• Home
  • Browse
    • Current Issue
    • By Issue
    • By Author
    • By Subject
    • Author Index
    • Keyword Index
  • Journal Info
    • About Journal
    • Aims and Scope
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Staff
    • Publication Ethics
    • Indexing and Abstracting
    • Related Links
    • FAQ
    • Peer Review Process
    • News
  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Reviewers
  • Contact Us
 
  • Login
  • Register
Home Articles List Article Information
  • Save Records
  • |
  • Printable Version
  • |
  • Recommend
  • |
  • How to cite Export to
    RIS EndNote BibTeX APA MLA Harvard Vancouver
  • |
  • Share Share
    CiteULike Mendeley Facebook Google LinkedIn Twitter
Journal of Teaching  English Lnaguage Studies
Articles in Press
Current Issue
Journal Archive
Volume Volume 7 (2018)
Volume Volume 6 (2017)
Issue Issue 4
Issue Issue 3
Issue Issue 2
Issue Issue 1
Volume Volume 5 (2016)
Volume Volume 4 (2015)
Volume Volume 3 (2014)
Volume Volume 2 (2013)
Volume Volume 1 (2012)
Nazari, Z., Bagheri, B. (2017). The relationship between Interaction Types and Language Learning Styles. Journal of Teaching English Lnaguage Studies, 6(1), 7-17.
Zeinab Nazari; Bahram Bagheri. "The relationship between Interaction Types and Language Learning Styles". Journal of Teaching English Lnaguage Studies, 6, 1, 2017, 7-17.
Nazari, Z., Bagheri, B. (2017). 'The relationship between Interaction Types and Language Learning Styles', Journal of Teaching English Lnaguage Studies, 6(1), pp. 7-17.
Nazari, Z., Bagheri, B. The relationship between Interaction Types and Language Learning Styles. Journal of Teaching English Lnaguage Studies, 2017; 6(1): 7-17.

The relationship between Interaction Types and Language Learning Styles

Article 1, Volume 6, Issue 1, Summer 2017, Page 7-17  XML PDF (1.9 MB)
Authors
Zeinab Nazari; Bahram Bagheri
Department of English, Garmsar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Garmsar, Iran
Abstract
Language learning styles are among the main factors that help determine how –and how well
–our students learn a second or foreign language. In the traditional classroom, the primary
mode of interaction was face-to-face dialogue between the teacher and the student. This study
presents an analysis of the types of interaction in Jahad-e-Daneshgahi Institute, among 45
EFL students in Miyaneh city, and the relationship between interaction types and language
learning styles. The data were gathered through: Key English Test which consists of three
parts, Part A: Reading and writing, Part B: listening, Part C: speaking, and Grasha-
Riechmann student learning style scales (Grasha, 1996) was used to determine the role of
language learning styles which consists of 5-point likert-scale instrument. . For analyzing the
gathered data between interaction types and language learning styles Cronbach α was used.
The questionnaires were distributed among participants in one session, Key English Test was
taken in the next session, and then the data was inserted into SPSS. Finally, Findings
indicated that there is negative relationship between interaction types and language learning
styles
Keywords
Interaction types; Learning styles; Grasha-Reichmann; Reliability; Second Language Acquisition
References
Anderson, T. (2003a). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale
for interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2).
Retrieved from
Anderson, T. (2003b). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent
developments and research questions. In D. M. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education
(pp. 129-144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, A., &Voltz, B. (2005). Elements of effective e-Learning design. The
International Review of Re-search in Open and Distance Learning, 6(1). Retrieved from.
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamin, R. M., Surkes,
M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in
distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243-1289.
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamin, R. M., Surkes,
M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in
distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243-1289.
Ehrman, M. & Oxford, R. (1990).Adult language learning styles and strategies in an
intensive training setting. Modern Language Journal, 74, 311-
JOURNAL OF TEACHING ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES, Vol. 6, NO. 1, Summer 2017
17
317.
Ehrman, M. & Oxford, R. (1995). Cognitive plus: correlations of language
learningsuccess. Modern Language Journal, 79, 67-89.
Gass, S, M, (1997). Input, interaction and second language learner, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. (pp.404)
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Long, M. H. (1996).The role of linguistic environment in second language (pp.413-
438). San Diego, CA: Academic Press Inc.
Long, M, H, (1983).Native speaker/non native speaker conversation and negotiation of
comprehensible input.Applied linguistics, 4126-141. Http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.126
Moore, M. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 3(2), 1-7.
O’Malley, J. M. &Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language
acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pica, T. (1994). Questions from the language classroom: Research perspectives.
TESOL Quarterly, 28, 49-79.
Wenden, A. L. (1987a). Conceptual background and utility.In A. L. Wenden& J. Rubin
(Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning, 3-13. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Williams, M. & Burden, R. (1997).Psychology for language teachers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Statistics
Article View: 82
PDF Download: 91
Home | Glossary | News | Aims and Scope | Sitemap
Top Top

Journal Management System. Designed by sinaweb.