دانشگاه الزهرا

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات25
تعداد شماره‌ها932
تعداد مقالات7,652
تعداد مشاهده مقاله12,492,825
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله8,884,550
Rezaei, Katayoun, Marandi, Susan. (1401). A Socio-Cognitive Approach Toward Source-Based Writing Instruction: Professors’ Perceptions and Current Constraints. جلوه هنر, 6(2), 7-30. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2021.34247.1413
Katayoun Rezaei; Susan Marandi. "A Socio-Cognitive Approach Toward Source-Based Writing Instruction: Professors’ Perceptions and Current Constraints". جلوه هنر, 6, 2, 1401, 7-30. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2021.34247.1413
Rezaei, Katayoun, Marandi, Susan. (1401). 'A Socio-Cognitive Approach Toward Source-Based Writing Instruction: Professors’ Perceptions and Current Constraints', جلوه هنر, 6(2), pp. 7-30. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2021.34247.1413
Rezaei, Katayoun, Marandi, Susan. A Socio-Cognitive Approach Toward Source-Based Writing Instruction: Professors’ Perceptions and Current Constraints. جلوه هنر, 1401; 6(2): 7-30. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2021.34247.1413

A Socio-Cognitive Approach Toward Source-Based Writing Instruction: Professors’ Perceptions and Current Constraints

Journal of Language Horizons
مقاله 1، دوره 6، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 12، آبان 2022، صفحه 7-30    اصل مقاله (409.96 K)
نوع مقاله: Research article
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/lghor.2021.34247.1413
نویسندگان
Katayoun Rezaei1؛ Susan Marandi* 2
1PH. Student. Department of English Language and Literature,. , Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran
2Associate Professor. Department of English Language and Literature, , Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده
This article proposes a socio-cognitive approach toward the instruction of source-based writing, a common practice that students are required to perform in the academic milieu at higher education. Writing from sources entails cognitive processes of critically selecting the reliable sources of input, connecting their content to one’s own ideas, and integrating them into one’s written text to construct meaning. It also requires knowledge of socio-contextual dimensions of academic writing literacy, including ethics of acknowledging the authorship of sources and writers’ awareness of their disciplinary genre (Dovey, 2010). The purpose of this interpretive qualitative research, accordingly, is to inquire into the status quo of the approaches implemented in the Iranian academic writing courses of English majors, i.e. English Literature, English Translation, and Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL), to practice source-based writing. To this end, seven university professors who had the experience of teaching academic writing courses in the context of interest were selected based on purposeful sampling to take part in in-depth semi-structured interviews. The results revealed that the academic writing courses fail to effectively value the cognitive processes of meaning-making involved in writing from sources; these are overshadowed by the existing dominant product-based pedagogy and a number of constraints underlined by the interviewees, including learners’ limitations, time restraint, and technological facility impediments. The implications of the study for the curriculum developers and academic writing instructors will be discussed.
کلیدواژه‌ها
source-based writing؛ socio-cognitive approach؛ writing pedagogy؛ integrative writing؛ academic writing literacy
عنوان مقاله [English]
رویکردی اجتماعی-شناختی به آموزش نوشتار مبتنی بر منابع: برداشت‌های اساتید و محدودیت‌های موجود
نویسندگان [English]
کتایون رضایی1؛ سوسن مرندی2
1دانشجوی دکتری گروه زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی، دانشگاه الزهرا، تهران، ایران
2دانشیار گروه زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی. دانشگاه الزهرا. تهران . ایران
چکیده [English]
در این مقاله رویکردی اجتماعی-شناختی در تدریس مهارت نوشتاری مبتنی برمنابع به عنوان یکی از فعالیت های نوشتاری رایج در جامعه دانشگاهی مورد بررسی قرار می گیرد. نوشتار مبتنی بر منابع، فرایندهای شناختی انتخابِ نقادانه منابع معتبر درون‌داد، برقراری ارتباط میانِ محتوای آن‌ها با نظرات خود شخص و تلفیق منابع در متن نوشتاریِ یک شخص برای تولید معنا را شامل می‌شود. همچنین، نوشتار مبتنی بر منابع، نیازمند ابعاد اجتماعی-بافتی دانش نوشتاری دانشگاهی از قبیل اخلاقیات در حق تألیف منابع  و آگاهی نویسندگان نسبت به ژانر رشته تحصیلی است (دووی، 2010). بنابراین هدف از تحقیق کیفی تفسیری پیش رو، بررسی وضعیت کنونی رویکردهای به‌کار‌گرفته‌شده در کلاس‌های مهارت نوشتاری دانشگاهی ایرانی در رشته‌های انگلیسی مانند ادبیات انگلیسی، ترجمه زبان انگلیسی و آموزش زبان انگلیسی برای تمرین نوشتار مبتنی بر منابع است. در این راستا، هفت استاد دانشگاه که از سابقه تدریس در کلاس‌های نوشتاری دانشگاهی در محیط آموزشی مورد نظر برخوردار بوده، بر اساس نمونه‌گیری هدفمند انتخاب شدند تا در مصاحبه‌های ژرف‌نگر نیمه‌ساختاریافته شرکت کنند. نتایج به‌دست‌آمده نشان می‌دهد که کلاس‌های نوشتاری دانشگاهی، نمی‌توانند به صورت کارآمد فرآیندهای شناختی تولید معنا در نوشتار مبتنی بر منابع را ارزیابی کنند. این‌ موارد تحت‌الشعاعِ آموزش تولید-محور حاکمِ از پیش‌موجود و تعدادی از محدودیت‌های موردِ تأکید مصاحبه‌شوندگان، از جمله محدودیت‌های یادگیرندگان، محدودیت زمانی، و موانع تسهیلات دسترسی به فناوری‌ها هستند. کاربردهایی پژوهش حاضر برای تدوین‌گران برنامة درسی و مدرسان نوشتار دانشگاهی بحث و بررسی خواهد شد.   
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
نوشتار مبتنی بر منابع, رویکرد اجتماعی-شناختی, آموزش مهارت نوشتاری, نوشتار ترکیبی, نوشتار دانشگاهی
مراجع
  1. Allen, H. W. (2018). Redefining writing in the foreign language curriculum: Toward a design approach. Foreign Language Annals 51(3), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12350
  2. Allen, H. W., & Goodspeed, L. (2018). Textual borrowing and perspective-taking: A genre-based approach to L2 writing. L2 Journal, 10(2), 87-110. https://doi.org/10.5070/L210235331
  3. Allen, H. W., & Paesani, K. (2020). Genre instruction, textual borrowing, and foreign language writing: Teaching assistant perspectives and practices. Language Teaching Research. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820911194
  4. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Irvine, C. K. S., & Walker, D. A. (2019). Introduction to research in education (10th ed.). Cengage Learning, Inc.
  5. Birjandi, P., & Hadidi Tamjid, N. (2012). The role of self-, peer and teacher assessment in promoting Iranian EFL learners’ writing performance. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(5), 513-533.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.5492
  6. Chandrasegaran, A. (2013). The effect of a socio-cognitive approach to teaching writing on stance support moves and topicality in students’ expository essays. Linguistics and Education, 24(2), 101-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2012.12.005
  7. Chandrasoma, R., Thompson, C., & Pennycook, A. (2004). Beyond plagiarism: Transgressive and nontransgressive intertextuality. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 3(3), 171-193. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327701jlie0303_1
  8. Chang, C. S., Chen, T. S., & Hsu, W. H. (2011). The study on integrating WebQuest with
    mobile learning for environmental education. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1228-1239.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.005
  9. Cheong, Ch. M., Zhu, X., Li, G. Y., & Wen, H (2019). Effects of intertextual processing on L2 integrated writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 44, 63-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.03.004
  10. Dovey, T.  (2010). Facilitating writing from sources: A focus on both process and product. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 45-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2009.11.005
  11. East, M. (2019). Editorial: 25 years of assessing writing. Assessing Writing, 42,1-3.
  12. Fatahipour, M., Tahmasbi, M., & Salehi, M. (2020). Ecology of teaching academic writing: A case study of the effects of metadiscourse markers instruction on intermediate EFL learners’ narrative vs. descriptive writing. Başkent University Journal of Education, 7(1), 70-80.
  13. Fathkouhi, M. (2018). The investigation of Iranian university instructors’ perceptions of EFL academic writing rubrics for BA in English [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Payame Noor University, Rasht, Iran.
  14. Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2014). Teaching L2 composition: Purpose, process, and practice. Routledge.
  15. Godwin-Jones, R. (2010). Emerging technologies: Literacies and technologies revisited. Language Learning and Technology, 14(3), 2-9.
  16. Golparvar, E., & Khafi, A. (2021). The role of L2 writing self-efficacy in integrated writing strategy use and performance. Assessing Writing, 47, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100504
  17. Grabe, W., & Zhang, C. (2013). Reading and writing together: A critical component of English for academic purposes teaching and learning. TESOL Journal, 4(1), 9-24. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.65
  18.  Greene, J. A., Yu, S. B., & Copeland, D. Z. (2014).  Measuring critical components of digital literacy and their relationships with learning. Computers & Education, 76, 55-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014 .03.008
  19. Guo, L. (2011). Product and process in TOEFL iBT independent and integrated writing tasks: A validation study [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Georgia State University.
  20. Guo, Y. R., Goh, D. H., Luyt, B., Sin, S. J., & Ang, R. P. (2015). The effectiveness and acceptance of an affective information literacy tutorial. Computers & Education, 87, 368-384. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.015
  21. Hedayati, F., & Marandi, S. S. (2014). Iranian EFL teachers’ perceptions of the difficulties of implementing CALL. ReCALL, 26(3). 298-314. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344000172
  22. Heigham, J., & Croker, R. A. (2009). Qualitative research in applied linguistics. A practical introduction. Palgrave Macmillan.
  23. Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press.
  24. Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. University of Michigan Press.
  25. Hyland, K. (2011). Learning to write: Issues in theory, research, and pedagogy. In R. M. Manchon (Ed.), Learning to write and writing to learn in an additional language (pp. 17-35). John Benjamins.
  26. Jalilifar, A., Soltani, P., & Shooshtari, Z. G. (2018). Improper textual borrowing practices: Evidence from Iranian applied linguistics journal articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 35, 42-55. http://doi.org/10.1016/j/jeap.2018.003
  27. Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford University Press.
  28. Kong, S. C. (2014). Developing information literacy and critical thinking skills through domain knowledge learning in digital classrooms: An experience of practicing flipped classroom strategy. Computers & Education, 78, 160-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.009
  29. Ladbrook, J., & Probert, E. (2011). Information skills and critical literacy: Where are our digikids at with online searching and are their teachers helping? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(1), 105-121. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.986
  30. Machili, I., Papadopoulou, I., & Kantaridou, Z. (2020). Effect of strategy instruction on EFL students’ video-mediated integrated writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 48, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100708
  31. Naghdipour, B., & Koç, S. (2015). The evaluation of a teaching intervention in Iranian EFL writing. The Asia-Pacific Education Research, 24, 389-398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-014-0191-4
  32. Neissi, S. (2017). Factors contributing to Iranian EFL learners’ writing ability: A SEM approach [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Shiraz University, Tehran, Iran.
  33. Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers and Education, 59, 1065-1078.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.016
  34. Norton, L. S. (2009). Action research in learning and teaching: A practical guide to conducting pedagogical research in universities. Routledge.
  35. Paltridge, B., & Woodrow, L. (2012). Thesis and dissertation writing: Moving beyond the text. In R. Tang (Ed.), Academic writing in a second or foreign language: Issues and challenges facing ESL/EFL academic writers in higher education contexts (pp. 88-104). Continuum.
  36. Paré, A. (2011). Speaking of writing: Supervisory feedback and the dissertation. In L. McAlpine & C. Amundsen (Eds.). Doctoral education: Research-based strategies for doctoral students, supervisors and administrators (pp. 59-74). Springer.
  37. Parsazadeh, N., Ali, R., & Rezaei, M. (2018).  A framework for cooperative and interactive mobile learning to improve online information evaluation skills. Computers & Education, 120, 75-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.010
  38. Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Lawrence Erlbaum.
  39. Plakans, L. (2009). Discourse synthesis in integrated second language writing assessment. Language Testing Journal, 26(4), 561-586. https://doi.org/10.1117/0265532209340192
  40. Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2013). Using multiple texts in an integrated writing assessment: Source text use as a predictor of score. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 217-230. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.02.003
  41. Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods. Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 407-430. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586978
  42. Reichelt, M., Lefkowitz, N., Rinnert, C., & Schultz, J. M. (2012). Key issues in foreign language writing. Foreign Language Annals, 45, 22-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.19449720.2012.01166.x
  43. Rosenblatt, S. (2010). They can find it, but they don’t know what to do with it:  Describing the use of scholarly literature by undergraduate students. Journal of Information Literacy, 4(2), 50-61. https://doi.org/10.11645/4.2.1486
  44. Shi, L. (2004). Textual borrowing in second-language writing. Written Communication, 21(2), 171-200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088303262846
  45. Soleimani, H., & Mahdavipour, M. (2014). The effect of variations in integrated writing tasks and proficiency level on features of written discourse generated by Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 33(2), 129-159. https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2014.2060
  46. Storch, N. (2012). Incorporation of source material: The effect of instruction. TESOL in Context, 22(1), 38-55.
  47. Tardy, C. M. (2006). Researching first and second language genre learning: A comparative review and a look ahead. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 79-101.
  48. Tardy, C. M. (2010). Writing for the world: Wikipedia as an introduction to academic writing. English Teaching Forum, 48(1), 12-19.
  49. Thompson, C., Morton, J., & Storch, N. (2013). Where from, who, why and how? A study of the use of sources by first year L2 university students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(2), 99-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.004
  50. Weigle, S. C. (2004). Integrating reading and writing in a competency test for non-native speakers of English. Assessing Writing, 9, 27-55. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2004.01.002
  51. Wette, R. (2017). Source text use by undergraduate post-novice L2 writers in disciplinary assignments: Progress and ongoing challenges. Journal of Second Language writing, 37, 46-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.05.015
  52. Wette, R. (2019). Embedded provision to develop source-based writing skills in a year 1 health sciences course: How can the academic literacy developer contribute? English for Specific Purposes, 56, 35-49. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2019.07.002
  53. Williams, J. (2005). Teaching writing in second and foreign language classrooms. McGraw-Hill.
  54. Zhang, C. (2013). Effects of instruction on ESL students’ synthesis writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(1), 51-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/jslw.2012.12.001
  55. Zhu, X., Li, G. Y., Cheong, C. M., Yu, G., & Liao, X. (2021). Secondary school students’ discourse synthesis performance on Chinese (L1) and English (L2) integrated writing assessments. Reading and Writing, 34(1), 49-78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10065-x
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 877
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 476


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب