Iranian EFL Learners' Perception of the Efficacy of Activity Theory-based Reading Comprehension

Document Type: Research Paper

Authors

Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Any language classroom is a distinctive learning context offering numerous affordances that might be perceived effectively, remain unnoticed, or even act as constraints. Therefore, exploring students' perception toward a particular method of instruction is crucial since it may produce a reliable piece of evidence for teachers to confirm or refute the effectiveness of the intended instructional activities. This study was an attempt to survey Iranian EFL learners' perception of the efficacy of activity theory-based reading comprehension. To this end, 60 students studying English translation at Islamic Azad University, Tehran Central Branch participated in the study and received the reading instruction based on the elements of activity theory, i.e., subjects, object, mediating artifacts, rules, community, and division of labor. After receiving the treatment, the students filled in two perception questionnaires and took part in a semi-structured focus group interview. The findings indicated that the students showed favorable perception toward activity theory, for which they perceived different affordances. Moreover, the results demonstrated that there was a significant difference between the students’ perception regarding the mediating elements of activity theory.  The study provides EFL teachers with new insights into the considerable benefits that activity theory might bring to reading classes. 

Keywords


Albrechtsen, H., Andersen, H. H., Bødker, S., & Pejtersen, A. M. (2001). Affordances in activity theory and cognitive systems engineering.  Retrieved from http://www.orbit.dtu.dk

Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: CUP.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C., & Walker, D. A. (2014). Introduction to research in education (9thed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Bacon, S. M., &Finneman, M. D. (1990). A study of the attitudes, motives, and strategies of university foreign language students and their disposition to authentic oral and written input. The Modern Language Journal, 74(4), 459-473. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1990.tb05338.x

Barkhuizen, G. P. (1998). Discovering learners’ perceptions of ESL classroom teaching/learning activities in a South African context. TESOL quarterly, 85-108.

Berardo, S. (2006).The use of authentic materials in the teaching of reading.The Reading Matrix, 6(2), 60-69.

Casey, M.A. & Kueger, R.A. (2000).Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. (3rded.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical interpretation of distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distribute cognition: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1-46). Cambridge: CUP.

Commander, M., de Guerrero, M. C., & Rico, P. (2013). Reading as a social interactive process: The impact of shadow-reading in L2 classrooms. Reading in a Foreign Language, 25(2), 170-191.

Denscombe, M. (2007). The good research guide for small-scale social research projects. (3rded.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies: Oxford: OUP.

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.

Engeström, Y. (1993). Developmental studies of work as a test bench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 64-103). Cambridge: CUP.

Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization.Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156. doi: 10.1080/13639080123238 

Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997).On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research.Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285-300. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05480.x

Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993).A student's contributions to second-language learning. Part II: Affective variables. Language teaching, 26(1), 1-11.

Grabe, W. (1991).Current developments in second-language reading research.TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 375-406. doi:10.2307/3586977 

Grabe, W. (2009).Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge: CUP.

Guariento, W., & J. Morley.(2001). Text and task authenticity in the EFL classroom.ELT Journal, 55(4), 347-353.

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., & Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 403-423. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.403

Hadfield, J., & Dörnyei, Z. (2013). Motivating learning. Harlow: Longman.

Hillyard, C., Gillespie, D., &Littig, P. (2010). University students’ attitudes about learning in small groups after frequent participation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(1), 9–20.

Jahedizadeh, S., Ghanizadeh, A., & Ghonsooly, B. (2016). The role of EFL learners’ demotivation, perceptions of classroom activities, and mastery goal in predicting their language achievement and burnout. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 16(1), 1-17. doi: 10.1186/s40862-016-0021-8

Jalilifar, A.  (2010).  The  effect  of  cooperative  learning  techniques  on  college  students reading comprehension. System, 38, 96-108. doi:10.1016/ 2009.12.009

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1990). What is cooperative learning? In M. Brubacher, R. Payne, & K. Rickett (Eds.), Perspectives on small group learning: Theory & practice (pp. 68-79). Ontario: Rubicon Publishing Inc.

Kilickaya, F. (2004). Authentic materials and cultural content in EFL classrooms. The Internet TESL Journal, 10(7), 1-6.

Lantolf, J. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33(2), 79- 96.doi: 10.1017/s0261444800015329 

Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Liao, H. C., & Oescher, J. (2009). Does cooperative learning really enhance self-efficacy and task value of English grammar learners? Journal of Education and Psychology, 32(3), 24-54.

Liu, J. (2015). Reading transition in Chinese international students: Through the lens of activity system theory. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 17, 1-11. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2014.11.004

Menendez, R. M. (2009). Cultural-historical activity perspectives on the effects of participation in teacher-mediated, computer-mediated reading instruction (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

Moore, P. J., & Scevak, J. J. (1997). Learning from texts and visual aids: A developmental perspective. Journal of Research in Reading, 20(3), 205-223.

Pan, C., & Wu, H.  (2013). The  cooperative  learning  effects  on  English  reading comprehension  and  learning  motivation  of  EFL  freshmen. English  Language Teaching, 6 (5), 13-27.

Portnov-Neeman, Y., & Barak, M. (2013). Exploring students’ perceptions about learning in school: An activity theory based study. Journal of Education and Learning, 2(3), 9-25. doi:10.5539/jel.v2n3p9

Prenkert, F. (2010). Tracing the roots of activity systems theory: An analysis of the concept of mediation. Theory & Psychology20(5), 641-665.

       doi: 10.1177/0959354310375329 

Reid, J. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 87-110.

Sharp, A. (2004). Strategies and predilections in reading expository text: The importance of text patterns. RELC journal, 35(3), 329-349.

       doi: 10.1177/0033688205052145

Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(1), 32-71. doi:10.2307/747348

Suh, J. S. (2009). Reading concepts in cooperative work by EFL college students. English Teaching, 64(2), 151-171.

Takallou, F., &Veisi, S. (2013). Implementing cooperative learning in a reading class. Report and Opinion, 5(1), 16-23.

Tanaka, M., & Sanchez, E. (2016). Students’ perceptions of reading through peer questioning in cooperative. TESL-EJ, 19(4), 1-16.

Thorne, S. L. (2005). Epistemology, politics, and ethics in sociocultural theory. The Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 393-409. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00313.x

Turk, D. (2006). Improving the Process? A study of learner autonomy, interaction and technology-enhanced language-learning environments (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://www.canberra.edu.au

Urquhart, A. H., & Weir, C. J. (1998). Reading in a second language: Process, product, and practice. NY: Longman.

Van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston: Dordrecht.

Wheelahan, L. (2004). Theorizing the individual in an activity system. Retrieved form http://www.researchgate.net

White, J., & Mills, D. (2014). Examining attitudes towards and usage of smartphone technology among Japanese university students studying EFL.CALL-EJ, 15(2), 1-15.

Wichadee, S. (2005). The effects of cooperative learning on English reading skill and attitudes of the first-year students at Bangkok University. BU Academic Review, 4(2), 22-31.

Zoghi, M., Mustapha, R., & Maasum, T. N. R. M. (2010).Collaborative strategic reading with university EFL learners. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 41(1), 67-94. doi:10.1080/10790195.2010.10850336