Applying Cooperative and Individual Offline Planning in Speaking Classes: A Comparison of Impulsive and Reflective EFL Learners

H. Marashi, Mina Gholami
{"title":"Applying Cooperative and Individual Offline Planning in Speaking Classes: A Comparison of Impulsive and Reflective EFL Learners","authors":"H. Marashi, Mina Gholami","doi":"10.22099/JTLS.2021.38593.2894","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study investigated the effect of two different types of offline planning, namely cooperative and individual, on the oral proficiency of impulsive and reflective EFL learners. Accordingly, 114 intermediate learners studying at a private language school in Tehran were chosen nonrandomly through their performance on a Preliminary English Test (PET). The participants also filled out the Eysenck and Eysenck’s (1991) Impulsiveness Questionnaire (EIQ) through which they were categorized into two subgroups within each offline planning setting consisting of impulsive and reflective learners. All in all, there were four subgroups: 28 impulsive and 28 reflective learners undergoing the cooperative offline planning treatment, and 32 impulsive and 26 reflective learners experiencing the individual offline planning treatment. Following the 14-session treatment, the mean scores of all four groups on the speaking posttest were computed and a two-way ANOVA was run to test all the four hypotheses raised in the study. The results revealed that the effect of offline planning to a great degree depends on the cognitive learning style of the learners: while impulsive learners benefit more from cooperative offline planning, reflective ones prefer to perform the task individually.","PeriodicalId":150431,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Teaching Language Skills","volume":"68 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Teaching Language Skills","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22099/JTLS.2021.38593.2894","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This study investigated the effect of two different types of offline planning, namely cooperative and individual, on the oral proficiency of impulsive and reflective EFL learners. Accordingly, 114 intermediate learners studying at a private language school in Tehran were chosen nonrandomly through their performance on a Preliminary English Test (PET). The participants also filled out the Eysenck and Eysenck’s (1991) Impulsiveness Questionnaire (EIQ) through which they were categorized into two subgroups within each offline planning setting consisting of impulsive and reflective learners. All in all, there were four subgroups: 28 impulsive and 28 reflective learners undergoing the cooperative offline planning treatment, and 32 impulsive and 26 reflective learners experiencing the individual offline planning treatment. Following the 14-session treatment, the mean scores of all four groups on the speaking posttest were computed and a two-way ANOVA was run to test all the four hypotheses raised in the study. The results revealed that the effect of offline planning to a great degree depends on the cognitive learning style of the learners: while impulsive learners benefit more from cooperative offline planning, reflective ones prefer to perform the task individually.
合作计划与个人离线计划在口语课堂上的应用:冲动型与反思型英语学习者的比较
本研究探讨了两种不同类型的离线计划,即合作计划和个人计划对冲动型和反思型英语学习者口语熟练程度的影响。因此,在德黑兰一所私立语言学校学习的114名中级学习者通过初级英语测试(PET)的表现被非随机选中。参与者还填写了Eysenck和Eysenck(1991)的冲动性问卷(EIQ),通过该问卷,他们在每个离线计划设置中被分为两个亚组,包括冲动性学习者和反思性学习者。总共有4个亚组:28名冲动性学习者和28名反思性学习者接受合作线下计划治疗,32名冲动性学习者和26名反思性学习者接受个人线下计划治疗。在14个疗程的治疗后,计算所有四组在口语后测中的平均得分,并运行双向方差分析来检验研究中提出的所有四个假设。结果表明,离线计划的效果在很大程度上取决于学习者的认知学习风格:冲动型学习者从合作式离线计划中获益更多,反思型学习者更倾向于单独执行任务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信