KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics / 2020 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 1

The effects of L1 use and dialogic instruction on EFL writing

Ayfer Tanış
Feyza Harman Şensoy
Derin Atay
Sayfa
1–21
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The statistical results indicated that the group who used theirL1 during pre-writing stage with the help of dialogic instruction had higher mean scores than the groupwho was instructed monologically and the group who was instructed through dialogic instruction in L2.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:This paper investigates the effects of three different types of prewriting instruction on Turkish students’L2 writing production capabilities.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:This mixed method study was carried out with 45 Turkish EFLstudents enrolled at a state university.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The statistical results indicated that the group who used theirL1 during pre-writing stage with the help of dialogic instruction had higher mean scores than the groupwho was instructed monologically and the group who was instructed through dialogic instruction in L2.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

This paper investigates the effects of three different types of prewriting instruction on Turkish students’L2 writing production capabilities. This mixed method study was carried out with 45 Turkish EFLstudents enrolled at a state university. Students were allocated into three groups randomly. In thecontrol group the prewriting phase was carried out with monologic instruction in L2, while in one of theexperimental groups, it was done with dialogic instruction in L2 and in the second experimental group,dialogic instruction was conducted in L1. Data were collected by means of pre-and post-writing tasks ofthe students and semi-structured interviews, and analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann Whitney testsand through pattern coding, respectively. The statistical results indicated that the group who used theirL1 during pre-writing stage with the help of dialogic instruction had higher mean scores than the groupwho was instructed monologically and the group who was instructed through dialogic instruction in L2.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Tanış, A., Şensoy, F. H., Atay, D. (2022). The effects of L1 use and dialogic instruction on EFL writing. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 1, 1–21. https://ajindex.com/articles/506976

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (10)

  1. Abdel Latif, M. M. (2007). The factors accounting for the Egyptian EFL university students’ negative writing affect. Essex Graduate Student Papers in Language and Linguistics, 9(1), 57-82.
  2. Akyel, A. (1994). First language use in EFL writing: Planning in Turkish vs. planning in English. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 169-196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.1994.tb00062.x
  3. Alexander, R. (2008). Culture, dialogue and learning: notes on an emerging pedagogy. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in school: Inspired by the work of Douglas Barnes (pp. 91-114). London: SAGE Publications. Alexander, R. (2013). Essays on pedagogy. New York: Routledge. Alexander, R. J. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. Cambridge: Dialogos. Altınyelken, K. H. (2011). Student- centred pedagogy in Turkey: Conceptualisations, interpretations and practices. Journal of Education Policy, 26(2), 137-160. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2010.504886
  4. Atkinson, D. (1987). The mother tongue in the classroom: A neglected resource? ELT Journal, 41(4), 241-247. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/41.4.241
  5. Auman, M. E. (1999).
  6. Step up to writing. Longmont, CO: Sopris West Publishing. Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics (Vol. 8). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Beare, S. (2000). Differences in content generating and planning process of adult L1 and L2 proficient writers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario. Becker, C. (1991). Quality and quantity of writing German in early acquisition: A case for associative activities in foreign language courses. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). An attainable version of high literacy: Approaches to teaching higher-order skills in reading and writing. Curriculum Inquiry, 17(1), 9-30. https://doi.org/10.2307/1179375
  7. Bruen, J., & Kelly, N. (2017). Using a shared L1 to reduce cognitive overload and anxiety levels in the L2 classroom. The Language Learning Journal, 45(3), 368-381. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.908405
  8. Burbules, N. C. (1993). Dialogue in teaching: Theory and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
  9. Burns, C., & Myhill, D. (2004). Interactive or inactive? A consideration of the nature of interaction in whole class teaching. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(1), 35-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764042000183115
  10. Byrd, R. D. (2011). Putti