2018 21 2 22 230

Group Dynamic Assessment in an EFL Classroom: Do Secondary Interactants Benefit? Group Dynamic Assessment in an EFL Classroom: Do Secondary Interactants Benefit 2 1 This study aimed to investigate the application of Group Dynamic Assessment (GDA) to writing accuracy of EFL learners and explore whether secondary interactants could benefit from interactions between mediator and primary interactants. The idea of implementing DA (Dynamic Assessment) in dyads seems unworkable since teachers are required to teach the whole class (Guk & Kellog, 2007). Moreover, Lantolf and Poehner (2004) suggest a new approach to DA that is GDA, which involves applying DA with a large number of learners rather than individuals. Following a multiple case study design and interactionist DA, the development of ten students in a class of twenty five was tracked during the eight sessions of DA program. Data were collected though written artifacts, video-recording of interactions, interview, and observation. The results indicated that GDA was an effective way of helping learners overcome their linguistic problems and there were signs of microgenetic as well as macrogenetic development within the same DA session and across sessions. The present findings provide further insight into understanding how secondary interactants benefit from the interactions between mediator and primary interactants. 2 This study aimed to investigate the application of Group Dynamic Assessment (GDA) to writing accuracy of EFL learners and explore whether secondary interactants could benefit from interactions between mediator and primary interactants. The idea of implementing DA (Dynamic Assessment) in dyads seems unworkable since teachers are required to teach the whole class (Guk & Kellog, 2007). Moreover, Lantolf and Poehner (2004) suggest a new approach to DA that is GDA, which involves applying DA with a large number of learners rather than individuals. Following a multiple case study design and interactionist DA, the development of ten students in a class of twenty five was tracked during the eight sessions of DA program. Data were collected though written artifacts, video-recording of interactions, interview, and observation. The results indicated that GDA was an effective way of helping learners overcome their linguistic problems and there were signs of microgenetic as well as macrogenetic development within the same DA session and across sessions. The present findings provide further insight into understanding how secondary interactants benefit from the interactions between mediator and primary interactants. 1 42 2018/05/24 1397/3/3 2018/07/29 1397/5/7 Soroor Ashtarian Soroor Ashtarian Iran Saman Ebadi Saman Ebadi Iran Nourodin Yousofi Nourodin Yousofi Iran Foreign language learning GDA Mediation typology Primary/ secondary interactants Abbasi, A., & Fatemi, M.A. (2015). On the effect of dynamic assessment on Iranian pre-intermediate EFL learner acquisition of English tenses. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 8(4), 222-236.##Ableeva, R.(2010). Dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in second language learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.##Ajideh, P., & Nourdad, N. (2012). The effect of dynamic assessment on EFL reading comprehension in different proficiency levels. Language Testing in Asia, 2 (4), 101-122.##Alavi, S. M., Kaivanpanah, S., & Shabani, K. (2011). Group dynamic assessment: An inventory of mediational strategies for teaching listening. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 3(4), 27-58.##Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465-483.##Antón, M. (2003). Dynamic assessment of advanced foreign language learners. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C.##Azarian, F., Nourdad, N., & Nouri, N. (2016). The effect of dynamic assessment on elementary EFL learners' overall language attainment. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(1), 203.##Barber, B. K. (2005). Positive interpersonal and intrapersonal functioning: An assessment of measures among adolescents. In What Do Children Need to Flourish? (pp. 147-161). Springer, Boston, MA.##Budoff, M. (1968). A learning potential assessment procedure: Rationale and supporting data. Proceedings from the First Congress of the International Association for the Scientific Study of Mental Deficiency. Surrey, England: Michael Jackson (pp. 569- 570).##Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.##Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, 209, 240.##Davin, K. J. (2016). Classroom dynamic assessment: a critical examination of constructs and practices. The Modern Language Journal, 100(4), 813-829.##Davin, K. J., & Donato, R. (2013). Student collaboration and teacher-directed classroom dynamic assessment: A complementary pairing. Foreign Language Annals, 46 (1), 5-22.doi: 10.1111/flan.12012##Davin, K. J., Herazo, J. D., & Sagre, A. (2017). Learning to mediate: Teacher appropriation of dynamic assessment. Language Teaching Research, 21(5), 632-651.##Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Apple (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language learning research (pp. 33-56). Norwood, NJ: Albex.##Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.##Erben, T., Ban, R., & Summers, R. (2008). Changing examination structures within a college of education: The application of dynamic assessment in pre-service ESOL endorsement courses in Florida. Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages, 87-114.##Fani, T., & Rashtchi, M. (2015). Dynamic assessment of reading comprehension ability: Group or individualized. Education Journal, 4(6), 325-331.##Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y. A., & Hoffman, M. B. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device, theory, instruments, and techniques. Scott Foresman & Co.##Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. Tesol Quarterly, 37(2), 247-273.##Guk, I., & Kellogg, D. (2007). The ZPD and whole class teaching: Teacher-led and student-led interactional mediation of tasks. Language Teaching Research, 11 (3), 281-299.##Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2010). The practice of qualitative research. Sage.##Hesse, F., Care, E., Buder, J., Sassenberg, K., & Griffin, P. (2015). A framework for teachable collaborative problem solving skills. In Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 37-56). Springer, Dordrecht.‏##Hidri, S. (2014). Developing and evaluating a dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in an EFL context. Language Testing in Asia, 4(4), 1-19.##Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (2016). Mindful L2 teacher education: A sociocultural perspective on cultivating teachers' professional development. Routledge.‏##Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. Sociocultural theory and second language learning, 1, 1-26.##Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2011). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language development. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 11-33.##Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 49- 72.‏##Lee, I. (2014). Revisiting teacher feedback in EFL writing from sociocultural perspectives. Tesol Quarterly, 48(1), 201-213.##Lidz, C. S. (2002). Mediated learning experience (MLE) as a basis for an alternative approach to assessment. School Psychology International, 23(1), 68-84.##Lidz, C. S., & Gindis, B. (2003). Dynamic assessment of the evolving cognitive functions in children. A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, S. M. Miller (Eds.). In Vygotsky's Educational Theory in Cultural Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##Mardani,M., & Tavakoli,M. (2011). Beyond reading comprehension: The effect of adding a dynamic assessment component on EFL reading comprehension. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(3) , 688-696.##McNeil, L. (2016). Understanding and addressing the challenges of learning computer-mediated dynamic assessment: A teacher education study. Language Teaching Research, 22(3), 289-309.##Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Revised and Expanded from" Case Study Research in Education.". Jossey-Bass Publishers, 350 Sansome St, San Francisco, CA 94104.##Miri, M., Alibakhshi, G., Kushki, A., & Bavarsad, P. S. (2017). Going beyond one-to-one mediation in zone of proximal development (ZPD): concurrent and cumulative group dynamic assessment. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 1-24.##Panahi, P., Birjandi, P., & Azabdaftari, B. (2013). Toward a sociocultural approach to feedback provision in L2 writing classrooms: the alignment of dynamic assessment and teacher error feedback. Language Testing in Asia, 3(13). 1-10.##Poehner, M. E. (2009). Group dynamic assessment: Mediation for the L2 classroom. TESOL quarterly, 43(3), 471-491.##Poehner, M. E. (2005). Dynamic assessment of oral proficiency among advanced L2 learners of French. Doctoral dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University: The Graduate School Department of French and Francophone Studies.##Poehner, M. E., Davin, K. J., & Lantolf, J. P. (2017). Dynamic assessment. Language Testing and Assessment,4, 243-256.##Poehner, M. E., & Infante, P. (2017). Mediated development: A Vygotskian approach to transforming second language learner abilities. TESOL Quarterly, 51(2), 332-357.‏##Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2013). Bringing the ZPD into the equation: Capturing L2 development during Computerized Dynamic Assessment (C-DA). Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 323-342.##Poehner, M.E., & Lantolf, J.P. (2005). Dynamic Assessment in the Language Classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9 (3), 233-265.##Poehner, M. E., Zhang, J., & Lu, X. (2015). Computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA): Diagnosing L2 development according to learner reciprocity to mediation. Language testing, 32(3), 337-357.##Rahimi, M., Kushki, A., & Nassaji, H. (2015). Diagnostic and developmental potentials of dynamic assessment for L2 writing. Language and sociocultural theory, 2(2), 185- 208.##Rommetveit, R. (1985). Language acquisition as increasing linguistic structuring of experience and symbolic behavior control. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.). Culture, Communication, and Cognition: Vygotkian Perspectives (pp. 183-204). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##Saniei, A. (2012). Dynamic assessment: A call for change in assessment. The Asian EFL Journal, 59 (4), 4-19.##Saniei, A., Birjandi, P., & Abdollahzadeh, E. (2015). On the practicality of group dynamic assessment: A seminal enterprise deserving closer scrutiny. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 4(2), 39-46.##Shabani, K. (2018). Group Dynamic Assessment of L2 Learners' Writing Abilities. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 129-149.##Shabani K. (2014). Dynamic assessment of L2 listening comprehension in transcendence tasks. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1729-1737.##Sharples, M., Adams, A., Ferguson, R., Gaved, M., McAndrew, P., Rienties, B., & Whitelock, D. (2014). Innovating pedagogy 2014 (pp. 1-37). Open University.##Shrestha, P., & Coffin, C. (2012). Dynamic assessment, tutor mediation and academic writing development. Assessing Writing, 17(1), 55-70.##Siwathaworn, P., & Wudthayagorn, J. (2018). The impact of dynamic assessment on tertiary EFL students' speaking skills. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 142-155.##Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185-211.##Sternberg, R.J. (2000). Prologue to dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications. In Dynamic assessment: Prevailing Models and Applications. C. Lidz and J. G. Elliott (Eds.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.##Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of learning potential. Cambridge university press.##Tabatabaee, M., Alidoust, M., & Sarkeshikian, A. H. (2018). The Effect of Interventionist and Cumulative Group Dynamic Assessments on EFL Learners' Writing Accuracy. Applied Linguistics Research Journal, 2(1), 1-13.##Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Newly revised and edited by A. Kozulin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.##Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.##Zhao, H. (2014). Investigating teacher-supported peer assessment for EFL writing. ELT Journal, 68(2), 155-168.##Abbasi, A., & Fatemi, M.A. (2015). On the effect of dynamic assessment on Iranian pre-intermediate EFL learner acquisition of English tenses. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 8(4), 222-236.##Ableeva, R.(2010). Dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in second language learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.##Ajideh, P., & Nourdad, N. (2012). The effect of dynamic assessment on EFL reading comprehension in different proficiency levels. Language Testing in Asia, 2 (4), 101-122.##Alavi, S. M., Kaivanpanah, S., & Shabani, K. (2011). Group dynamic assessment: An inventory of mediational strategies for teaching listening. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 3(4), 27-58.##Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465-483.##Antón, M. (2003). Dynamic assessment of advanced foreign language learners. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C.##Azarian, F., Nourdad, N., & Nouri, N. (2016). The effect of dynamic assessment on elementary EFL learners' overall language attainment. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(1), 203.##Barber, B. K. (2005). Positive interpersonal and intrapersonal functioning: An assessment of measures among adolescents. In What Do Children Need to Flourish? (pp. 147-161). Springer, Boston, MA.##Budoff, M. (1968). A learning potential assessment procedure: Rationale and supporting data. Proceedings from the First Congress of the International Association for the Scientific Study of Mental Deficiency. Surrey, England: Michael Jackson (pp. 569- 570).##Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.##Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, 209, 240.##Davin, K. J. (2016). Classroom dynamic assessment: a critical examination of constructs and practices. The Modern Language Journal, 100(4), 813-829.##Davin, K. J., & Donato, R. (2013). Student collaboration and teacher-directed classroom dynamic assessment: A complementary pairing. Foreign Language Annals, 46 (1), 5-22.doi: 10.1111/flan.12012##Davin, K. J., Herazo, J. D., & Sagre, A. (2017). Learning to mediate: Teacher appropriation of dynamic assessment. Language Teaching Research, 21(5), 632-651.##Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Apple (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language learning research (pp. 33-56). Norwood, NJ: Albex.##Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.##Erben, T., Ban, R., & Summers, R. (2008). Changing examination structures within a college of education: The application of dynamic assessment in pre-service ESOL endorsement courses in Florida. Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages, 87-114.##Fani, T., & Rashtchi, M. (2015). Dynamic assessment of reading comprehension ability: Group or individualized. Education Journal, 4(6), 325-331.##Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y. A., & Hoffman, M. B. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device, theory, instruments, and techniques. Scott Foresman & Co.##Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. Tesol Quarterly, 37(2), 247-273.##Guk, I., & Kellogg, D. (2007). The ZPD and whole class teaching: Teacher-led and student-led interactional mediation of tasks. Language Teaching Research, 11 (3), 281-299.##Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2010). The practice of qualitative research. Sage.##Hesse, F., Care, E., Buder, J., Sassenberg, K., & Griffin, P. (2015). A framework for teachable collaborative problem solving skills. In Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 37-56). Springer, Dordrecht.‏##Hidri, S. (2014). Developing and evaluating a dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in an EFL context. Language Testing in Asia, 4(4), 1-19.##Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (2016). Mindful L2 teacher education: A sociocultural perspective on cultivating teachers' professional development. Routledge.‏##Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. Sociocultural theory and second language learning, 1, 1-26.##Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2011). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language development. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 11-33.##Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 49- 72.‏##Lee, I. (2014). Revisiting teacher feedback in EFL writing from sociocultural perspectives. Tesol Quarterly, 48(1), 201-213.##Lidz, C. S. (2002). Mediated learning experience (MLE) as a basis for an alternative approach to assessment. School Psychology International, 23(1), 68-84.##Lidz, C. S., & Gindis, B. (2003). Dynamic assessment of the evolving cognitive functions in children. A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, S. M. Miller (Eds.). In Vygotsky's Educational Theory in Cultural Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##Mardani,M., & Tavakoli,M. (2011). Beyond reading comprehension: The effect of adding a dynamic assessment component on EFL reading comprehension. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(3) , 688-696.##McNeil, L. (2016). Understanding and addressing the challenges of learning computer-mediated dynamic assessment: A teacher education study. Language Teaching Research, 22(3), 289-309.##Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Revised and Expanded from" Case Study Research in Education.". Jossey-Bass Publishers, 350 Sansome St, San Francisco, CA 94104.##Miri, M., Alibakhshi, G., Kushki, A., & Bavarsad, P. S. (2017). Going beyond one-to-one mediation in zone of proximal development (ZPD): concurrent and cumulative group dynamic assessment. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 1-24.##Panahi, P., Birjandi, P., & Azabdaftari, B. (2013). Toward a sociocultural approach to feedback provision in L2 writing classrooms: the alignment of dynamic assessment and teacher error feedback. Language Testing in Asia, 3(13). 1-10.##Poehner, M. E. (2009). Group dynamic assessment: Mediation for the L2 classroom. TESOL quarterly, 43(3), 471-491.##Poehner, M. E. (2005). Dynamic assessment of oral proficiency among advanced L2 learners of French. Doctoral dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University: The Graduate School Department of French and Francophone Studies.##Poehner, M. E., Davin, K. J., & Lantolf, J. P. (2017). Dynamic assessment. Language Testing and Assessment,4, 243-256.##Poehner, M. E., & Infante, P. (2017). Mediated development: A Vygotskian approach to transforming second language learner abilities. TESOL Quarterly, 51(2), 332-357.‏##Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2013). Bringing the ZPD into the equation: Capturing L2 development during Computerized Dynamic Assessment (C-DA). Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 323-342.##Poehner, M.E., & Lantolf, J.P. (2005). Dynamic Assessment in the Language Classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9 (3), 233-265.##Poehner, M. E., Zhang, J., & Lu, X. (2015). Computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA): Diagnosing L2 development according to learner reciprocity to mediation. Language testing, 32(3), 337-357.##Rahimi, M., Kushki, A., & Nassaji, H. (2015). Diagnostic and developmental potentials of dynamic assessment for L2 writing. Language and sociocultural theory, 2(2), 185- 208.##Rommetveit, R. (1985). Language acquisition as increasing linguistic structuring of experience and symbolic behavior control. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.). Culture, Communication, and Cognition: Vygotkian Perspectives (pp. 183-204). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##Saniei, A. (2012). Dynamic assessment: A call for change in assessment. The Asian EFL Journal, 59 (4), 4-19.##Saniei, A., Birjandi, P., & Abdollahzadeh, E. (2015). On the practicality of group dynamic assessment: A seminal enterprise deserving closer scrutiny. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 4(2), 39-46.##Shabani, K. (2018). Group Dynamic Assessment of L2 Learners' Writing Abilities. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 129-149.##Shabani K. (2014). Dynamic assessment of L2 listening comprehension in transcendence tasks. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1729-1737.##Sharples, M., Adams, A., Ferguson, R., Gaved, M., McAndrew, P., Rienties, B., & Whitelock, D. (2014). Innovating pedagogy 2014 (pp. 1-37). Open University.##Shrestha, P., & Coffin, C. (2012). Dynamic assessment, tutor mediation and academic writing development. Assessing Writing, 17(1), 55-70.##Siwathaworn, P., & Wudthayagorn, J. (2018). The impact of dynamic assessment on tertiary EFL students' speaking skills. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 142-155.##Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185-211.##Sternberg, R.J. (2000). Prologue to dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications. In Dynamic assessment: Prevailing Models and Applications. C. Lidz and J. G. Elliott (Eds.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.##Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of learning potential. Cambridge university press.##Tabatabaee, M., Alidoust, M., & Sarkeshikian, A. H. (2018). The Effect of Interventionist and Cumulative Group Dynamic Assessments on EFL Learners' Writing Accuracy. Applied Linguistics Research Journal, 2(1), 1-13.##Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Newly revised and edited by A. Kozulin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.##Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.##Zhao, H. (2014). Investigating teacher-supported peer assessment for EFL writing. ELT Journal, 68(2), 155-168.## ##

A Typology of Supervisor Written Feedback on L2 Students’ Theses/Dissertations A Typology of Supervisor Written Feedback on L2 Students’ Theses/Dissertations 2 1 The present study aimed at providing a typology of Iranian supervisors’ written feedback on L2 graduate students’ theses/dissertations and examining the way different speech functions are employed to put the supervisors’ thoughts and feelings into words. In so doing, a corpus of comments, including 15,198 comments provided on 87 TEFL theses and dissertations by 30 supervisors were analyzed. We employed an inductive category formation procedure to form the typology of comments, and followed a deductive procedure to put the comments into the three categories of expressive, referential, and directive speech functions. The findings showed that supervisors provided seven main categories of comments on theses and dissertations: grammar and sentence structure, content, method, organization, references, formatting, and academic procedures. Furthermore, the findings indicated that supervisors employed comments with different patterns and for different purposes on MA and PhD students’ texts. 2 The present study aimed at providing a typology of Iranian supervisors’ written feedback on L2 graduate students’ theses/dissertations and examining the way different speech functions are employed to put the supervisors’ thoughts and feelings into words. In so doing, a corpus of comments, including 15,198 comments provided on 87 TEFL theses and dissertations by 30 supervisors were analyzed. We employed an inductive category formation procedure to form the typology of comments, and followed a deductive procedure to put the comments into the three categories of expressive, referential, and directive speech functions. The findings showed that supervisors provided seven main categories of comments on theses and dissertations: grammar and sentence structure, content, method, organization, references, formatting, and academic procedures. Furthermore, the findings indicated that supervisors employed comments with different patterns and for different purposes on MA and PhD students’ texts. 43 87 2018/05/242018/06/23 1397/4/2 2018/07/292018/07/29 1397/5/7 Monoochehr Jafarigohar Monoochehr Jafarigohar Iran Mohammad Hamed Hoomanfard Mohammad Hamed Hoomanfard Iran Alireza Jalilifar Alireza Jalilifar Iran Academic writing Feedback Second language writing Supervisor feedback Adcroft, A. P. (2013). Support for new career academics: An integrated model for research intensive university business and management schools. Studies in Higher Education, 38, 827-840.##Aitchison, C., & Lee, A. (2006). Research writing: Problems and pedagogies. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 265-278.##Alter, C., & Adkins, C. (2006). Assessing student writing proficiency in graduate schools of social work. Journal of Social Work Education, 42(2), 337-354.##Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to research in education. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.##Barnes, B. J., & Austin, A. E. (2009). The role of doctoral advisors: A look at advising from the advisor's perspective. Innovative Higher Education, 33, 297-315.##Belcher, D., & Hirvela, A. (2005). Writing the qualitative dissertation: What motivates and sustains commitment to a fuzzy genre? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 187-205.##Bitchener, J., Basturkmen, H., East, M., & Meyer, H. (2011). Best practice in supervisor feedback to thesis writers (Research Report). Retrieved from http://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/best-practice-supervisor-feedback.##Caffarella, R. S., & Barnett, B. G. (2000). Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly writers: The importance of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 39-52.##Can, G. (2009). A model for doctoral students' perception and attitudes toward written feedback for academic writing. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Utah State University.##Can, G., & Walker, A. (2011). A model for doctoral students' perceptions and attitudes toward written feedback for academic writing. Research in Higher Education, 52, 508-536.##Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219-233.##Chamberlain, C. (2016). Writing-centred supervision for postgraduate students. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of the Witwatersrand.##Cotterall, S. (2011) Doctoral students writing: Where's the pedagogy?, Teaching in Higher Education, 16(4), 413-425.##Dehghan, F., & Razmjoo, S. A. (2012). Discipline-specific writing strategies used by TEFL graduate students. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 4(3), 1-22.##Ferris, D. (2007). Preparing teachers to respond to student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 165-193.##Foucault, M. (1974). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. New York: Vintage.##Grant, B. M. (2010). Negotiating the layered relations of supervision. In M. Walker & P. Thompson (Eds.), The Routledge doctoral supervisor's companion (pp. 88-105). London: Routledge.##Halbert, K. (2015). Students' perceptions of a 'quality' advisory relationship. Quality in Higher Education, 21 (1), 26-37.##Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.##Hasani, M. (2014). Developing a structural model for evaluation of faculty members core competencies in Urmia University (Using of Analytic Hierarchy Process). Quarterly Journal of Career & Organizational Counseling, 6, 55-75.##Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.##Hemer, S. R. (2012). Informality, power and relationships in postgraduate supervision: Supervising PhD candidates over coffee. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(6), 827-839.##Holmes, J. (2001). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Harlow, England: Longman.##Hoomanfard, M. H. (2017). EFL learners' attitudes and perceptions of online and conventional peer written feedback: A tertiary level experience. Malaysian Journal of Languages and Linguistics, 6(1), 49-62.##Hoomanfard, M. H., Jafarigohar, M., & Jalilifar, A. R. (in press). Hindrances to L2 graduate students' incorporation of written feedback into their academic Texts. Journal of Language Research.##Hoomanfard, M. H., & Rahimi, M. (in press). A comparative study of the efficacy of teacher and peer online written corrective feedback on EFL learners' writing ability. Journal of Language Research.##Hoomanfard, M. H., Jafarigohar, M. Jalilifar, A. R., & Hosseini Masum, S. M. (2018). A comparative study of graduate students' self-perceived needs for written feedback and the supervisors' perceptions. Research in Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 24-46.##Hyatt, D. F. (2005). Yes, a very good point!: A critical genre analysis of a corpus of feedback commentaries on Master of Education assignments. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(3), 339-353.##Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill; Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 185-212.##Hyland, K. (2013). Faculty feedback: Perceptions and practices in L2 disciplinary writing. Journal of second language writing, 22, 240-253.##Ives, G., & G. Rowley. (2005). Supervisor selection or allocation and continuity of supervision: PhD students' progress and outcomes. Studies in Higher Education 30(5), 535-55.##Joyner, R.L, Rouse, W.A., & Glatthorn, A.A. (2013). Writing the winning thesis or dissertation: A step by step guide (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.##Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2006). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision. London: Routledge.##Kiley, M. (2011). Developments in research supervisor training: Causes and responses. Studies in Higher Education, 36(5), 585-599.##Kumar, V., & Stracke, E. (2007). An analysis of written feedback on a PhD thesis. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(4), 461-470.##Lee, A., & Murray, R. (2015). Supervising writing: Helping postgraduate students develop as researchers. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(5), 558-570.##Lei, J., & Hu, G. (2015). Apprenticeship in scholarly publishing: A student perspective on doctoral supervisors' roles. Publications, 3, 27-42.##Li, S., & Seale, C. (2007). Managing criticism in Ph.D. supervision: A qualitative case study. Studies in Higher Education, 32(4), 511-526.##Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2008). Feedback on assessment: Students' perceptions of quality and effectiveness. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 263-275.##Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., Gilchrist, J., & Gallois, C. (2003). The role of gender in the construction and evaluation of feedback effectiveness. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 341-379.##Lumadi, M.W. (2008). The pedagogy of postgraduate research & its complexities. College Teaching Method & Styles Journal. 4(11), 25-32.##Maclellan, E. (2001). Assessment for learning: The differing perceptions of tutors and students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(4), 307-318.##Manchón, R. M., Murphy, L., & Roca de Larios, J. (2005). Using concurrent protocols to explore L2 writing processes: Methodological issues in the collection and analysis of data. In P. K. Matsuda & T. Silva (Eds.), Second language writing research: Perspectives on the process of knowledge construction (191-205). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.##Mayring, P. (2004). Qualitative content analysis. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff & I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 266-269). London: Sage.##Merkel, W. (2018). Role reversals: A case study of dialogic interactions and feedback on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 39, 16-28.##Mhunpiew, N. (2013). A supervisor's roles for successful thesis and dissertation. US-China Education Review, 3(2), 119-122.##Mirador, J. F. (2000). A move analysis of written feedback in higher education. RELC Journal, 31(1), 45-60.##Muthuchamy, I, & Thiyagu, K. (2011). Technology and teaching: Learning skills. Delhi: Kalpaz Publications.##O'Donovan, B., Price, M., & Rust, C. (2004). Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(3), 325-335.##Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2007). Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language: A handbook for supervisors. London: Routledge.##Parker, R. (2009). A learning community approach to doctoral education in social sciences. Teaching in Higher Education 14(1), 43-54.##Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J., & O'Donovan, B. (2010). Feedback: All that effort, but what is the effect? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 277-289.##Rimaz, S., Dehdari, T., & Dehdari, L. (2015). PhD students' expectations from their supervisors: A qualitative content analysis. JMED, 9(4), 56-71.##Rust, C., Price, M., & O'Donovan, B. (2003). Improving students' learning by developing their understanding of assessment criteria and processes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(2), 147-164.##Schoonen, R., Snellings, P., Stevenson, M., & van Gelderen, A. (2009). Towards a blueprint of the foreign language writer: The linguistic and cognitive demands of foreign language writing. In R.M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning, teaching, and researching writing in foreign language contexts. US: Multilingual Matters.##Skehan, P. (2009). Modeling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510-532.##Stracke, E., & Kumar, V. (2010). Feedback and self-regulated learning: Insights from supervisors' and PhD examiners' reports. Reflective practice, 11(1), 19-32.##Surry, D. W., Stefurak, T., & Kowch, E. G. (2010). Technology in higher education: Asking the right questions. In D. Surry, T. Stefurak & R. Gray (Eds.), Technology in higher education: Social and organizational aspects (pp. 1-12). Harrisburg, PA: IGI Global.##Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##Taheri, M., & Younesi, J. (2015). PhD students' attitude model about the feedback of academic. Educational Psychology, 10(34), 44-66.##Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.##Walker, M. & Thomson, P. (2010). The Routledge doctoral supervisor's companion. London: Routledge.##Warrell, J, G. (2016). Meaningfully becoming and learning to be: Graduate learners' professional identity development in online learning communities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Calgary.##Wright, T. (2003). Postgraduate research students: People in context? British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 31(2), 209-227.##Zhao, H. (2010). Investigating learners' use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: A comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom. Assessing Writing, 15(1), 3-17.##Adcroft, A. P. (2013). Support for new career academics: An integrated model for research intensive university business and management schools. Studies in Higher Education, 38, 827-840.##Aitchison, C., & Lee, A. (2006). Research writing: Problems and pedagogies. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 265-278.##Alter, C., & Adkins, C. (2006). Assessing student writing proficiency in graduate schools of social work. Journal of Social Work Education, 42(2), 337-354.##Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to research in education. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.##Barnes, B. J., & Austin, A. E. (2009). The role of doctoral advisors: A look at advising from the advisor's perspective. Innovative Higher Education, 33, 297-315.##Belcher, D., & Hirvela, A. (2005). Writing the qualitative dissertation: What motivates and sustains commitment to a fuzzy genre? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 187-205.##Bitchener, J., Basturkmen, H., East, M., & Meyer, H. (2011). Best practice in supervisor feedback to thesis writers (Research Report). Retrieved from http://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/best-practice-supervisor-feedback.##Caffarella, R. S., & Barnett, B. G. (2000). Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly writers: The importance of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 39-52.##Can, G. (2009). A model for doctoral students' perception and attitudes toward written feedback for academic writing. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Utah State University.##Can, G., & Walker, A. (2011). A model for doctoral students' perceptions and attitudes toward written feedback for academic writing. Research in Higher Education, 52, 508-536.##Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219-233.##Chamberlain, C. (2016). Writing-centred supervision for postgraduate students. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of the Witwatersrand.##Cotterall, S. (2011) Doctoral students writing: Where's the pedagogy?, Teaching in Higher Education, 16(4), 413-425.##Dehghan, F., & Razmjoo, S. A. (2012). Discipline-specific writing strategies used by TEFL graduate students. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 4(3), 1-22.##Ferris, D. (2007). Preparing teachers to respond to student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 165-193.##Foucault, M. (1974). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. New York: Vintage.##Grant, B. M. (2010). Negotiating the layered relations of supervision. In M. Walker & P. Thompson (Eds.), The Routledge doctoral supervisor's companion (pp. 88-105). London: Routledge.##Halbert, K. (2015). Students' perceptions of a 'quality' advisory relationship. Quality in Higher Education, 21 (1), 26-37.##Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.##Hasani, M. (2014). Developing a structural model for evaluation of faculty members core competencies in Urmia University (Using of Analytic Hierarchy Process). Quarterly Journal of Career & Organizational Counseling, 6, 55-75.##Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.##Hemer, S. R. (2012). Informality, power and relationships in postgraduate supervision: Supervising PhD candidates over coffee. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(6), 827-839.##Holmes, J. (2001). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Harlow, England: Longman.##Hoomanfard, M. H. (2017). EFL learners' attitudes and perceptions of online and conventional peer written feedback: A tertiary level experience. Malaysian Journal of Languages and Linguistics, 6(1), 49-62.##Hoomanfard, M. H., Jafarigohar, M., & Jalilifar, A. R. (in press). Hindrances to L2 graduate students' incorporation of written feedback into their academic Texts. Journal of Language Research.##Hoomanfard, M. H., & Rahimi, M. (in press). A comparative study of the efficacy of teacher and peer online written corrective feedback on EFL learners' writing ability. Journal of Language Research.##Hoomanfard, M. H., Jafarigohar, M. Jalilifar, A. R., & Hosseini Masum, S. M. (2018). A comparative study of graduate students' self-perceived needs for written feedback and the supervisors' perceptions. Research in Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 24-46.##Hyatt, D. F. (2005). Yes, a very good point!: A critical genre analysis of a corpus of feedback commentaries on Master of Education assignments. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(3), 339-353.##Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill; Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 185-212.##Hyland, K. (2013). Faculty feedback: Perceptions and practices in L2 disciplinary writing. Journal of second language writing, 22, 240-253.##Ives, G., & G. Rowley. (2005). Supervisor selection or allocation and continuity of supervision: PhD students' progress and outcomes. Studies in Higher Education 30(5), 535-55.##Joyner, R.L, Rouse, W.A., & Glatthorn, A.A. (2013). Writing the winning thesis or dissertation: A step by step guide (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.##Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2006). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision. London: Routledge.##Kiley, M. (2011). Developments in research supervisor training: Causes and responses. Studies in Higher Education, 36(5), 585-599.##Kumar, V., & Stracke, E. (2007). An analysis of written feedback on a PhD thesis. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(4), 461-470.##Lee, A., & Murray, R. (2015). Supervising writing: Helping postgraduate students develop as researchers. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(5), 558-570.##Lei, J., & Hu, G. (2015). Apprenticeship in scholarly publishing: A student perspective on doctoral supervisors' roles. Publications, 3, 27-42.##Li, S., & Seale, C. (2007). Managing criticism in Ph.D. supervision: A qualitative case study. Studies in Higher Education, 32(4), 511-526.##Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2008). Feedback on assessment: Students' perceptions of quality and effectiveness. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 263-275.##Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., Gilchrist, J., & Gallois, C. (2003). The role of gender in the construction and evaluation of feedback effectiveness. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 341-379.##Lumadi, M.W. (2008). The pedagogy of postgraduate research & its complexities. College Teaching Method & Styles Journal. 4(11), 25-32.##Maclellan, E. (2001). Assessment for learning: The differing perceptions of tutors and students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(4), 307-318.##Manchón, R. M., Murphy, L., & Roca de Larios, J. (2005). Using concurrent protocols to explore L2 writing processes: Methodological issues in the collection and analysis of data. In P. K. Matsuda & T. Silva (Eds.), Second language writing research: Perspectives on the process of knowledge construction (191-205). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.##Mayring, P. (2004). Qualitative content analysis. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff & I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 266-269). London: Sage.##Merkel, W. (2018). Role reversals: A case study of dialogic interactions and feedback on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 39, 16-28.##Mhunpiew, N. (2013). A supervisor's roles for successful thesis and dissertation. US-China Education Review, 3(2), 119-122.##Mirador, J. F. (2000). A move analysis of written feedback in higher education. RELC Journal, 31(1), 45-60.##Muthuchamy, I, & Thiyagu, K. (2011). Technology and teaching: Learning skills. Delhi: Kalpaz Publications.##O'Donovan, B., Price, M., & Rust, C. (2004). Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(3), 325-335.##Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2007). Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language: A handbook for supervisors. London: Routledge.##Parker, R. (2009). A learning community approach to doctoral education in social sciences. Teaching in Higher Education 14(1), 43-54.##Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J., & O'Donovan, B. (2010). Feedback: All that effort, but what is the effect? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 277-289.##Rimaz, S., Dehdari, T., & Dehdari, L. (2015). PhD students' expectations from their supervisors: A qualitative content analysis. JMED, 9(4), 56-71.##Rust, C., Price, M., & O'Donovan, B. (2003). Improving students' learning by developing their understanding of assessment criteria and processes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(2), 147-164.##Schoonen, R., Snellings, P., Stevenson, M., & van Gelderen, A. (2009). Towards a blueprint of the foreign language writer: The linguistic and cognitive demands of foreign language writing. In R.M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning, teaching, and researching writing in foreign language contexts. US: Multilingual Matters.##Skehan, P. (2009). Modeling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510-532.##Stracke, E., & Kumar, V. (2010). Feedback and self-regulated learning: Insights from supervisors' and PhD examiners' reports. Reflective practice, 11(1), 19-32.##Surry, D. W., Stefurak, T., & Kowch, E. G. (2010). Technology in higher education: Asking the right questions. In D. Surry, T. Stefurak & R. Gray (Eds.), Technology in higher education: Social and organizational aspects (pp. 1-12). Harrisburg, PA: IGI Global.##Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##Taheri, M., & Younesi, J. (2015). PhD students' attitude model about the feedback of academic. Educational Psychology, 10(34), 44-66.##Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.##Walker, M. & Thomson, P. (2010). The Routledge doctoral supervisor's companion. London: Routledge.##Warrell, J, G. (2016). Meaningfully becoming and learning to be: Graduate learners' professional identity development in online learning communities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Calgary.##Wright, T. (2003). Postgraduate research students: People in context? British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 31(2), 209-227.##Zhao, H. (2010). Investigating learners' use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: A comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom. Assessing Writing, 15(1), 3-17.## ##

A Model of Iranian EFL Learners' Cultural Identity: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach A Model of Iranian EFL Learners' Cultural Identity: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach 2 1 This study aimed, firstly, to investigate the underlying components of Iranian cultural identity and, secondly, to confirm the aforementioned components via Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis. In order to achieve these goals, the researchers reviewed the extensive local and international literature on language, culture and identity. Based on the literature and consultations with a group of 30 university undergraduate and post graduate learners English language learners and a cadre of four university professors in the field of sociology, an Iranian EFL Language Learners’ Cultural Identity Model with six components (Nationality, Religion, Arts, Persian Language and Literature, Media, and Globalization) was hypothesized. In order to test and validate the model, a questionnaire was developed. To probe the reliability of the questionnaire, Cronbach’s Alpha was used. The reliability of all the items in the questionnaire was 0.78. To estimate the construct validity of the model, Exploratory Factor Analysis using PCA was performed, which indicated five components (Religion, Arts, Persian Language and Literature, Media, and Globalization) underlying Iranian Cultural Identity. Then, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis through AMOS 22 was performed to test the model and the interaction among the components. The SEM results confirmed the existence of five factors. Finally, statistical results are discussed and implications are provided. 2 This study aimed, firstly, to investigate the underlying components of Iranian cultural identity and, secondly, to confirm the aforementioned components via Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis. In order to achieve these goals, the researchers reviewed the extensive local and international literature on language, culture and identity. Based on the literature and consultations with a group of 30 university undergraduate and post graduate learners English language learners and a cadre of four university professors in the field of sociology, an Iranian EFL Language Learners’ Cultural Identity Model with six components (Nationality, Religion, Arts, Persian Language and Literature, Media, and Globalization) was hypothesized. In order to test and validate the model, a questionnaire was developed. To probe the reliability of the questionnaire, Cronbach’s Alpha was used. The reliability of all the items in the questionnaire was 0.78. To estimate the construct validity of the model, Exploratory Factor Analysis using PCA was performed, which indicated five components (Religion, Arts, Persian Language and Literature, Media, and Globalization) underlying Iranian Cultural Identity. Then, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis through AMOS 22 was performed to test the model and the interaction among the components. The SEM results confirmed the existence of five factors. Finally, statistical results are discussed and implications are provided. 89 131 2018/05/242018/06/232018/05/23 1397/3/2 2018/07/292018/07/292018/07/22 1397/4/31 Mohammad Khatib Mohammad Khatib Iran Fattaneh Abbasi Talabari Fattaneh Abbasi Talabari Iran Iranian cultural identity Identity Culture Alberti, A. & Bertucci, G. (2006). Replicating Innovations in Governance. In: Innovations in Governance and Public Administration: Replicating What Works (pp.1-25). New York: United Nations.##Billikopf, G. (2009). Cultural Differences? Or, are we really that different? Retrieved July 18, 2016, from http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-labor/7article/article01.html.##Baydak, A. V., Schariot, C. Il'yashenko, I. A. (2015). "Interaction of Language and Culture in the Process of International Education". Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 215, 14-18.##Byram, M. & Morgan, C. (1994). Teaching-and-Learning Language-and-Culture. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.##Chomsky, N. (1968). Language and Mind. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.##Das-Gupta, A. & Chattopadhyay, S. (2004). The Compliance Cost of the Personal Income Tax and its Determinants," Mimeo, New Delhi, National Institute of Public Finance and Policy (available at http://www.planingcommission.nic.in/reports).##Foucault, M. (1994).The Order of Things: Archaeology of the Human Sciences. USA: Vintage Books.##Gao, Y.H., Cheng, Y., Zhao, Y., & Zhou, Y. (2005). Self-identity changes and English learning among Chinese undergraduates. World Englishes, 24(1), 39-51.##Graddol, D. (1997). The Future of English? London: The British Council.##Gunderson, L. (2000). Voices of the teenage diasporas. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43 (8), 692-706.##Hinkel, E. (Ed.) (1999). Culture in second language teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##Honna, N. (2008). English as a multicultural language in Asian contexts: Issues and ideas. Tokyo: Kuroshio.##Hosseinpur, R. M. & Farahani, M. S. (2017). Cultural intelligence, cultural identity and Iranian EFL learners' use of politeness strategies. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 4(4), 27-45.##Hu, L.T. & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6 (1), 1-55.##Karimifard, H. (2012). Constructivism, national identity and foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Asian Social Science, 8(2), 239-246.##Khatib, M., & Rezaei, S. (2013). A model and questionnaire of language identity in Iran: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 34(7), 690-708.##Kramsch, C. (2001). Language and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.##Kubota, R., & McKay, S. (2009). Globalization and language learning in rural Japan: The role of English in the local linguistic ecology. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 593-619.##Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to post method. Mahwah: New Jersey.##Kumaravadivelu, B. (2011). Language Teacher Education for a Global Society. Routledge Publication.##MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130-149.##Maeder-Qian, J. (2018) Intercultural experiences and cultural identity reconstruction of multilingual Chinese international students in Germany. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 39(7), 576-589.##Matsunuma, D. (2011). Shifting tenses: Past, present and future impacts of the globalization of English on the English language teaching field. M.A. thesis, Athabasca University, Alberta.##McKay, S. L. (2003). The Cultural Basis of Teaching English as an International Language. Retrieved June 5, 2017, from http://www.tesol.org/pubs/articles/2003/tm13-4-01.html.##Mufwene, S.S. (2015). Colonization, indigenization, and the differential evolution of English: Some ecological perspectives. World Englishes, 34(1):6-21.##Nash, K. (2000). Contemporary Political Sociology: Globalization, Politics, and Power. London: Blackwell.##Norton, B. (2000). Identity and Language Learning: Gender, Ethnicity, and Educational Change. Harlow: Pearson Education.##Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. London: Longman.##Phillipson, R. (2008). The linguistic imperialism of neoliberal empire. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 5 (1), 1-43.##Pishghadam, R., & Sadeghi, M. (2011). Culture and identity change among Iranian EFL teachers. Ozean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(3), 147-162.##Pishghadam, R., & Zabihi, R. (2012). Life syllabus: A new research agenda in English language teaching. Perspectives, 19(1), 23-27.##Rezaei, S. & Bahrami, A. (2019). Cultural identity among Iranian English language teachers. International Journal of Society, Culture, Language, 7(1), 67-82.##Risager, K. (2007). Language and Culture Pedagogy. From a National to a transnational Paradigm. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.##Saboori, F., Pishghadam, R., Hosseini, A., & Ghonsooli, B. (2015). Culture and identity: Linking Iranian identity components and cultural dimensions. Issues in Language Teaching, 4(1), 87-100.##Sapir, E. (1962). Culture, Language and Personality. University of California.##Saussure, F. de. (1966). Course in General Linguistics. London: Gerald Duckworth.##Shabani, S. & Alipoor, I. (2017). The relationship between cultural identity, intrinsic motivation and pronunciation knowledge of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies, 5(2), 61-66.##Sharifian, F. (2009). English as an International Language: An Overview. In Sharifian, F. (Ed.). English as an international language. (pp. 1-18). Multilingual Matters.##Shin, J., Eslamia, Z. R., and Chen, W. (2012). Presentation of local and international culture in current international English-language teaching textbooks. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 24 (3), 253-268.##Stiglitz, J. E. (2003). Globalization and Its Discontents. New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company.##Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics (5th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.##Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D., F., & Summers, G. (1977). Assessing Reliability and Stability in Panel Models. Sociological Methodology, 8 (1), 84-136.##Whorf, B. L. (1956) Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. (Ed) John B. Carroll. Cambridge: MIT Press.##Zahed, S. (2004). Iranian national identity in the context of globalization: Dialogue or resistance? CSGR Working Paper, No. 162/05.##Alberti, A. & Bertucci, G. (2006). Replicating Innovations in Governance. In: Innovations in Governance and Public Administration: Replicating What Works (pp.1-25). New York: United Nations.##Billikopf, G. (2009). Cultural Differences? Or, are we really that different? Retrieved July 18, 2016, from http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-labor/7article/article01.html.##Baydak, A. V., Schariot, C. Il'yashenko, I. A. (2015). "Interaction of Language and Culture in the Process of International Education". Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 215, 14-18.##Byram, M. & Morgan, C. (1994). Teaching-and-Learning Language-and-Culture. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.##Chomsky, N. (1968). Language and Mind. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.##Das-Gupta, A. & Chattopadhyay, S. (2004). The Compliance Cost of the Personal Income Tax and its Determinants," Mimeo, New Delhi, National Institute of Public Finance and Policy (available at http://www.planingcommission.nic.in/reports).##Foucault, M. (1994).The Order of Things: Archaeology of the Human Sciences. USA: Vintage Books.##Gao, Y.H., Cheng, Y., Zhao, Y., & Zhou, Y. (2005). Self-identity changes and English learning among Chinese undergraduates. World Englishes, 24(1), 39-51.##Graddol, D. (1997). The Future of English? London: The British Council.##Gunderson, L. (2000). Voices of the teenage diasporas. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43 (8), 692-706.##Hinkel, E. (Ed.) (1999). Culture in second language teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##Honna, N. (2008). English as a multicultural language in Asian contexts: Issues and ideas. Tokyo: Kuroshio.##Hosseinpur, R. M. & Farahani, M. S. (2017). Cultural intelligence, cultural identity and Iranian EFL learners' use of politeness strategies. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 4(4), 27-45.##Hu, L.T. & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6 (1), 1-55.##Karimifard, H. (2012). Constructivism, national identity and foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Asian Social Science, 8(2), 239-246.##Khatib, M., & Rezaei, S. (2013). A model and questionnaire of language identity in Iran: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 34(7), 690-708.##Kramsch, C. (2001). Language and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.##Kubota, R., & McKay, S. (2009). Globalization and language learning in rural Japan: The role of English in the local linguistic ecology. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 593-619.##Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to post method. Mahwah: New Jersey.##Kumaravadivelu, B. (2011). Language Teacher Education for a Global Society. Routledge Publication.##MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130-149.##Maeder-Qian, J. (2018) Intercultural experiences and cultural identity reconstruction of multilingual Chinese international students in Germany. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 39(7), 576-589.##Matsunuma, D. (2011). Shifting tenses: Past, present and future impacts of the globalization of English on the English language teaching field. M.A. thesis, Athabasca University, Alberta.##McKay, S. L. (2003). The Cultural Basis of Teaching English as an International Language. Retrieved June 5, 2017, from http://www.tesol.org/pubs/articles/2003/tm13-4-01.html.##Mufwene, S.S. (2015). Colonization, indigenization, and the differential evolution of English: Some ecological perspectives. World Englishes, 34(1):6-21.##Nash, K. (2000). Contemporary Political Sociology: Globalization, Politics, and Power. London: Blackwell.##Norton, B. (2000). Identity and Language Learning: Gender, Ethnicity, and Educational Change. Harlow: Pearson Education.##Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. London: Longman.##Phillipson, R. (2008). The linguistic imperialism of neoliberal empire. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 5 (1), 1-43.##Pishghadam, R., & Sadeghi, M. (2011). Culture and identity change among Iranian EFL teachers. Ozean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(3), 147-162.##Pishghadam, R., & Zabihi, R. (2012). Life syllabus: A new research agenda in English language teaching. Perspectives, 19(1), 23-27.##Rezaei, S. & Bahrami, A. (2019). Cultural identity among Iranian English language teachers. International Journal of Society, Culture, Language, 7(1), 67-82.##Risager, K. (2007). Language and Culture Pedagogy. From a National to a transnational Paradigm. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.##Saboori, F., Pishghadam, R., Hosseini, A., & Ghonsooli, B. (2015). Culture and identity: Linking Iranian identity components and cultural dimensions. Issues in Language Teaching, 4(1), 87-100.##Sapir, E. (1962). Culture, Language and Personality. University of California.##Saussure, F. de. (1966). Course in General Linguistics. London: Gerald Duckworth.##Shabani, S. & Alipoor, I. (2017). The relationship between cultural identity, intrinsic motivation and pronunciation knowledge of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies, 5(2), 61-66.##Sharifian, F. (2009). English as an International Language: An Overview. In Sharifian, F. (Ed.). English as an international language. (pp. 1-18). Multilingual Matters.##Shin, J., Eslamia, Z. R., and Chen, W. (2012). Presentation of local and international culture in current international English-language teaching textbooks. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 24 (3), 253-268.##Stiglitz, J. E. (2003). Globalization and Its Discontents. New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company.##Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics (5th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.##Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D., F., & Summers, G. (1977). Assessing Reliability and Stability in Panel Models. Sociological Methodology, 8 (1), 84-136.##Whorf, B. L. (1956) Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. (Ed) John B. Carroll. Cambridge: MIT Press.##Zahed, S. (2004). Iranian national identity in the context of globalization: Dialogue or resistance? CSGR Working Paper, No. 162/05.## ##

The Assessment of Pragmatic Knowledge in the Online General IELTS-Practice Resources: A Corpus Analysis of Writing Tasks The Assessment of Pragmatic Knowledge in the Online General IELTS-Practice Resources: A Corpus Analysis of Writing Tasks 2 1 Motivated by the concept of Communicative Language Ability and the eminence of the IELTS exam, this study intended to scrutinize the representation of functional knowledge (FK) and socio-linguistic knowledge (SK) as sub-components of pragmatic knowledge in the writing performances of both tasks of the online General IELTS-practice resources across three band scores. This quantitative inter-scores/intra-tasks and inter-tasks investigation aimed to reveal firstly whether the writers of three band scores 7, 8, and 9 differed from each other in their FK and SK level, and secondly whether the tasks differed in activating them. This study adopted a taxonomy of five illocutionary acts and 20 register features to investigate representation of FK and SK in a well-established corpus of 180 writing performances through both manual analysis and Multidimensional Analysis Tagger software. While the results of statistical analyses revealed no FK differences between the bands in task one (T1), T2’s higher bands involved more functional features because of the expression of a diverse range of psychological states, no speaker’s involvement, and less commitment to a future course of actions. Furthermore, socio-linguistically, band 9 scripts encompassed more logical relations, but conversational and spoken style in T1 and more integration, less simplified structures and ego-involvement in T2. The inter-task analyses uncovered T1’s greater activation of FK through self-mentions, others involvement, emotion, and intention expression. Nevertheless, when it came to SK register features, T2 overdid in both spoken and written genre elements except in persuasion, writers’ involvement, mental acts expression, and interactive discourse creation. 2 Motivated by the concept of Communicative Language Ability and the eminence of the IELTS exam, this study intended to scrutinize the representation of functional knowledge (FK) and socio-linguistic knowledge (SK) as sub-components of pragmatic knowledge in the writing performances of both tasks of the online General IELTS-practice resources across three band scores. This quantitative inter-scores/intra-tasks and inter-tasks investigation aimed to reveal firstly whether the writers of three band scores 7, 8, and 9 differed from each other in their FK and SK level, and secondly whether the tasks differed in activating them. This study adopted a taxonomy of five illocutionary acts and 20 register features to investigate representation of FK and SK in a well-established corpus of 180 writing performances through both manual analysis and Multidimensional Analysis Tagger software. While the results of statistical analyses revealed no FK differences between the bands in task one (T1), T2’s higher bands involved more functional features because of the expression of a diverse range of psychological states, no speaker’s involvement, and less commitment to a future course of actions. Furthermore, socio-linguistically, band 9 scripts encompassed more logical relations, but conversational and spoken style in T1 and more integration, less simplified structures and ego-involvement in T2. The inter-task analyses uncovered T1’s greater activation of FK through self-mentions, others involvement, emotion, and intention expression. Nevertheless, when it came to SK register features, T2 overdid in both spoken and written genre elements except in persuasion, writers’ involvement, mental acts expression, and interactive discourse creation. 133 162 2018/05/242018/06/232018/05/232018/06/28 1397/4/7 2018/07/292018/07/292018/07/222018/08/26 1397/6/4 Sara Mansouri Sara Mansouri Iran Bahram Hadian Bahram Hadian Iran Omid Tabatabaei Omid Tabatabaei Iran Ehsan Rezvani Ehsan Rezvani Iran Band score Functional knowledge General IELTS Pragmatic knowledge Register Sociolinguistic knowledge Task one Task two Writing Band score Functional knowledge General IELTS Pragmatic knowledge Register Sociolinguistic knowledge Task one Task two Writing Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford University Press.##Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. (2010). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford University Press.##Banerjee, J., Franceschina, F., & Smith, A. M. (2007). Documenting features of written language production typical at different IELTS band score levels. IELTS Research Reports, 7, 1-69.##Barkaoui, K. (2016). What changes and what doesn't? An examination of changes in the linguistic characteristics of IELTS repeaters' Writing Task 2 scripts. IELTS Research Reports, 3, 1-55. Retrieved from https://www.ielts.org/-/media/research-reports/ielts_online_rr_2016-3.ashx##Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.##Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In R. W. Richards, J. C., & Schmidt (Ed.), Language and Communication (pp. 2-27). London: Longman.##Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.##Chang, Y., & Swales, J. (1999). Informal elements in English academic writing: Threats or opportunities for advanced non-native speakers? In Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 145-167). New York: Routledge.##Connor, U. & Mbaye, A. (2002). Discourse approaches to writing assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 263-278.##Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Erdosy, U., & Eouanzoui, K. and James, M. (2005). Differences in written discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks for next generation TOEFL. Assessing Writing, 10, 5-43.##Grant, L., & Ginther, A. (2000). Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 writing differences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 123-145.##Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London, England: Longman.##Hellermann, J., & Vergun, A. (2007). Language which is not taught: the discourse marker use of beginning adult learners of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(2), 157-179.##Hinkel, E. (2003). Simplicity without elegance: Features of sentences in L1 and L2 academic texts. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 275-301.##Holtgraves, T. (2012). The role of the right hemisphere in speech act comprehension. Brain and Language, 121(1), 58-64.##Iwashita, N., & Vasquez, C. (2015). An examination of discourse competence at different proficiency levels in IELTS Speaking Part 2 proposals. IELTS Research Report Series, (5), 1-44. Retrieved from www.ielts.org/researchers.##Jung, J.-Y. (2002). Issues in acquisitional pragmatics. Working Paper in TESOL and Applied Linguistics, 2(3), 1-13.##Karbalaei, A., & Rahmanzade, M. K. (2015). An investigation into pragmatic knowledge in the reading section of TOLIMO, TOEFL, and IELTS examinations. English Language Teaching, 8(5), 208-221.##Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2000). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Limited.##Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of chiropractic medicine, 15(2), 155-163.##Laughlin, V. T., Wain, J., & Schmidgall, J. (2015). Defining and Operationalizing the Construct of Pragmatic Competence: Review and Recommendations. ETS Research Report Series, 2015(1), 1-43.##Leech, G., Rayson, P., & Wilson, A. (2001). Word frequencies in written and spoken English: based on the British national corpus. London: Longman.##Levin, M. (2014). The Bathroom Formula: A corpus-based study of a speech act in American and British English. Journal of Pragmatics, 64, 1--16.##Mayor, B., Hewings, A., North, S., Swann, J. and, & Coffin, C. (2007). A linguistic analysis of Chinese and Greek L1 scripts for IELTS academic writing task 2. In L. T. and P. Falvey (Ed.), IELTS collected papers: Research in speaking and writing assessment (pp. 250-313). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##Nini, A. (2015). Multidimensional Analysis Tagger 1.0 - Manual. Retrieved from http://sites.google.com/site/multidimensionaltagger##Riazi, A. M., & Knox, J. S. (2013). An investigation of the relations between test-takers' first language and the discourse of written performance on the IELTS Academic Writing Test, task 2. IELTS Research Reports, 2, 1-87.##Searle, J. R. (1976). A Classification of Illocutionary Acts. Language in Society, 5, 1-23.##Shaw, P., & Ting-Kun Liu, E. (1998). What develops in the development of second-language writing? Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 225-254.##Su, H. (2017). Local grammars of speech acts: An exploratory study. Journal of Pragmatics, 111, 72-83.##van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and context: Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London, England: Longman.##Witek, M. (2015). Linguistic underdeterminacy: A view from speech act theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 76, 15-29.##Yule, G. (2000). Pragmatics. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.##Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford University Press.##Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. (2010). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford University Press.##Banerjee, J., Franceschina, F., & Smith, A. M. (2007). Documenting features of written language production typical at different IELTS band score levels. IELTS Research Reports, 7, 1-69.##Barkaoui, K. (2016). What changes and what doesn't? An examination of changes in the linguistic characteristics of IELTS repeaters' Writing Task 2 scripts. IELTS Research Reports, 3, 1-55. Retrieved from https://www.ielts.org/-/media/research-reports/ielts_online_rr_2016-3.ashx##Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.##Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In R. W. Richards, J. C., & Schmidt (Ed.), Language and Communication (pp. 2-27). London: Longman.##Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.##Chang, Y., & Swales, J. (1999). Informal elements in English academic writing: Threats or opportunities for advanced non-native speakers? In Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 145-167). New York: Routledge.##Connor, U. & Mbaye, A. (2002). Discourse approaches to writing assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 263-278.##Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Erdosy, U., & Eouanzoui, K. and James, M. (2005). Differences in written discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks for next generation TOEFL. Assessing Writing, 10, 5-43.##Grant, L., & Ginther, A. (2000). Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 writing differences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 123-145.##Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London, England: Longman.##Hellermann, J., & Vergun, A. (2007). Language which is not taught: the discourse marker use of beginning adult learners of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(2), 157-179.##Hinkel, E. (2003). Simplicity without elegance: Features of sentences in L1 and L2 academic texts. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 275-301.##Holtgraves, T. (2012). The role of the right hemisphere in speech act comprehension. Brain and Language, 121(1), 58-64.##Iwashita, N., & Vasquez, C. (2015). An examination of discourse competence at different proficiency levels in IELTS Speaking Part 2 proposals. IELTS Research Report Series, (5), 1-44. Retrieved from www.ielts.org/researchers.##Jung, J.-Y. (2002). Issues in acquisitional pragmatics. Working Paper in TESOL and Applied Linguistics, 2(3), 1-13.##Karbalaei, A., & Rahmanzade, M. K. (2015). An investigation into pragmatic knowledge in the reading section of TOLIMO, TOEFL, and IELTS examinations. English Language Teaching, 8(5), 208-221.##Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2000). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Limited.##Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of chiropractic medicine, 15(2), 155-163.##Laughlin, V. T., Wain, J., & Schmidgall, J. (2015). Defining and Operationalizing the Construct of Pragmatic Competence: Review and Recommendations. ETS Research Report Series, 2015(1), 1-43.##Leech, G., Rayson, P., & Wilson, A. (2001). Word frequencies in written and spoken English: based on the British national corpus. London: Longman.##Levin, M. (2014). The Bathroom Formula: A corpus-based study of a speech act in American and British English. Journal of Pragmatics, 64, 1--16.##Mayor, B., Hewings, A., North, S., Swann, J. and, & Coffin, C. (2007). A linguistic analysis of Chinese and Greek L1 scripts for IELTS academic writing task 2. In L. T. and P. Falvey (Ed.), IELTS collected papers: Research in speaking and writing assessment (pp. 250-313). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##Nini, A. (2015). Multidimensional Analysis Tagger 1.0 - Manual. Retrieved from http://sites.google.com/site/multidimensionaltagger##Riazi, A. M., & Knox, J. S. (2013). An investigation of the relations between test-takers' first language and the discourse of written performance on the IELTS Academic Writing Test, task 2. IELTS Research Reports, 2, 1-87.##Searle, J. R. (1976). A Classification of Illocutionary Acts. Language in Society, 5, 1-23.##Shaw, P., & Ting-Kun Liu, E. (1998). What develops in the development of second-language writing? Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 225-254.##Su, H. (2017). Local grammars of speech acts: An exploratory study. Journal of Pragmatics, 111, 72-83.##van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and context: Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London, England: Longman.##Witek, M. (2015). Linguistic underdeterminacy: A view from speech act theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 76, 15-29.##Yule, G. (2000). Pragmatics. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.## ##

The Effect of Isolated vs. Combined Processing Instruction and Output-Based Instruction on the Learning of English Passives The Effect of Isolated vs. Combined Processing Instruction and Output-Based Instruction on the Learning of English Passives 2 1 The studies on the merits of processing instruction (PI) and output-based instruction (OI) have mostly treated the two approaches as mutually exclusive. To address the potentials of combining interpretation and production activities, this research compared the two isolated approaches of PI and OI with two combined approaches in which processing and output tasks were used in two opposite orders suggested by the researcher, i.e.  processing-output-based instruction (POI) and output-processing-based instruction (OPI). The target structure was English passives. Participants included 185 Iranian EFL students from five intact classes, with four assigned to each treatment and one comprising a control group. Results on sentence-level interpretation and production tests administered before, immediately after, and one month following instruction indicated similar improvement for the treatment groups on the first interpretation posttest, and the superiority of POI over OPI and PI over the delayed posttest. On the first production test, POI, OPI, and OI performed equally well and better than PI, while more accurate uses of the target form were observed by POI and OPI on the delayed posttest. It was concluded that the combined approaches, particularly POI, could produce more persistent outcomes by giving learners the opportunity to both process a form and produce it. 2 The studies on the merits of processing instruction (PI) and output-based instruction (OI) have mostly treated the two approaches as mutually exclusive. To address the potentials of combining interpretation and production activities, this research compared the two isolated approaches of PI and OI with two combined approaches in which processing and output tasks were used in two opposite orders suggested by the researcher, i.e.  processing-output-based instruction (POI) and output-processing-based instruction (OPI). The target structure was English passives. Participants included 185 Iranian EFL students from five intact classes, with four assigned to each treatment and one comprising a control group. Results on sentence-level interpretation and production tests administered before, immediately after, and one month following instruction indicated similar improvement for the treatment groups on the first interpretation posttest, and the superiority of POI over OPI and PI over the delayed posttest. On the first production test, POI, OPI, and OI performed equally well and better than PI, while more accurate uses of the target form were observed by POI and OPI on the delayed posttest. It was concluded that the combined approaches, particularly POI, could produce more persistent outcomes by giving learners the opportunity to both process a form and produce it. 163 194 2018/05/242018/06/232018/05/232018/06/282018/02/1 1396/11/12 2018/07/292018/07/292018/07/222018/08/262018/06/9 1397/3/19 Jamileh Rahemi Jamileh Rahemi Iran Processing instruction Output-based instruction Combined approaches English passives Allen, L. Q. (2000). Form-meaning connections and the French causative. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(1), 69-84.##Barkhuizen, G., & Ellis, R. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford: OUP.##Batstone, R. (2002). Making sense of new language: A discourse perspective. Language Awareness, 11(1), 14-29.##Benati, A. (2001). A comparative study of the effects of processing instruction and output-based instruction on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. Language Teaching Research, 5(2), 95-127.##Benati, A. (2004). The effects of processing instruction and its components on the acquisition of gender agreement in Italian. Language Awareness, 13(2), 67-80.##Benati, A. (2005). The effects of processing instruction, traditional instruction and meaning- output instruction on the acquisition of the English past simple tense. Language Teaching Research, 9(1), 67-93.##Benati, A. (2016). Input manipulation, enhancement and processing: Theoretical views and empirical research. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 65-88.##Benati, A. (2017). The role of input and output tasks in grammar instruction: Theoretical, empirical and pedagogical considerations. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 7(3), 377-396.##Benati, A., & Angelovska, T. (2015). The effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of English simple past tense: Age and cognitive task demands. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53(2), 249-269.##Benati, A., & Batziou, M. (2017). The relative effects of isolated and combined structured input and structured output on the acquisition of the English causative forms. IRAL, Retrieved from doi.##Birjandi, P., Maftoon, P., & Rahemi, J. (2011). VanPatten's processing instruction: Links to the acquisition of the English passive structure by Iranian EFL learners. European Journal of Scientific Research, 64(4), 598-609.##Birjandi, P., & Rahemi, J. (2009). The effect of processing instruction and output-based instruction on the interpretation and production of English causatives. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 1-30.##Buck, M. (2006). The effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of English progressive aspect. Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada,(43), 77-95.##Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. The Modern Language Journal, 79(2), 179-193.##Celik-Yazici, I. (2007). A study of the effects of processing instruction on the development of English wh-questions used by Turkish EFL learners. (Doctoral dissertation), Çukurova University, Adana.##Collentine, J. (1998). Processing instruction and the subjunctive. Hispania, 81(3), 576-587.##Collentine, J., & Collentine, K. (2015). Input and output grammar instruction in tutorial CALL with a complex grammatical structure. CALICO Journal, 32(2), 273.##de Bruijn, N. (2015). The effectiveness of processing instruction. (Master's thesis), Utrecht University, Holand.##Dehaven, M. R. (2016). Input processing and the teaching of German two-way prepositions. (Doctoral dissertation), University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.##DeKeyser, R. (2007). Introduction: Situating the concept of practice. In R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 1-18). Cambridge: CUP.##DeKeyser, R. M., & Sokalski, K. J. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 46(4), 613-642.##Doughty, C. J. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 256-310): UK: Blackwell Publishing.##Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: OUP.##Ellis, R. (1999). Input-based approaches to teaching grammar: A review of classroom-oriented research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 64-80.##Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83-107.##Erlam, R. (2003). Evaluating the relative effectiveness of structured-input and output-based instruction in foreign language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(4), 559-582.##Ertürk, N. O. (2013). Effects of visually enhanced input, input processing and pushed output on grammar teaching. Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras, 20, 153-167.##Fahim, M., & Ghanbar, H. (2014). Processing instruction and dictogloss: Researching differential effects of two modes of instruction on learners' acquisition of causatives. Journal of Education & Practice, 5(37), 204-214.##Farley, A. P. (2001). Authentic processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive. Hispania, 84(2), 289-299.##Jabbarpoor, S., & Tajeddin, Z. (2013). The effect of input enhancement, individual output, and collaborative output on foreign language learning: The case of English inversion structures. RESLA, 26, 267-288.##Jafarigohar, M., Hemmati, F., Soleimani, H., & Jalali, M. (2015). The efficacy of input-based instruction in promoting the acquisition of English embedded questions. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 5(5), 266-281.##Jafarigohar, M., & Jalali, M. (2014). The Effects of processing instruction, consciousness-raising tasks, and textual input enhancement on intake and acquisition of the English causative structures. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 93-118.##Kirk, R. W. (2013). The effects of processing instruction with and without output: Acquisition of the Spanish subjunctive in three conjunctional phrases. Hispania, 96(1), 153-169.##Kondo-Brown, K. (2000). Effects of three types of practice after explicit explanation. Second Language Studies, 19(1), 99-125.##Krashen, S. D. (1987). Principles and practice in second language acquisition: New York.##Lightbown, P. M. (2000). Anniversary article: Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied linguistics, 21(4), 431-462.##Long, M. H. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of research. TESOL Quarterly, 17(3), 359-382.##Maftoon, P., & Arianfar, A. (2014). The effects of VanPatten's input processing instruction and consciousness-raising instruction. Iranian EFL Journal (Special Edition of 2014), 46, 288-303.##Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories (2nd ed.). London: Arnold Publishers.##Morgan-Short, K., & Bowden, H. W. (2006). Processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction: Effects on second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(1), 31-65.##Mountaki, Y. (2016). The relative effects of processing instruction and traditional outputinstruction on the acquisition of the Arabic subjunctive. (Doctoral dissertation),University of South Florida.##Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A. (2011). The effects of a combined output and input-oriented approach in teaching reported speech. Research in Language, 9(2), 111-126.##Nagata, N. (1998a). Input vs. output practice in educational software for second language acquisition. Language Learning & Technology, 1(2), 23-40.##Nagata, N. (1998b). The relative effectiveness of production and comprehension practice in second language acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 11(2), 153-177.##Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2007). Issues in form-focused instruction and teacher education. In S. Fotos and H. Nassaji (Eds.), Form-focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honor of Rod Ellis (pp. 7-16). Oxford: OUP.##Oumelaz, S. (2015). The effect of input processing instruction on teaching English past tenses. (Doctoral dissertation), University of Constantine, Republic of Algeria.##Peart, S. M. (2008). The relative effects of enhanced and non-enhanced structure input on L2acquisition of Spanish past tense. (Doctoral dissertation), Texas Tech University.##Qin, J. (2008). The effect of processing instruction and dictogloss tasks on acquisition of the English passive voice. Language Teaching Research, 12(1), 61-82.##Radwan, A. A. (2009). Input processing instruction and traditional output practice instruction: Effects on the acquisition of Arabic morphology. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 11(3), 267-298.##Salimi, A., & Shams, K. (2016). The effect of input-based and output-based instruction on EFL learners' autonomy in writing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(3), 525-533.##Shintani, N. (2012). Input-based tasks and the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar: A process-product study. Language Teaching Research, 16(2), 253-279.##Shintani, N., Li, S., & Ellis, R. (2013). Comprehension‐based versus production‐based grammar instruction: A meta‐analysis of comparative studies. Language Learning, 63(2), 296-329.##Smith, G. (2015). Combining input-and output-based instruction in second language learning. (MA thesis), Concordia University, Montréal, Québec, Canada.##Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: OUP.##Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: OUP.##Tanaka, T. (1999). The effect of combination of comprehension and production practice in grammar instruction. JACET Bulletin, 30, 119-133.##Tanaka, T. (2001). Comprehension and production practice in grammar instruction: Does their combined use facilitate second language acquisition? JALT, 23(1), 6-30.##Toth, P. D. (2006). Processing instruction and a role for output in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 56(2), 319-385.##VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.##VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52(4), 755-803.##VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 225-243.##VanPatten, B., Inclezan, D., Salazar, H., & Farley, A. P. (2009). Processing instruction and dictogloss: A study on object pronouns and word order in Spanish. Foreign Language Annals, 42(3), 557-575.##VanPatten, B., & Oikennon, S. (1996). Explanation vs. structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(4), 495-510.##VanPatten, B., & Uludag, O. (2011). Transfer of training and processing instruction: From input to output. System, 39(1), 44-53.##White, J. P. (2008). The effect of input-based instruction type on the acquisition of Spanish accusative CLITICS. Florida State University.##Wijaya, D., & Djasmeini, C. C. (2017). Input-based processing instruction vs. output-based traditional instruction in learning plural-s. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 14(1), 70-83.##Wong, W., & Ito, K. (2018).The effects of processing instruction and traditional instruction on L2 online processing of the causative construction in French: An eye-tracking study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(2), 241-268.##Yamashita, T., & Iizuka, T. (2017). The effectiveness of structured input and structured output on the acquisition of Japanese comparative sentences. Foreign Language Annals, 50(2), 387-397.##Younesi, H., & Tajeddin, Z. (2014). Effects of structured input and meaningful output on EFL learners' acquisition of nominal clauses. IJAL, 17(2), 145-167.##Allen, L. Q. (2000). Form-meaning connections and the French causative. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(1), 69-84.##Barkhuizen, G., & Ellis, R. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford: OUP.##Batstone, R. (2002). Making sense of new language: A discourse perspective. Language Awareness, 11(1), 14-29.##Benati, A. (2001). A comparative study of the effects of processing instruction and output-based instruction on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. Language Teaching Research, 5(2), 95-127.##Benati, A. (2004). The effects of processing instruction and its components on the acquisition of gender agreement in Italian. Language Awareness, 13(2), 67-80.##Benati, A. (2005). The effects of processing instruction, traditional instruction and meaning- output instruction on the acquisition of the English past simple tense. Language Teaching Research, 9(1), 67-93.##Benati, A. (2016). Input manipulation, enhancement and processing: Theoretical views and empirical research. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 65-88.##Benati, A. (2017). The role of input and output tasks in grammar instruction: Theoretical, empirical and pedagogical considerations. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 7(3), 377-396.##Benati, A., & Angelovska, T. (2015). The effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of English simple past tense: Age and cognitive task demands. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53(2), 249-269.##Benati, A., & Batziou, M. (2017). The relative effects of isolated and combined structured input and structured output on the acquisition of the English causative forms. IRAL, Retrieved from doi. ##https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2016-0038##Birjandi, P., Maftoon, P., & Rahemi, J. (2011). VanPatten's processing instruction: Links to the acquisition of the English passive structure by Iranian EFL learners. European Journal of Scientific Research, 64(4), 598-609.##Birjandi, P., & Rahemi, J. (2009). The effect of processing instruction and output-based instruction on the interpretation and production of English causatives. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 1-30.##Buck, M. (2006). The effects of processing instruction on the acquisition of English progressive aspect. Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada,(43), 77-95.##Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. The Modern Language Journal, 79(2), 179-193.##Celik-Yazici, I. (2007). A study of the effects of processing instruction on the development of English wh-questions used by Turkish EFL learners. (Doctoral dissertation), Çukurova University, Adana.##Collentine, J. (1998). Processing instruction and the subjunctive. Hispania, 81(3), 576-587.##Collentine, J., & Collentine, K. (2015). Input and output grammar instruction in tutorial CALL with a complex grammatical structure. CALICO Journal, 32(2), 273.##de Bruijn, N. (2015). The effectiveness of processing instruction. (Master's thesis), Utrecht University, Holand.##Dehaven, M. R. (2016). Input processing and the teaching of German two-way prepositions. (Doctoral dissertation), University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.##DeKeyser, R. (2007). Introduction: Situating the concept of practice. In R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 1-18). Cambridge: CUP.##DeKeyser, R. M., & Sokalski, K. J. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 46(4), 613-642.##Doughty, C. J. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 256-310): UK: Blackwell Publishing.##Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: OUP.##Ellis, R. (1999). Input-based approaches to teaching grammar: A review of classroom-oriented research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 64-80.##Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83-107.##Erlam, R. (2003). Evaluating the relative effectiveness of structured-input and output-based instruction in foreign language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(4), 559-582.##Ertürk, N. O. (2013). Effects of visually enhanced input, input processing and pushed output on grammar teaching. Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras, 20, 153-167.##Fahim, M., & Ghanbar, H. (2014). Processing instruction and dictogloss: Researching differential effects of two modes of instruction on learners' acquisition of causatives. Journal of Education & Practice, 5(37), 204-214.##Farley, A. P. (2001). Authentic processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive. Hispania, 84(2), 289-299.##Jabbarpoor, S., & Tajeddin, Z. (2013). The effect of input enhancement, individual output, and collaborative output on foreign language learning: The case of English inversion structures. RESLA, 26, 267-288.##Jafarigohar, M., Hemmati, F., Soleimani, H., & Jalali, M. (2015). The efficacy of input-based instruction in promoting the acquisition of English embedded questions. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 5(5), 266-281.##Jafarigohar, M., & Jalali, M. (2014). The Effects of processing instruction, consciousness-raising tasks, and textual input enhancement on intake and acquisition of the English causative structures. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 93-118.##Kirk, R. W. (2013). The effects of processing instruction with and without output: Acquisition of the Spanish subjunctive in three conjunctional phrases. Hispania, 96(1), 153-169.##Kondo-Brown, K. (2000). Effects of three types of practice after explicit explanation. Second Language Studies, 19(1), 99-125.##Krashen, S. D. (1987). Principles and practice in second language acquisition: New York.##Lightbown, P. M. (2000). Anniversary article: Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied linguistics, 21(4), 431-462.##Long, M. H. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of research. TESOL Quarterly, 17(3), 359-382.##Maftoon, P., & Arianfar, A. (2014). The effects of VanPatten's input processing instruction and consciousness-raising instruction. Iranian EFL Journal (Special Edition of 2014), 46, 288-303.##Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories (2nd ed.). London: Arnold Publishers.##Morgan-Short, K., & Bowden, H. W. (2006). Processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction: Effects on second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(1), 31-65.##Mountaki, Y. (2016). The relative effects of processing instruction and traditional outputinstruction on the acquisition of the Arabic subjunctive. (Doctoral dissertation),University of South Florida.##Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A. (2011). The effects of a combined output and input-oriented approach in teaching reported speech. Research in Language, 9(2), 111-126.##Nagata, N. (1998a). Input vs. output practice in educational software for second language acquisition. Language Learning & Technology, 1(2), 23-40.##Nagata, N. (1998b). The relative effectiveness of production and comprehension practice in second language acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 11(2), 153-177.##Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2007). Issues in form-focused instruction and teacher education. In S. Fotos and H. Nassaji (Eds.), Form-focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honor of Rod Ellis (pp. 7-16). Oxford: OUP.##Oumelaz, S. (2015). The effect of input processing instruction on teaching English past tenses. (Doctoral dissertation), University of Constantine, Republic of Algeria.##Peart, S. M. (2008). The relative effects of enhanced and non-enhanced structure input on L2acquisition of Spanish past tense. (Doctoral dissertation), Texas Tech University.##Qin, J. (2008). The effect of processing instruction and dictogloss tasks on acquisition of the English passive voice. Language Teaching Research, 12(1), 61-82.##Radwan, A. A. (2009). Input processing instruction and traditional output practice instruction: Effects on the acquisition of Arabic morphology. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 11(3), 267-298.##Salimi, A., & Shams, K. (2016). The effect of input-based and output-based instruction on EFL learners' autonomy in writing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(3), 525-533.##Shintani, N. (2012). Input-based tasks and the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar: A process-product study. Language Teaching Research, 16(2), 253-279.##Shintani, N., Li, S., & Ellis, R. (2013). Comprehension‐based versus production‐based grammar instruction: A meta‐analysis of comparative studies. Language Learning, 63(2), 296-329.##Smith, G. (2015). Combining input-and output-based instruction in second language learning. (MA thesis), Concordia University, Montréal, Québec, Canada.##Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: OUP.##Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: OUP.##Tanaka, T. (1999). The effect of combination of comprehension and production practice in grammar instruction. JACET Bulletin, 30, 119-133.##Tanaka, T. (2001). Comprehension and production practice in grammar instruction: Does their combined use facilitate second language acquisition? JALT, 23(1), 6-30.##Toth, P. D. (2006). Processing instruction and a role for output in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 56(2), 319-385.##VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.##VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52(4), 755-803.##VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 225-243.##VanPatten, B., Inclezan, D., Salazar, H., & Farley, A. P. (2009). Processing instruction and dictogloss: A study on object pronouns and word order in Spanish. Foreign Language Annals, 42(3), 557-575.##VanPatten, B., & Oikennon, S. (1996). Explanation vs. structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(4), 495-510.##VanPatten, B., & Uludag, O. (2011). Transfer of training and processing instruction: From input to output. System, 39(1), 44-53.##White, J. P. (2008). The effect of input-based instruction type on the acquisition of Spanish accusative CLITICS. Florida State University.##Wijaya, D., & Djasmeini, C. C. (2017). Input-based processing instruction vs. output-based traditional instruction in learning plural-s. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 14(1), 70-83.##Wong, W., & Ito, K. (2018).The effects of processing instruction and traditional instruction on L2 online processing of the causative construction in French: An eye-tracking study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(2), 241-268.##Yamashita, T., & Iizuka, T. (2017). The effectiveness of structured input and structured output on the acquisition of Japanese comparative sentences. Foreign Language Annals, 50(2), 387-397.##Younesi, H., & Tajeddin, Z. (2014). Effects of structured input and meaningful output on EFL learners' acquisition of nominal clauses. IJAL, 17(2), 145-167.## ##

A Young EFL Learner’s Lexical Development through Different Input and Output Frequency Patterns A Young EFL Learner’s Lexical Development through Different Input and Output Frequency Patterns 2 1 The present study was undertaken to investigate the effects of varying frequency patterns (FPs) of words on the productive acquisition of a young EFL learner in a home setting. Target words were presented to the learner using games and role plays. They were subsequently traced for their frequencies in input and output. Eighteen immediate tests and delayed tests were administered to measure the oral production following the treatments. To examine the efficacy of varying FPs, target words were grouped into four sets: High Input/High Output (HIHO), Low Input/Low Output (LILO), High Input/Low Output (HILO), and Low Input/High Output (LIHO). The findings revealed that the differences among the FPs were statistically significant. Meanwhile, Wilcoxon signed-rank test identified a significant discrepancy between the words with LILO and HIHO frequency patterns. The findings demonstrated that the differences in FPs led to different productive gains, and higher word production cropped up when words occurred very frequently both in input and output. This study shows that higher teacher talk in tandem with higher learner talk could boost lexical production by a young learner in meaning-focused instructions. 2 The present study was undertaken to investigate the effects of varying frequency patterns (FPs) of words on the productive acquisition of a young EFL learner in a home setting. Target words were presented to the learner using games and role plays. They were subsequently traced for their frequencies in input and output. Eighteen immediate tests and delayed tests were administered to measure the oral production following the treatments. To examine the efficacy of varying FPs, target words were grouped into four sets: High Input/High Output (HIHO), Low Input/Low Output (LILO), High Input/Low Output (HILO), and Low Input/High Output (LIHO). The findings revealed that the differences among the FPs were statistically significant. Meanwhile, Wilcoxon signed-rank test identified a significant discrepancy between the words with LILO and HIHO frequency patterns. The findings demonstrated that the differences in FPs led to different productive gains, and higher word production cropped up when words occurred very frequently both in input and output. This study shows that higher teacher talk in tandem with higher learner talk could boost lexical production by a young learner in meaning-focused instructions. 195 230 2018/05/242018/06/232018/05/232018/06/282018/02/12018/06/2 1397/3/12 2018/07/292018/07/292018/07/222018/08/262018/06/92018/07/25 1397/5/3 Muhamad Alii Rahimi Muhamad Alii Rahimi Iran Javad Gholami Javad Gholami Iran Zhila Mohammadnia Zhila Mohammadnia Iran EFL child learner Frequency Input Output Lexical development Bargh, J. A., & Pietromonaeo, P. (1982). Automatic information processing and social perception: The influence of trait information presented outside of conscious awareness on impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 437-449.##Barrett, M., Harris, M., & Chasin, J. (1991). Early lexical development and maternal speech: a comparison of children's initial and subsequent use of words. Journal of Child Language, 18(1), 21-40.##Blom, E., Paradis, J., & Duncan, T. S. (2012). Effects of input properties, vocabulary size, and L1 on the development of third person singular-s in child L2. English Language Learning, 62, 965-994.##Bohman, T. M., Bedore, L. M., Peña, E. D., Mendez-Perez, A., & Gillam, R. B. (2010). What you hear and what you say: Language performance in early sequential Spanish-English bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13, 325-344.##Brent, M. R., & Siskind, J. M. (2001). The role of exposure to isolated words in early vocabulary development. Cognition, 81(2), B33-B44.##Butler, Y. G. (2009). How do teachers observe and evaluate elementary school students' foreign language performance? A case study from South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 417-444.##Bybee, J. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##Carey, S., & Bartlett, E. (1978). Acquiring a single new word. Proceedings of the Stanford Child Language Conference, 15, 17-29.##Chen, C., & Truscott, J. (2010). The effects of repetition and L1 lexicalization on incidental vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 31(5), 693-713.##Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., Titak, A., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). Frequency effects and second language lexical acquisition: Word types, word tokens, and word production. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 19(3), 301-332.##Curtain, H. & Dahlberg, C. (2010). Languages and children: Making the match (4th Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.##de Bot, K. (1996). Review article: The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46(3), 529-55.##de la Fuente, M. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 81-112.##Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305-352.##Ellis, N. (2007). The Associative-Cognitive CREED. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp.77-95). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.##Ellis, N. (2012). What can we count in language, and what counts in language acquisition, cognition, and use?. In S.T. Gries & D. S. Divjak (Eds.), Frequency effects in language learning and processing (pp. 7-34). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.##Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.##Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.##Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified of input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 280-301.##Enever, J., & Moon, J. (2009). New global contexts for teaching primary ELT: Change and challenge. In J. Enever, J. Moon & U. Raman (Eds.), Young learner English language policy and implementation: International perspectives (pp. 5-21). Reading: Garnet Education.##Erlam, R. (2003). Evaluating the relative effectiveness of structured-input and output-based instruction in foreign language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 59- 582.##Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Elrbaum.##Gathercole, V. C. M. (2002a). Command of the mass/count distinction in bilingual and monolingual children: An English morphosyntactic distinction. In D. K. Oller & R. E. Eilers (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp. 175-219). Clevedon, U.K: Multilingual Matters.##Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: studies of immersion and bilingual education. Cambridge MA: Newbury House.##Gentner, D. (1982). Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. In S. Kuczaj (Ed.), Language development Language, cognition, and culture (pp.301-334). Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.##Goodman, J. C., Dale, P. S., & Li, P. (2008). Does frequency count? Parental input and the acquisition of vocabulary. Journal of Child Language, 35, 515-531.##Hatch, E.M. (1983). Psycholinguistics: a second language perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.##Koirala, C. (2015). The word frequency effect on second language vocabulary learning. In F. Helm, L. Bradley, M. Guarda, & S. Thouësny (Eds.), Critical CALL - Proceedings of the 2015 EUROCALL Conference, Padova, Italy (pp. 318-323). Dublin: Research- publishing.net.##Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.##Labov, W., Rosenfelder, I. & Fruehwald, J. (2013). 100 years of sound change: linear incrementation, reversal, and re-analysis. Language, 89, 30-66.##Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M.H. (1991). An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman.##Larson-Hall, J. (2008). Weighing the benefits of studying a foreign language at a younger starting age in a minimal input situation. Second Language Research, 24, 35-63.##Lieven, E. (2010). Input and first language acquisition: Evaluating the role of frequency. Lingua, 120(11), 2546-2556.##Long, M. H. (1983a). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to nonnative speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177-194.##Lyster, R. (2007). Content and language integrated teaching: a counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.##Mackay, A., & Gass, S. (2002). Frequency Effects and Second Language: A Complex Picture? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 249-260.##McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners' responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79-103.##McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2008). Syntactic priming and ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(1), 31-47.##Mintz, T. H., Newport, E. L., & Bever, T. G. (2002). The distributional structure of grammatical categories in speech to young children. Cognitive Science, 26, 393-424.##Paradise, J. (2011). Individual differences in child English second language acquisition: Comparing child-internal and child-external factors. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism,1(3), 213-237.##Pellicer-Sánchez, A. (2015). Incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition from and while reading: An eye-tracking study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(1), 1-34.##Pellicer-Sánchez, A., & Schmitt, N. (2010). Incidental vocabulary acquisition from an authentic novel: Do Things Fall Apart? Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(1), 31-55.##Pigada, M., & Schmitt, N. (2006). Vocabulary acquisition from extensive reading: A case study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 18, 1-28.##Pica, T. (1983). Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of exposure. Language Learning, 33, 465-497.##Rahimi, M. A., Gholami, J., & Mohammadnia, Z. (2019). The impact of different frequency patterns on the syntactic production of a 6-year-old EFL home learner: a case study. Applied Research on English Language, 8(3), 311-338.##Scheele, A., F., Leseman, P., P. M., & Mayo, A., Y. (2010). The home language environment of monolingual and bilingual children and their language proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 117-140.##Schwartz, B. L. (1999). Sparkling at the end of the tongue: The etiology of tip-of-the-tongue phenomenology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 379-393.##Schwartz, R. G., & Terrell, B. Y. (1983). The role of input frequency in lexical acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 10, 57-64.##Singleton, D. (2005). The Critical Period Hypothesis: A coat of many colors. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43, 269-285.##Skehan, P. (2001). Tasks and language performance assessment. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp.167-185). Harlow: Longman.##Spada, N. (2014). Instructed Second Language Acquisition Research and Its Relevance for L2 Teacher Education. Education Matters, 2 (1), 41-54.##Stern, H. (1983). Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.##Sunama, P. (2018). The Effects of Frequency of Occurrence on L2 Lexical Acquisition from Reading. Language in India, 18 (10), 321-325.##Suzuki, M. (2007). Learner uptake and second language learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Colombia University, USA.##Swain, M. (1985). Communicative Competence: Some Roles of Comprehensible Input and Comprehensible Output in its Development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.##Van Gelderen, A., Snellings, P., & De Glopper, K. (2004). The effect of enhanced lexical retrieval on second language writing: A classroom experiment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 175-200.##Wang, M., & Koda, K. (2005). Commonalities and differences in word identification skills among learners of English as a second language. Language Learning, 55, 71-98.##White, C. (2003). Language learning in distance education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##Wolter, B. & Gyllstad, H. (2013). Frequency of input and L2 collocational processing: A comparison of congruent and incongruent collocations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 451-482.##Wulff, S., Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., Bardovi-Harlig, K., & LeBlanc, C. J. (2009). The acquisition of tense-aspect: Converging evidence from corpora, cognition, and learner constructions. Modern Language Journal, 93, 336-369.##Bargh, J. A., & Pietromonaeo, P. (1982). Automatic information processing and social perception: The influence of trait information presented outside of conscious awareness on impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 437-449.##Barrett, M., Harris, M., & Chasin, J. (1991). Early lexical development and maternal speech: a comparison of children's initial and subsequent use of words. Journal of Child Language, 18(1), 21-40.##Blom, E., Paradis, J., & Duncan, T. S. (2012). Effects of input properties, vocabulary size, and L1 on the development of third person singular-s in child L2. English Language Learning, 62, 965-994.##Bohman, T. M., Bedore, L. M., Peña, E. D., Mendez-Perez, A., & Gillam, R. B. (2010). What you hear and what you say: Language performance in early sequential Spanish-English bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13, 325-344.##Brent, M. R., & Siskind, J. M. (2001). The role of exposure to isolated words in early vocabulary development. Cognition, 81(2), B33-B44.##Butler, Y. G. (2009). How do teachers observe and evaluate elementary school students' foreign language performance? A case study from South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 417-444.##Bybee, J. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##Carey, S., & Bartlett, E. (1978). Acquiring a single new word. Proceedings of the Stanford Child Language Conference, 15, 17-29.##Chen, C., & Truscott, J. (2010). The effects of repetition and L1 lexicalization on incidental vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 31(5), 693-713.##Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., Titak, A., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). Frequency effects and second language lexical acquisition: Word types, word tokens, and word production. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 19(3), 301-332.##Curtain, H. & Dahlberg, C. (2010). Languages and children: Making the match (4th Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.##de Bot, K. (1996). Review article: The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46(3), 529-55.##de la Fuente, M. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 81-112.##Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305-352.##Ellis, N. (2007). The Associative-Cognitive CREED. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp.77-95). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.##Ellis, N. (2012). What can we count in language, and what counts in language acquisition, cognition, and use?. In S.T. Gries & D. S. Divjak (Eds.), Frequency effects in language learning and processing (pp. 7-34). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.##Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.##Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.##Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified of input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 280-301.##Enever, J., & Moon, J. (2009). New global contexts for teaching primary ELT: Change and challenge. In J. Enever, J. Moon & U. Raman (Eds.), Young learner English language policy and implementation: International perspectives (pp. 5-21). Reading: Garnet Education.##Erlam, R. (2003). Evaluating the relative effectiveness of structured-input and output-based instruction in foreign language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 59- 582.##Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Elrbaum.##Gathercole, V. C. M. (2002a). Command of the mass/count distinction in bilingual and monolingual children: An English morphosyntactic distinction. In D. K. Oller & R. E. Eilers (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp. 175-219). Clevedon, U.K: Multilingual Matters.##Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: studies of immersion and bilingual education. Cambridge MA: Newbury House.##Gentner, D. (1982). Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. In S. Kuczaj (Ed.), Language development Language, cognition, and culture (pp.301-334). Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.##Goodman, J. C., Dale, P. S., & Li, P. (2008). Does frequency count? Parental input and the acquisition of vocabulary. Journal of Child Language, 35, 515-531.##Hatch, E.M. (1983). Psycholinguistics: a second language perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.##Koirala, C. (2015). The word frequency effect on second language vocabulary learning. In F. Helm, L. Bradley, M. Guarda, & S. Thouësny (Eds.), Critical CALL - Proceedings of the 2015 EUROCALL Conference, Padova, Italy (pp. 318-323). Dublin: Research- publishing.net.##Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.##Labov, W., Rosenfelder, I. & Fruehwald, J. (2013). 100 years of sound change: linear incrementation, reversal, and re-analysis. Language, 89, 30-66.##Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M.H. (1991). An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman.##Larson-Hall, J. (2008). Weighing the benefits of studying a foreign language at a younger starting age in a minimal input situation. Second Language Research, 24, 35-63.##Lieven, E. (2010). Input and first language acquisition: Evaluating the role of frequency. Lingua, 120(11), 2546-2556.##Long, M. H. (1983a). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to nonnative speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177-194.##Lyster, R. (2007). Content and language integrated teaching: a counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.##Mackay, A., & Gass, S. (2002). Frequency Effects and Second Language: A Complex Picture? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 249-260.##McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners' responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79-103.##McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2008). Syntactic priming and ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(1), 31-47.##Mintz, T. H., Newport, E. L., & Bever, T. G. (2002). The distributional structure of grammatical categories in speech to young children. Cognitive Science, 26, 393-424.##Paradise, J. (2011). Individual differences in child English second language acquisition: Comparing child-internal and child-external factors. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism,1(3), 213-237.##Pellicer-Sánchez, A. (2015). Incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition from and while reading: An eye-tracking study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(1), 1-34.##Pellicer-Sánchez, A., & Schmitt, N. (2010). Incidental vocabulary acquisition from an authentic novel: Do Things Fall Apart? Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(1), 31-55.##Pigada, M., & Schmitt, N. (2006). Vocabulary acquisition from extensive reading: A case study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 18, 1-28.##Pica, T. (1983). Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of exposure. Language Learning, 33, 465-497.##Rahimi, M. A., Gholami, J., & Mohammadnia, Z. (2019). The impact of different frequency patterns on the syntactic production of a 6-year-old EFL home learner: a case study. Applied Research on English Language, 8(3), 311-338.##Scheele, A., F., Leseman, P., P. M., & Mayo, A., Y. (2010). The home language environment of monolingual and bilingual children and their language proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 117-140.##Schwartz, B. L. (1999). Sparkling at the end of the tongue: The etiology of tip-of-the-tongue phenomenology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 379-393.##Schwartz, R. G., & Terrell, B. Y. (1983). The role of input frequency in lexical acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 10, 57-64.##Singleton, D. (2005). The Critical Period Hypothesis: A coat of many colors. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43, 269-285.##Skehan, P. (2001). Tasks and language performance assessment. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp.167-185). Harlow: Longman.##Spada, N. (2014). Instructed Second Language Acquisition Research and Its Relevance for L2 Teacher Education. Education Matters, 2 (1), 41-54.##Stern, H. (1983). Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.##Sunama, P. (2018). The Effects of Frequency of Occurrence on L2 Lexical Acquisition from Reading. Language in India, 18 (10), 321-325.##Suzuki, M. (2007). Learner uptake and second language learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Colombia University, USA.##Swain, M. (1985). Communicative Competence: Some Roles of Comprehensible Input and Comprehensible Output in its Development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.##Van Gelderen, A., Snellings, P., & De Glopper, K. (2004). The effect of enhanced lexical retrieval on second language writing: A classroom experiment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 175-200.##Wang, M., & Koda, K. (2005). Commonalities and differences in word identification skills among learners of English as a second language. Language Learning, 55, 71-98.##White, C. (2003). Language learning in distance education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.##Wolter, B. & Gyllstad, H. (2013). Frequency of input and L2 collocational processing: A comparison of congruent and incongruent collocations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 451-482.##Wulff, S., Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., Bardovi-Harlig, K., & LeBlanc, C. J. (2009). The acquisition of tense-aspect: Converging evidence from corpora, cognition, and learner constructions. Modern Language Journal, 93, 336-369.## ##