学习风格与书面纠正反馈类型的不一致性:内隐学习风格理论的中介作用

IF 0.5 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Hanan Jalali, M. Rahimi
{"title":"学习风格与书面纠正反馈类型的不一致性:内隐学习风格理论的中介作用","authors":"Hanan Jalali, M. Rahimi","doi":"10.37213/cjal.2022.32478","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\n\nImplicit theory (Dweck, 2000) suggests that learners’ theories about the malleability of their individual traits (learning style, here) determine the extent to which they can stretch their learning style (Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2014; Young, 2010) and benefit from the instruction that mismatches their preferred styles. The present study aimed at investigating the extent to which Iranian EFL learners with inductive vs. deductive learning styles would benefit from the written corrective feedback (WCF) that does not match their learning styles (i.e., implicit vs. explicit WCF). The study also examined if their success (or lack of) in style stretching and improving their written accuracy is due to the implicit theory (entity vs. incremental) they hold about their learning style. The result showed that students with an incremental theory significantly improved their written accuracy more than those with an entity theory. Also, the findings revealed that inductive learners were more successful in adapting to the mismatched WCF (explicit) and made greater improvement in their written accuracy than deductive students who received implicit WCF.\n\n\n","PeriodicalId":43961,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Incongruence Between Learning Style and Written Corrective Feedback Type: Mediating Effect of Implicit Theory of Learning Style\",\"authors\":\"Hanan Jalali, M. Rahimi\",\"doi\":\"10.37213/cjal.2022.32478\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n\\n\\nImplicit theory (Dweck, 2000) suggests that learners’ theories about the malleability of their individual traits (learning style, here) determine the extent to which they can stretch their learning style (Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2014; Young, 2010) and benefit from the instruction that mismatches their preferred styles. The present study aimed at investigating the extent to which Iranian EFL learners with inductive vs. deductive learning styles would benefit from the written corrective feedback (WCF) that does not match their learning styles (i.e., implicit vs. explicit WCF). The study also examined if their success (or lack of) in style stretching and improving their written accuracy is due to the implicit theory (entity vs. incremental) they hold about their learning style. The result showed that students with an incremental theory significantly improved their written accuracy more than those with an entity theory. Also, the findings revealed that inductive learners were more successful in adapting to the mismatched WCF (explicit) and made greater improvement in their written accuracy than deductive students who received implicit WCF.\\n\\n\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":43961,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.37213/cjal.2022.32478\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37213/cjal.2022.32478","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

内隐理论(Dweck, 2000)表明,学习者对其个人特质(学习风格)的可塑性的理论决定了他们可以扩展学习风格的程度(Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2014;Young, 2010),并从与他们喜欢的风格不匹配的指导中受益。本研究旨在调查归纳和演绎学习风格的伊朗英语学习者在多大程度上受益于与其学习风格(即内隐和外显WCF)不匹配的书面纠正反馈(WCF)。该研究还调查了他们在风格延伸和提高写作准确性方面的成功(或缺乏)是否归因于他们对学习风格的内隐理论(实体vs增量)。结果表明,增量理论组学生的写作准确性显著高于实体理论组学生。此外,研究结果显示,归纳型学习者在适应不匹配的WCF(外显)方面比接受内隐WCF的演绎型学习者更成功,在写作准确性方面也有更大的提高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Incongruence Between Learning Style and Written Corrective Feedback Type: Mediating Effect of Implicit Theory of Learning Style
Implicit theory (Dweck, 2000) suggests that learners’ theories about the malleability of their individual traits (learning style, here) determine the extent to which they can stretch their learning style (Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2014; Young, 2010) and benefit from the instruction that mismatches their preferred styles. The present study aimed at investigating the extent to which Iranian EFL learners with inductive vs. deductive learning styles would benefit from the written corrective feedback (WCF) that does not match their learning styles (i.e., implicit vs. explicit WCF). The study also examined if their success (or lack of) in style stretching and improving their written accuracy is due to the implicit theory (entity vs. incremental) they hold about their learning style. The result showed that students with an incremental theory significantly improved their written accuracy more than those with an entity theory. Also, the findings revealed that inductive learners were more successful in adapting to the mismatched WCF (explicit) and made greater improvement in their written accuracy than deductive students who received implicit WCF.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS-
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
审稿时长
52 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信