ریزی راهبردی در مقایسه با برنامه‌ریزی برخط بر تمایل فراگیران ایرانی زبان انگلیسی به برقراری ارتباط معنادارتر بود. یافته‌ها، نمایانگر کاربردهایی برای معلمان زبان انگلیسی در برنامه‌ریزی برخط و برنامه‌ریزی راهبردی در بافت آموزش زبان تکلیف‌-محور به‌ کمک ‌رایانه، برای ارتقای تمایل به برقراری ارتباط است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

مراجع
  1. Aliakbari, M., Kamangar, M., & Khany, R. (2016). Willingness to communicate in English among Iranian EFL students. English Language Teaching, 9(5), 33-44.  https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n5p33
  2. Alsied, S. M., & Pathan, M. M. (2013). The use of computer technology in EFL classroom: Advantages and implications. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies, 1(1), 44-51. https://www.academia.edu/3764274/The_Use_of_Computer_Technology_in_EFL_Classroom_Advantages_and_Implications?sm=b
  3. Anwar, K., & Arifani, Y. (2016). Task based language teaching: Development of CALL. International Education Studies, 9(6), 168-183. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n6p168
  4. August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1998). Educating language-minority children. National Academy Press.
  5. Aydın, F. (2017). Willingness to communicate (WTC) among intermediate-level adult Turkish EFL learners: Underlying factors. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 5(3), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.5c3s5m
  6. Broncano, B., & Ribeiro, M. (1999). The shape of the future: Computers and multimedia resources in the teaching of Portuguese as a foreign language and culture. ReCALL, 11(3), 13-24. https://estudogeral.sib.uc.pt/bitstream/10316/79384/1/The%20shape%20of%20the%20future.pdf
  7. Cao, Y. K. (2009). Understanding the notion of interdependence, and the dynamics of willingness to communicate [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Auckland]. ResearchSpace. https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/5584
  8. Cao, Y. K., & Jiaotong, X. (2012). Willingness to communicate and communication quality in ESL classrooms. TESL Reporter, 45(1), 17-36. http://lir.byuh.edu/index.php/Issue1/article/view/81/75
  9. Clément, R., Baker, S. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2003). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The effects of context, norms, and vitality. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 22(2), 190-209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X03022002003
  10. Dellerman, P., Coirier, P., & Marchand, E. (1996). Planning and expertise in argumentative composition. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. V. D. Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Theories, models and methodology in writing research (pp. 182-195). Amsterdam University Press.
  11. Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 50-80.
  12. Egbert, J., Chao, C., & Hanson-Smith, E. (1999). Computer-enhanced language learning environments: An overview. In J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues (pp. 1-13). TESOL.
  13. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
  14. Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 7(2), 209-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.12.006
  15. Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474-509. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp042
  16. Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 59-84. https://doi.org/10.10170/S0272263104261034
  17. Farahani, A., & Meraji, S. R. (2011). Cognitive task complexity and L2 narrative writing performance. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(2), 445-456. https://doi.org/10.4304/JLTR.2.2.445-456
  18. Gauvain, M. (2021). Developmental psychology: Revisiting the classic studies. In A. M. Slater & P. C. Quinn (Eds.), Developmental psychology: Revisiting the classic studies (2 ed., pp. 89-102). Sage.
  19. Goldstein, L. S. (1999). The relational zone: The role of caring relationships in the co-construction of mind. American Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 647-673. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312036003647
  20. Hampel, R. (2006). Rethinking task design for the digital age: A framework for language teaching and learning in a synchronous online environment. ReCALL, 18(1), 105-121. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344006000711
  21. Hayes, J. R. (2000). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In R. Indrisano & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Perspectives on writing: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 6-44). International Reading Association.
  22. Hegelheimer, V., & Tower, D. (2004). Using CALL in the classroom: Analyzing student interactions in an authentic classroom. System, 32(2), 185-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2003.11.007
  23. Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2007). A comparative analysis of computer-supported learning models and guidelines. In F. M. M. Neto & F. U. Brasilerio (Eds.), Advances in computer- supported learning (pp. 1-20). Information Science Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-355-5.ch001
  24. Johnson, M., Mercado, L., & Acevedo, A. (2012). The effect of planning sub-processes on L2 writing fluency, grammatical complexity, and lexical complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 264-282. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSLW.2012.05.011
  25. Kang, S. J. (2005). Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a second language. System, 33(2), 277-292. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.10.004
  26. Khajavy, G. H., Ghonsooly, B., Hosseini Fatemi, A., & Choi, C. W. (2016). Willingness to communicate in English: A microsystem model in the Iranian EFL classroom context. TESOL Quarterly, 50(1), 154-180. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.204
  27. Liaw, M. L. (1998). Using electronic mail for English as a Foreign Language instruction. System, 26(3), 335-351. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(98)00025-6
  28. Lim, D. H., Morris, M. L., & Kupritz, V. W. (2019). Online vs. blended learning: Differences in instructional outcomes and learner satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 27-42. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v11i2.1725
  29. MacIntyre, P. D. (2007). Willingness to communicate in the second language: Understanding the decision to speak as a volitional process. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 564-576. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00623.x
  30. MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R., & Conrod, S. (2001). Willingness to communicate, social support, and language-learning orientations of immersion students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(3), 369-388. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263101003035
  31. MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clement, R., & Donovan, L. A. (2002). Sex and age effects on willingness to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation among junior high school French immersion students. Language Learning, 52(3), 537-564. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00226
  32. MacIntyre, P. D., Dörnyei, Z., Clément, R., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545-562. https://doi.org/10.2307/330224
  33. McCreesh, B. (1998). Integrating CALL into the vocabulary classroom. In S. Jager, J. Nerbonne, & A. V. Essen (Eds.), Language teaching and language technology (pp. 36-42). Swets & Zeiltinger. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315078137
  34. Meskill, C. (1999). Computers as tools for sociocollaborative language learning. In K. Cameron (Ed.), Computer assisted language learning (CALL): Media, design and applications (pp. 141-164). Swets & Zeitlinger.
  35. Meskill, C. (2005). Triadic scaffolds: Tools for teaching English language learners with computers. Language Learning & Technology, 9(1), 46-59. http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num1/meskill
  36. Mokhtari, H. (2013). Iranian EFL learners’ attitude towards CALL. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1630-1635. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.232
  37. Müller-Hartmann, A., & Ditfurth, M. S.-v. (2010). Research on the use of technology in task-based language teaching. In M. Thomas & H. Reinders (Eds.), Task-based language learning and teaching with technology (1 ed., pp. 17-40). Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-01062-6/2
  38. Nakakubo, T. (2011). The effects of planning on second language oral performance in Japanese: processes and production [Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa]. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.17077/etd.vvewb5mw
  39. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Prentice Hall. http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1980/A1980KD04600001.pdf
  40. Nunan, D. (2006). Task-based language teaching in the Asia context: Defining “Task”. Asian EFL Journal, 8, 12-18.
  41. http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/September_2006_EBook_editions.pdf
  42. Oh, E., Lee, C. M., & Moon, Y. I. (2015). The contributions of planning, L2 linguistic knowledge and individual differences to L2 writing. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 12(2), 45-85.  http://journal.asiatefl.org/main/main.php?
  43. Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2013). Effects of the manipulation of cognitive processes on EFL writers' text quality. TESOL Quarterly, 47(2), 375-398. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.55
  44. Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS program (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
  45. Peterson, M. (2010). Task-based language teaching in network-based CALL: An analysis of research on learner interaction in synchronous CMC. In M. Thomas & H. Reinders (Eds.), Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching with Technology (1st ed., pp. 41-62). Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474212366.ch-003
  46. Polat, M. (2017). CALL in context: A brief historical and theoretical perspective. Issues and Trends in Educational Technology, 5(1), 17-23. https://doi.org/10.2458/azu_itet_v5i1_polat
  47. Rahimpour, M., & Safarie, M. (2011). The effects of on-line and pre-task planning on descriptive writing of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(2), 274-280. https://doi.org/10.5539/IJEL.V1N2P274
  48. Riasati, M. J., & Noordin, N. (2011). Antecedents of willingness to communicate: A review of literature. Studies in Literature and Language, 3(2), 74-80. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/n
  49. Riasati, M. J., & Rahimi, F. (2018). Situational and individual factors engendering willingness to speak English in foreign language classrooms. Cogent Education, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1513313
  50. Shekary, M., & Tahririan, M. (2006). Negotiation of meaning and noticing in text-based online chat. The Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 557-573. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00504.x
  51. Simuth, J., & Sarmany-Schuller, I. (2014). Cognitive style variable in e-learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 1464-1467. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.417
  52. Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. Edward Arnold.
  53. Skehan, P. (2007). Language instruction through tasks. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (Vol. 15, pp. 289-301). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_21
  54. Soiferman, L. K., Boyd, K., & Straw, S. B. (2010). With what evidence are teachers employing evidence-based procedures in their writing classrooms? International Conference on Education, Symposium conducted at the International Conference of Education, Honolulu, Hi.
  55. Tavakoli, H., Lotfi, A., & Biria, R. (2019). Effects of CALL-mediated TBLT on self-efficacy for reading among Iranian university non-English major EFL students. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 7(26), 85-101. http://jfl.iaun.ac.ir/article_625736.html
  56. Thomas, M. (2011). Task-based language teaching and collaborative problem solving with second life: A case study of Japanese EFL learners. Proceeding at International Conference “ICT for Language Learning”. University of Central Lancashire (United Kingdom).
  57. Thomas, M. (2013). Task-based language teaching and CALL. In M. Thomas, H. Reinders, & M. Warschauer (Eds.), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning (pp. 341-358). Continuum.
  58. Valadi, A., Rezaee, A., & Baharvand, P. (2015). The relationship between language learners’ willingness to communicate and their oral language proficiency with regard to gender differences. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 4, 147-153. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.4n.5p.147
  59. van Lier, L. (2002). An ecological-semiotic perspective on language and linguistics. In C. Kransch (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives. Continuum.
  60. Wang, Y. (2006). Negotiation of meaning in desktop videoconferencing-supported distance language learning. ReCALL, 18(2), 122-146. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344006000814
  61. Wang, Y. (2008). Influence of planning on students' language performance in task-based language teaching. English Language Teaching, 1(1), 83-86. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v1n1p83
  62. Weda, S., Atmowardoyo, H., Rahman, F., Said, M. M., & Sakti, A. (2021). Factors affecting students’ willingness to communicate in EFL classroom at higher institution in Indonesia. International Journal of Instruction, 14(2), 719-734. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14240a
  63. Wendel, J. (1997). Planning and second language production. [Doctoral dissertation, Temple University]. https://www.proquest.com/openview/c04b75613fbcb4eec78a43476706ac0e/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
  64. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
  65. Xie, Q. (2011). Willingness to communicate in English among secondary school students in the rural Chinese English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom [Master's thesis, Auckland University of Technology].  https://orapp.aut.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10292/2548/XieQ.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y
  66. Yousefi, M., & Kasaian, S. A. (2014). Relationship between willingness to communicate and Iranian EFL learner’s speaking fluency and accuracy. Journal of Advances in English Language Teaching, 2(6), 61-72. https://european-science.com/jaelt/article/view/2799
  67. Yuan, B. (2001). The status of thematic verbs in the second language acquisition of Chinese: Against inevitability of thematic-verb raising in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 17(3), 248-272. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765830101700302
Journal of Language Horizons
دوره 6، شماره 3 - شماره پیاپی 13
آذر 1401
صفحه 115-135
فایل ها
هم رسانی
ارجاع به این مقاله
آمار