دانشگاه الزهرا

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات25
تعداد شماره‌ها962
تعداد مقالات7,956
تعداد مشاهده مقاله13,451,759
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله9,561,985
Hoomanfard, Mohammad Hamed, Rahimi, Mohammad. (1400). Effect of Computer-Mediated vs. Face-to-Face Peer Feedback on L2 Introverted vs. Extroverted Learners’ Writing Ability and Language-Related Episodes. جلوه هنر, 5(2), 51-73. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2020.32628.1353
Mohammad Hamed Hoomanfard; Mohammad Rahimi. "Effect of Computer-Mediated vs. Face-to-Face Peer Feedback on L2 Introverted vs. Extroverted Learners’ Writing Ability and Language-Related Episodes". جلوه هنر, 5, 2, 1400, 51-73. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2020.32628.1353
Hoomanfard, Mohammad Hamed, Rahimi, Mohammad. (1400). 'Effect of Computer-Mediated vs. Face-to-Face Peer Feedback on L2 Introverted vs. Extroverted Learners’ Writing Ability and Language-Related Episodes', جلوه هنر, 5(2), pp. 51-73. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2020.32628.1353
Hoomanfard, Mohammad Hamed, Rahimi, Mohammad. Effect of Computer-Mediated vs. Face-to-Face Peer Feedback on L2 Introverted vs. Extroverted Learners’ Writing Ability and Language-Related Episodes. جلوه هنر, 1400; 5(2): 51-73. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2020.32628.1353

Effect of Computer-Mediated vs. Face-to-Face Peer Feedback on L2 Introverted vs. Extroverted Learners’ Writing Ability and Language-Related Episodes

Journal of Language Horizons
مقاله 3، دوره 5، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 10، مهر 2021، صفحه 51-73    اصل مقاله (388.42 K)
نوع مقاله: Research article
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/lghor.2020.32628.1353
نویسندگان
Mohammad Hamed Hoomanfard1؛ Mohammad Rahimi* 2
1PhD in ELT, English Language Department, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
2Associate Professor, Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
چکیده
This study investigated the effect of face-to-face and computer-mediated peer feedback on L2 introverted and extroverted learners’ writing ability and language-related episodes. Eighty-six L2 intermediate English language learners were randomly assigned to two different treatment groups: computer-mediated and face-to-face peer feedback. In computer-mediated classes, the participants exchanged peer feedback and discussed comments using Google Docs platform. Meanwhile, in the face-to-face group, the participants exchanged comments on paper; they also gathered once a week to discuss comments face-to-face. The results revealed that the introverts in the computer-mediated group improved more significantly than the introverts in the face-to-face group. However, the extroverts of both face-to-face and computer-mediated groups improved equally. The findings also indicated that both introverts and extroverts in the computer-mediated group produced more language-related episodes than their counterparts in face-to-face group. Further, the pairing patterns of introverted and extroverted learners were found to have effects on the number of language-related episodes generated by them.
کلیدواژه‌ها
computer-mediated peer feedback؛ language-related episodes؛ introversion؛ extroversion؛ L2 writing
عنوان مقاله [English]
تأثیر بازخورد همسانِ باواسطه-رایانه در مقابل رو در رو بر توانایی نوشتاری و رخدادهای زبان-وابستة زبان‌آموزان درون‌گرا در مقابل برون‌گرا
نویسندگان [English]
محمد حامد هومان فرد1؛ محمد رحیمی2
1دکترای آموزش زبان انگلیسی، گروه آموزش زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران
2دانشیار گروه زبان‌های خارجی و زبان‌شناسی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران
چکیده [English]
این پژوهش به بررسی تأثیر بازخورد همسان رو در رو و باواسطه-رایانه بر توانایی نوشتاری و رخدادهای زبان-وابستة زبان‌آموزان درون‌گرا و برون‌گرای زبان دوم پرداخته‌است. هشتاد و شش زبان‌آموز انگلیسی سطح متوسط به صورت تصادفی به دو گروه متفاوت بازخورد همسان رو در رو و با واسطه-رایانه دسته‌بندی شدند. در کلاس‌های باواسطة رایانه، شرکت‌کننده‌ها بازخورد همسان و نظراتشان را با استفاده از پلت فرم گوگل داکس رد و بدل کردند. در این میان، در گروه رو در رو، شرکت‌کننده‌ها نظراتشان را بر روی کاغذ رد و بدل کردند؛ آن‌ها همچنین هفته‌ای یک بار گرد هم آمدند تا درباره نظراتشان به صورت رودررو گفت‌وگو کنند. یافته‌ها نشان داد که درون‌گراها در گروه باواسطه-رایانه به طور معناداری بیشتر از افراد درون‌گرا در گروه رو در رو پیشرفت کردند. با این وجود، برون‌گراها در هر دو گروه رو در رو و باواسطه-رایانه به صورتی برابر پیشرفت کردند. یافته‌ها همچنین نشان داد که هم درون‌گراها و هم برون‌گراها در گروه باواسطه-رایانه، رخدادهای زبان- وابستة بیشتری در مقایسه با همتایان خود در گروه رو در رو تولید کردند. افزون بر این، بر اساس نتایج الگوهای جفتی زبان‌آموزان درون‌گرا و برون‌گرا تأثیراتی بر تعداد رخدادهای زبان-وابستة تولیدشده توسط آن‌‌ها داشتند.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
بازخورد همسان باواسطه‌-رایانه, رخدادهای زبان-وابسته, درون‌گرایی, برون‌گرایی, مهارت نوشتاری زبان دوم
مراجع
  1. Abuseileek, A., & Abualshar, A. (2014). Using peer computer-mediated corrective feedback to support EFL learners’ writing. Language Learning & Technology, 18(1), 76-95.  https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/44355/18_01_abuseileekabualshar.pdf
  2. Alavinia, P., & Hassanlou, A. (2014). On the viable linkages between extroversion/introversion and academic Iranian EFL learners’ writing proficiency. English Language Teaching, 7(3), 167-175. http://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n3p167
  3. Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Wainapel, G., & Fox, S. (2002). On the internet no one knows I’m an introvert: Extroversion, neuroticism, and internet interaction. Cyber Psychology and Behavior, 5(2), 125-128. https://doi.org/10.1089/109493102753770507
  4. Belz, J., & Kinginger, C. (2003). Discourse options and the development of pragmatic competence by classroom learners of German: The case of address forms. Language Learning, 53(4), 591-647. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-9922.2003.00238.x
  5. Bitchener, J. (2017). A guide to supervising non-native English writers of theses and dissertations: Focusing on the writing process. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203096482
  6. Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). Prentice-Hall.
  7. Caspi, A., Chajut, E., Saporta, K., & Beyth-Marom, R. (2006). The influence of personality on social participation in learning environments. Learning and Individual Differences, 16(2), 129-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2005.07.003
  8. Cattell, H. (2001). The sixteen personality factor (16PF) questionnaire. In W. I. Dorfman & M. Hersen (Eds.), Understanding psychological assessment: Perspectives on individual differences (pp. 187-215). Springer.
  9.  Chen, T. (2016). Technology-supported peer feedback in ESL/EFL writing classes: A research synthesis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(2), 365-397. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.960942
  10. Cooper, M. M., & Selfe, C. L. (1990). Computer conferences and learning: Authority, resistance, and internally persuasive discourse. College English, 52(8), 847-869. https://doi.org/10.2307/377388
  11. Daughenbaugh, R., Ensminger, D., Frederick, L., & Surry, D. (2002, April 7-9). Does personality type affect online versus in-class course satisfaction? [Paper presentation]. The Seventh Annual Mid-South Instructional Technology Conference, Middle Tennessee State University.
  12. Dawley, L. (2007). The tools for successful online teaching. IGI Global. https://www.igi-global.com/book/tools-successful-online-teaching/1001
  13. DiTiberio, J. K. (1996). Education, learning styles, and cognitive styles. In A. L. Hammer & N. J. Barger (Eds.), MBTI applications: A decade of research on the Myers-Briggs type indicator (pp. 123-166). Consulting Psychologists Press.
  14. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum.
  15. Downing, K., & Chim, T. M. (2004). Reflectors as online extroverts. Educational Studies, 30(3), 265-276. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305569042000224215
  16. Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 335-349. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44488131
  17. Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Wiley-Blackwell.
  18. Erben, T., Ban, R., & Castaneda, M. (2009). Teaching English language learners through technology. Routledge.
  19. Eysenck, S. B. G., Eysenck, H. J., & Barrett, P. (1985). A revised version of the psychoticism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 6(1), 21-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(85)90026-1
  20. Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181-201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490
  21. Furnham, A., & Medhurst, S. (1995). Personality correlates of academic seminar behaviour: A study of four instruments. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(2), 197-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(95)00026-3
  22. Hancock, D. (2004). Cooperative learning and peer orientation effects on motivation and achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 97(3), 159-161. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.97.3.159-168
  23. Harrington, R., & Loffredo, D. A. (2010). MBTI personality type and other factors that relate to preference for online versus face-to-face instruction. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 89-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.11.006
  24. Hoomanfard, M. H., & Meshkat, M. (2015). Writing on a computer and using paper and pencil: Is there any difference in the internal cognitive processes? GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 15(2), 17-31. https://ejournal.ukm.my/gema/article/view/8047
  25. Hoomanfard, M. H., & Rahimi, M. (2020). A comparative study of the efficacy of teacher and peer feedback online written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ writing ability. Journal of Language Research, 11(33), 327-352. http://doi.org/10.22051/JLR.2018.19992.1536
  26. Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press.
  27. Hyland, K. (2011).  Learning to write: Issues in theory, research, and pedagogy.  In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning to write and writing to learn in an additional language (pp. 17-35). John Benjamins.
  28. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2019). Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing. In, K. Hyland & F. Hyland, Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 1-22). Cambridge University Press
  29. Jacobs, H. L., Zinkgraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hughey, J. B. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Newbury House Publishers, Inc.
  30. Jafarpour, A. A., Roohani, A., & Hasanimanesh, A. (2015).  The impact of extroversion and introversion personality types on EFL learners’ writing ability. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(1), 212-218. http://doi.org/10.17507/TPLS.0501.29  
  31. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works? Change: The magazine of higher learning, 30(4), 26-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091389809602629
  32. Johnson, J. G., Cohen, P., Smailes, E., Kasen, S., Oldham, J. M., Skodol, A. E., & Brook, J. S. (2000). Adolescent personality disorders associated with violence and criminal behavior during adolescence and early adulthood. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157(9), 1406-1412. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.157.9.1406
  33. Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (2000). Looking to the future of TESOL teacher education: Web-based bulletin board discussions in a methods course. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 423-455. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587738
  34. Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of second language writing, 21(4), 390-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.003
  35. Layeghi, F. (2011). Form and content in the argumentative writing of extroverted and introverted Iranian EFL learners. Iranian EFL Journal, 7(3), 166-183
  36. Lin, S., & Overbaugh, R. C. (2009). Computer-mediated discussion, self-efficacy, and gender. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(6), 999-1013. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00889.x
  37. Liu, J., & Hansen, J. G. (2018). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. The University of Michigan Press.
  38. Manchon, R. M. (2011). Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and research. In R. M. Manchon (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to learn in an additional language (pp. 61-84). John Benjamins.
  39. Matsidi, P. (2019). Corrective feedback, error types, and learner uptake: The role of individual differences [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Central Lancashire.  http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/30878/
  40. Muñoz, C., & Muñoz, C. (2006). Age and the rate of foreign language learning (Vol. 19). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853598937
  41. Murray, R. B., & Mount, M. K. (1996). Effects of impression management on self-deception on the predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 261-272. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.3.261
  42. Nejad, A. M., Bijami, M., & Ahmadi, M. R. (2012). Do personality traits predict academic writing ability? An EFL case study. English Linguistics Research, 1(2), 145-152.  https://doi.org/10.5430/elr.v1n2p145
  43. Offir, B., Bezalel, R., & Barth, I. (2007). Introverts, extroverts, and achievement in a distance learning environment. The American Journal of Distance Education, 21(1), 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640701298613
  44. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of online teaching. Jossey-Bass Inc.
  45. Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59-86). Cambridge University Press.
  46. Pu, H. (2020).  Implementing online ELT in the time of crisis:  Ordeal or opportunity?  ELT Journal, 74(3), 345-348. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccaa030
  47. Qanwal, S., & Ghani, M. (2019). Relationship between introversion/extroversion personality trait and proficiency in ESL writing skills. International Journal of English Linguistics, 9(4), 107-114. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v9n4p107
  48. Rahimi, M. (2015). The role of individual differences in L2 learners’ retention of written corrective feedback. Journal of Response to Writing, 1(1), 19-48.           https://journalrw.org/index.php/jrw/article/view/18
  49. Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (4th ed.). Longman; Pearson Education.
  50. Rosalina, C. (2010). EFL students as peer advisors in an online writing center [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. New York University.
  51. Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners' uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(1), 67-100. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263107070039
  52. Scott, V. M., & Fuente, M. J. D. L. (2008). What's the problem? L2 learners' use of the L1 during consciousness‐raising form‐focused tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 100-113.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00689.x
  53. Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255-283. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x
  54. Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning. Edward Arnold.
  55. Sohn, S. Y., & Jo, Y. K. (2003). A study on the student pilot's mental workload due to personality types of both instructor and student. Ergonomics, 46(15), 1566-1577. http://doi.org/10.1080/0014013031000121633
  56. Song, W., & Usaha, S. (2009). How EFL university students use electronic peer response into revisions. Suranaree Journal of Science and Technology, 16(3), 263-275. http://ird.sut.ac.th/e-journal/Journal/pdf/170401040.pdf  
  57. Storch, N. (2017). Peer corrective feedback in computer-mediated collaborative writing. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: An overview of inquiry and application. (pp. 66-79). Routledge.
  58. Storch, N. (2018). Written corrective feedback from sociocultural theoretical perspectives: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 51(2), 262-277. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000034
  59. Storch, N. (2019). Collaborative writing as peer feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing contexts and issues (pp. 143-161). Cambridge University Press.
  60. Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303-334. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990532
  61. Suzuki, W. (2017). The effect of quality of written languaging on second language learning. Writing & Pedagogy, 8(3), 461-482. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.27291
  62. Swain, M. (2013). The inseparability of cognition and emotion in second language learning. Language Teaching, 46(2), 195-207.      https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000486
  63. Swain, M., Kinnear, P., & Steinman, L. (2015). Sociocultural theory in second language education. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783093182
  64. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 251-274.    https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880000400304
  65. Teng, F. (2019). The role of metacognitive knowledge and regulation in mediating university EFL learners’ writing performance. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 13(2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2019.1615493
  66. Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2020). Empowering learners in the second/foreign language classroom: Can self-regulated learning strategies-based writing instruction make a difference? Journal of Second Language Writing, 48, 100-112.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100701
  67. Tigchelaar, M., & Polio, C. (2017). Language-focused peer corrective feedback in second language writing. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: An overview of inquiry and application (pp. 97-113). Routledge.
  68. Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition, 21(2), 217-235.           https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2004.02.003
  69. Voorn, R. J. J., & Kommers, P. A. M. (2013). Social media and higher education: Introversion and collaborative learning from the student’s perspective. International Journal of Social Media and Interactive Learning Environments, 1(1), 59-73.     https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSMILE.2013.051650
  70. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  71. Wakamoto, N. (2009). Extroversion/introversion in foreign language learning: Interactions with learner strategy use. Peter Lang. Weiner.
  72. Ware, P. D. (2004). Confidence and competition online: ESL student perspectives on web-based discussions in the classroom.  Computers and Composition, 21(4), 451-468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2004.08.004
  73. Ware, P. D., & Warschauer, M. (2006). Electronic feedback and second language writing. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 105-122). Cambridge University Press.
  74. Warschauer, M. (2006). Sociocultural perspectives on CALL. In J. Egbert & G. M. Petrie (Eds.), CALL research perspectives (pp. 41-51). Lawrence.
  75. Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 21-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(89)90014-1
  76. Wu, W. (2005). Using blogs in an EFL writing class. In The proceedings of 2005 International Conference and Workshop on TEFL & Applied Linguistics, Ming Chuan University, 16, 426-432. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.476.3456&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  77. Yu, S., & Hu, G. (2017). Can higher-proficiency L2 learners benefit from working with lower-proficiency partners in peer feedback? Teaching in Higher Education, 22(2), 178-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1221806
  78. Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2016). Peer feedback in second language writing (2005-2014). Language Teaching, 49(4), 461-493. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144481600016
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 802
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 911


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. طراحی و پیاده سازی از سیناوب