تاثیر افتراقی حمایت‌های شفاهی متمرکز و غیر متمرکز بر روی دانش شناختی و سازماندهی شناختی زبان‌آموزان ایرانی

نوع مقاله: پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 Department of TEFL and English Literature, Payame Noor University

2 Ph.D. Candidate, Post-graduate Center, Payame Noor University,

چکیده

این تحقیق به بررسی تاثیر حمایت‌های شفاهی متمرکز و غیر متمرکز بر روی دانش شناختی و سازماندهی شناختی گروهی از زبان‌آموزان مونث ایرانی پرداخته است. شش گروه از زبان‌آموزان به پنج گروه آزمون و یک گروه شاهد اختصاص داده شدند. همه گروه‌ها بر دانش شناختی و سازماندهی شناختی خود از طریق پیش‌آزمون و دو پس‌آزمون، یکی بلافاصله پس از اتمام ترم و دیگری دو هفته بعد از اتمام ترم، مورد آزمایش قرار گرفتند. نتایج تجزیه و تحلیل آماری (تحلیل کوارریانس) نشان داد که زبان‌آموزانی که حمایت دریافت کرده بود به طور قابل توجهی از گروه شاهد در پس‌آزمون‌ها بهتر عمل کردند. نتایج هم‌چنین نشان داد که حمایت‌های غیر متمرکز در بالا بردن فراشناخت زبان‌آموزان، به خصوص سازماندهی شناختی، مؤثرتر عمل عملکردند. این مطالعه همچنین نشان داد که حمایت‌های فراشناختی متمرکز، در مقایسه با انواع دیگر حمایت‌های متمرکز، در بهبود فراشناخت دانش‌آموزان مؤثرتر بودند. پیامدها برای کلاس‌های درس و توصیه‌هایی برای تحقیقات بیشتر نیز بحث شده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Differential Impact of Focused and Unfocused Oral Scaffolds on EFL Learners'' Cognitive Knowledge and Cognitive Regulation

نویسندگان [English]

  • Manoochehr jafarigohar 1
  • Mahboobeh Mortazavi 2
چکیده [English]

This study investigated the impact of orally presented scaffolds on cognitive knowledge and cognitive regulation among a cohort of female Iranian learners of English.Six intact groups of learners were assigned to five experimental conditions and a control group. All groups were tested on their cognitive knowledge and cognitive regulation through a pretest and two posttests. The results of the statistical analyses (one-way and repeated measures ANOVAs) showed that the participants who had received scaffolds significantly outperformed the control group on the posttests. The results also revealed that unfocused scaffolds functioned more efficiently in promoting the learners'' metacognition, particularly regulation of cognition. The study also found that focused metacognitive scaffolds, when compared to other types of focused scaffolds, were more effective in improving the learners'' metacognition.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Cognitive Knowledge
  • Cognitive Regulation
  • Scaffolding
Alias, N.A. (2012). Design of a Motivational Scaffold for the Malaysian e-Learning Environment. Educational Technology & Society, 15, 1, 137–151.

Azevedo, R., Moos, D.C., Greene, J.A., Winters, F.I. & Cromley, J.G. (2008). Why is externally-facilitated regulated learning more effective than self-regulated learning with hypermedia? Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 1, 45–72.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman and company: New York.

Belland, B.R., Chan Min, K. & Hannafin, M.J. (2013). A framework designing scaffolds that improve motivation and cognition. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 243–270.

Belland, B.R., Gu, J., Armbrust, S. & Cook, B. (2013). Using generic and context-specific scaffolding to support authentic science inquiery. IADIS International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA 2013), 188-192.

Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learning and Instruction, 7, 161–186.

Boyer, K.E., Phillips, R., Wallis, M., Vouk, M. & Lester, J. (2008). Balancing cognitive and motivational scaffolding in tutorial dialogue. In B. Woolf, Aimeur, E, NKambou, R. & Lajae, S. (Eds.): ITS 2008, LNCS 5091, (pp. 239–249), Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in education: Developing appreciation for particular learning domains and activities. Educational Psychologist, 34, 75–86.

Brown, A.L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F.E. Weinert, & R.H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chen, Ch. (2014). An adaptive scaffolding e-learning system for middle school students’ physics learning. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(3), 342–353.

Cross, D.R. & Paris, S.G. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of children’s metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 2, 131-142.

Davis, E.A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 1, 91–142.

Delclos, V.R. & Harrington, C. (1991). Effects of strategy monitoring and proactive instruction on children’s problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 35–42.

Flavell, J.H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 10, 906–911.

Hannafin, M., Land, S. & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional Design Theories and Models (pp. 115-140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hmelo-Silver, C.E. & Azevedo, R. (2006). Understanding complex systems: some core challenges. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 1, 53–61.

Hogan, K. & Pressley, M. (1997). Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues. Cambridge MA: Brookline Books.

Kuhn, D. & Dean, D. (2004). A bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice. Theory into Practice, 43, 4, 268-273.

Lai, E.R. (2011). Metacognition: a literature review. Pearson Research Report. Retrieved from Pearson Assessment website:http://www.Pearson assessments. com/ (Downloaded: Dec 2013)

Molenaar, I., Chiu, M.M., Sleegers, P.J.C. & Van Boxtel, C.A.M. (2011). Scaffolding of small groups' metacognitive activities with an avatar. Journal of ComputerSupported Collaborative Learning, 6, 601–624.

Molenaar, I., Roda, C., Van Boxtel, C., and Sleegers. P. (2012). Dynamic scaffolding of socially regulated learning in a computer-based learning environment. Computers & Education, 59, 515–523.

Moores, T.T., Chang, J.C., Smith, D.K. (2014). Clarifying the role of self-efficacy and metacognition as predictors of performance: Construct development and test. The database foe Advances in Information Systems, 37(2–3), 125–132.

Moos, D. & Azevedo, R. (2008). Monitoring, planning, and self-efficacy during learning with hypermedia: The impact of conceptual scaffolds. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1686–1706.

Pintrich, P.R. & De Groot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated leaning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33– 40.

Pintrich, P.R. & Schunk, D.H. (2002). Motivation in education. Theory, research, and applications, (2nd ed). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Puntambekar, S. & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40, 1, 1–12.

Rahimi, M. & Abedi, S. (2014). The relationship between self-efficacy and metacognitive awareness of listening strategies. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1454 –1460.

Saye, J.W. & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50, 3, 77-96.

Schneider, W. & Lockl, K. (2002). The development of metacognitive knowledge in children and adolescents. In Perfect, T. & Schwartz, B. (Eds.), Applied metacognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Schraw, G., Crippen, K.J. & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36, 111-139.

Schraw, G. & Dennison, R.S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475.

Schraw, G. & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 4, 351–371.

Sharma, P. & Hannafin, M.J. (2007). Scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 15, 1, 27–46.

Thiede, K.W., Anderson, M.C.M. & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 1, 66–73.

Veenman, M.V.J. (2005). The assessment of metacognitive skills: What can be learned from multimethod designs? In C. Artelt, & B. Moschner (Eds), Lernstrategien und Metakognition: Implikationen fur Forschung und Praxis (pp. 75–97). Berlin: Waxmann

Veenman, M.V.J. (2011). Learning to Self-Monitor and Self-Regulate. In R.E. Mayer & P.A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction. New York: Routledge.

Veenman, M.V.J., Van Hout-Wolters, B.H. A.M. & Afflerbach, P. (2006) Metacognition and learning: conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and learning, 1, 3–14.

Wang, M.C., Haertel, G.D. & Walberg, H.J. (1990). What influences learning? A content analysis of review literature. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 30–38.

Wood, D., Bruner, J.S., and Ross, G. (1976). Role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17, 2, 89–100.

Vyotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Zimmerman, B. (2000). Attaining self-regulated learning: A social-cognitive perspective.In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.