نقش حمایت فراشناختی در افزایش پیچیدگی، صحت، و روانی مهارت های شفاهی در زبان انگلیسی

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی

نویسنده

دانشیار، گروه آموزش زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی، دانشگاه پیام نور

چکیده

حمایت عبارت است از ارائة کمک به فراگیران و سپس کاهش تدریجی آن. این کاهش زمانی آغاز می‌شود که نشانه‌های پیشرفت در مهارت و دانش حمایت گیرنده بروز می‌کند و فرد نشان می‌دهد که توانایی پذیرش مسئولیت بیشتر در روند فراگیری را دارد. مطالعة حاضر به بررسی تاثیر حمایت‌های فراشناختی بر سه جنبة اصلی مهارت شفاهی زبانی یعنی پیچیدگی، صحت و روانی می‌پردازد. هدف حمایت‌های فراشناختی بالا بردن سطح سه فعالیت فراشناختی اصلی یعنی برنامه‌ریزی، نظارت و ارزشیابی است. در این پژوهش، مبنای اندازه‌گیری پیچیدگی محاسبه نسبت تعداد بندها به واحدهای تجزیه و تحلیل گفتاری شرکت‌کنندگان بود. از سوی دیگر، روانی کلام با تقسیم تعداد هجاهای تولید شده بر تعداد ثانیه‌ ضرب در60 اندازه‌گیری شد. به‌علاوه صحت براساس نسبت تعداد بندهای عاری از خطاهای نحوی، صرفی و واژگانی به تعداد کل بندها محاسبه گردید. تجزیه و تحلیل نتایج نشان داد که حمایت‌های فراشناختی به شکل معناداری مهارت شفاهی فراگیران را بر حسب پیچیدگی، صحت، و روانی افزایش می‌دهد. مفاهیم ضمنی یافته‌ها برای فعالیت‌های آموزشی در مقاله ارائه شده است. 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Scaffolding Metacognition to Improve Oral Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency

نویسنده [English]

  • Manoochehr Jafarigohar
Associate Professor, TEFL and English Literature Department, Payame Noor University
چکیده [English]

Scaffolding is conceptualized as the provision of assistance to learners and the gradual withdrawal of the aid as the scaffoldee signals progression in their knowledge/skill and the capability to take over more responsibility. The present study sought to scrutinize the impact of metacognitive scaffolds intended to endorse metacognitive activities (i.e. planning, monitoring, and evaluation) on various aspects of oral proficiency namely, complexity, accuracy, and fluency. Sixty participants selected through a proficiency test and ranging in age from 16 to 27 took part in the study. Complexity was assessed by calculating the ratio of clauses to AS units in the participants' production. Fluency was measured by dividing the number of syllables by the total number of seconds and multiplied by 60, and accuracy was gauged as the percentage of clauses devoid of syntactic, morphological, and lexical errors to the whole number of clauses. The results of a number of t-tests and ANOVAs on pre and post-intervention oral performance revealed that metacognitive scaffolds could significantly enhance oral proficiency in terms of complexity, accuracy, and fluency. Implications for classrooms are discussed.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Accuracy
  • Complexity
  • fluency
  • Metacognition
  • Scaffolding
Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition – implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33, 367–379.
Bannert, M., & Mengelkamp, C. (2013). Scaffolding hypermedia learning through metacognitive prompts. In R, Azevedo, & V. Aleven (Eds.) International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 171–186). NY: Springer.
Boggs, J. A. (2019). Effects of teacher-scaffolded and self-scaffolded corrective feedback compared to direct corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in English L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 46, 1–13.
Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology, Vol. 1 (pp. 77–165). Hillsdale: Erlbaum Associates.
Coşkun, A. (2010). The effect of metacognitive strategy training on the listening performance of beginner students. Novitas-ROYAL, Research on Youth and Language, 4 (1), 35–50.
Dabarera, C., Renandya, W. A., & Zhang, L. J. (2014). The impact of metacognitive scaffolding and monitoring on reading comprehension. System, 42, 462–473.
Ellis R. & G. Barkhuizen. 2005. Analyzing Learner Language. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 474–509.
Fazilatfar, A., Kasiri, F., Nowbakht, M. (2020). The Comparative Effects of Planning Time and Task Conditions on the Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency of L2 Writing by EFL Learners. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 8 (1), 93–110.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18 (3), 299–323.
Hemmati, F., & Mortazavi, M. (2017). The effect of different types of written scaffolds on EFL learners’ perception of writing self-regulatory skills. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 33 (1), 71–81.
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: Erlbaum.
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.). (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA. John Benjamins.
Jafari, S., Ketabi, S., & Tavakoli, M. (2017). Effectof autonomous noticing activities on EFL learners’ grammatical accuracy. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 8 (2), 51–70.
Jafarigohar, M., & Mortazavi, M. (2015). The differential impact of focused and unfocused oral scaffolds on EFL learners' cognitive knowledge and cognitive regulation. Quarterly Journal of Research in School and Virtual Learning, 2 (7), 101–114.
Lintunen, P., & Mäkil, M. (2014). Measuring syntactic complexity in spoken and written learner language: comparing the incomparable? Research in Language, 12 (4), 377–399.
Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different length of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20 (1), 83–108.
Mortazavi, M., Jafarigohar, M., Rouhi, A., & Soleimani, H. (2016). The effect of scaffolding through structuring and problematizing on EFL learners' writing self-regulatory skills, essay writing skill, and global planning time. Quarterly Journal of Research in School and Virtual Learning, 4 (3), 15–26.
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 Oral Performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109–148.
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 Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 6 (4), 601–624.
Molenaar, I., Roda, C., van Boxtel, C., & Sleegers, P J. C. (2012). Dynamic scaffolding of socially regulated learning in a computer-based learning environment. Computers and Education, 59, 515–523.
Molenaar, I., Sleegers, P., & van Boxtel, C. (2014). Metacognitive scaffolding during collaborative learning: a promising combination. Metacognition and Learning, 9 (3), 309–332.
Molenaar, I., van Boxel, C., & Sleegers, P., (2010). The effects of scaffolding metacognitive activities in small groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 26 (6),1727–1738.
Namazidost, E., Abedi, P., & Nasri, M. (2019). The Role of Gender in the Accuracy and Fluency of Iranian Upper-intermediate EFL Learners’ L2 Oral Productions. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 6 (3), 110–123
Nguyen, T. T. L. (2018). The effect of combined peer-teacher feedback on Thai students’ writing accuracy. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 6, 117–132.
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4): 590–601.
Richards, J. C. (2008). Teaching listening and speaking: From theory to practice. Cambridge University Press.
Roohani, A., Forootanfar, F., & Hashemian, M. (2017). Effect of input vs. collaborative output tasks on Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ grammatical accuracy and willingness to communicate. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 8 (2), 71–92.
Saeedi, M. (2015), Unguided strategic planning, task structure, and L2 oral performance: Focusing on complexity, accuracy, and fluency. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2 (4), 263–274.
Safdari, M. & Fathi, J. (2020) Investigating the role of dynamic assessment on speaking accuracy and fluency of pre-intermediate EFL learners, Cogent Education, 7 (2), 1–19.
Skehan, P. (2009). Modeling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 510–532.
Tyas, D. A. P. (2008). Teachers’ Scaffolding Talks in Teaching Speaking. Unpublished master’s thesis, Semarang State University, Indonesia.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). Role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17 (2), 89–100.
Yuan, A., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24 (1), 1–27.