محمدرضا ملاحسینی

Given the significance and problematic nature of speaking in EFL instruction as well as lack of orthodoxy of views on acceptance or rejection of language learning transferability, this study proposed an inventive model to teaching thinking via questioning as a way to trigger speaking. It compromises six components, and organizes a rich interactive teaching/learning environment to gauge its usefulness in the development of EFL learners' oral skill as well as its inter-domain transferability effects. To this end, we compared the performance of 60 participants on pre-post-treatment oral narrative tasks over thirteen treatment sessions with a time allocation of 45 minutes for each session: One group with isolated questioning instruction and the other with integrated one. The results of independent samples t-test indicated that instructional treatment assisted the experimental group participants to outperform the control group learners solely in terms of measures of lexical and grammatical complexity. It is also suggested that the merits of questioning intervention transfer to learners' performance on a delayed task in a new social domain. As proposed, implementing the integrated approach of HOQs assisted EFL learners to successfully accomplish demanding oral tasks initially in academic setting and in later delayed novel transcontextual settings.

The effect of error feedback on the accuracy of output task types such as editing task, text reconstruction task, picture cued writing task, and dictogloss task, has not been clearly explored. Following arguments concerning that the combination of both corrective feedback and output makes it difficult to determine whether their effects were in combination or alone, the purpose of the present study is to document the role of teachers’ feedback in improving the accuracy of linguistic form in output tasks and in acquiring target form. To this end, this study compared three groups of Iranian intermediate learners (N= 93), one with direct grammar feedback, the other one with indirect grammar feedback and the last one with no grammar feedback. In terms of the target form uptake from first to subsequent text reconstruction tasks, the analysis of the data obtained within ten treatment sessions indicated that the participants, who received written corrective feedback compared to those who did not, progressed significantly from the first to the subsequent output tasks. In terms of learning, the learners who had the opportunities for receiving feedback performed significantly better than those in non- feedback condition on the production and recognition post- tests although explicit feedback rather than implicit feedback led to greater learning of target form on the production test, but no significant differences were found in relative efficacy of the two written corrective feedback types as far as the result of the recognition test was concerned.