درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

This study aims to compare the effects of four types of FFI on second language vocabulary learning. To do so, the study adopted a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design, including five groups, each receiving a distinct treatment. The participants were 80 fourth-grade male students ranging in age from 17 to 19. Before the treatment phase, the participants took a researcher-made test of vocabulary as a pretest which was meant to measure the participants’ prior knowledge about the target words. After the treatment phase, the participants took a researcher-made test of vocabulary as posttest to measure the students' achievement of the target words. Independent samples t-test and one-way ANOVA were run to analyze the scores from the pretest and the posttest. The results indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between proactive and reactive FonF in the comprehension mode in terms of promoting vocabulary learning. There was also no statistically significant difference between these two forms of FonF in the production mode in terms of promoting vocabulary learning. However, there was a statistically significant difference between the comprehension-based and production-based FonF in enhancing vocabulary learning. These results extend the positive effect of FFI to L2 vocabulary teaching/learning.

Following Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-Weltz’s (1990) classification, this study examines the relationship between power and gender of the addressees and the type and number of refusal strategies employed by Sarawani Baloch male university students (SBMUS). Fifty SBMUS studying in Azad University of Sarawan were randomly chosen as the participants of the study. Data collection was accomplished through applying a revised version of DCT (Discourse Completion Test). The data collected were then coded and analyzed according to Beebe et al.'s (ibid.) taxonomy, and Chi-square and Correlation test results. The results show that refusal strategies extracted, are, for the most part, similar to those given in Beebe et al.’s work, which, in turn, confirms the universality of applying refusal strategies. However, SBMUS also employ some new strategies not predicted in the given scheme, suggesting the effect of their religion and culture. Research findings also denote the ineffectiveness of power and gender of the addressees on the type of refusal strategies employed by SBMUS. Moreover, results indicate that although power of the addressees affects number of refusal strategies used by the participants, their gender does not affect this variable. “Excuse, reason, explanation” dealing with all the addressees, the combination of 3 refusal strategies in reply to those in higher social power, and the combination of 2 strategies in response to those with equal and lower power are the most frequent refusal strategies regarding the type and number of refusal strategies.