Document Type : Research Articles

Authors

1 MA in ELT, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran

2 Associate Professor, English Translation Department, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran

Abstract

This study used a pretest-posttest quasi-experimental designto find out the effect of teacher-directed and collaborative reading on Iranian EFL learners' receptive skills.To start, 40 EFL intermediate female students within the age range of 15-17 were selected out of an initial 53 students, based on their performance in an OPT. Then, they were assigned into two groups of teacher-directed and collaborative reading.Both groups took a pretest at the beginning of the studyto measure their receptive skills' ability and a post-testin the endto check the amount of the effectiveness of the treatments applied.Collaborative group benefitted fromCollaborative Strategy Reading (CSR) consisting of preview, click and clunk,get the gist,and wrap up was introduced.In teacher-directed, on the other hand, direct explanation, modeling, and guided practice were used to teach the students how to use the strategies independently.Analysis of the data and the findings revealed that both teacher-directed and collaborative reading affected the learners' performance significantly. Moreover, collaborative reading was proved to be asignificantly better technique. Teachers, EFL learners, materials developers, and syllabus designers can be the beneficiaries of this inquiry's outcomes.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Article Title [فارسی]

تاثیر مقایسه ای خوانش معلم محور و تعاملی بر مهارتهای شنیداری و خواندن

Authors [فارسی]

  • انسیه نیک نهاد 1
  • دکتر زهره محمدی زنوزق 2

1 کارشناس ارشد آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد کرج، کرج، ایران

2 دانشیار گروه مترجمی زبان انگلیسی، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد کرج، کرج، ایران

Abstract [فارسی]

هدف اصلی تحقیق حاضر بررسی مقایسه تاثیر روش سنتی تدریس درک مطلب خواندن توسط معلم و تدریس درک مطلب به روش همکاری و همفکری زبان آموزان بر درک مطلب شنیداری بوده است. بدین منظور 40 زبان آموز دختر با دانش زبانی متوسط که بین 15 تا 17 سال سن داشته و در آموزشگاه زبان انگلیسی در کرج تحصیل می کردند انتخاب شدند. بدین منظور، در ابتدای تحقیق از یک آزمون تعیین سطح استفاده شد و پس از انتخاب
شرکت کنندگان در تحقیق، آن ها به دو گروه تقسیم شدند: یک گروه روش سنتی تدریس درک مطلب خواندن توسط معلم و گروه دیگر تدریس درک مطلب به روش همکاری و همفکری زبان آموزان. در هر دو گروه یک پیش آزمون و یک پس آزمون درک مطلب شنیداری و خواندن از شرکت کنندگان گرفته شد تا بتوان میزان پیشرفت زبان آموزان را سنجید. در انتها برای بررسی عملکرد دو گروه و پاسخ به سوالات تحقیق، از تحلیل واریانس دوسویه
ی سنجش مکرر و همچنین تحلیل واریانس چندسویه ی سنجش مکرر استفاده شد. مهمترین یافته ی این تحقیق این است که دو نوع روش تدریس تاثیر قابل توجهی در بهبود عملکرد زبان آموزان در مهارت های شنیداری و خواندن داشتند. لازم به ذکر است که میزان تفاوت تاثیری که دو تدریس بر عملکرد زبان آموزان داشتند قابل ملاحظه بود، یعنی تدریس درک مطلب به روش همکاری و همفکری زبان آموزان تاثیر بیشتری بر عملکرد دانش آموزان داشت.

Keywords [فارسی]

  • خواندن معلم محور
  • خواندن تعاملی
  • مهارت های خواندن و شنیدن
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special. Journal of teacher education59(5), 389-407.
Best, J. W., & Kahn, J.V. (2006).Research in education (10thed.). New York: Pearson Education Inc.
Cameron, K. (2012). Positive leadership: Strategies for extraordinary performance. California: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Collins, H. (2012). Collins English dictionary complete & unabridged.Digital edition.
Daniels, D. H., &Shumow, L. (2003). Child development and classroom teaching: A review of the literature and implications for educating teachers. Journal of applied developmental psychology23(5), 495-526.
Dehqan, M., &MohammadiAmiri, M. (2017). Collaborative output tasks and their effects on learning English comparative adjectives. Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 36(1), 1-26.
Depaepe, F., &König, J. (2018). General pedagogical knowledge, self-efficacy and instructional practice: Disentangling their relationship in pre-service teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 69(2018), 177-190.
Duffy-Hester, A. M. (1999). Teaching struggling readers in elementary school classrooms: A review of classroom reading programs and principles for instruction. The Reading Teacher52(5), 480-495.
Dukuzumuremyi, S., &Siklander, P. (2018).Interactions between pupils and their teacher in collaborative and technology-enhanced learning settings in the inclusive classroom.Teaching and Teacher Education, 76(2018), 165-174.
Fan, Y. C. (2010).The effect of comprehension strategy instruction on EFL learners’ reading comprehension.Asian Social Science, 6(87), 19-29.
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (1994). Cooperative learning in technical courses: Procedures, pitfalls, and payoffs. Carolina: ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED-377038.
Gamoran, A., & Kelly, S. (2003). Tracking, instruction, and unequal literacy in secondary school English.Stability and change in American education: Structure, process, and outcomes,109(1), 109-126.
Gani, S. A., Yusuf, Q. Y., &Susiani, R. (2016).Progressive outcomes of collaborative strategic reading to EFL learners.Kasetstat Journal of Social Sciences, 37(2016), 144-149.
Gettinger, M., & Kohler, K. M. (2006). Process-outcome approaches to classroom management and effective teaching. In C. M. Evertson& C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (p. 73–95). Australia: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Glendinning, E., & Howard, R. (2001).Examining the intangible process: Lotus ScreenCam as an aid to investigating student writing. Edinburgh Working Papers in Applied Linguistcs11, 42-58.
Goldman, J. A. (1981). Social participation of preschool children in same-versus mixed-age groups. Child Development, 52(2), 644-650.
Grossman, H. B., Natale, R. B., Tangen, C. M., Speights, V. O., Vogelzang, N. J., Trump, D. L., ... & Crawford, E. D. (2003). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus cystectomy compared with cystectomy alone for locally advanced bladder cancer. New England Journal of Medicine349(9), 859-866.
Hamre, B. K., &Pianta, R. C. (2010). Classroom environments and developmental processes: Conceptualization and measurement. In J. L. Meece, J. S. Eccles (Eds.). Handbook of research on schools, schooling and human development (pp. 43-59).New York: Routledge.
Hinton, P. R., Brownlow, C., McMurray. I., & Cozens, B. (2004). SPSS explained. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.‏
Imai, Y. (2010). Emotions in SLA: New insights from collaborative learning for an EFL classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 278-292.
Johnson, E. M. (2019). Exemplary reading teachers’ use of instructional scaffolds with emergent bilinguals: How knowledge and context shape their choices. TESOL Quarterly, 53(1), 118-132.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. New York: Interaction Book Company.
Karakostas, A., &Demetriadis, S. (2011). Enhancing collaborative learning through dynamic forms of support: The impact of an adaptive domain‐specific support strategy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning27(3), 243-258.
Kassem, H. M. (2013). The effect of collaborative versus individual strategic reading on college EFL learners’ reading comprehension and self-efficacy.Asian EFL Journal.Professional Teaching Articles, 60(2013), 4-38.
Kewley, L. (1998). Peer collaboration versus teacher-directed instruction: How two methodologies engage students in the learning process.Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 13(1), 27-32.
Kim, Y., &McDonough, K. (2011).Using pretask modelling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities.Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 183-199.
Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Dimino, J., & Bryant, D. (2001). From clunk to click: Collaborative strategic reading. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., &Schumm, J. S. (1998). Collaborative strategic reading during social studies in heterogeneous fourth-grade classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 99(1), 3–22.
Lin, C. P., Chen, W., Yang, S. J., Xie, W., &Lins, C. C. (2014). Exploring students’ learning effectiveness and attitude in group scribbles-supported collaborative reading activities: A study in the primary classroom.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(2014), 68-81.
Littleton, K., & Mercer, N. (2013).Educational dialogues.In TCK Hall, B. Comber, & LC Moll (Eds.).International handbook of research on children’s literacy, learning, and culture(pp. 291-303). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.‏
Mägi, K., Lerkkanen, M. K., Poikkeus, A. M., Rasku‐Puttonen, H., &Kikas, E. (2010). Relations between achievement goal orientations and math achievement in primary grades: A follow‐up study. Scandinavian journal of Educational Research, 54(3), 295-312.
Markee, N., & Kasper, G. (2004). Classroom talks: An introduction. The Modern Language Journal88(4), 491-500.
Marzbana, A., &Akbarnejad, A. A. (2013).The effect of cooperative reading strategies on improving reading comprehension of Iranian university students.Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70(2013), 936-942.
McClel-lan, D. E., & Kinsey, S. J. (1999).Children's social behavior in relation to participation in mixed-age or same-age classrooms.Early Childhood Research and Practice 1(1), 3-22.
Mitnik, R., Recabarren, M., Nussbaum, M., & Soto, A. (2009). Collaborative robotic instruction: A graph teaching experience. Computers & Education53(2), 330-342.
Mogoneaa, F. R.,&Mogonea, M. (2014). Constructivist teaching and valorization of the independent activity based on collaboration and cooperation. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 127(2014), 184-188.
Myers, J. P.,&Rivero, K. (2019).Preparing globally competent preservice teachers: The development of content knowledge, disciplinary skills, and instructional design.Teaching and Teacher Education, 77(2019), 214-225.
Nassaji, H., & Tian, J. (2010).Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs.Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 397-419.
O’Connor, T. G., Matias, C., Futh, A., Tantam, G., & Scott, S. (2013). Social learning theory parenting intervention promotes attachment-based caregiving in young children: Randomized clinical trial. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 42(3), 358-370.
Oxford, R. L., Tomlinson, S., Barcelos, A., Harrington, C., Lavine, R. Z., Saleh, A., &Longhini, A. (1998). Clashing metaphors about classroom teachers: Toward a systematic typology for the language teaching field. System26(1), 3-50.‏
Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows (Version 12). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Passig, D., & Schwartz, G. (2007). Collaborative writing: Online versus frontal. International Journal on E-Learning6(3), 395-412.
Pecorari, D., &Malmstr, H. (2018).At the crossroads of TESOL and English medium instruction.TESOL Quarterly, 52(3), 497-515.
Rojas‐Drummond, S., Mazón, N., Littleton, K., &Vélez, M. (2014).Developing reading comprehension through collaborative learning. Journal of Research in Reading37(2), 138-158.
Schissel, J. L., López-Gopar, M., Leung, C., Morales, J., &Davis, J. R. (2019). Classroom-based assessments in linguistically diverse communities: A case for collaborative research methodologies. Language Assessment Quarterly, 16(4,5), 393–407.
Smith, B. L., &MacGregor, J. T. (1992). What is collaborative learning.In A. Goodsell, M. Maher, V. Tinto, B. L. Smith, & J. MacGregor (Eds.).Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education(pp. 217-232). Pennsylvania: Washington Center for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education.
Stipek, D., & Byler, P. (2004).The early childhood classroom observation measure. Early Childhood Research Quarterly19(3), 375-397.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of second language writing14(3), 153-173.
Test, Q. P. (2001).Oxford University Press and University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate. Photocopiable at UCLES.‏
Thibaut, A., Knipprath, H., Dehaene, W., &Depaepe, F. (2018).The influence of teacher attitudes and school context on instructional practices in integrated STEM education.Teaching and Teacher Education, 71(2018), 190-205.
Timperley, H. S. (2005). Distributed leadership: Developing theory from practice. Journal of curriculum studies37(4), 395-420.
Wang, H. Y., & Wang, Y. S. (2008).Gender differences in the perception and acceptance of online games.British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 787-806.
Wagner, C. S., &Leydesdorff, L. (2005).Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research policy34(10), 1608-1618.
Weiss, I. R., &Pasley, J. D. (2009). Mathematics and science for a change: How to design, implement, and sustain high-quality professional development. Heinemann Educational Books.
Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2011). Student and teacher perspectives on classroom management.In C. Evertson, & C. Weinstein, (Eds.).Handbook of classroom management, Research, practice, and contemporary issues (p. 98–112). Australia: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.