محمدتقی فروردین

This study investigated the effect of CAALL on Iranian EFL learners’ self-efficacy and reading skill development. A convenience sampling was run for the selection of the participants. A sample of 220 advanced EFL learners from four private English language institutes in Iran, participated in this study. Three instruments were used including quick placement test, self-efficacy questionnaire, and reading test. The learners’ self-efficacy questionnaire and reading test were administered to all the participants. CAAL practice was implemented by autonomous and non-autonomous teachers separately for 110 participants (an experimental group and a control group). The experimental group members received CAALL in virtual mode. They were trained by two teachers on how to be autonomous in their reading performance. For the control group members, the reading practice was executed virtually. But they did not receive the practice of CAALL. They have followed the conventional teaching of reading. The practice was presented through WhatsApp Messenger. The treatment of the study was followed for 16 ninety-minute sessions. After the instructional phase, learners’ self-efficacy questionnaire and reading test were administered to all the participants again. This study has some pedagogical contributions for EFL teachers, learners, Language teaching syllabus designers, and language teaching curriculum developers.

Hedging and boosting are significant communicative resources to construe and attain persuasion in different fields and particular genres of academic writing. Hedges allow the researcher to address possible problems, raise objections or anticipate opposition to the research claims while contributing something new to the ongoing dialogue in a research field. Boosters enormously help to achieve the essential writers’ need to convince their readership of the truth in their propositions. They are mainly used whenever writers consider it not too risky to include them in their propositions. This study aims to investigate the frequencies and functions of hedges and boosters in academic students' essays. To meet this end, 96 students' essays (a total of 269.428 words) were selected from the Michigan Corpus of Upper-Level Student Papers (MICUSP), including English and Psychology disciplines. The corpus was analyzed based on Abdollahzadeh (2019)classification of hedges. The results showed that hedges and boosters were frequent enough to be considered in teaching writing, either reducing or increasing the force of written utterances. The results of this study could be used directly in the syllabus designed for academic essay writing.

Involvement Load Hypothesis (ILH) and Technique Feature Analysis (TFA) are two frameworks which operationalize depth of processing of a vocabulary learning task. However, there is dearth of research comparing the predictive power of the ILH and the TFA across second language (L2) vocabulary learning tasks. The present study, therefore, aimed to examine this issue across four vocabulary learning tasks (i.e., reading with glosses, keyword techniques, word card, and reading and finding the words in text) ranked differently by the ILH and the TFA. To this end, 80 English as a foreign language (EFL) learners were randomly assigned to one of four tasks of learning 16 target words. The results of one-way ANOVA, LSD Post hoc tests, and multiple regression analyses showed that the TFA had a better explanatory power than the ILH in predicting vocabulary learning gains. The findings highlight the TFA as a more powerful framework.

This quasi-experimental study aimed to compare the effect of different modes and item types of multiple-choice (MC) test items on advanced EFL learners’ listening comprehension and perception. To this end, 80 advanced EFL learners, aging 18 to 30, were selected. The participants took a listening test including dialogue-completion and question and answer multiple-choice items presented in written and oral modes. In addition, the participants were given a questionnaire on their perceptions of the oral and written modes. The results of two-way repeated measures ANOVA showed that there was no significant difference between the participants’ scores in the oral and written modes. Moreover, they received similar scores on the two item types. However, in their questionnaire responses, most of the participants preferred the written mode to the oral mode. The results also imply that although presenting the multiple-choice test items in the oral mode may form a pure test of listening comprehension, there are acceptable reasons for presenting the multiple-choice listening items in the written mode.