پیوندهای مفید
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 31 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 498 |
| تعداد مقالات | 4,829 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 7,479,040 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 5,581,899 |
The Effects of Shared, Interactive, and Independent Writing Strategies on EFL Learners’ Writing Accuracy and Complexity | ||
| Interdisciplinary Studies in English Language Teaching | ||
| دوره 02، شماره 01 - شماره پیاپی 3، فروردین 2024، صفحه 85-99 اصل مقاله (443.76 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Original Article | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22080/iselt.2023.25138.1050 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Zahra Moqdasizadeh؛ Seyed Abdolmajid Tabatabaee Lotfi* ؛ Seyed Amir Hosein Sarkeshikian؛ Asghar Afshari | ||
| English Language Department, Qom Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qom, Iran | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 10 تیر 1402، تاریخ بازنگری: 05 مهر 1402، تاریخ پذیرش: 10 آبان 1402 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Second Language (L2) writing has always been a matter of difficulty for foreign language learners and an appealing topic for researchers of the field. Following a quasi-experimental method, this study aimed to investigate the comparative effects of shared, interactive, and independent writing on Lebanese EFL learners' writing accuracy and complexity. To achieve this aim, 74 non-Iranian female EFL learners were selected through convenience sampling technique. The results of Oxford placement test indicated that their level of English proficiency was intermediate. Afterward, the participants were assigned to three experimental groups (i.e., shared, interactive, and independent writing groups). The syntactic accuracy was gauged in terms of t-units and complexity was calculated based in the number of the words in t-units. The results of statistical analysis manifested that the group which used interactive writing strategies outperformed the other two groups, and no significant differences were found between shared and independent writing groups. Moreover, the performance of the interactive writing group differed significantly from those of the other two groups. Hence, it was concluded that interactive writing strategy may lead to a more accurate and complex writing performance. This study might have implications for language instructors, EFL learners, material developers, and also syllabus designers. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| Interactive Writing؛ Independent Writing؛ Persuasive Genre؛ Shared Writing | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Alkthery, M. A., & Al-Qiawi, A. D. (2020). The effect of SPAWN strategy in developing persuasive writing skills and productive habits of mind. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), 11(1), 459-481. https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol11no1.31
Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., & Mullis, I. V. S. (1986). Writing: Trends across the decade, 1974-84. Educational Testing Service.
Beeston, S. (2000). The UCLES EFL item banking system. Research Notes, 2, 8-9.
Bhowmik, S., & Kim, M. (2021). K-12 ESL writing instruction: A review of research on pedagogical challenges and strategies. Language and Literacy, 23(3), 165-202. https://doi.org/10.20360/langandlit29535
Birjandi, P., & Ahangari, S. (2008). Effects of task repetition on the fluency, complexity and accuracy of Iranian EFL learners’ oral discourse. The Asian EFL Journal, 10(3), 28-52.
Breaden, B. L. (1996). Speaking to persuade. Harcourt Brace College.
Burns, C., & Myhill, D. (2004). Interactive or inactive? A consideration of the nature of interaction in whole class teaching. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(1), 35-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764042000183115
Button, K., Johnson, M. J., & Furgerson, P. (1996). Interactive writing in a primary classroom. The Reading Teacher, 49, 446-454.
Calkins, L. (1994). The art of teaching writing. Heinemann.
Caplan, N. A. (2020). Genres and conflicts in MBA writing assignments. In M. Brooks-Gillies, E.G. Garcia, S.H. Kim, K. Manthey, & T.G. Smith (Eds.), Graduate writing across the disciplines: Identifying, teaching, and supporting (pp. 337-357). The WAC Clearinghouse. https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/books/graduate/caplan.pdf
Carrell, P. L. (1982). Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 479-488. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586466
Carrió-Pastor, M. L., & Romero-Fortezab, F. (2013). Second language writing: Use of the World Wide Web to improve specific writing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 235–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.200
Coffin, C. (2004). Arguing about how the world is or how the world should be: The role of argument in IELTS Test. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(3), 229-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2003.11.002
Dobao, A. F. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 40-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.002
Elbow, P. (2000). Everyone can write: Essays toward a hopeful theory of writing and teaching writing. Oxford University Press.
Fletcher, R., & Portalupi, J. A. (2007). Teaching writing (2nd ed.). Stenhouse Publishers.
Geranpayeh, A. (2003). A quick review of the English quick placement test. Research Notes, 12, 8-11.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.
Hyland, K. (2000). Dictionary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Longman.
Hyland, K. (2009). Teaching and researching writing (2nd ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discourse constructions of identity in academic writing. John Benjamins.
Jafari, N., & Ansari, N. A. (2012). The effect of collaboration on Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy. International Education Studies, 5(2), 125-131. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v5n2p125
Jalili, M. H., & Shahrokhi, M. (2017). Impact of collaborative writing on the complexity, accuracy, and fluency of Iranian EFL learners’ L2 writing. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 4(4), 13-28.
Jones, N. (2000). Background to the validation of the ALTE Can-do project and the revised Common European Framework. Research Notes, 2, 11-13.
Ka-kan-dee, M., & Kaur, S. (2015). Teaching strategies used by Thai EFL lecturers to teach argumentative writing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 208, 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.191
Kazemi, M., Katiraei, S., & Eslami Rasekh, A. (2014). The impact of teaching lexical bundles on improving Iranian EFL students’ writing skill. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 864–869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.493
Martin, J. R. (1989). Factual writing: Exploring and challenging social reality. Oxford University Press.
Martin, F. H., & Provost, S. C. (2014). Teaching students to discriminate between good and poor writing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 205–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.036
Matsuda, P. K. (2001). Voice in Japanese written discourse: Implication for second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 35-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00036-9
Miao, Y. (2005). Exploring writing approaches in Chinese EFL class. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Exploring+writing+approaches+in+Chinese+EFL+class-a01387036680
Newell, G. E., Beach, R., Smith, J., & Van Der Heide, J. (2011). Teaching and learning argumentative reading and writing: A review of research. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3), 273-304. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.46.3.4
Nixon, R., & McClay, J. K. (2007). Collaborative writing assessment: Sowing seeds for transformational adult learning. Assessing Writing, 12(2), 149-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2007.10.001
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Heinle & Heinle.
Nunan, D. (2001). Second language teaching and learning. Heinle & Heinle.
Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317-344. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(83)90019-X
Pinnell, G. S., & McCarrier, A. (1994). Interactive writing: A transition tool for assessing children in learning to read and write. In E. Heibert & B. Taylor (Eds.), Getting reading right from the start: Effective early literacy interventions (pp. 149-170). Allyn and Bacon.
Power, B., & Hubbard, R. (1991). Literacy in process. Heinemann Educational Books.
Reppen, R. (1995). A genre-based approach to content writing instruction. TESOL Journal, 4(2), 32-35.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (4th ed.). Pearson.
Routman, R. (1991). Invitations: Changing as teachers and learners K-12. Heinemann.
Singer, B. D., & Bashir, A. S. (2004). Developmental variations in writing composition skills. In C.A. Stone, E.R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy (pp. 559-582). Guilford Press.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2003). Is there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting? TESOL Quarterly, 37, 760–770. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588224
Swartz, S. L., Klein, A. F., & Shook, R. E. (2001). Interactive writing and interactive editing: Making connections between writing and reading. Dominie Press.
University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate. (2001). Quick placement test (Version 1). http://pishghadam-center.ir/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/2.-Oxford_Quick_Placement_Test.pdf
Veramuthu, P., & Shah, P. M. (2020). Effectiveness of collaborative writing among secondary school students in an ESL classroom. Creative Education, 11(1), 54-67. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2020.111004
Watanabe, Y. (2014). Collaborative and independent writing: Japanese university English learners’ processes, texts and opinions [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Toronto.
Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 515-537. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.4.515
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445-466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209104670
Witt, S., & Faigley, L. (1981). Cohesion, coherence and writing quality. College Composition and Communication, 32, 189-204. https://doi.org/10.2307/356692 | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 286 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 340 |
||