The Comparative Effect of Using Visual and Auditory Input Enhancement on the Use of Cohesive Devices in the Writing of Iranian EFL Filed-dependent and independent Learners

Publish Year: 1396
نوع سند: مقاله ژورنالی
زبان: English
View: 409

This Paper With 15 Page And PDF Format Ready To Download

  • Certificate
  • من نویسنده این مقاله هستم

استخراج به نرم افزارهای پژوهشی:

لینک ثابت به این Paper:

شناسه ملی سند علمی:

JR_LGHOR-1-2_004

تاریخ نمایه سازی: 5 خرداد 1398

Abstract:

Writing has been a troublesome skill for Iranian EFL learners as it needs accurate planning and acceptable coherence. The current study aimed as investigating the comparative effect of visual and auditory input enhancement on the use of cohesive devices in the writing of Iranian EFL learners. Participants of the study were 60 field dependent and 60 field independent language learners at intermediate level of language proficiency. The study adopted a pretest posttest design and data were analyzed through employing statistical test of ANCOVA. Results of statistical analysis showed that visual input enhancement was significantly more effective than auditory input enhancement in terms of their effects on the use of cohesive devices in both field dependent and field independent language learners. Results were discussed and implications of study were also presented.

Keywords:

Cohesive devices , input enhancement , L2 writing , Visual and auditory input enhancement

Authors

Mohadeseh Fani

Department of English Language and Literature, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

Mohammad Hashamdar

Department of English Language and Literature, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University

مراجع و منابع این Paper:

لیست زیر مراجع و منابع استفاده شده در این Paper را نمایش می دهد. این مراجع به صورت کاملا ماشینی و بر اساس هوش مصنوعی استخراج شده اند و لذا ممکن است دارای اشکالاتی باشند که به مرور زمان دقت استخراج این محتوا افزایش می یابد. مراجعی که مقالات مربوط به آنها در سیویلیکا نمایه شده و پیدا شده اند، به خود Paper لینک شده اند :
  • Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second ...
  • Al-Meni, A. M. O. (2008). An investigation of the effect ...
  • Altenberg, B. & M. Tapper. (1998). The use of adverbial ...
  • Altun, A., & Cakan, M. (2006). Undergraduate students’ academic achievement, ...
  • Barcroft, J. (2003). Distinctiveness and bidirectional effects in input enhancement ...
  • Basturkmen, H. (2002). Learner observation of, and reflection on, spoken ...
  • Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching ...
  • Brown, H. D. (2000). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach ...
  • Castro, C. D. (2004). Cohesion and the social construction of ...
  • Clark, R. C. & Lyons, C. (2004). Graphics for Learning: ...
  • Crossley, S., Kyle, K., & McNamara, D. (2016). The development ...
  • Dahl, D. A. (1981). The role of experience in speech ...
  • Dueraman, B. (2007). Cohesion and Coherence in English Essays Written ...
  • Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: ...
  • Fei, D. (2006). The Effect of the use of adverbial ...
  • Gascoigne, C. (2006). Explicit Input Enhancement: Effects on Target and ...
  • Ghasemi, M. (2013). An investigation into the use of cohesive ...
  • Håkansson, G. (1986). Quantitative aspects of teacher talk. In G. ...
  • Han, Z-H., Park E., & Combs, C. (2008). Textual enhancement ...
  • Hinkel, E. (2001). Matters of cohesion in L2 academic texts. ...
  • Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement and the noticing hypothesis: ...
  • Jamieson, J. (1992). The cognitive styles of reflection/impulsivity and field-independence/ ...
  • Jourdenais, R., Ota, M., Stauffer, S., Boyson, B., & Doughty, ...
  • Khodareza, P. & Ashouri, Sh. (2016). Analysis of cohesive devices ...
  • Kim, Y. (2006). Effects of input elaboration on vocabulary acquisition ...
  • Leeman, J., Arteagoitia, I., Fridman, B., & Doughty, C. (1995). ...
  • Leki, I. (2003). A challenge to second language writing professionals: ...
  • Littlemore, J. (2001). An empirical study of the relationship between ...
  • Mohammed, A. S. (2015). Conjunctions as cohesive devices in the ...
  • Moini, M. R., & Kheirkhah. F. (2016). Use of cohesive ...
  • Moriarty, S.E. (1994). Visual communication as a primary system. Journal ...
  • Mukherjee, N. & Roy, D. (2003). A Visual context-aware multimodal ...
  • Narita, M., Sato, C., & Sugiura, M. (2004). Connector usage ...
  • Japanese EFL learners. Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Language ...
  • Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 ...
  • Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS Survival Manual (4th edition). Berkshire: McGrew-Hill. ...
  • Peters, E. (2012). Learning German formulaic sequences: The effect of ...
  • Petterson, R. (2004). Gearing communications to the cognitive needs of ...
  • Pishghadam, R., & Saboori, F. (2011). A Qualitative analysis of ...
  • Robert, D. (1986). From learning to acquisition Foreign language development ...
  • Rostami, Gh., Gholami, H., & Piri, S. (2016). A Contrastive ...
  • Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language ...
  • Schmidt, R. (1992). Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency. Studies ...
  • Shi, C. (2011). A study of the relationship between cognitive ...
  • Smith, M. S. (1993). Consciousness raising and the second language ...
  • Tapper, M. (2005). Connectives in advanced EFL Learners’ written English ...
  • Vahabi, Sh. (2006). The relationship between EFL learners FD/FI cognitive ...
  • Wei-Yu Chen, C. (2006). The mixing of English in magazine ...
  • Witkin, H. A., Ottman, P. K., Raskin, E. & Karp, ...
  • Zainal, Z., & Husin, S. H. B. M. (2011). A ...
  • نمایش کامل مراجع