مسعود عزیزی

Advances in generative artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models, offer new possibilities for language learning. This study, grounded in sociocultural theory, examined the impact of an AI assistant ( Monica ) on English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students’ writing development. A total of 120 male students (aged 26–36, A2 proficiency) participated in a four-month in-service program. The participants were randomly assigned to either an experimental group, which engaged in AI-mediated collaborative writing, or a control group, which collaborated face-to-face. A sequential explanatory mixed-methods design was employed, integrating pretest–posttest measures, questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Quantitative analyses (Split-Plot ANOVA) showed that the AI-assisted group significantly outperformed the control group in Organization, Language Use, and Mechanics, but not in Content or Vocabulary. Importantly, students’ perceptions shifted dramatically: While only 23% initially held positive expectations, 90% reported positive experiences post-intervention, highlighting the role of affective factors in technology adoption. Qualitative data confirmed cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational benefits of AI interaction, but also revealed challenges including overreliance on AI, uncritical acceptance of feedback, difficulty integrating new vocabulary, and cognitive overload when faced with multiple corrections. Sociocultural concerns, such as academic integrity, face-saving practices, and peer judgment, further influenced student engagement. From a theoretical standpoint, the study contributes to sociocultural scholarship by evidencing the ways in which student–AI interaction shapes and mediates writing development. Pedagogically, it calls for intentional scaffolding to foster critical and reflective practices, reframing AI not as a functional tool but as a meaningful collaborator in the learning process.

With numerous variables mediating the way learners interact with teacher corrective feedback (TCF), one may not comment on its efficacy before such intervening variables are adequately addressed and learners’ attendance to TCF is ensured. Among those variables, motivation is one of the most prominent ones largely affecting the degree to which students benefit from TCF. Draft-Specific Scoring (DSS), a scoring system giving learners’ a reason to notice TCF by rewarding them for the revisions they make through a flexible system of scoring, was implemented to investigate if TCF could help learners improve their use of subordinate clauses. To do so, two groups of students studying English Language Literature at the University of Tehran, consisting of 55 participants who were randomly assigned as treatment and control groups, were studied. The results of the gain analysis indicated an improvement for both groups over time in the total number and accuracy of the subordination clauses used; however, the treatment group significantly outperformed the control group. While the two groups did not differ in their use of noun clauses, the DSS group was found to outperform the non-DSS group regarding the adverb and adjective clauses. This indicates that motivation to attend to teacher feedback is of great importance if TCF is to be effective.

In case not enough caution is exercised in the assessment of second or foreign language learners’ writing performance, one cannot trust the accuracy of decisions made accordingly. As experts or trained raters are often not available or it is not cost-effective to employ them in most educational contexts, writing assessment is often carried out by language instructors, who may not enjoy an adequate competence in teaching and assessing L2 writing. This makes the investigation of the accuracy of ratings done by language teachers a must. In so doing, 30 language teachers in three groups, each with a different background in teaching English and L2 writing, were selected, and their ratings of 30 IELTS samples were compared against those of expert raters using One-Way ANOVA tests. A statistically significant difference was found among the raters for the total writing score as well as the four components, with the L2 writing teachers demonstrating the closest performance to that of the expert rater and with language teachers with no or very little background in teaching L2 writing demonstrating the lowest accuracy. Moreover, the only significant correlations were found between the ratings done by the writing teachers and those of the expert rater, indicating that only they could interpret the scoring criteria not significantly different from the expert rater. The results demonstrate that language teachers are not generally suitable writing raters as they are affected by their own teaching background and understanding of the rating criteria.

بیماری همه گیر COVID-19 همه دانشگاه ها را واداشت تا تمام برنامه های خود را بصورت آنلاین ارائه دهند. اما همه مدرسان برای چنین تحول ناگهانی ای آماده نبودند. آموزش آنلاین می تواند برای مربیان و موسسات بسیار چالش برانگیز باشد چراکه دارای ظرافت های مختلفی است که آن را از برنامه های حضوری کاملا متفاوت می سازد. با توجه به شرایط حاضر همه گیری، نیاز فوری به مطالعات در خصوص بررسی اثربخشی چنین برنامه هایی در مقایسه با دوره های مشابه حضوری به شدت حس میشود. در نتیجه ، مطالعه حاضر تلاشی بود برای مقایسه اثربخشی یک دوره EAP آنلاین با دوره مشابه حضوری از نظر سه مولفه لغات ، دستور زبان و درک مطلب. شصت و هشت دانش آموز در دو گروه آنلاین و حضوری با طرح پیش آزمون-پس آزمون در این مطالعه شرکت کردند. در حالی که در شروع مطالعه دو گروه تفاوت معناداری نداشتند ، نتایج آزمون SPANOVA تفاوت معناداری را در مورد مولفه دستور زبان و نه دو مولفه دیگر نشان داد. گروه حضوری از عملکرد بهتری در یادگیری دستور زبان برخوردار بود. مصاحبه های انجام شده نشان داد که فراگیران در کلاسهای آنلاین معمولاً تعامل کمی با معلمان و همکلاسی های خود دارند و معلمان نمی توانند در طول کلاس، فراگیران را درگیر و فعال نگه دارند. همه اینها نشان می دهد که یک برنامه آنلاین، ترجمه یک برنامه درسی حضوری به یک قالب آنلاین نیست و از پیچیدگی های بی شماری برخوردار است که باید مورد توجه همه دست اندرکاران قرار گیرد.

It is often wrongly assumed that the provision of teacher corrective feedback naturally entails learners' attendance to and application of it, but learners have repeatedly been reported not to pay attention to teacher feedback due to lack of motivation and the distracting effect of the grades they receive. The present study was an attempt to tackle this problem. To do so, the technique named Draft-Specific Scoring (Nemati & Azizi, 2013) was implemented. In DSS, learners receive both teacher feedback and grades on their first drafts; however, they are given up to two opportunities to apply teacher feedback and revise their drafts accordingly. The scores they receive may improve as a result of the quality of revisions they make. Students’ final scores will be the mean score of the grades they receive on the final drafts of each assignment. 57 Iranian intermediate students attending the ‘Advanced Writing’ course at University of Teheran, with an age range of 21 to 27 took part in this study. The gain score analysis and the SPANOVA used showed the superiority of DSS over more traditional methods in improving learners’ overall writing proficiency as well as fluency and accuracy of their written texts. Moreover, no adverse effect was observed for the treatment group regarding the grammatical complexity of their texts. This indicates that in order to make teacher feedback work, there are a number of intervening variables one needs to consider, the most important of which being learners’ motivation to attend to teacher feedback.

اغلب مشاهده می شود که زبان آموزان انگیزه ی کافی برای توجه به و به کار گیری نظرات و پیشنهادات استاد برای بهبود کیفیت نوشته های خود را ندارند. از طرف دیگراساتید اغلب همراه با تصحیح متون نگاشته شده توسط دانشجویان، اقدام به ارزشیابی کمی آنها نیز می نمایند علیرغم اینکه می دانند این نوع ارزشیابی باعث منحرف شدن هر چه بیشتر توجه دانشجویان از نظرات و پیشنهادات استاد می شود. با این وجود عدم ارزشیابی کمی امکان پذیر نمی باشد چرا که هم دانشجویان و هم موسسات آموزشی خواستار چنین ارزشیابی ای هستند. برای فائق آمدن به این مشکلات، تکنیک جدیدی به نام ارزشیابی پلکانی ابداع گردید تا ارزشیابی کمی دیگر نه تنها باعث بی توجهی به نظرات استاد نشود بلکه دانشجویان را به پرداختن به و اعمال آن ها در نوشته های خود مشتاق سازد. در ارزشیابی پلکانی دانشجویان می توانند با اعمال نظرات استاد اقدام به بهبود کیفیت نوشته های اولیه خود نموده و بر اساس کیفیت نسخه ی اصلاح شده، نمره ی دریافتی خود را ارتقا بخشند. این روند می تواند تا ٢ مرتبه ادامه یابد. نمره نهایی دانشجو، میانگین نمراتی خواهد بود که وی در آخرین نسخه ی اصلاح شده ی هر یک از تکالیف خود در طول ترم تحصیلی کسب کرده است. مطالعه ی حاضر ، تلاشی در راستای بررسی تاثیر این شیوه ی جدید بر روی سه شاخص روانی نوشتار، پیچیدگی ساختار و صحت ساختار بود. نتایج به دست آمده حاکی از پیشرفت دانشجویان گروه آزمایش در هر سه مقیاس بود در حالیکه گروه گواه تنها توانست در مقیاس روانی نوشتار پیشرفت کند.