سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

اسدی ‍پیران, نوشین, افراز, شهرام, رزمجو, آیت آلله. (1399). تاثیر انواع روش های داربستی بر توانایی و سبک خواندن زبان آموزان ایرانی. , 17(24), 63-99. doi: 10.29252/clls.17.24.63
نوشین اسدی ‍پیران; شهرام افراز; آیت آلله رزمجو. "تاثیر انواع روش های داربستی بر توانایی و سبک خواندن زبان آموزان ایرانی". , 17, 24, 1399, 63-99. doi: 10.29252/clls.17.24.63
اسدی ‍پیران, نوشین, افراز, شهرام, رزمجو, آیت آلله. (1399). 'تاثیر انواع روش های داربستی بر توانایی و سبک خواندن زبان آموزان ایرانی', , 17(24), pp. 63-99. doi: 10.29252/clls.17.24.63
اسدی ‍پیران, نوشین, افراز, شهرام, رزمجو, آیت آلله. تاثیر انواع روش های داربستی بر توانایی و سبک خواندن زبان آموزان ایرانی. , 1399; 17(24): 63-99. doi: 10.29252/clls.17.24.63

تاثیر انواع روش های داربستی بر توانایی و سبک خواندن زبان آموزان ایرانی

نقد زبان و ادبیات خارجی
مقاله 12، دوره 17، شماره 24، شهریور 1399، صفحه 63-99    اصل مقاله (652.79 K)
نوع مقاله: علمی - پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.29252/clls.17.24.63
نویسندگان
نوشین اسدی ‍پیران1؛ شهرام افراز* 2؛ آیت آلله رزمجو3
1دانشجوی دکتری آموزش زبان انگلیسی، بخش زبان انگلیسی، واحد قشم، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، قشم، ایران
2استادیار آموزش زبان انگلیسی، بخش زبان انگلیسی، واحد قشم، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، قشم، ایران
3پروفسور آموزش زبان انگلیسی، بخش زبانهای خارجی، دانشگاه شیراز
چکیده
پژوهش حاضر با استفاده از اصل داربست نظریه جامعه شناختی فرهنگی (Wood, Bruner & Ross, 1976)  به بررسی  چهار تکنیک داربست ، یعنی سخت ، نرم (Saye & Brush, 2002) ، متقابل (Holton & Clarke, 2006)، و مجازی (Yelland & Masters, 2007) بر بهبود مهارت خواندن زبان آموزان ایرانی طراحی شده است. برای انجام این تحقیق، از بین 100 شرکت کننده، 80 زبان آموز همگن دختر و پسر براساس عملکردشان در آزمون  مقدماتی انگلیسی (PET)، با محدوده سنی 19 تا 25 سال از یکی از موسسات زبان انگلیسی بندرعباس انتخاب شدند. شرکت کنندگان در این تحقیق به طور تصادفی به 4 گروه تقسیم شدند ، یعنی گروه داربست نرم (SSG) ، گروه داربست سخت (HSG) ، گروه داربست متقابل (RSG) ، و گروه داربست مجازی (VSG). زبان آموزان در همه گروه ها از استراتژی های خواندن (شوری و مختاری ، 2002) ، مداخلات مربوطه و نظرسنجی استراتژی های خواندن به عنوان پس آزمون استفاده کردند. به همین ترتیب ، در بخش کیفی تحقیق ، ازگزارشهای زبان آموزان و همچنین مشاهدات معلم برای جمع آوری داده ها استفاده شد. داده های جمع آوری شده با استفاده از نرم افزار آماری SPSS نسخه 25 و با استفاده از آنالیز واریانس یک طرفه و چند متغیره ANOVA (MANOVA) مورد مقایسه قرار گرفت تا میانگین نمرات چهار گروه آزمایش در استراتژی های خواندن پس آزمون مقایسه شوند. داده های کیفی مربوط به گزارش های فراگسران و مشاهدات کلاس دروس معلمان با استفاده از روش های کدگذاری باز و محوری مورد تجزیه و تحلیل قرار گرفت. از نتایج نشان داد که نه تنها آموزش های روش داربستی سنتی و مجازی تأثیرات متفاوتی در توسعه استراتژی های خولندن جهانی ، حل مسئله و حمایتی در بین زبان آموزان  ایرانی داشتند ، همچنین گروه داربست سخت (به عنوان یک گروه داربست سنتی) و به دنبال آن گروه داربست مجازی بیشترین استفاده از استراتژی های خواندن را داشته است. با این وجود ، گروه های داربست متقابل و نرم (به دنبال سایر فرم های سنتی داربست) به طور مشابه از استراتژی های خواندن کمتر استفاده کردند. یافته های این مطالعه درک قبلی از روش داربست در محیط EFL را گسترش داده و از نظر جنبه های آموزشی می تواند به پیشرفت دروس آینده کمک کند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
استراتژی خواندن؛ انواع روش های داربستی؛ استراتژی جهانی؛ استراتژی حل مسئله؛ استراتژی حمایتی
عنوان مقاله [English]
On the Effect of Hard, Soft, Reciprocal, and Virtual Scaffolding Types on Iranian EFL Learners' Reading Strategy Development
نویسندگان [English]
Noushin Asadipiran1؛ shahram Afraz2؛ Ayatollah Razmjoo3
1Department of English Languages , Qeshm Branch, Islamic azad University, Qeshm, Iran
2Assistant Professor of English Language, Department of English Language, Qeshm Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qeshm, Iran
3Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
چکیده [English]
The present study was designed following a scaffolding principle of sociocultural theory (Wood, Bruner & Ross, 1976) with an attempt to investigate the role of the four scaffolding techniques, namely Hard, Soft (Saye & Brush, 2002), Reciprocal (Holton & Clarke, 2006), and Virtual (Yelland & Masters, 2007) in developing reading strategy of Iranian EFL learners. To accomplish the project, 80 homogeneous intermediate level male and female EFL learners with the age range of 19 to 25 in one of the language institutes in Bandar Abbas were chosen from 100 intermediate students according to their performance in a sample Preliminary English Test (PET) which was first piloted with 30 students with similar characteristics to check the reliability of the test. The selected participants were randomly divided into 4 groups, namely Soft Scaffolding Group (SSG), Hard Scaffolding Group (HSG), Reciprocal Scaffolding Group (RSG), and Virtual Scaffolding Group (VSG). The learners in all groups received a survey of reading strategies (Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2002), their respective intervention, and the survey of reading strategies as a posttest. Likewise, in the qualitative section of the study, the learners’ self-reports as well as the teacher’s observations were used to collect the data. The collected data were analyzed through SPSS software version 25, employing one-way ANOVA and multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA) to compare the mean scores of the four experimental groups on the posttest reading strategies. The qualitative data pertained to the learners’ reports and teacher’s classroom observations were analyzed using open and axial coding methods. In terms of reading strategies, the results revealed that not only traditional and virtual scaffolding treatments had different effects on the development of global, problem solving, and supporting reading strategies among Iranian EFL learners, the hard scaffolding group (as a traditional scaffolding group) had the highest use of reading strategies followed by the virtual scaffolding group. Nevertheless, reciprocal and soft scaffolding groups (following other traditional forms of scaffolding) similarly had less use of reading strategies. Findings of this study extended earlier understandings of scaffolding in an EFL environment and could contribute to the advancement of future courses in terms of their scaffolding pedagogical aspects.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Reading Strategy, Scaffolding Types, Global Strategy, Problem Solving Strategy, Supporting Strategy
مراجع
  1. Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B. (2010). Determining and describing reading strategies: Internet and traditional forms of reading. In H. S. Waters, & W. Schneider (Eds.), Metacognition, strategy use, and instruction (pp. 201-225). New York: Guilford Press.
  2. Amiri, M., & Abedi, N. (2017). The impact of virtual scaffolding on the English language speaking
  3. development of Iranian EFL learners. Paper presented in the 2nd International Conference on New Trends in English Language Teaching and Testing, Ardabil, Iran28 August 2017 (www.NTELTIR.com).
  4. Amiri. M., & Maftoon, P. (2010). Awareness of reading strategies among
  5. Iranian high school students. EDULEARN10 Proceedings CD, 6782-6791. ISBN: 978-84-613- 9386-2, IATED, Valencia.
  6. Anderson, K. L. (2019). Explicit instruction for word solving: Scaffolding developing readers’ use of code-based and meaning-based strategies. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 63(2), 175-183.
  7. Anderson, N. J. (2002). The role of metacognition in second language teaching and learning. ERIC Digest, 1-7.
  8. Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. The Modern Language Journal, 75(4), 460-472.
  9. Arnbak, E. (2003). Academic reading from reading process to learning process. Copenhagen, Denmark: Gyldendal.
  10. Attarzadeh, M. (2011).The effect of scaffolding on reading comprehension of various text modes on Iranian EFL learners with different proficiency levels. Social Science and Humanities, 4(2), 1-27.
  11. Auer, N. (2016). Scaffolding foreign language learners’ reading strategies using tablet computers at two secondary schools in Denmark. Doctoral dissertation, School of Education, Copenhagen, Denmark.
  12. Barnard, R., & Campbell, L. (2005). Sociocultural theory and the teaching of
  13. process writing: The scaffolding of learning in a university context. The TESOLANZ Journal, 13, 76-88.
  14. Boardman, A. G., Boele, A. L., & Klingner, J. K. (2018). Strategy instruction shifts teacher and student interactions during text‐based discussions. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(2), 175-195.
  15. Boulware-Gooden, R., Carreker, S., Thornhill, A., & Joshi, R. M. (2007). Instruction of metacognitive strategies enhances reading comprehension and vocabulary achievement of third-grade students. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 70-77.
  16. Bruner, J., & Olson, D. (1973). Learning through experience and learning through media. Prospects, 3(1), 20-38.
  17. Carrell, P. L., Pharis, B.G., & Liberto, J. C. (1989). Metacognitive strategy
  18. training for ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 647-678.
  19. Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research and teaching. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1(1), 14-26.
  20. Chamot, A. U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P.B., & Robbins, J. (1999). Learning strategies handbook. White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
  21. Chen, C., Toh, S., & Ismail, W. (2005). Are learning styles relevant to virtual reality? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(2), 123-141.
  22. Crystal, D. (1999). The future of Englishes. English Today, 15(02), 10-20.
  23. Cubukcu, F. (2008). Enhancing vocabulary development and reading comprehension through metacognitive strategies. Issues in Educational Research, 18(1), 1-11.
  24. Dehoney, J., & Reeves, T. (1999). Instructional and social dimensions of class web pages. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 10(2), 19-41.
  25. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). London: Ablex Publishing.
  26. Eskey, D. E. (2005). Reading in a second language. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 563-579). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  27. Farhady, H. (2005). Techniques for effective reading. Tehran: Rahnama Press.
  28. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS, statistics for statistics (5th ed.). London: SAGE Publications.
  29. Goh, C. M. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners' listening comprehension problems. System, 28(1), 55-75.
  30. Graesser, A. C., Greenberg, D., Olney, A., & Lovett, M. W. (2019). Educational technologies that support reading comprehension for adults who have low literacy skills. The Wiley Handbook of Adult Literacy, 2(3), 471-493.
  31. Haghparast, S., & Mall-Amiri, B. (2015). The comparative effect of two scaffolding strategies on intermediate EFL learners’ reading comprehension. International Journal of Language learning and Applied Linguistics world, 8(2), 217-231.
  32. Hedgcock, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2009). Teaching readers of English: Students, texts, and contexts. New York: Routledge.
  33. Hemmye, C. L. (2004). Metacognitive and learning strategies used by adult novice web-based students. Doctoral dissertation, University of West Florida, The U.S.A.
  34. Holton, D., & Clarke, D. (2006). Scaffolding and metacognition. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37(2), 127-143.
  35. Kargar, A. A. (2013). Investigating the effect of scaffolded extensive reading as an anxiety reducing strategy in an Iranian EFL context. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 1(1), 35-44.
  36. Lapp, D., Fisher, D., & Grant, M. (2008). “You can read this text-I'll show you how”: Interactive comprehension instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(5), 372-383.
  37. Larsen, R. E. (1992). Relationship of learning style to the effectiveness and acceptance of interactive video instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19(11), 17-21.
  38. Levinsen, K., & Sørensen, B. H. (2008). IT: Academic learning and educational knowledge management: Report on project it learning 2006-2007. København, Denamrk: Danmarks Pædagogiske Universitetsforlag.
  39. Macaro, E., & Mutton, T. (2009). Developing reading achievement in primary learners of French: Inferencing strategies versus exposure to 'graded readers'. The Language Learning Journal, 37(2), 165-182.
  40. McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., & Blake, R. G. (2009). Rethinking reading comprehension instruction: A comparison of instruction for strategies and content approaches. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(3), 218-253.
  41. McVay, J. C., & Kane, M. J. (2012). Why does working memory capacity predict variation in reading comprehension? On the influence of mind wandering and executive attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(2), 302-320.
  42. Mehrpour, S., Sadighi, F., & Bagheri, Z. (2012). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to Iranian EFL pre-university students. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 31(1), 107-139.
  43. Mirahmadi, S. H., & Alavi, S. M. (2016a). The role of traditional and virtual scaffolding in developing speaking ability of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of English Linguistics, 6(2), 43-56.
  44. Mirahmadi, S. H., & Alavi, S. M. (2016b). The effect of traditional scaffolding
  45. treatments on the Iranian EFL learners’ performance on the speaking sub-skills of pronunciation, fluency, lexicon, and grammar. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM), 6(2), 155-165.
  46. Mygind, A., & Winding, S. (2003). Read better. Aarhus, Denmark: Dansken.
  47. Oczkus, L. D. (2018). Reciprocal teaching at work: Powerful strategies and lessons for improving reading comprehension. Virginia: International literacy Association.
  48. Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Sociocultural theory and second language learning, 4, 51-78.
  49. Okkinga, M., van Steensel, R., van Gelderen, A. J., & Sleegers, P. J. (2018). Effects of reciprocal teaching on reading comprehension of low‐achieving adolescents. The importance of specific teacher skills. Journal of research in reading, 41(1), 20-41.
  50. Oliver, R., & Herrington, J. (2003). Exploring technology-mediated learning from a pedagogical perspective. Journal of Interactive Learning Environments, 11(2), 111-126.
  51. O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  52. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  53. Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Harlow, England: Pearson.
  54. Palincsar, A. S. (1986). Reciprocal teaching: Teaching reading as thinking. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
  55. Pastor Cesteros, S. (2004). Second language learning Linguistics applied to the teaching of languages. Alicante, Spain: Universidad de Alicante.
  56. Patel, D. S. (2011). Significance of technology-enhanced language learning (TELL) in language classes. Journal of Technology for ELT, 4(2), 1-2.
  57. Perfetti, C., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. In M. Snowling, & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading (pp. 227-247). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  58. Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985). Input and interaction in the communicative language classroom: A comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  59. Pishghadam, R., & Ghadiri, S. (2011). Symmetrical or asymmetrical scaffolding: Piagetian vs. Vygotskyan views to reading comprehension. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 7(1), 49-64.
  60. Ragan, T., & Smith, P. (1996). Soft technologies: Instructional and informational design research. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational telecommunications and technology (pp. 541-569). New York: MacMillan.
  61. Rauber, A.S., & Gil, G. (2004). Feedback to grammar mistakes in EFL classes: A case study.
  62. Brasileira de Lingüistica Aplicada, 4(1), 277-298.
  63. Richards, J. C. (2008). Teaching listening and speaking: From theory to practice. New York:
  64. Cambridge University Press.
  65. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Zenotz, V. (2018). Learning strategies in CLIL classrooms: how does strategy instruction affect reading competence over time? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 319-331.
  66. Sato, M. (2014). Exploring the construct of interactional oral fluency: Second language acquisition and language testing approaches. System, 45, 79-91.
  67. Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about social issues in a multimedia-supported learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 17-29.
  68. Schutz, K. M., Danielson, K. A., & Cohen, J. (2019). Approximations in English language arts: Scaffolding a shared teaching practice. Teaching and teacher education, 81, 100-111.
  69. Shang, H. F. (2015). An investigation of scaffolded reading on EFL hypertext comprehension. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(3), 293-312.
  70. Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29(4), 431-449.
  71. Tsai, Y., Ernst, C., & Talley, P.C. (2010). L1 and L2 strategy use in reading comprehension of Chinese EFL readers. Reading Psychology, 31(1), 1-29.
  72. Van Keer, H., & Vanderlinde, R. (2010). The impact of cross-age peer tutoring on third and sixth graders' reading strategy awareness, reading strategy use, and reading comprehension. Middle Grades Research Journal, 5(1), 33-46.
  73. Vandergrift, L. (2004). Listening to learn or learning to listen? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24(3), 3-25.
  74. Verity, D. (2005). Vygotskyan Concepts for teacher education. Pan-SIG
  75. Conference “Lifelong learning” proceedings. Retrieved June 2, 2014, from http://jalt.org/pansig/2005/HTML/Verity.htm
  76. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  77. Winnips, K., & McLoughlin, C. (2000). Applications and categorization of software-based scaffolding. In J. Bourdeau & R. Heller (Eds.), Proceedings of world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia, and telecommunications2000 (pp. 1798-1799). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  78. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976).The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17, 89-100.
  79. Woolley, G. (2011). Reading comprehension: Assisting children with learning difficulties. New York, NY: Springer.
  80. Yelland, N., & Masters, J. (2007). Rethinking scaffolding in the information age. Computers & Education, 48(3), 362-382.
  81. Ying, S. W. M., & Aziz, A. A. (2019). Scaffolding approach with reading strategies in teaching reading comprehension to rural year 3 ESL learners in Malaysia. International Journal of Current Innovations in Advanced Research, 2(5), 6-26.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 34,218
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 3,925