دانشگاه الزهرا

 News

 Statistics

Number of Journals25
Number of Issues918
Number of Articles7,565
Article View12,275,710
PDF Download8,681,655
حسینی زاده, ., فضیلت فر, ., جباری, . (2024). شیوه های بازخورد شفاهی معلمان زبان انگلیسی معلمان با ذهنیت رشد یافته و باورهای آنها. Glory of Art (Jelve-y Honar) Alzahra Scientific Quarterly Journal, 8(2), 99-124. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2023.43353.1795
سمانه السادات حسینی زاده; علی محمد فضیلت فر; علی اکبر جباری. "شیوه های بازخورد شفاهی معلمان زبان انگلیسی معلمان با ذهنیت رشد یافته و باورهای آنها". Glory of Art (Jelve-y Honar) Alzahra Scientific Quarterly Journal, 8, 2, 2024, 99-124. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2023.43353.1795
حسینی زاده, ., فضیلت فر, ., جباری, . (2024). 'شیوه های بازخورد شفاهی معلمان زبان انگلیسی معلمان با ذهنیت رشد یافته و باورهای آنها', Glory of Art (Jelve-y Honar) Alzahra Scientific Quarterly Journal, 8(2), pp. 99-124. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2023.43353.1795
حسینی زاده, ., فضیلت فر, ., جباری, . شیوه های بازخورد شفاهی معلمان زبان انگلیسی معلمان با ذهنیت رشد یافته و باورهای آنها. Glory of Art (Jelve-y Honar) Alzahra Scientific Quarterly Journal, 2024; 8(2): 99-124. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2023.43353.1795

شیوه های بازخورد شفاهی معلمان زبان انگلیسی معلمان با ذهنیت رشد یافته و باورهای آنها

Journal of Language Horizons
Article 4, Volume 8, Issue 2 - Serial Number 20, June 1403, Pages 99-124    PDF (390.83 K)
Document Type: مقاله پژوهشی
DOI: 10.22051/lghor.2023.43353.1795
Authors
سمانه السادات حسینی زاده1; علی محمد فضیلت فر* 2; علی اکبر جباری3
1دکترای آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه یزد، یزد، ایران
2استاد گروه زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی، دانشگاه یزد، یزد، ایران.
3دانشیار، دانشکده زبان و ادبیات، دانشگاه یزد، یزد، ایران
Abstract
علیرغم فراوانی تحقیقات در مورد ارتباط بین باورها و عملکرد معلمان، تحقیقات کمی به بررسی نقش ویژگی‌های فردی معلمان در رابطه بین باورهای معلمان و شیوه‌های بازخورد اصلاحی پرداخته اند. بنابراین، این مطالعه با هدف بررسی تطابق یا عدم تطابق بازخورد اصلاحی شفاهی معلمان با ذهنیت رشد یافته (بازخورد اصلاحی شفاهی) با باورهای آنها انجام شده است. هشت معلم زبان انگلیسی ضمن خدمت با ذهنیت رشدیافته در این مطالعه شرکت کردند. برای جمع آوری داده ها از دو پرسشنامه و مشاهده کلاسی استفاده شد. تجزیه و تحلیل کیفی داده‌ها نشان داد که باورهای معلمان با ذهنیت رشد یافته و شیوه‌های بازخورد اصلاحی شفاهی آنها از نظر زمان‌بندی بازخورد اصلاحی شفاهی همسو هستند. در مورد انواع  بازخورد اصلاحی شفاهی، عملکرد معلمان خانم با اعتقادات آنها همسو بود، اما باورهای معلمان آقا با عملکرد آنها ناسازگار بود. با این حال، باورها و عملکرد معلمان در مورد مقدار و فراوانی بازخورد اصلاحی شفاهی ناهماهنگ بود، که می تواند به دلیل عوامل زمینه ای یا محیطی مانند محدودیت زمانی باشد. برداشت ها و پیشنهادات برای تحقیقات بیشتر ارائه شده است.
Keywords
باورهای معلمان; عملکرد معلمان; بازخورد اصلاحی شفاهی; عملکردهای بازخورد اصلاحی; ذهنیت رشدیافته; ذهنیت معلم
References
  1. Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1994). Observational techniques. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 377–392). Sage Publications
  2. Bao, R. (2019). Oral corrective feedback in L2 Chinese classes: Teachers’ beliefs versus their practices. System, 82(3), 140-150.
  3. Barcelos, A. M. F., & Kalaja, P. (2011). Beliefs about SLA revisited. System, 39(3), 281-416.
  4. Basturkmen, H. (2012). Review of research into the correspondence between language teachers’ stated beliefs and practices. System, 40(2), 282-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2012.05.001
  5. Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers' stated beliefs about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 243-272.
  6. Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001
  7. Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81–109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444803001903
  8. Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners' errors. Language learning, 27(1), 29-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1977.tb00290.x
  9. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research Methods in Education (8th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539
  10. Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology Press.
  11. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
  12. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273.
  13. Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.5070/l2.v1i1.9054
  14. Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339–368. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060141
  15. Gurzynski–Weiss, L. (2016). Factors influencing Spanish instructors’ in‐class feedback decisions. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 255-275. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12314
  16. Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. The modern language journal, 72(3), 283-294.
  17. Jonsson, A. C., & Beach, D. (2012). Predicting the use of praise among pre-service teachers: The influence of implicit theories of intelligence, social comparison and stereotype acceptance. Education Inquiry, 3(2), 259-281. https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v3i2.22033
  18. Kaivanpanah, S., Alavi, S.M., & Sepehrinia, S. (2015). Preferences for interactional feedback: Differences between learners and teachers. The Language Learning Journal, 43(1), 74–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2012.705571
  19. Kamiya, N. (2016). The relationship between stated beliefs and classroom practices of oral corrective feedback. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 10(3), 206-219. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2014.939656 
  20. Karimi, M. N. & Dehghani, A. (2016). EFL teachers’ beliefs/practices correspondence in reading instruction: does language teacher education make a difference? International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 11(1), 35-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/22040552.2016.1187648
  21. Kartchava, E., Gatbonton, E., Ammar, A., & Trofimovich, P. (2020). Oral corrective feedback: Pre-service English as a second language teachers’ beliefs and practices. Language Teaching Research, 24(2), 220-249. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1362168818787546
  22. Kuusisto, E., Laine, S., & Tirri, K. (2017). How do school children and adolescents perceive the nature of talent development? A case study from Finland. Education Research International, 2017, Article ID 4162957. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/4162957
  23. Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta‐analysis. Language learning, 60(2), 309-365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x
  24. Li, S., & Vuono, A. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in System [Review article]. System, 84, 93-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.05.006
  25. Long, A. Y. (2017). Investigating the relationship between instructor research training and pronunciation-related instruction and oral corrective feedback. In L. Gurzynski-Weiss (Ed.), Expanding individual difference research in the interaction approach: Investigating learners, instructors, and researchers (pp. 201–223). John Benjamins.
  26. Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). John Benjamins.
  27. Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in second language acquisition, 28(2), 269-300. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060128
  28. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in second language acquisition, 19(1), 37-66. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034
  29. Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis [special issue]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(02), https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990520
  30. Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1-40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000365
  31. Mackey, A., Polio, C., & McDonough, K. (2004). The relationship between experience, education and teachers’ use of incidental focus-on-form techniques. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 301-327. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr147oa
  32. Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., and Banaji, M. R. (2002). Harvesting implicit group attitudes and beliefs from a demonstration web site. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(1), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.6.1.101
  33. Ozturk, E. (2019). Beliefs and practices of Turkish EFL teachers regarding oral corrective feedback: a small-scale classroom research study. The Language Learning Journal, 47(2), 219-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1263360
  34. Plaks, J. E., Levy, S. R., & Dweck, C. S. (2009). Lay theories of personality: Cornerstones of meaning in social cognition. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(6), 1069-1081. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00222.x
  35. Polio, C., Gass, S., & Chapin, L. (2006). Using stimulated recall to investigate native speaker perceptions in native-nonnative speaker interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 237-267. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060116
  36. Rahimi, M., & Zhang, L. J. (2015). Exploring non-native English-speaking teachers' cognitions about corrective feedback in teaching English oral communication. System, 55(2015), 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.09.006
  37. Rissanen, I., Kuusisto, E., Tuominen, M., & Tirri, K. (2019). In search of a growth mindset pedagogy: A case study of one teacher's classroom practices in a Finnish elementary school. Teaching and Teacher Education, 77(2019), 204-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.10.002
  38. Rolin-Ianziti, J. (2006, October 27). Teacher corrective practices in the foreign language classroom: the effect of timing. In Social Change in the 21st Century Conference 2006, Queensland University of Technology. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/6898/
  39. Roothooft, H. (2014). The relationship between adult EFL teachers’ oral feedback practices and their beliefs. System, 46(2014), 65-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.012
  40. Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.). Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp, 133-164). John Benjamins
  41. Schmidt, J. A., Shumow, L., & Kackar-Cam, H. (2015). Exploring teacher effects for mindset intervention outcomes in seventh-grade science classes. Middle Grades Research Journal, 10(2), 17-32.
  42. Schulz, R.A. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: students’ and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 343-364. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1996.tb01247.x
  43. Schulz, R. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA-Colombia. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244-258. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00107
  44. Sepehrinia, S., & Mehdizadeh, M. (2018). Oral corrective feedback: teachers’ concerns and researchers’ orientation. The Language Learning Journal, 46(4), 483-500.
  45. Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. Springer.
  46. Tadayyon, M. (2019). A comparison of Iran’s EFL and New Zealand’s ESL teachers’ stated beliefs about oral corrective feedback and their actual classroom practices [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Auckland University of Technology.
  47. Varnosfadrani, A. D. (2006). A comparison of the effect of implicit/explicit and immediate/delayed corrective feedback on learners' performance in tailor-made test [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Auckland
  48. Vilček, I. (2014). Oral Corrective Feedback in EFL: Teachers Techniques and Learners Attitude [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek
  49. Yoshida, R. (2010). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom? The modern language Journal, 94(2), 293-314. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01022.x
  50. Yu, S., Wang, B., & Teo, T. (2018). Understanding linguistic, individual and contextual factors in oral feedback research: A review of empirical studies in L2 classrooms. Educational Research Review, 24, 181-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.06.001
  51. Yuksel, D., Soruç, A., & McKinley, J. (2021). The relationship between university EFL teachers’ oral feedback beliefs and practices and the impact of individual differences. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/iral-2021.0051
  52. Zhang, J., Kuusisto, E., & Tirri, K. (2020). Same mindset, different pedagogical strategies: A case study comparing Chinese and Finnish teachers. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(2), 248-262. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.2.15
  53. Zheng, H. (2013). The dynamic interactive relationship between Chinese secondary school EFL teachers' beliefs and practice. The Language Learning Journal, 41(2), 192-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2013.790133
Statistics
Article View: 299
PDF Download: 222


Journal Management System. Powered by Sinaweb