A Stylistic and Proficiency-based Approach to EFL Learners’ Performance Inconsistency
محورهای موضوعی : language teaching
Gholam-Reza Abbasian
1
(دانشیار دانشگاه امام علی و دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تهران جنوب)
راحله تمدن
2
(2Department of English, Takestan Branch, IAU,Takestan , Iran)
کلید واژه: Error analysis, learning styles, language proficiency, Interlangauge, Performance Inconsistency,
چکیده مقاله :
Performance deficiencies and inconsistencies among SLA or FL learners can be attributed to variety of sources including both systemic (i.e., language issues) and individual variables. Contrary to a rich background, the literature still suffers from a gap as far as delving into the issue from language proficiency and learning style is concerned. To fill the gap, this study addressed EFL learners’ interlanguage performance (i.e., error types) in the light of their learning styles and language proficiency levels. Participants were 73 Iranian graduate EFL learners, who received the Michigan proficiency tests along with the Perceptual Learning-Style Preference Questionnaire (of Reid) in order to measure their language proficiency level and learning style types. For the purpose of the study they were divided into pre-intermediate, intermediate and upper-intermediate levels. To explore their performance inconsistencies, both oral data from an semi-structured (SST) interview and written data based on an on-the-spot piece of writing were used and then classified based on Corder’s (1971) scheme into pre-systematic, systematic and post-systematic errors. The results revealed significant relationships among the target variables, if not predictor-predicted relationships. The non-linear relationship among the variable underscores significance of an integrative approach to EFL learner’s performance inconsistencies and the importance of stylistic instruction in EFL contexts.
بررسی ناهماهنگی های (خطاهای ) زبانی زبان آموز زبان دوم یا خارجی از اساسیترین موضوعات آموزش و فراگیری زبان بوده است و در گذر تکوین نظریه های متعدد از اطلاق رویکرد خطا محور به نگاه ناهماهنگی محور فرایندهای پیچیده ای نهفته است. ریشه این نوع ناهماهنگیها را در متغیرهای گوناگون می توان جستجو کرد لیکن رابطه سه گانه بین نوع ناهماهنگیها ، سطح دانش زبانی و وسبکهای ترجیهی یادگیری زبانی زبان آموز موضوع اصلی این مطالعه بوده است. در این راستا، تعدادی زبان آموز مقاطع تحصیلی کارشناسی و کارشناسی ارشد زبان انگلیسی و تعدادی زبان آموز موسسات آزاد زبان انگلیسی جامعه آماری این مطالعه را تشکیل دادند. ابتدا آزمون دانش عمومی زبان انگلیسی میشیگان برای تعیین سطح زبانی آنها به همراه پرسشنامه سبک یادگیری ترجیهی (رید) برای سنجش سبک ترجیهی یادگیری زبانی آنها توزیع گردید..از نظر سطح دانش زبانی آنها به سه گروه مقدماتی، متوسط و پیشرفته تقسیم شدند. برای کشف نوع خطاهای زبانی افراد، خطاهای گفتاری آنها از طریق مصاحبهSST و خطاهای نوشتاری آنها از طریق نوشتار آنان مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. سپس خطاهای آنها در دو سطح گفتاری و نوشتاری بر اساس طبقه بندی خطاهای زبانی کوردر به سه گروه پیش-نظاممند، نظاممند و پسانظاممند طبقه بندی شدند. نتیجه ی تحقیق موید وجود همبستگی مثبت معنادار بین سطح دانش زبانی و نوع ناهماهنگیهای زبانی از یک طرف ، و همبستگی مثبت لیکن متفاوت بین شیوه تجلی دانش زبانی اعم از قالب گفتاری و شنیداری از طرف دیگر و مهمتر از همه بین مقولات مختلف سبکهای یادگیری و نوع ناهماهنگی و سطح دانش زبانی بوده است. نتایج حاصله از منظر بداعت و کشف همبستگی بین فرایند بین- زبانی با سطح دانش زبانی و همچنین با سبک یادگیری حائز اهمیت می باشد.
Boon-Long, V. (1998).Error Analysis in Writing of the English Major Students of ChiangMai University for English 221 and English 222. A research report: Department ofEnglish, Chiang Mai University.
Cassidy, S. (2004).Learning Styles: An Overview of the Theories, Models and Measures.”EducationalPsychology ,24(4), 419-444.
Charles, J., Tepper, S. & Baird, E. (1999).Reading and second language learners.. Washington. The Evergreen Centre for Education Improvement.
Chen, M. L. (2009). Influence of grade level on perceptual learning style preferences and language learning strategies of Taiwanese English as a foreign language learners. Elsevier, 19, 304–308.
Corder, S. 1973. Introducing applied linguistics. Penguin.
Corder, S. P. (1971).Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis.IRAL, 9 (2).
Dekeyser, R., Salaberry, R., Robinson, P., & Harrington, M. (2002). What gets processed in processing instruction? A commentary on Bill VanPattens "Processing Instruction: An update". Language learning, 52(4).
Dorrsey, O. L., & Pierson, M.J. (1984).A descriptive study of adult learning styles in a non-traditional education program. Lifelong Learning: An Omnibus of Practice and Research, 7, 8-11.
Drysdale, M.T., P. Ross & Schulz, R.A. (2001). Cognitive Learning Styles and Academic Performance in 19 First-year University Courses: Successful Students Versus Students at Risk. Journal of Education for Students at Risk, 6( 3), 271-289.
Dulay, H., Burt, M., &Krashen, S. (1982).Language two. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dunn, R. et al. (1995). Aeta-analyticValidation of the Dunn and Dunn Learning Styles Model.Journal of Educational Research ,88(6) , 353-361.
Ehrman, M. E., Leaver, B. L., Oxford, R. L. (2003). A brief overview of individual differences in second language learning.System, 31, 313-330.
Ellis, R. (1989). Second Language Learning and Second Language Learners: Growth and Diversity. TESL Canada journal, 7(1), 74-94.
Ellis, R., Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Felder, R. M., Henriques, E. R. (1995).Learning and teaching styles in foreign and second language education. Foreign Language Annals, 28, 21–31.
Fisiak, J. (1981). Some introductory notes concerning contrastive linguistics. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Contrastive Linguistics and the Language Teacher.( pp. 1-13). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Flick, W. (1980). Error Types in Adult English as a Second Language. In Ketterman, B. and St. Clair R. (eds.) New Approaches to Language Acquisition. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.
Fourier, M.J. (1984). Disclosure of cognitive style information: Effects on achievement of adult learners. Adult Education Quarterly, 34, 147-154.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Hall, E. & Moseley, D. (2005). Is there a Role for Learning Styles in Personalized Education and Training.International Journal of Lifelong Education 24 (3),243-255.
James, C. (2001). Errors in Language Learning and Use.Exploring Error Analysis. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Joseph, L. B. (2009).Languages and Australian Schooling Australian Council for Educational Research.ACER Press.
Kia, M, Alipour, A. &Ghaderi, E. (2009). Study of learning styles on their roles in the academic Achievement of the students of Payame Noor University Retrieved from http://tojde.andolu.edu.tr/tojde 34/notes.
Leesr, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55-81.
Liu, H-J.(2008). A study of the interrelationship between listening strategy use, listening proficiency levels, and learning style.ARECLS, 5, 84-104.
Mariko, A. (2007). Grammatical errors across proficiency levels in L2 spoken and written English.The economic journal of Takasaki city, 49, 117-129.
Martinez, S. G. (2006). Should we correct our students' errors in l2 learning? Encuentro, 16, 1-7.
Montemayor, E. C., Aplaten, M., Mendoza, G. C., Perey, G.M. (2009). Learning styles of high and low academic achieving freshman teacher education students: an application of the Dunn and Dunn’s learning style model. University of the Cordilleras, 1(4), 58-71.
Nemser, W. (1971).Approximate systems of foreign language learners.
Norrish, J. (1983). Language learners and their errors.London: Macmillan press.
O’Brien, T.P. (1991).Relationships Among Selected Characteristics of College Students and Cognitive Style Preferences.College Student Journal, 25,492-500.
Rawian, R. B. M. (2002). Students' English proficiency, perceptual learning style preference and second language tolerance of ambiguity.Malaysia: Putra University
Reid, J. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students.TESOL Quarterly, 21(1),87-110.
Reid, J. M. (1995) (Ed.): Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
Renou, J. (2004).A Study of Perceptual Learning Styles and Achievement in a University-level Foreign Language Course.Mayagüez: Universidad de Puerto Rico
Richards, J.C. (Ed). (1973) Error Analysis.London: Longman.
Scarcella, R. & Oxford, R., 1992: The Tapestry of Language Learning: The Individual in the Communicative Classroom. Boston: Heinle&Heinle.
Schumann, F. M. & Schumann, J. H. (1977). Diary of a language learner: Johansson, S. &Hofland, K.(1994). Towards an English-Norwegian parallel corpus. In U. Fries, G. Tottie, and P. Schneider (eds.), Creating and using English language corpora( pp.25-37). Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage.IRAL 10, 201-231.
Smith, L.H., &Renzulli, J.S. (1984). Learning Style Preferences: A Practical Approach For Classroom Teachers. Theory into Practice, 23, 44-50.
Soheili-Isfahani, A. (1987). Errors of Persian Learners of English and Their Structural Specifications.Roshd Journal, pp. 60-66.
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual Differences in Second Language Learning.London: Edward Arnold.
Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., Humbach, N. (2009).Long term cross linguistic transfer of skills from L1 to L2.Language Learning, 51(9), 203–243.
Taylor, M. (1997).Learning styles.Inquiry, 1(1), 45-48.
Tono, Y. Kaneko, T. Isahara, H. Izumi, E. Saiga, T. Kaneko, E. (2001). Developing a One Million Word Spoken EFL Learner Corpus.International conference center. Kitakyushu, Japan.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Ziahosseiny, S. M. (1999). A contrastive analysis of Persian and English & error analysis. Tehran: Nashre-e Vira.
