‫‪www.onlinedoctranslator.

com - naisreP ot hsilgnE morf detalsnarT‬‬

‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎﺕﻓﺮﺍﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ )‪1456-1480 doi:،45(2023‬‬

‫‪10.1017/S0272263122000572‬‬

‫ﺍﻧﺠﻤﻦﺭﻭﺵ ﻫﺎ‬

‫ﺳﺎﺧﺖﻭ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺳﻨﺠﯽ ﯾﮏ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ‬

‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖﺩﺭ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻏﯿﺮ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ‬

‫ﻫﻨﺮﯾﺖﺍﻝ ﺁﺭﻧﺖ‬
‫ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩﻟﻮﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﻟﻮﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺉﺪ ﻭ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﺁﮐﺴﻔﻮﺭﺩ‪ ،‬ﺁﮐﺴﻔﻮﺭﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻧﮕﻠﺴﺘﺎﻥ ﺍﯾﻤﯿﻞ‪:‬‬
‫‪henriette.arndt@humlab.lu.se‬‬

‫)ﺩﺭﯾﺎﻓﺖ ‪ 01‬ﮊﻭﺉﻦ ‪2022‬؛ ﺗﺠﺪﯾﺪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺩﺭ ‪ 01‬ﻧﻮﺍﻣﺒﺮ ‪2022‬؛ ﭘﺬﯾﺮﺵ ﺩﺭ ‪ 27‬ﺩﺳﺎﻣﺒﺮ ‪(2022‬‬

‫ﺧﻼﺻﻪ‬
‫ﺍﯾﻦﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪ ﻭ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺳﻨﺠﯽ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ )‪ (ISLE‬ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺛﺒﺖ‬
‫ﺟﻨﺒﻪﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺁﻣﻮﺯ ﺑﺎ ﺷﯿﻮﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﺵ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺣﺎﻟﯽ ﮐﻪ‬
‫ﺳﺎﯾﺮﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﻫﺎ ﻋﻤﺪﺗﺎ ًﺑﺮ ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﻧﺪﻩ )ﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩ‪ ،‬ﮐﻤﯿﺖ ﻭ ﺗﻨﻮﻉ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﮐﻪ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺍﮔﯿﺮﺍﻥﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ( ﻣﺘﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ‪ ISLE ،‬ﻋﻼﻭﻩ ﺑﺮ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺟﻨﺒﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ‪ ،‬ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ‬
‫ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻫﺪﻑ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﻧﺘﯿﺠﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﯾﻦ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺍﯾﻦ ﭘﺘﺎﻧﺴﯿﻞ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺤﻘﻘﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﮐﺘﺴﺎﺏﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ ﮐﻤﮏ ﮐﻨﺪ ﺗﺎ ﺗﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻓﺮﺩﯼ ﻭ ﺗﻨﻮﻉ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﭼﮕﻮﻧﮕﯽ ﺗﻐﯿﯿﺮ ﺁﻥ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻃﻮﻝ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺭﻭﺵ ﻫﺎﯾﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﺮ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ ﻣﯽ ﮔﺬﺍﺭﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻬﺘﺮ ﺩﺭﮎ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ‪ ISLE .‬ﺩﺭ ﺳﻪ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪﺑﺎ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻉ ‪ 382‬ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯ ﺁﻟﻤﺎﻧﯽ ﺩﺑﯿﺮﺳﺘﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﯾﮏ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﯽ ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪ ﻭ‬
‫ﺍﺭﺯﯾﺎﺑﯽﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭ ﺍﻭﻟﯿﻪ ﺑﺎ ﯾﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﮐﯿﻔﯽ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﮔﺮﻭﻫﯽ ﻣﺘﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺁﺯﻣﺎﯾﺸﯽ ﺍﺟﺮﺍ ﺷﺪ ﻭ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ ﺍﮐﺘﺸﺎﻓﯽ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﮐﺸﻒ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻫﺎﯼ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ‬
‫ﺯﯾﺮﺑﻨﺎﯾﯽﻭ ﮐﺎﻫﺶ ﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﻣﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﺩﺭ ﻫﺮ ﺳﺎﺯﻩ ﺑﺮ ﺭﻭﯼ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎ ﺍﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﻧﻬﺎﯾﺖ‪ ،‬ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭ ﺗﺠﺪﯾﺪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ‬
‫ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ ﺗﺎﯾﯿﺪﯼ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﺭﺯﯾﺎﺑﯽ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ‪.‬‬

‫ﻣﻌﺮﻓﯽ‬
‫ﻣﺤﻘﻘﯿﻦﺍﮐﺘﺴﺎﺏ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ )‪ (SLA‬ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻓﺰﺍﯾﻨﺪﻩ ﺍﯼ ﻋﻼﻗﻪ ﻣﻨﺪ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺯﻣﯿﻨﻪﻫﺎﯼ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ )ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺑﻨﺴﻮﻥ ﻭ ﺭﯾﻨﺪﺭﺯ‪ ;2011،‬ﻧﻮﻧﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺭﯾﭽﺎﺭﺩﺯ‪ ;2015،‬ﺳﻮﮐﺖ‪ .(2014،‬ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻟﻄﻒﺍﯾﻨﺘﺮﻧﺖ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﺮﻭﺯﻩ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﻓﺮﺻﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮﯼ ﺍﺯ ﻫﺮ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﺩﯾﮕﺮﯼ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻭ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ ﺧﻮﺩ )‪ (L2‬ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﻋﻼﻭﻩ ﺑﺮ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺣﻤﺎﯾﺖ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻞ ﺍﯾﺠﺎﺩ‬
‫ﺷﺪﻩﺍﺳﺖ )ﻣﺜﻼ ًﺩﺭﺱ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺒﺘﻨﯽ ﺑﺮ ﻭﯾﺪﯾﻮﯼ ﭘﺎﺩﮐﺴﺖ‪ ،‬ﻭﺏ ﺳﺎﯾﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺩﺳﺘﻮﺭ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪ‬
‫ﻫﺎﯼﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ(‪ ،‬ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﯿﻦ ﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﯾﻖ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯾﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﺧﺎﺹ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﯼﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻃﺮﺍﺣﯽ ﻧﺸﺪﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻃﺒﯿﻌﯽ ﺗﺮ ﻭ ﺧﻮﺩﮔﺮﺩﺍﻥ ﺑﭙﺮﺩﺍﺯﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﯾﻦ‬
‫ﺷﺎﻣﻞ‪،‬ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯽ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ‬

‫) ﺗﻮﺯﯾﻊ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ‪ Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike‬ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ‬
‫ﮐﻤﺒﺮﯾﺞ‪.‬ﺍﯾﻦ ﯾﮏ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺩﺳﺘﺮﺳﯽ ﺁﺯﺍﺩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺗﺤﺖ ﺷﺮﺍﯾﻂ ﻣﺠﻮﺯ ‪/licenses/by-nc-sa/ 4.0©The Author)s(، 2023.‬‬
‫‪ (http://creativecommons.org‬ﮐﻪ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻣﺠﺪﺩ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﺯﯾﻊ ﻭ ﺗﮑﺜﯿﺮ ﻏﯿﺮﺗﺠﺎﺭﯼ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﻫﺮ ﺭﺳﺎﻧﻪ ﺍﯼ ﻣﺠﺎﺯ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻁ ﺑﺮ ﺍﯾﻨﮑﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻫﻤﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻣﺠﻮﺯ‪ Creative Commons‬ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺗﻮﺯﯾﻊ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻣﺠﺪﺩ ﯾﺎ ﺍﻗﺘﺒﺎﺱ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺷﻮﺩ ﻭ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺍﺻﻠﯽ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺭﺳﺘﯽ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺎﺩ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﻣﺠﻮﺯ‬
‫ﮐﺘﺒﯽﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﮐﻤﺒﺮﯾﺞ ﺑﺎﯾﺪ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﺯ ﻫﺮﮔﻮﻧﻪ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺗﺠﺎﺭﯼ ﺩﺭﯾﺎﻓﺖ ﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬‬

‫‪https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000572‬ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﮐﻤﺒﺮﯾﺞ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‬

‫‪1457‬‬ ‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖﺩﺭ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻏﯿﺮ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ‬

‫ﺷﺒﮑﻪﺳﺎﺯﯼ؛ ﺧﻮﺍﻧﺪﻥ ﻭﺏ ﺳﺎﯾﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺧﺒﺮﯼ ﻭ ﺳﺮﮔﺮﻣﯽ؛ ﭘﺨﺶ ﻣﻮﺳﯿﻘﯽ‪ ،‬ﻭﯾﺪﯾﻮﻫﺎﯼ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ‪،‬‬
‫ﺳﺮﯾﺎﻝﻫﺎﯼ ﺗﻠﻮﯾﺰﯾﻮﻧﯽ ﯾﺎ ﻓﯿﻠﻢ؛ ﻭ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺑﺎﺯﯼ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻭﯾﺪﯾﻮﯾﯽ ﺩﺭ ﻃﻮﻝ ﺩﻫﻪ ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﻓﺰﺍﯾﻨﺪﻩ‬
‫ﺍﯼﺍﺯ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎﺕ ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﺪ ﭼﻨﯿﻦ ﺷﯿﻮﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ‬
‫)‪ (ISLPs‬ﻭﺍﻗﻌﺎ ًﺩﺭ ﺑﯿﻦ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ‪ L2‬ﮔﺴﺘﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ )ﻣﺜﻼ‪ ً،‬ﻟﯽ‪ ;2019،‬ﺳﻮﮐﺖ‪;2014،‬‬
‫ﺳﺎﻧﺪﮐﻮﯾﺴﺖﻭ ﺳﯿﻠﻮﻥ‪ .(2016،‬ﺍﮐﺜﺮ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﺎﺕ ﺑﺮ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻤﺮﮐﺰﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺻﻄﻼﺣﺎﺗﯽ ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ "ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ"‬
‫ﻣﻨﻌﮑﺲﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ )‪" (2014,Sockett‬ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺩﯾﺠﯿﺘﺎﻝ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ" )ﻟﯽ‪ ;2019،‬ﻟﯽ ﻭ‬
‫ﭘﯿﺮﺍﺳﺘﻦ‪ (2017،‬ﻭ "ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ ﻓﺮﺍﻣﺮﺯﯼ" )‪ .(2011،Sundqvist‬ﺍﺯ ﯾﮏ ﻃﺮﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﯾﻦ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﻫﻨﺪﻩ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺗﺮﯼﮐﻠﯽ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎﺕ ﺩﺭ ﺯﻣﯿﻨﻪ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ ﺩﺭ ﺯﻣﯿﻨﻪ ﮔﺴﺘﺮﺩﻩ ﺗﺮ ‪ SLA‬ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﺳﻮﯼ‬
‫ﺩﯾﮕﺮ‪،‬ﻣﺤﻘﻘﺎﻥ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﭘﯿﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩ ﮐﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﺎ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ ﺩﺭ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﯽ ﺭﻭﺯﻣﺮﻩ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﺎ ﻫﺮ ‪ L2‬ﺩﯾﮕﺮﯼ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﻧﻔﻮﺫ ﻗﻮﯼ ﺭﺳﺎﻧﻪ ﻫﺎ ﻭ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﻣﺤﺒﻮﺏ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ‪-‬ﺁﻣﺮﯾﮑﺎﯾﯽ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺳﺮﺍﺳﺮﺟﻬﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﮔﺴﺘﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﯾﮏ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻓﺮﺍﻧﮏ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻭﯾﮋﻩ‬
‫ﺩﺭﺍﯾﻨﺘﺮﻧﺖ )ﻣﯿﺮ‪ ;2020،‬ﺳﯿﺪﻟﻬﻮﻓﺮ‪.(2011،‬‬

‫ﺑﺴﯿﺎﺭﯼﺍﺯ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎﺕ ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﻣﺜﺒﺘﯽ ﺑﯿﻦ ‪ ISLP‬ﻫﺎ ﻭ ﻣﻬﺎﺭﺕ ‪ L2‬ﭘﯿﺪﺍ ﮐﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﮐﻠﯽ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥﺷﻮﺍﻫﺪﯼ ﺗﻔﺴﯿﺮ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﺩ ﮐﻪ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺑﻪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﮐﻤﮏ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ ﺗﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻬﺎﺭﺕﻫﺎﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩ ﺑﺨﺸﻨﺪ )ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﮐﻮﭘﻦ‪ ;2010،‬ﻟﯽ ﻭ ﭘﯿﺮﺍﺳﺘﻦ‪ ;2017،‬ﺳﺎﻧﺪﮐﻮﯾﺴﺖ‪،‬‬
‫‪ ;2011‬ﻭﺭﺳﭙﻮﺭ ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪ .(2011،‬ﻫﻤﭽﻨﯿﻦ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺸﺎﺑﻬﯽ ﺑﯿﻦ ‪ ISLP‬ﻫﺎ ﻭ ﻣﺘﻐﯿﺮﻫﺎﯼ‬
‫ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺍﻧﮕﯿﺰﻩ‪ ،‬ﺧﻮﺩﮐﺎﺭﺁﻣﺪﯼ‪ ،‬ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻔﺲ ﻭ ﻟﺬﺕ ﯾﺎﻓﺖ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ )ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﮐﻮﻝ‪;2015،‬‬
‫ﻻﯼﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪ ;2015،‬ﻟﯽ‪ ;2019،‬ﻟﯿﺮﯾﮕﮑﻮ‪ .(2016،‬ﺑﺎ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺗﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻓﺮﺩﯼ ﻭ ﮔﺮﻭﻫﯽ‬
‫ﻗﺎﺑﻞﺗﻮﺟﻬﯽ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻬﺎﺭﺕ ﻭ ﺍﻧﮕﯿﺰﻩ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎ ‪ ISLP‬ﻫﺎ ﻧﯿﺰ ﺛﺒﺖ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ )ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﮐﻮﻝ‪،‬‬
‫‪ ;2015‬ﺳﺎﻧﺪﮐﻮﯾﺴﺖ‪ ;2011،‬ﺳﺎﻧﺪﮐﻮﯾﺴﺖ ﻭ ﺳﯿﻠﻮﻥ‪ (2014،‬ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﯽ ﺭﺳﺪ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﺪ‬
‫ﮐﻪﻫﻤﻪ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﻧﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﯾﮑﺴﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ‪ ISLP‬ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﻧﻤﯽ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ ﻭ‪/‬ﯾﺎ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﺑﻬﺮﻩ ﻧﻤﯽ ﺑﺮﻧﺪ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﯾﻦﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﯾﮏ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﺎﺗﯽ ﺟﺪﯾﺪ‪ ،‬ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ )‪ (ISLE‬ﺭﺍ ﺍﺭﺍﺉﻪ‬
‫ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﺨﺸﯽ ﺍﺯ ﯾﮏ ﭘﺮﻭﮊﻩ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﺎﺗﯽ ﺑﺰﺭﮔﺘﺮ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﺍﯾﻨﮑﻪ ﺁﯾﺎ ﺗﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﻫﺎﯼ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺩﯼﻓﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﺬﮐﺮ ﻣﯽ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺗﺎ ﺣﺪﻭﺩﯼ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﻫﺎﯾﯽ ﺩﺭ ﺭﻭﺵ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺗﻮﺿﯿﺢ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺷﻮﺩ ﯾﺎ ﺧﯿﺮ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﯾﺠﺎﺩﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﻧﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺑﺎ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ‪ L2‬ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ )‪ .(2019,Arndt‬ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻣﻌﺮﻓﯽ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯ ﺷﺮﻭﻉ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﻢ‪ ،‬ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﭼﺎﺭﭼﻮﺑﯽ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﯼﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﺟﻨﺒﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻓﺮﺍﮔﯿﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﺎ ‪ ISLP‬ﻫﺎ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺟﺎﯾﯽ‬
‫ﮐﻪﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﺎﺕ ﻗﺒﻠﯽ ﻋﻤﺪﺗﺎ ًﺑﺮ ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﻧﺪﻩ )ﮐﻤﯿﺖ ﻭ ﺗﻨﻮﻉ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ( ﻣﺘﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ISLE،‬ﺑﻪ ﮔﻮﻧﻪ ﺍﯼ ﻃﺮﺍﺣﯽ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺟﻨﺒﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ‪ ،‬ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺷﯿﻮﻩ ﻫﺎﯼﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ ﺭﺍ ﻧﯿﺰ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺼﻮﯾﺮ ﺑﮑﺸﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﯾﻦ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﭘﯿﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﻢ ﮐﻪ ‪ISLE‬‬
‫ﺍﯾﻦﭘﺘﺎﻧﺴﯿﻞ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺤﻘﻘﺎﻥ ﮐﻤﮏ ﮐﻨﺪ ﺗﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺗﻨﻮﻉ ﻓﺮﺩﯼ ﻗﺒﻼ ًﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ‪ISLP‬‬
‫ﻫﺎ‪،‬ﭼﮕﻮﻧﮕﯽ ﺗﻐﯿﯿﺮ ﺟﻨﺒﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ‪ L2‬ﺩﺭ ﻃﻮﻝ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺭﺍﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺎﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻬﺘﺮ ﺩﺭﮎ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ‪.‬‬

‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖﺩﺍﻧﺸﺠﻮﯾﯽ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﯽ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﺎﺕ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺷﯽ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺗﻮﺻﯿﻒ ﺳﻄﻮﺡ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﻓﻌﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻋﻼﻗﻪ ﻭ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖﻣﻌﻨﺎﺩﺍﺭ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﺩ )ﮐﺮﯾﺴﺘﻨﺴﻮﻥ ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪.(2012،‬‬
‫ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞﻫﻤﯿﺸﻪ ﺩﺭ ﯾﮏ ﺯﻣﯿﻨﻪ ﺧﺎﺹ‪ ،‬ﯾﺎ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﺑﻪ ﯾﮏ »ﺷﯽء« ﺧﺎﺹ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ‪،‬ﺩﺭ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﻪ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﯾﮏ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ‪ ،‬ﯾﺎ ﺣﺘﯽ ﯾﮏ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻣﻨﻔﺮﺩ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﺩ )‬
‫ﻫﯿﻮﺭﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪ ;2021b،‬ﺍﺳﮑﯿﻨﺮ ﻭ ﭘﯿﺘﺰﺭ‪ .(2012 ،‬ﯾﻌﻨﯽ »ﮐﯿﻔﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﻩ ﻭ ﻏﯿﺮﻗﺎﺑﻞ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﻩﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ« ﺑﺎ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺍﺷﯿﺎء ﺭﺍ ﺗﻮﺻﯿﻒ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ )ﻭﺍﻧﮓ ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪ ،2016،‬ﭖ‪.‬‬
‫‪ (17‬ﯾﺎ ﺭﻭﺵ ﻫﺎﯾﯽ ﮐﻪ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﻧﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﻓﮑﺮ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ ﻭ ﺍﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ )ﺍﻭﮔﺎ‪-‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻭﯾﻦ‪.(2019،‬‬

‫‪https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000572‬ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﮐﻤﺒﺮﯾﺞ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‬

 ‫ﻫﻨﺮﯾﺖﺍﻝ ﺁﺭﻧﺖ‬ ‫‪1458‬‬

‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎﺕﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺍﻭﻟﯿﻪ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺑﯿﻦ ﻧﺮﺥ ﺗﺮﮎ ﺗﺤﺼﯿﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﺗﻌﻠﻖ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﻭ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖﺩﺭ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﻪ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﺍﺩﻧﺪ )ﻓﯿﻦ‪ .(1989،‬ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﺎﺕ ﮔﺴﺘﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﯼ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﮐﻠﯽ ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﭘﯿﺶ ﺑﯿﻨﯽ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﻩ ﻣﻬﻢ‬
‫ﭘﯿﺸﺮﻓﺖﺗﺤﺼﯿﻠﯽ ﻣﯽ ﺩﺍﻧﺪ )ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺭ ﮐﺘﺎﺑﭽﻪ ﺭﺍﻫﻨﻤﺎﯼ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖﺩﺍﻧﺸﺠﻮﯾﯽ‪،‬ﮐﺮﯾﺴﺘﻨﺴﻮﻥ ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪2012،‬ﻭ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ‪.(2016،Boekaerts‬‬
‫ﺍﮐﺜﺮﯾﺖﻗﺮﯾﺐ ﺑﻪ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻕ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎﺕ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﮐﻠﯽ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﻪ ﯾﺎ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺧﺎﺹ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻤﺮﮐﺰﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺣﺎﻟﯽ ﮐﻪ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎﺕ ﺩﺭ ﺳﻄﺢ ﺗﮑﺎﻟﯿﻒ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻓﺮﺩﯼ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﯿﻦ ﺁﻥ ﻫﺎﯾﯽ ﮐﻪ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖﺩﺭ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﺯ ﺯﻣﯿﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﮐﻤﺘﺮ ﺭﺍﯾﺞ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ )‪,Eccles‬‬
‫‪ ;2016‬ﺭﺳﻠﯽ ﻭ ﮐﺮﯾﺴﺘﻨﺴﻮﻥ‪.(2012،‬‬
‫ﺍﮔﺮﭼﻪﺍﺻﻄﻼﺡ "ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ" ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﮔﺴﺘﺮﺩﻩ ﺩﺭ ﻣﯿﺎﻥ ﺷﺎﻏﻠﯿﻦ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺷﯽ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﯽ‬
‫ﮔﯿﺮﺩﻭ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﺷﻬﻮﺩﯼ ﺩﺭﮎ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﺩﺑﯿﺎﺕ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻓﺎﻗﺪ ﻭﺿﻮﺡ ﺗﻌﺮﯾﻒ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﯾﻦ ﺍﻣﺮ ﺗﺎ‬
‫ﺣﺪﯼﺑﻪ ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺻﻄﻼﺣﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﺎﺭﯾﻒ ﮐﺎﺭﯼ ﻭ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭﻫﺎﯼ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﺎﺗﯽ ﺑﺴﯿﺎﺭ ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺍﺳﺖ )‬
‫ﺭﺳﭽﻠﯽﻭ ﮐﺮﯾﺴﺘﻨﺴﻮﻥ‪ ،(2012،‬ﺑﺎ ﺍﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﻭ ﺯﻣﯿﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺘﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎﺕ ﻓﺮﺩﯼ ﺗﺮﮐﯿﺐ ﺷﺪﻩ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬ﺑﺎ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﮐﻠﯽ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﭘﻮﯾﺎ ﻭ ﺍﻧﻌﻄﺎﻑ ﭘﺬﯾﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ )ﯾﻌﻨﯽ ﺩﺭ ﻃﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺯﻣﺎﻥﺗﻐﯿﯿﺮ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ ﻭ ﻣﯽ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﯾﻖ ﺗﻐﯿﯿﺮﺍﺕ ﺯﻣﯿﻨﻪ ﺍﯼ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﻣﺪﺍﺧﻼﺕ ﺗﺤﺖ ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﯿﺮﺩ‬
‫( ﻭ ﺣﺪﺍﻗﻞ ﺳﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ )ﯾﺎ ﺟﻨﺒﻪ( ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺭﺍ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﻓﺮﺩﺭﯾﮏ‪ ،‬ﺑﻠﻮﻣﻨﻔﻠﺪ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﯾﯽ‬
‫ﺷﺪﻩﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻭ ﭘﺎﺭﯾﺲ )‪ :(2004‬ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﯼ‪ ،‬ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ‪ .‬ﭘﯿﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩﺍﺕ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺍﺑﻌﺎﺩ ﺩﯾﮕﺮ‬
‫ﺷﺎﻣﻞ‪،‬ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯽ‪ ،‬ﺧﻮﺩﺗﻨﻈﯿﻤﯽ ﯾﺎ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ )ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ‪Boekaerts ،‬‬
‫‪ ;2016 ،‬ﻓﯿﻦ ﻭ ﺯﯾﻤﺮ‪ ;2012،‬ﺭﯾﻮ ﻭ ﺗﺴﻨﮓ‪.(2011،‬‬

‫ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﯼ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﮐﻠﯽ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺸﻬﻮﺩ ﺑﯿﺮﻭﻧﯽ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ‬
‫ﺯﻣﺎﻥﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﮐﺎﺭ ﯾﺎ ﻣﯿﺰﺍﻥ ﺗﺪﺍﻭﻡ ﻭ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﺩﺭ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ )ﻓﯿﻦ ﻭ ﺯﯾﻤﺮ‪.(2012،‬‬
‫ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﭘﺎﯾﺪﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﺗﻼﺵ ﺫﻫﻨﯽ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻭﻇﯿﻔﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﮐﺎﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺭﺍﻫﺒﺮﺩﻫﺎﯾﯽ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﯼﺧﻮﺩﺗﻨﻈﯿﻤﯽ ﻭ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺍﺳﺖ )ﺍﭘﻠﺘﻮﻥ ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪ .(2006،‬ﺩﺭ ﻧﻬﺎﯾﺖ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ )ﮐﻪ‬
‫ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ ﻧﯿﺰ ﻧﺎﻣﯿﺪﻩ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﺩ( ﻣﻌﻤﻮﻻ ًﺑﻪ ﻭﺍﮐﻨﺶ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﻧﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺍﺷﺘﯿﺎﻕ‪،‬‬
‫ﻋﻼﻗﻪﻭ ﻟﺬﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﯿﻦ ﮐﺴﺎﻟﺖ‪ ،‬ﺩﻭﺳﺖ ﻧﺪﺍﺷﺘﻦ ﻭ ﺳﺮﺧﻮﺭﺩﮔﯽ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ )ﺍﺳﮑﯿﻨﺮ ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪،‬‬
‫‪ .(2009‬ﺳﺎﺯﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺩﯾﮕﺮﯼ ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺍﺭﺯﺵ ﺩﺭﮎ ﺷﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﻫﺪﻓﻤﻨﺪﯼ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺧﻮﺩﻣﺨﺘﺎﺭﯼ ﻧﯿﺰ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﺧﯽ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺎﺭﯾﻒﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ ﮔﻨﺠﺎﻧﺪﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ )ﺭﯾﻨﺪﺭﺯ ﻭ ﻧﺎﮐﺎﻣﻮﺭﺍ‪ ،2021،‬ﺍﮔﺮﭼﻪ ﺩﯾﮕﺮﺍﻥ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥﭘﯿﺶ ﺳﺎﺯﻫﺎﯾﯽ ﻣﯽ ﺑﯿﻨﻨﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺮ ﻧﯿﺎﺕ ﻓﺮﺍﮔﯿﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﺗﺼﻤﯿﻢ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ ﻣﯽ‬
‫ﮔﺬﺍﺭﺩ)‪ ;2021a ,.Hiver et al‬ﻣﺮﺳﺮ‪.(2019،‬‬

‫ﻋﻠﯿﺮﻏﻢﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﺯﯾﺮﺳﺎﺧﺖ ﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺗﻌﺎﺭﯾﻒ ﺁﻥ ﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﯾﮏ ﺍﺟﻤﺎﻉ ﮐﻠﯽ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‬
‫ﮐﻪﺟﻨﺒﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﺎ ﯾﮑﺪﯾﮕﺮ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﭘﻮﯾﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻃﻮﻝ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﺑﺎ ﯾﮑﺪﯾﮕﺮ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ )‪ ;2021,Reinders & Nakamura‬ﺭﺳﻠﯽ ﻭ ﮐﺮﯾﺴﺘﻨﺴﻮﻥ‪ .(2012،‬ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ‪،‬‬
‫ﯾﮏﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﻧﺪﻩ ﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻝ ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮﯼ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻓﻌﺎﻝ )ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﯼ( ﺩﺭ ﯾﮏ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ‬
‫ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻭ ﺟﺎﻟﺐ ﺍﺳﺖ )ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ( ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺮﻋﮑﺲ‪ ،‬ﺍﮔﺮ ﯾﮏ ﮐﺎﺭ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻄﻮﺡ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻻﯾﯽﺍﺯ ﺗﻼﺵ ﺫﻫﻨﯽ ﭘﺎﯾﺪﺍﺭ )ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ( ﻧﯿﺎﺯ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺑﺮ ﻟﺬﺕ‬
‫ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥﺍﺯ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ )ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ( ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ ﻣﻨﻔﯽ ﺑﮕﺬﺍﺭﺩ ﻭ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺗﺪﺍﻭﻡ‬
‫ﻧﺪﺍﺷﺘﻪﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ )ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﯼ(‪ .‬ﻣﺎﻫﯿﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻫﻢ ﭘﯿﻮﺳﺘﻪ ﺍﺑﻌﺎﺩ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﻪ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﻌﻨﯽ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺎﯾﺪﺑﺎ ﻫﻢ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺷﻮﻧﺪ ﻭ ﻧﻪ ﺟﺪﺍ ﺍﺯ ﻫﻢ )‪ ;2012,Janosz‬ﻓﯿﻠﭗ ﻭ ﺩﻭﺷﻦ‪ .(2016،‬ﺑﻪ ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﻫﻤﯿﻦ‬
‫ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁﻣﺘﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺍﺧﯿﺮﺍ ًﭼﻨﺪﯾﻦ ﻣﺤﻘﻖ ﺧﻮﺍﺳﺘﺎﺭ ﺑﻪ ﮐﺎﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﭼﺎﺭﭼﻮﺏ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﺎﺕ‬
‫‪ SLA‬ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ ﺗﺎ ﺭﻭﺷﯽ ﺟﺎﻣﻊ ﺗﺮ ﻭ ﯾﮑﭙﺎﺭﭼﻪ ﺗﺮ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﻓﺮﺁﯾﻨﺪﻫﺎﯼ ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﯼ‪ ،‬ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ‬
‫ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽﻭ ﻧﻘﺶ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺍﮐﺘﺴﺎﺏ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﺭﺍﺉﻪ ﺩﻫﻨﺪ )ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ‪ .(Hiver‬ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪ ;2021b،‬ﺍﻭﮔﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻭﯾﻦ‪ ;2019،‬ﻣﺮﺳﺮ‪ ;2019،‬ﺭﯾﻨﺪﺭﺯ ﻭ ﻧﺎﮐﺎﻣﻮﺭﺍ‪ .(2021،‬ﺑﺨﺶ ﺯﯾﺮ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﻪ ﺍﯼ ﮐﻮﺗﺎﻩ ﺑﺮ‬
‫ﺍﺩﺑﯿﺎﺕﻗﺒﻠﯽ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺭ ‪ SLA‬ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬

‫‪https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000572‬ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﮐﻤﺒﺮﯾﺞ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‬

‫‪1459‬‬ ‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖﺩﺭ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻏﯿﺮ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ‬

‫ﻧﺎﻣﺰﺩﯼﻭ ﻓﺮﺍﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ‬

‫ﺩﺭﻃﻮﻝ ‪ 20‬ﺳﺎﻝ ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﻘﻘﺎﻥ ‪ SLA‬ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻓﺰﺍﯾﻨﺪﻩ ﺍﯼ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﯾﮏ ﻣﺘﻐﯿﺮ‬
‫ﮐﻠﯿﺪﯼﺩﺭ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺗﺼﺪﯾﻖ ﮐﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ )ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ‪ ;2000,Dörnyei & Kormos ،‬ﻫﯿﻮﺭ ﻭ‬
‫ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪ ;2021b،‬ﻣﺮﺳﺮ ﻭ ﺩﻭﺭﻧﯽ‪ ;2021،‬ﻓﯿﻠﭗ ﻭ ﺩﻭﺷﻦ‪ .(2016،‬ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺮﺳﺮ )‪(2019‬‬
‫ﯾﺎﺩﺩﺍﺷﺖﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﺯ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻧﮑﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﺎﺕ ‪ SLA‬ﻗﺒﻼ ًﺑﺴﯿﺎﺭﯼ ﺍﺯ ﺟﻨﺒﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺭﺍ "ﺗﺤﺖ‬
‫ﭘﻮﺷﺶﻫﺎﯼ ﺩﯾﮕﺮ" )ﺹ‪ (647 .‬ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﮐﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎﺕ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺗﻼﺵ )ﺑﺨﺸﯽ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﯼ(‪ ،‬ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﮋﯼ ﻫﺎﯼ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ )ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ(‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺟﺮﯾﺎﻥ )ﺻﻔﺤﻪ ‪ .(647‬ﮐﻪ‬
‫ﻣﯽ ﺗﻮﺍﻥﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﯾﮏ ﺣﺎﻟﺖ ﮐﻠﯽ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺗﺸﺪﯾﺪ ﮐﺮﺩ(‪ .‬ﺑﺎ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺣﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﺧﯿﺮﺍ‪ ً،‬ﻣﺤﻘﻘﺎﻥ ‪SLA‬‬
‫ﺷﺮﻭﻉﺑﻪ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺻﻄﻼﺡ »ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ« ﺑﻪ ﺷﯿﻮﻩ ﺍﯼ ﺁﮔﺎﻫﺎﻧﻪ ﺗﺮ ﻭ ﻣﺘﻤﺮﮐﺰﺗﺮ ﮐﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ ﻭ ﺑﺮ ﺭﻭﯼ‬
‫ﺑﺪﻧﻪ ﯼﮐﺎﺭ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺭ ﻋﻠﻮﻡ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺷﯽ ﻭ ﮔﺴﺘﺮﺵ ﺁﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺭﻭﺵ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺧﺎﺹ ﺣﻮﺯﻩ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﻨﺪ‪.‬‬

‫ﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩﯼﺍﺯ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻧﻈﺮﯼ ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﺎﺕ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺑﻨﯿﺎﺩﯼ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺵ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﻣﺮﻭﺭﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺤﺚ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﮐﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩ ﺗﻌﺎﺭﯾﻒ ﻭ ﯾﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺯﻣﯿﻨﻪ ‪ .SLA‬ﻭ ﺑﺮ ﺍﺭﺯﺵ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﯾﮏ ﭼﺎﺭﭼﻮﺏ ﮐﻞ ﻧﮕﺮ ﮐﻪ ﭘﺘﺎﻧﺴﯿﻞ ﺍﺗﺤﺎﺩ ﺭﺷﺘﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﺎﺗﯽ ﺩﺭ ‪SLA‬‬
‫ﺭﺍﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﺗﺎ ﺩﺭﮎ ﻣﺎ ﺍﺯ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻼﺕ ﭘﯿﭽﯿﺪﻩ ﺑﯿﻦ ﻣﺘﻐﯿﺮﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ‪ ،‬ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ‪ ،‬ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﯼ ﻭ‬
‫ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯽﺩﺭ ﻓﺮﺁﯾﻨﺪ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩ ﺑﺨﺸﺪ )ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ‪ ،‬ﻣﺮﺳﺮ‪ ;2019،‬ﺍﻭﮔﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻭﯾﻦ‪،‬‬
‫‪ ;2019‬ﺭﯾﻨﺪﺭﺯ ﻭ ﻧﺎﮐﺎﻣﻮﺭﺍ‪ .(2021،‬ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻣﻬﻢ ﺩﺭ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺑﺤﺚ ﻫﺎ ﻧﯿﺰ ﺗﺮﺳﯿﻢ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ )ﭼﻪ‬
‫ﭼﯿﺰﯼﺯﯾﺮ ﭼﺘﺮ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻓﺮﺍﺳﺎﺯﻩ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﯽ ﮔﯿﺮﺩ ﻭ ﭼﻪ ﭼﯿﺰﯼ ﻧﯿﺴﺖ( ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻦ ﻧﺤﻮﻩ ﺍﺗﺼﺎﻝ ﻭ‬
‫ﺗﻔﺎﻭﺕﺁﻥ ﺑﺎ ﺳﺎﯾﺮ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﯿﻢ ﺭﺍﯾﺞ ﺩﺭ ‪ ،SLA‬ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ‪ ،‬ﺧﻮﺩﺗﻨﻈﯿﻤﯽ‪ ،‬ﺍﺿﻄﺮﺍﺏ ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﯼ )ﻓﯿﻠﭗ‬
‫ﻭﺩﻭﺷﻦ‪ (2016،‬ﯾﺎ ﻃﺮﺯ ﻓﮑﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﺳﺘﻘﻼﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ )‪ .(2019،Mercer‬ﺩﺭ ﻣﺮﮐﺰ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺑﺤﺚ‪ ،‬ﺍﯾﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﮐﻪ ﭼﮕﻮﻧﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﺎ ﺍﻧﮕﯿﺰﻩ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻭ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﯿﻢ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﻧﮕﺮﺵ ﻫﺎ ﻭ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻭﺭﻫﺎ‪،‬ﺳﺮﻣﺎﯾﻪ ﮔﺬﺍﺭﯼ ﻭ ﻋﻼﻗﻪ ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺑﺎ ﺁﻥ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‬
‫)‪ ;2019,Mercer‬ﺍﻭﮔﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻭﯾﻦ‪ ;2019،‬ﺳﺎﻧﮓ ﻭ ﻫﯿﻮﺭ‪ .(2021،‬ﺍﺟﻤﺎﻉ ﺑﻪ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺁﻣﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻧﮕﯿﺰﻩﺭﺍ ﻣﯽ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﭘﯿﺶ ﺩﺭﺁﻣﺪﯼ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ‪» ،‬ﻧﯿﺮﻭﯾﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻥ ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺮﮊﯼﻣﯽ ﺑﺨﺸﺪ ﻭ ﺁﻥ ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭ ﺭﺍ ﻫﺪﺍﯾﺖ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ« ﮐﻪ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﺳﺖ )ﻫﯿﻮﺭ ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪b ،‬‬
‫‪ ،2021‬ﭖ‪.(23 .‬‬

‫ﺍﯾﻦﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ ﭘﯿﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩﯼ ﺑﯿﻦ ﺍﻧﮕﯿﺰﻩ ﻭ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺮﮐﺰ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻣﺘﻨﯽ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ )‪CME‬؛ ﻻﻡ‬
‫ﻭﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪ (2012،‬ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﮔﺴﺘﺮﺩﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﺎﺕ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺷﯽ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﺪﻝ ﭘﯿﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﯾﮏ ﻣﯿﺎﻧﺠﯽ ﻣﺮﮐﺰﯼ‪ ،‬ﻣﯽ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﯼﺩﺭﮎ ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﺑﯿﻦ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﯿﺎﺕ ﻭ ﺩﺳﺘﺎﻭﺭﺩﻫﺎﯼ ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ ﻭ ﺁﯾﻨﺪﻩ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ‬
‫ﮔﯿﺮﺩ‪،‬ﮐﻪ ﻫﻢ ﻭﯾﮋﮔﯽ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺷﺨﺼﯽ )ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺍﻧﮕﯿﺰﻩ‪ ،‬ﻧﮕﺮﺵ ﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺎﯾﯽ ﻫﺎ( ﻭ ﻫﻢ ﻭﯾﮋﮔﯽ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺤﯿﻂ‬
‫ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮ ﻣﯽ ﮔﯿﺮﺩ )ﻣﺜﻼ(ً‪ ، .‬ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﻭ ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ(‪ .‬ﺍﻭﮔﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻭﯾﻦ )‪ (2019‬ﺍﻧﻄﺒﺎﻕ ‪ CME‬ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ‬
‫ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻭ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺵ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﭘﯿﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩ ﮐﺮﺩ ﺗﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺭﮎ ﻭ ﭘﯿﺶ ﺑﯿﻨﯽ ﻣﻮﻓﻘﯿﺖ‬
‫ﺩﺍﻧﺶﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺤﯿﻂ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺷﯽ ﮐﻤﮏ ﮐﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻣﺸﺎﺑﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺍﯾﻦﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﭼﺎﺭﭼﻮﺏ ﺩﺍﺩﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻘﺶ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺭ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺷﮑﻞ‪1‬ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﭘﯿﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩﯼ ﺑﯿﻦ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺭ ‪ ISLP‬ﻫﺎ ﻭ ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﮔﻮﯾﺎ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﻣﺤﯿﻄﯽ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﻩﻣﻬﻢ ﻭ ﻭﯾﮋﮔﯽ ﻫﺎﯼ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﻧﺪﻩ ﺭﺍ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺑﺰﺭﮒ ﺗﺮﯼ ﮐﻪ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺑﺨﺸﯽ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺁﻥﺭﺍ ﺗﺸﮑﯿﻞ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮﺧﯽ ﺍﺯ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﯾﻌﻨﯽ ﺑﯿﻦ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ‪،‬‬
‫ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﯼ‪،‬ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﻧﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ‪ .ISLP‬ﺍﻧﮕﯿﺰﻩ ﻭ ﻧﮕﺮﺵ ﻗﺒﻠﯽ ﻭ ﺑﻌﺪﯼ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ )ﺍﻫﺪﺍﻑ‬
‫ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼﺯﺑﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻧﮕﺮﺵ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﻭ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺧﻮﺩ ‪(L2‬؛ ﻭ ﻣﻬﺎﺭﺕ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‬
‫)‪.(2019,Arndt‬‬

‫ﻋﻼﻭﻩﺑﺮ ﻣﺮﻭﺭﻫﺎﯼ ﻧﻈﺮﯼ‪ ،‬ﭼﻨﺪﯾﻦ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﯽ ﻧﯿﺰ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪ‪ ،‬ﺭﻭﺵ ﻫﺎﯼ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﻩ ﺍﯼﯾﺎ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺧﻮﺩﮔﺰﺍﺭﺷﯽ ﺍﻗﺘﺒﺎﺱ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎﺕ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺷﯽ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ‬
‫ﻣﺎﻫﯿﺖﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺭ ‪ SLA‬ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﮐﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ‪.‬‬

‫‪https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000572‬ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﮐﻤﺒﺮﯾﺞ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‬

 ‫ﻫﻨﺮﯾﺖﺍﻝ ﺁﺭﻧﺖ‬ ‫‪1460‬‬

‫ﺷﮑﻞ‪ Oga-Baldwin،.1‬ﺩﺭ ﺷﯿﻮﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻏﯿﺮ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ )ﺍﻗﺘﺒﺎﺱ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺯ ‪.(2019CME‬‬

‫ﺳﻮﺍﺑﻖ‪،‬ﻭ ﻧﺘﺎﯾﺞ؛ ﭼﮕﻮﻧﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺩﺭ ﻃﻮﻝ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﺗﻐﯿﯿﺮ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﻭ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﮋﯼ ﻫﺎﯾﯽ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺍﻓﺰﺍﯾﺶ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖﺩﺭ ﺑﯿﻦ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ )ﺑﻪ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺍﺧﯿﺮ ﺩﺭ ‪ Hiver‬ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ ﻣﺮﺍﺟﻌﻪ ﮐﻨﯿﺪ‪;2021a،‬‬
‫ﻣﺮﺳﺮ‪ ;2019،‬ﮊﻭ ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪ .(2021،‬ﺑﺮ ﺍﺳﺎﺱ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﺳﯿﺴﺘﻤﺎﺗﯿﮏ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺍﺩﺑﯿﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻫﯿﻮﺭ ﻭ‬
‫ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ)‪ (2021a‬ﺑﻪ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻧﺘﯿﺠﻪ ﺭﺳﯿﺪﻧﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﯽ ﺭﺳﺪ ﻣﺤﻘﻘﺎﻥ ‪ SLA‬ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﭼﻨﺪ ﺑﻌﺪﯼ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﭼﺎﺭﭼﻮﺏ ﺑﻨﺪﯼ ﻧﺤﻮﻩ ﺗﻔﮑﺮ‪ ،‬ﻋﻤﻞ ﻭ ﺍﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺤﯿﻂ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺷﯽ‬
‫ﺭﺳﻤﯽ)ﮐﻼﺱ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺩﺭﺱ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﯾﺎ ﻣﺤﯿﻂ ﻫﺎﯼ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻣﺠﺎﺯﯼ( ﻣﻔﯿﺪ ﻣﯽ ﺩﺍﻧﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎﺕﻣﺮﺑﻮﻁ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺤﯿﻂ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺗﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻣﺮﻭﺯ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﮐﺎﻣﻞ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺩﺑﯿﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﻋﻼﻭﻩ ﺑﺮ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺷﮑﺎﻑ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﺎﺕ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻫﺎﯾﻮﺭ ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪ (2021a) .‬ﻫﻤﭽﻨﯿﻦ‬
‫ﭼﻨﺪﯾﻦﺣﻮﺯﻩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪ ﺁﯾﻨﺪﻩ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﯾﯽ ﮐﺮﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻃﺮﺍﺣﯽ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﺎﺗﯽ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﯽ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺍﯾﻦﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ :‬ﻧﻮﯾﺴﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻧﯿﺎﺯ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻗﺪﺍﻣﺎﺕ ﺩﺍﻣﻨﻪ ﺧﺎﺹ ﺗﺮ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺩﺭ ‪ SLA‬ﻭ‬
‫ﻫﻤﭽﻨﯿﻦ»ﺍﻓﺰﺍﯾﺶ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻃﻮﻟﯽ ﻭ ﻃﻮﻟﯽ« ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﺎﺕ ﻣﺒﺘﻨﯽ ﺑﺮ ﻓﺮﺩﯼ ﮐﻪ‬
‫ﻣﺎﻫﯿﺖﭘﻮﯾﺎﯼ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺭﺍ ﺁﺷﮑﺎﺭ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ« )ﺹ ‪ .(25‬ﺩﺭ ﻫﻤﯿﻦ ﺭﺍﺳﺘﺎ‪ ISLE ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭﯼ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩ ﮔﯿﺮﯼﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺯﻣﯿﻨﻪ ﺧﺎﺹ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪ ﯾﺎﻓﺖ ﻭ ﻫﻨﮕﺎﻣﯽ ﮐﻪ‬
‫ﺑﻪﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﺨﺸﯽ ﺍﺯ ﺭﻭﯾﮑﺮﺩ ﺭﻭﺵ ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ ﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻪ )‪ (ESM‬ﺍﺟﺮﺍ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﺩ )ﺑﻪ ﻣﺘﻦ ﺯﯾﺮ ﻣﺮﺍﺟﻌﻪ‬
‫ﮐﻨﯿﺪ(‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﻘﻘﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﻗﺎﺩﺭ ﻣﯽ ﺳﺎﺯﺩ ﺗﺎ ﺛﺮﻭﺗﻤﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺟﻤﻊ ﺁﻭﺭﯼ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ‪ ، .‬ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻃﻮﻟﯽ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﻧﺪﻩ‪.‬‬

‫ﮔﺴﺘﺮﺵﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﺎﺕ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺩﺭ ﻗﻠﻤﺮﻭ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﻣﺴﺘﻠﺰﻡ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﺩﻗﯿﻖ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺯﻣﯿﻨﻪ‬
‫ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼﺍﺳﺖ ﺯﯾﺮﺍ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﻨﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻌﺮﯾﻒ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﺑﺴﺘﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺯﻣﯿﻨﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ )ﺭ‪.‬ﮎ‪ .‬ﮐﺮﯾﺴﺘﻨﺴﻮﻥ ﻭ‬
‫ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪ .(2012،‬ﯾﻌﻨﯽ ﺗﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺑﯿﻦ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﻭ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺗﻌﯿﯿﻦ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ ﮐﻪ »ﭼﻪ‬
‫ﭼﯿﺰﯼﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺣﺴﺎﺏ ﻣﯽ ﺁﯾﺪ« )ﻓﯿﻠﭗ ﻭ ﺩﻭﺷﻦ‪-(2016،‬ﭼﮕﻮﻧﻪ ﺑﺎﯾﺪ ﺗﻌﺮﯾﻒ ﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺷﻮﺩ ‪ -‬ﺩﺭ ﻫﺮ ﺗﻨﻈﯿﻤﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﯾﻦ‪ ،‬ﺑﺨﺶ ﺑﻌﺪﯼ ﺑﻪ ﭼﮕﻮﻧﮕﯽ ﺗﻌﺮﯾﻒ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪﻓﻌﻠﯽ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺯﻣﯿﻨﻪ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ ﻣﯽ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﺩ‪.‬‬

‫ﭼﺎﺭﭼﻮﺑﯽﭼﻨﺪ ﺑﻌﺪﯼ ﺍﺯ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻏﯿﺮ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ‬

‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪﺣﺎﺿﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﭼﻨﺪ ﺑﻌﺪﯼ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﭼﺎﺭﭼﻮﺑﯽ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ »ﮐﯿﻔﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻼﺕﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ« ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﮐﺮﺩ )ﻭﺍﻧﮓ ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪ ،2016،‬ﭖ‪ (17 .‬ﺑﺎ‬

‫‪https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000572‬ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﮐﻤﺒﺮﯾﺞ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‬

‫‪1461‬‬ ‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖﺩﺭ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻏﯿﺮ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ‬

‫ﺷﯿﻮﻩﻫﺎﯼ ﻏﯿﺮ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﺳﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﺻﻠﯽ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﻪ ﺷﺮﺡ ﺯﯾﺮ ﺗﻌﺮﯾﻒ ﺷﺪ‪:‬‬

‫)ﺁ(ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﯼ‪:‬ﻭﯾﮋﮔﯽ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﻩ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺭ ‪ ISLP‬ﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﺯ ﺟﻤﻠﻪ ﻣﺪﺕ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﺮﺍﻭﺍﻧﯽ‪،‬ﻭ ﺗﻨﻮﻉ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ‬
‫)ﺏ(ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ‪:‬ﺣﺎﻻﺕ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ ﻓﺮﺍﮔﯿﺮﺍﻥ ﻫﻨﮕﺎﻡ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮ ﺷﺪﻥ ﺩﺭ ‪ ،ISLP‬ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻟﺬﺕ ﻭ‬
‫ﻋﻼﻗﻪﺩﺭ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﮐﺴﺎﻟﺖ ﻭ ﺑﯽ ﺗﻔﺎﻭﺗﯽ‬
‫)ﺝ(ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ‪:‬ﻣﯿﺰﺍﻥ ﺗﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﻓﺮﺍﮔﯿﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﺮ ﺭﻭﯼ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻧﻈﺮ‬

‫ﻫﺪﻑﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮ ﺷﺪﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺗﻌﺎﺭﯾﻒ‪ ،‬ﺗﻤﺮﯾﻦ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺧﺎﺹ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺁﻣﻮﺯ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ‬
‫ﺷﺮﮐﺖﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺎ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺣﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻫﻨﮕﺎﻡ ﻓﮑﺮ ﮐﺮﺩﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺯﻣﯿﻨﻪ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ )ﭼﻪ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﻭ‬
‫ﭼﻪﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ(‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﯾﺪ ﻣﯿﺰﺍﻥ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﯾﮏ ﻓﺮﺩ ﺑﺎ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﻧﯿﺰ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺑﮕﯿﺮﯾﻢ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﺁﻧﺠﺎﯾﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻗﻠﺐﺍﮐﺜﺮ ﻭﻇﺎﯾﻒ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ )ﯾﻌﻨﯽ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﭘﺸﺘﯿﺒﺎﻧﯽ ﺍﺯ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻃﺮﺍﺣﯽ‬
‫ﺷﺪﻩﺍﻧﺪ ﻭ ﺑﺴﯿﺎﺭﯼ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﻧﯿﺎﺯ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﺭﻭﯼ ﻓﺮﻡ ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ(‪ ،‬ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻨﻈﯿﻤﺎﺕ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ ‪SLA‬‬
‫ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻻ ًﻣﺴﺘﻠﺰﻡ ﺩﺭﺟﺎﺗﯽ ﺍﺯ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺑﺎ ﻭﯾﮋﮔﯽ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ‪ ،‬ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﺎﺕ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖﮐﻪ ﺗﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﮐﻤﺘﺮﯼ ﺑﺮ ﺭﻭﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻤﺮﯾﻦ ﻫﺎﯼ ‪ L2‬ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ‪ ،‬ﮐﻪ ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ‬
‫ﺳﺮﮔﺮﻣﯽﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ ،‬ﻧﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩ ﻣﻬﺎﺭﺕ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ )ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺳﻮﮐﺖ‪;2014،‬‬
‫ﺳﺎﻧﺪﮐﻮﯾﺴﺖ‪ .(2011 ،‬ﺑﺎ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﯾﻦ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﻧﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﺎﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺷﺪﺕ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮ ﮐﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺩﺭﺩﺳﺖ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ ‪ -‬ﻫﻤﺎﻧﻄﻮﺭ ﮐﻪ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ‪ Svalberg‬ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﮐﺮﺩ‪2009.‬ﺍﻓﺮﺍﺩﯼ ﮐﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ »ﺑﺮﺍﯼ‬
‫ﺍﻫﺪﺍﻑﺻﺮﻓﺎ ًﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻃﯽ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ…ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮ ﺍﻣﺎ ﻧﻪﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ« )ﭖ‪ ;244 .‬ﺗﺄﮐﯿﺪ‬
‫ﺍﺿﺎﻓﻪﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ(‪ .‬ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺗﻤﺎﯾﺰ ﺑﯿﻦ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﺎ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻭﻇﺎﯾﻒ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻃﯽ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﭼﻬﺎﺭﻡ ﺯﯾﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺘﻐﯿﺮ ﺍﺿﺎﻓﯽ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻦ ﺩﺭ ﺯﻣﯿﻨﻪ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺍﮔﯿﺮﯼﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ ﭘﯿﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩ ﺷﺪ‪:‬‬

‫)ﺩ(ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ‪:‬ﻣﯿﺰﺍﻥ ﺗﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﻓﺮﺍﮔﯿﺮﺍﻥ ﺁﮔﺎﻫﺎﻧﻪ ﺑﺮ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﺵ ﻭﯾﮋﮔﯽ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﻭ ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩ ﻣﻬﺎﺭﺕ ﻫﺎﯼ‬
‫ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽﺧﻮﺩ‬

‫ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﻭ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﻧﺰﺩﯾﮑﯽ ﺑﺎ ﻫﻢ ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ ﺯﯾﺮﺍ ﻫﺮ ﺩﻭ ﻭﺿﻌﯿﺖ ﺫﻫﻨﯽ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﻧﺪﻩ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺣﯿﻦﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮ ﺷﺪﻥ ﺩﺭ ﯾﮏ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﺧﺎﺹ ﺗﻮﺻﯿﻒ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺎ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺣﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺣﺎﻟﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ‬
‫ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ‪،‬ﺩﺭ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ‪ ،‬ﮐﻞ ﻣﯿﺰﺍﻥ ﺗﻮﺟﻬﯽ ﺭﺍ ﮐﻪ ﯾﮏ ﻓﺮﺩ ﺑﻪ ﯾﮏ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ )ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞﺳﺎﯾﺮ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎ ﯾﺎ ﻣﺤﺮﮎ ﻫﺎ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ( ﺗﻮﺻﯿﻒ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺑﻪ ﺑﺨﺸﯽ ﺍﺯ ﺍﯾﻦ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺟﻪﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺁﮔﺎﻫﺎﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﺭﻣﺰﮔﺸﺎﯾﯽ ﺍﺧﺘﺼﺎﺹ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ، .‬ﻭ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻭﯾﮋﮔﯽ‬
‫ﻫﺎﯼﺧﺎﺹ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﺗﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺑﯿﻦ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺩﻭ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺭﺍ ﻣﯽ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻗﯿﺎﺱ ﺑﺮﺩﺍﺭ ﺭﯾﺎﺿﯽ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺩ‪،‬ﻓﻠﺸﯽ ﮐﻪ ﻫﻢ ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﻭ ﻫﻢ ﺟﻬﺖ ﯾﮏ ﻧﯿﺮﻭ ﺭﺍ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻣﺮﺑﻮﻁ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻃﻮﻝﺑﺮﺩﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﯾﺎ ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﺗﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺑﺮ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺳﺖ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺟﻬﺖ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺩﺍﺭﯾﺎ ﺟﺎﯾﯽ ﮐﻪ ﻓﺮﺍﮔﯿﺮﺍﻥ ﻓﺮﺁﯾﻨﺪﻫﺎﯼ ﻓﮑﺮ ﺁﮔﺎﻫﺎﻧﻪ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﻣﺘﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ )ﯾﻌﻨﯽ ﺗﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﺑﺮ ﺷﮑﻞ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ( ﺭﺍ ﺗﻮﺻﯿﻒ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺭﯾﻨﺪﺭﺯ ﻭ ﻧﺎﮐﺎﻣﻮﺭﺍ )‪2021‬ﺗﻤﺎﯾﺰ ﻣﺸﺎﺑﻬﯽ ﺑﯿﻦ ﻣﯿﺰﺍﻥ ﺗﻮﺟﻬﯽ ﮐﻪ‬
‫ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﻧﺪﮔﺎﻥﺑﻪ ﯾﮏ ﮐﺎﺭ ﻣﻌﻄﻮﻑ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻭﯾﮋﮔﯽ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺧﺎﺹ ﺁﻥ ﻫﺎ‪» :‬ﮐﻠﻤﺎﺗﯽ‬
‫ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ»ﺗﻮﺟﻪ« ﻭ »ﺗﻮﺟﻪ« ﺍﺯ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺟﻬﺖ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻓﺮﺁﯾﻨﺪﻫﺎﯼ ﺭﻭﺍﻥ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ‬
‫ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﮐﻪ ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﺑﻪ ﻭﺳﯿﻠﻪ ﺁﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻤﺖ ﺧﺎﺻﯽ ﻫﺪﺍﯾﺖ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﻣﺤﺮﮎ ﻫﺎ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮ‬
‫ﺷﺪﻥﺩﺭ ﯾﮏ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻝ ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮﯼ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﭼﯿﺰﯼ ﻣﻨﺠﺮ ﺷﻮﺩ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻣﺎﺍﯾﻦ ﯾﮏ ﻧﺘﯿﺠﻪ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﯼ ﻧﯿﺴﺖ« )ﺹ ‪ .(137‬ﺍﺯ ﺁﻧﺠﺎﯾﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻧﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺮ ﺭﻭﯼ ﺗﮑﻠﯿﻒ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺣﺎﻝﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺗﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﯿﺪ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﻣﺘﻮﺟﻪ ﻭﯾﮋﮔﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺧﺎﺻﯽ ﺷﻮﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ‬
‫ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻻ ًﭘﯿﺶ ﺩﺭﺁﻣﺪﯼ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﯼ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﻭﺭﻧﯽ ﻭ ﮐﻮﺭﻣﻮﺱ )‪ (2000‬ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺎﺑﻪﺍﺳﺘﺪﻻﻝ ﮐﺮﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﺷﺮﻁ ﺍﻭﻟﯿﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﺵ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬

‫‪https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000572‬ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﮐﻤﺒﺮﯾﺞ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‬

 ‫ﻫﻨﺮﯾﺖﺍﻝ ﺁﺭﻧﺖ‬ ‫‪1462‬‬

‫ﺩﺭﭘﯿﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩ ﺍﻓﺰﻭﺩﻥ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ‪ ،‬ﻫﺪﻑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻓﺰﺍﯾﺶ ﮐﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ‬
‫ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺯﻣﯿﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻣﯿﺰﺍﻥ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺁﮔﺎﻫﺎﻧﻪ ﺍﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﺑﻪ ﺍﺷﮑﺎﻝ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺩﺭ ﻃﻮﻝ‬
‫ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯼﻣﻌﻄﻮﻑ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ ‪ -‬ﻭ ﺍﯾﻨﮑﻪ ﺁﯾﺎ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﯼ ﺍﺳﺖ ﯾﺎ ﺣﺘﯽ ﻣﻔﯿﺪ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ‪ -‬ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺑﺤﺚ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺯﯾﺎﺩﯼ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻫﻢ ﺩﺭ ﺯﻣﯿﻨﻪ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ )ﻣﺜﻼ ً‬
‫ﮐﻮﻝ(‪ ;2015، .‬ﻫﯿﻮﺭ ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪ ;2021b،‬ﺳﻮﮐﺖ‪ ;2014،‬ﺳﺎﻧﺪﮐﻮﯾﺴﺖ‪2011،‬ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺩﺑﯿﺎﺕ‬
‫ﮔﺴﺘﺮﺩﻩﺗﺮ ‪) SLA‬ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ‪ .(2018،Roehr-Brackin ،‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﯾﻦ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﭘﯿﻮﻧﺪﯼ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪﻭﺳﯿﻌﯽ ﺍﺯ ﮐﺎﺭ ﺍﯾﺠﺎﺩ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪﺗﻮﺟﻪ‪ ،‬ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻋﻤﺪﯼ ﻭ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ )ﻫﯿﻮﺭ ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪b،‬‬
‫‪ (2021‬ﻭ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﯿﻦ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﮋﯼ ﻫﺎﯼ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ )ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺁﮐﺴﻔﻮﺭﺩ‪2016،‬‬
‫( ﯾﻌﻨﯽ ﺭﻭﯾﮑﺮﺩﻫﺎﯾﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺍﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﮐﻤﮏ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺭﮎ ﯾﺎ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻭﯾﮋﮔﯽ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺟﺪﯾﺪ ﺑﻪ ﮐﺎﺭ ﻣﯽ‬
‫ﺑﺮﻧﺪ‪.‬ﺍﮔﺮﭼﻪ ﻃﺒﻘﻪ ﺑﻨﺪﯼ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﮋﯼ ﻫﺎ ﻫﻢ ﻓﺮﺁﯾﻨﺪﻫﺎﯼ ﺫﻫﻨﯽ )ﻣﺜﻼ ًﺍﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﯼ‬
‫ﯾﮏﮐﻠﻤﻪ ﺟﺪﯾﺪ ﺍﺯ ﺑﺎﻓﺖ ﯾﺎ ﺍﯾﺠﺎﺩ ﯾﮏ ﺗﺼﻮﯾﺮ ﺫﻫﻨﯽ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﮐﻤﮏ ﺑﻪ ﺣﻔﻆ ﮐﺮﺩﻥ( ﻭ ﻫﻢ ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﻫﺎﯼ‬
‫ﻗﺎﺑﻞﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﻩ )ﻣﺜﻼ ًﺟﺴﺘﺠﻮ ﮐﺮﺩﻥ ﯾﮏ ﮐﻠﻤﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﻟﻐﺖ ﯾﺎ ﯾﺎﺩﺩﺍﺷﺖ ﺑﺮﺩﺍﺭﯼ( ﺭﺍ ﭘﻮﺷﺶ ﻣﯽ‬
‫ﺩﻫﺪ‪.‬ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﺩﺭ ﮔﺮﻧﻔﻞ ﻭ ﻣﺎﮐﺎﺭﻭ‪ ،2007،‬ﺍﺳﺘﺪﻻﻝ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺩﻭﻣﯽ ﺭﺍ ﻣﯽ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ‬
‫ﺗﻈﺎﻫﺮﺍﺕﺁﺷﮑﺎﺭ ﺭﺍﻫﺒﺮﺩﻫﺎﯼ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﺯﯾﺮﺑﻨﺎﯾﯽ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ )ﻣﺎﮐﺎﺭﻭ‪ .(2006،‬ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﺭﯾﻒ‬
‫ﺑﻪﮐﺎﺭ ﺭﻓﺘﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺭﺍﻫﺒﺮﺩﻫﺎ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺗﻼﺵ ﻭ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻭﯾﮋﮔﯽ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ‬
‫ﺟﺪﯾﺪ‪،‬ﺑﯿﺎﻧﯽ ﺍﺯ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻏﯿﺮ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ‬

‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎﺕﻗﺒﻠﯽ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ ﻋﻤﺪﺗﺎ ًﺍﺯ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ ﻧﮕﺮ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ‬
‫ﻣﯽ ﮐﺮﺩﻧﺪﮐﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﻣﯽ ﺧﻮﺍﺳﺖ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺭﺍ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﯾﮏ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﺧﺎﺹ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﻣﯽ ﺩﺍﺩﻧﺪ ﺑﻪ ﯾﺎﺩ ﺑﯿﺎﻭﺭﻧﺪ ﯾﺎ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻪ »ﻣﻌﻤﻮﻝ« ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎ ‪ ISLP‬ﮔﺰﺍﺭﺵ ﺩﻫﻨﺪ )‬
‫ﻣﺜﻼ ًﮐﻮﭘﻨﺰ‪ ;2010،‬ﮐﻮﺳﯿﮏ‪ ;2017،‬ﻟﯽ ﻭ ﭘﯿﺮﺍﺳﺘﻦ‪ .(2017،‬ﺍﯾﻦ ﺭﻭﺵ ﻫﺎ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﻨﺪ ﮐﻪ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖﺩﺭ ‪ ISLP‬ﯾﮏ »ﻣﺘﻐﯿﺮ ﺻﻔﺖ« ﻧﺴﺒﺘﺎ ًﭘﺎﯾﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﺳﺖ )ﺍﮐﻠﺲ‪ ;2016،‬ﺍﻭﮔﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻭﯾﻦ‪.(2019،‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﺍﯾﻦ ﺣﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻫﻢ ﺩﺭ ﺯﻣﯿﻨﻪ ﮔﺴﺘﺮﺩﻩ ﺗﺮ ‪ SLA‬ﻭ ﻫﻢ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﺧﺎﺹ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﻘﻘﺎﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ‬
‫ﻓﺰﺍﯾﻨﺪﻩﺍﯼ ﺧﻮﺍﺳﺘﺎﺭ ﺟﺰﺉﯿﺎﺕ ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺳﺖ ﺁﻭﺭﺩﻥ ﺩﺭﮎ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﺗﺮ ﺍﺯ ﻓﺮﺁﯾﻨﺪﻫﺎﯼ ﺍﮐﺘﺴﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺯﺑﺎﻥﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ )‪.(2021b,.Hiver et al‬‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﻋﻼﻭﻩ‪،‬ﯾﺎﺩﺁﻭﺭﯼ‪ ،‬ﺧﻼﺻﻪ ﺳﺎﺯﯼ ﻭ ﺗﻌﻤﯿﻢ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﯿﺎﺕ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺩﺭ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ ﻧﮕﺮ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ‬
‫ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥﺩﺭ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶ ﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺩﺷﻮﺍﺭ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻭﯾﮋﻩ ﺯﻣﺎﻧﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﯿﺎﺕ ﺁﻥ ﻫﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ‬
‫ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺗﻮﺟﻬﯽﺩﺭ ﻃﻮﻝ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﺗﻐﯿﯿﺮ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﻫﺮﮔﻮﻧﻪ ﻧﺎﺩﺭﺳﺘﯽ ﮐﻮﭼﮏ ﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﺗﺸﺪﯾﺪ‬
‫ﺷﻮﺩﺯﻣﺎﻧﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺗﺨﻤﯿﻦ ﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺴﯿﺎﺭﯼ ﺍﺯ ﺁﯾﺘﻢ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺟﻤﻊ ﺑﻨﺪﯼ ﯾﺎ ﻣﯿﺎﻧﮕﯿﻦ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﻧﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖﻫﺎ )ﺑﻪ ﺑﺤﺚ ﺩﺭ ‪ Arndt، Granfeldt‬ﻭ ‪ Gullberg‬ﻣﺮﺍﺟﻌﻪ ﮐﻨﯿﺪ‪ .(2021،‬ﻋﻼﻭﻩ ﺑﺮ ﺍﯾﻦ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺍﺩﺑﯿﺎﺕﺭﻭﺍﻥ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﮔﺴﺘﺮﺩﻩ ﺗﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻮﺑﯽ ﻣﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺩﻗﺖ ﭘﺎﺳﺦ ﻫﺎﯼ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ‬
‫ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ ﻧﮕﺮﻣﯽ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺗﺤﺖ ﺗﺎﺛﯿﺮ ﻃﯿﻔﯽ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻮﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﯿﺮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺗﻤﺎﯾﻞ ﮐﻠﯽ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺑﯿﺶ ﺍﺯﺣﺪﺑﺮﺁﻭﺭﺩ ﮐﺮﺩﻥ ﻣﺪﺕ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﻭ ﻓﺮﺍﻭﺍﻧﯽ ﺭﻭﯾﺪﺍﺩﻫﺎﯼ ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ ﻭ ﺩﺍﺩﻥ ﻭﺯﻥ ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﯿﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺟﺪﯾﺪﺗﺮﻭ ﺑﺮﺟﺴﺘﻪ ﺗﺮ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ )ﺷﯿﻔﻤﻦ ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪ ;2008،‬ﻭﺍﺭﺩﻥ‪ .(2008،‬ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﮐﺎﻫﺶ ﺑﺮﺧﯽ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺍﯾﻦﻧﮕﺮﺍﻧﯽ ﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﭼﻨﺪﯾﻦ ﻣﺤﻘﻖ ﺩﺭ ﻋﻮﺽ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮﺳﻨﺠﯽ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺭﻭﺯﺍﻧﻪ ﯾﺎ ﯾﺎﺩﺩﺍﺷﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺭﻭﺯﺍﻧﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ‬
‫ﺟﻤﻊ ﺁﻭﺭﯼﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ‪ ISLP‬ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﮐﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ )ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺷﻮﺍﺭﺗﺰ‪ ;2020،‬ﺳﺎﻧﺪﮐﻮﯾﺴﺖ‪ .(2011،‬ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺣﺎﻟﯽﮐﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺩﺭﮎ ﻣﺎﻫﯿﺖ ﭘﻮﯾﺎﯼ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﺗﺮ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﺎﻥ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥﻣﯽ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﻨﺪ ﺗﺠﺎﺭﺏ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺧﺎﻃﺮ ﺑﯿﺎﻭﺭﻧﺪ ﻭ ﺧﻼﺻﻪ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ )ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﺩﺭ ﯾﮏ ﺑﺎﺯﻩ ﺯﻣﺎﻧﯽ‬
‫ﮐﻮﺗﺎﻩ ﺗﺮ( ﻭ ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﯾﻦ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻌﺮﺽ ﺳﻮﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻧﻈﺮﺳﻨﺠﯽ ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ ﻧﮕﺮ ﻣﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ‪.‬‬

‫ﻋﻼﻭﻩﺑﺮ ﻧﮕﺮﺍﻧﯽ ﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﮐﯿﻔﯿﺖ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩ ﮔﯿﺮﯼ‪ ،‬ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﺎﺕ ﻗﺒﻠﯽ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ‬
‫ﺯﺑﺎﻥﺩﻭﻡ ﻧﯿﺰ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﺗﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﺷﺪﯾﺪ ﺁﻥ ﺑﺮ ﻓﺮﮐﺎﻧﺲ ﻭ ﮐﻤﯿﺖ )ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﯼ( ﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪،‬‬
‫ﺩﺭﺣﺎﻟﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺗﺎ ﺣﺪ ﺯﯾﺎﺩﯼ ﺟﻨﺒﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺩﯾﮕﺮ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺍﻓﮑﺎﺭ ﻭ ﺍﺣﺴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﻓﺮﺍﮔﯿﺮﺍﻥ ﺭﺍ ﻧﺎﺩﯾﺪﻩ‬
‫ﻣﯽ ﮔﯿﺮﺩ‪.‬ﻫﻤﺎﻧﻄﻮﺭ ﮐﻪ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ‪ Briggs Baffoe-Djan‬ﻭ‬

‫‪https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000572‬ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﮐﻤﺒﺮﯾﺞ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‬

‫‪1463‬‬ ‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖﺩﺭ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻏﯿﺮ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ‬

‫ﮊﻭ)‪2020‬ﺩﺭ ﺑﺤﺚ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺭﻭﯾﮑﺮﺩﻫﺎﯼ ﺳﻨﺠﺶ ﺗﻤﺎﺱ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﻃﻮﻝ ﺗﺤﺼﯿﻞ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺧﺎﺭﺝﺍﺯ ﮐﺸﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﺗﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﺑﺮ ﻣﻘﺪﺍﺭ ﺧﺎﻟﺺ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ "ﻋﻤﻠﯽ ﻏﯿﺮ ﻣﻔﯿﺪ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺯﯾﺮﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺍﯾﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻌﻨﯽﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﻫﻤﻪ ﺍﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﺗﻤﺎﺱ ﻫﺎ ﺑﻪ ﯾﮏ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩ ﻣﻔﯿﺪ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ )ﯾﺎ ﻧﻪ(" )ﺹ‪. .(6 .‬‬
‫ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﯾﻦ‪ ISLE‬ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭ ﺟﺎﯾﮕﺰﯾﻨﯽ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﻃﻮﻟﯽ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺷﯿﻮﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ‬
‫ﺯﺑﺎﻥﺩﻭﻡ ﻃﺮﺍﺣﯽ ﺷﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻏﻨﯽ ﻭ ﻣﻮﻗﻌﯿﺖ ﯾﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﺭﺍ ﻧﻪ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﺑﻌﺎﺩ ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﯼ‪ ،‬ﺑﻠﮑﻪ‬
‫ﻫﻤﭽﻨﯿﻦﺍﺑﻌﺎﺩ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ‪ ،‬ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺩﺭ ﻃﻮﻝ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﺟﻤﻊ ﺁﻭﺭﯼ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ‪ ISLE .‬ﺷﺎﻣﻞ‬
‫ﯾﮏﻧﻈﺮﺳﻨﺠﯽ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ ﺑﻼﻓﺎﺻﻠﻪ ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﻫﺮ ‪ ISLP‬ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻃﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺩﻭﺭﻩﺟﻤﻊ ﺁﻭﺭﯼ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮ ﺁﻥ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎ ﺗﻠﻔﻦ ﻫﻤﺮﺍﻩ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺗﮑﻤﯿﻞ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﯾﻦ ﺭﻭﯾﮑﺮﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩ ﮔﯿﺮﯼﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﻫﻨﺪﻩ ﯾﮏ ﻧﻮﻉ »ﺭﻭﯾﺪﺍﺩ ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻟﯽ« ﺍﺯ ﯾﮏ ﻃﺮﺡ ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ ﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻣﮑﺮﺭ ﻓﺸﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻪ ﻧﺎﻡ‬
‫‪ ESM‬ﺍﺳﺖ )ﻫﮑﺘﻨﺮ ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪ ;2011،‬ﻫﻤﭽﻨﯿﻦ ﺍﺭﺯﯾﺎﺑﯽ ﻟﺤﻈﻪ ﺍﯼ ﺍﮐﻮﻟﻮﮊﯾﮑﯽ‪ ،‬ﺷﯿﻔﻤﻦ ﻭ‬
‫ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪ ;2008،‬ﯾﺎ ﺭﻭﺷﻬﺎﯼ ﺧﺎﻃﺮﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﺑﻮﻟﮕﺮ ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪ .(2003،‬ﺭﻭﺍﻧﺸﻨﺎﺳﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍ ‪ ESM‬ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﯼﺑﻪ ﺩﺳﺖ ﺁﻭﺭﺩﻥ ﺍﻃﻼﻋﺎﺕ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭ ﺭﻭﺯﺍﻧﻪ ﺍﻓﺮﺍﺩ‪ ،‬ﺧﻠﻖ ﻭ ﺧﻮﯼ‪ ،‬ﺍﻓﮑﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﺍﺣﺴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﻭ‬
‫ﺯﻣﯿﻨﻪﻓﯿﺰﯾﮑﯽ ﻭ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺭﺥ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﻨﺪ ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪ ﺩﺍﺩﻧﺪ )ﻫﮑﺘﻨﺮ ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪ .(2011،‬ﺍﯾﻦ‬
‫ﺭﻭﺵﻧﻮﯾﺪ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺗﻮﺟﻬﯽ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ ﺩﺭ ‪ SLA‬ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﺯﯾﺮﺍ ﺭﺍﻫﯽ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺑﻬﺮﻩ ﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺍﺯ ﺟﻨﺒﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ‬
‫ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺑﺎ ﮐﺎﺭ »ﺩﺭ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﯽ« ﺍﺭﺍﺉﻪ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﺪ‪ ،‬ﮐﻪ ﻣﯽ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺩﺭ ﻃﻮﻝ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﺗﺠﻤﯿﻊ ﺷﻮﺩ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺗﺼﻮﯾﺮﯼ ﺍﺯ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﯿﺎﺕ ﻣﻌﻤﻮﻟﯽ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﻧﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺍﺭﺍﺉﻪ ﮐﻨﺪ ﯾﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﻃﻮﻟﯽ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﺍﻟﮕﻮﻫﺎ‬
‫ﺗﺠﺰﯾﻪﻭ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﻭ ﺗﻐﯿﯿﺮﺍﺕ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ‪ ،‬ﻫﻢ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﻭ ﻫﻢ ﺩﺭ ﺑﯿﻦ ﺍﻓﺮﺍﺩ )‪Arndt، Granfeldt‬‬
‫ﻭ‪ .(2022،Gullberg‬ﻫﻤﭽﻨﯿﻦ ﺷﻮﺍﻫﺪﯼ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﮐﻪ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﺪ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ‪ESM‬‬
‫ﺟﻤﻊ ﺁﻭﺭﯼﺷﺪﻩ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ ﻧﮕﺮ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩﺗﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺯﯾﺴﺖ ﻣﺤﯿﻄﯽ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺘﺒﺮﺗﺮﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ )ﺭ‪.‬ﮎ‪ .‬ﺑﻮﻟﮕﺮ ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪ ;2003،‬ﻫﮑﺘﻨﺮ ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪2011،‬ﺑﻪ ﻭﯾﮋﻩ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺣﺎﻻﺕ‬
‫ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽﻭ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ ﮐﻪ ﯾﺎﺩﺁﻭﺭﯼ ﻭ ﺗﻌﻤﯿﻢ ﺁﻥ ﻫﺎ ﺣﺘﯽ ﺩﺷﻮﺍﺭﺗﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭ ﺍﺳﺖ )‪.(2019,Thigpen‬‬
‫ﻣﻦﺧﻮﺍﻧﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﻋﻼﻗﻪ ﻣﻨﺪ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ‪ Arndt، Granfeldt‬ﻭ ‪ Gullberg‬ﺍﺭﺟﺎﻉ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﻢ‪2022،2021.‬‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﯼﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﺩﻗﯿﻖ ﺗﺮ ﭘﺘﺎﻧﺴﯿﻞ ‪ ESM‬ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﺎﺕ ‪ ،SLA‬ﺍﺯ ﺟﻤﻠﻪ ﺑﺤﺚ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻧﻘﺎﻁ ﻗﻮﺕ ﻭ‬
‫ﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩﯾﺖ ﻫﺎﯼﺍﯾﻦ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻘﺎﯾﺴﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺳﺎﯾﺮ ﺭﻭﯾﮑﺮﺩﻫﺎﯼ ﻧﻈﺮﺳﻨﺠﯽ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﻣﻼﺣﻈﺎﺕ ﻋﻤﻠﯽ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺍﺟﺮﺍﯼ‪.ESM‬‬

‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ‬
‫ﺩﺭﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪ ﻭ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ )‪ ،(ISLE‬ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭﯼ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﯼﺟﻤﻊ ﺁﻭﺭﯼ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﺑﻌﺎﺩ ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﯼ‪ ،‬ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ‪ ،‬ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺷﯿﻮﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ‬
‫ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ‪ ،‬ﮔﺰﺍﺭﺵ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﻢ‪ .‬ﺍﯾﻦ ﮐﺎﺭ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﺨﺸﯽ ﺍﺯ ﯾﮏ ﭘﺮﻭﮊﻩ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﺎﺗﯽ ﺑﺰﺭﮔﺘﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡﺷﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺟﻨﺒﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺭ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﻣﯿﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ‬
‫ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥﺩﺑﯿﺮﺳﺘﺎﻧﯽ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻟﻤﺎﻥ ﻭ ﭼﮕﻮﻧﮕﯽ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻐﯿﯿﺮﺍﺕ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻬﺎﺭﺕ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﻧﮕﯿﺰﻩ ﻭ ﻧﮕﺮﺵ‬
‫ﻧﺴﺒﺖﺑﻪ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﮐﺮﺩ )‪.(2019,Arndt‬‬

‫ﺑﻪﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﺨﺸﯽ ﺍﺯ ﻓﺮﺁﯾﻨﺪ ﺍﺭﺯﯾﺎﺑﯽ ‪ ،ISLE‬ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ ﻣﻘﯿﺎﺱ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺩﺭﻭﻧﯽ )ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ‪،‬‬
‫ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ( ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﻧﺪﻩ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ ﺍﮐﺘﺸﺎﻓﯽ )‪ (EFA‬ﻭ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ ﺗﺄﯾﯿﺪﯼ‬
‫)‪ (CFA‬ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﻋﻼﻭﻩ ﺑﺮ ﺍﯾﻦ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭﯼ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺍﺭﺯﯾﺎﺑﯽ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﯽ ﻫﻤﮕﺮﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﺯ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ‬
‫ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﯽﻣﺮﺗﺒﻪ ﺭﺗﺒﻪ ﺍﺳﭙﯿﺮﻣﻦ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻗﻀﺎﻭﺕ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻣﯿﺰﺍﻥ ﻣﻄﺎﺑﻘﺖ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ‬
‫ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﯼﺟﻤﻊ ﺁﻭﺭﯼ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ‪ ISLE‬ﺑﺎ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺳﺖ ﺁﻣﺪﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﯾﻖ ﯾﮏ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﻧﺎﻣﻪ‬
‫ﺧﻮﺩﮔﺰﺍﺭﺵ ﺩﻫﯽﯾﮏ ﺑﺎﺭ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﺎﺕ ﻗﺒﻠﯽ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞﻫﺎﯼ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﺵ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺳﺆﺍﻻﺕ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ ﺯﯾﺮ ﻫﺪﺍﯾﺖ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﻧﺪ‪:‬‬

‫ﮐﺪﺍﻡﻣﺪﻝ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﯼ ﺍﺑﻌﺎﺩ ﺩﺭﻭﻧﯽ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﻧﺪﻩ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺑﻬﺘﺮﯾﻦ ﺷﮑﻞ‬
‫ﻧﺸﺎﻥﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﺪ؟ ‪RQ1.‬‬
‫ﺑﻪﺩﺳﺖ ﺁﻣﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﭼﮕﻮﻧﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺳﺖ ﺁﻣﺪﻩ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﯾﮏ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺧﻮﺩﮔﺰﺍﺭﺷﯽ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻮﻣﯽﯾﮑﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﻣﻘﺎﯾﺴﻪ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﺩ؟ ‪ ISLE‬ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﯼ ﮐﻪ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ‪RQ2.‬‬

‫‪https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000572‬ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﮐﻤﺒﺮﯾﺞ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‬

 ‫ﻫﻨﺮﯾﺖﺍﻝ ﺁﺭﻧﺖ‬ ‫‪1464‬‬
‫ﺷﺮﻛﺖﻛﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ‬

‫ﺩﺭﺳﻪ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪ ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭ ﻭ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﺳﻨﺠﯽ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻉ ‪ 382‬ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯ ﮐﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﯾﻖ‬
‫ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ ﮔﯿﺮﯼﺩﺍﻭﻃﻠﺒﺎﻧﻪ ﺍﺯ ‪ 21‬ﮐﻼﺱ ﮐﻼﺱ ﺩﻫﻢ ﺩﺭ ‪ 18‬ﻣﺪﺭﺳﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻟﻤﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﺷﺪﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺟﻤﻊ ﺁﻭﺭﯼ‬
‫ﺷﺪ‪.‬ﻫﻢ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﻭ ﻫﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﯾﻦ ﯾﺎ ﺳﺮﭘﺮﺳﺘﺎﻥ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺍﻃﻼﻋﺎﺕ ﺩﻗﯿﻘﯽ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺍﺭﺍﺉﻪ‬
‫ﺷﺪﻭ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺩﻋﻮﺕ ﺷﺪ ﺗﺎ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻋﻼﻡ ﺭﺿﺎﯾﺖ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ‪ ،‬ﺳﺆﺍﻻﺕ ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮﯼ ﺑﺎ ﻣﺤﻘﻖ ﺗﻤﺎﺱ‬
‫ﺑﮕﯿﺮﻧﺪ‪.‬ﺍﺯ ﺁﻧﺠﺎﯾﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺩﺭﺳﯽ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻟﻤﺎﻥ ﺑﺮ ﺍﺳﺎﺱ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺍﯾﺎﻟﺖ ﻭ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﻪ ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺍﺳﺖ‪،‬‬
‫ﻫﻤﻪﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺍﺯ ﺍﯾﻦ ﮐﺸﻮﺭ ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﺷﺪﻧﺪﮊﯾﻤﻨﺎﺳﺖ‪1‬ﺩﺭ ﻧﯿﺪﺭﺯﺍﮐﺴﻦ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﮐﻨﺘﺮﻝ ﺗﻐﯿﯿﺮﺍﺕ‬
‫ﮔﺴﺘﺮﺩﻩﺩﺭ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺵ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ‪ .‬ﻋﻼﻭﻩ ﺑﺮ ﺍﯾﻦ‪ ،‬ﻣﺪﻝ ﻫﺎﯼ ﭼﻨﺪ ﺳﻄﺤﯽ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺗﻮﺿﯿﺢ ﺍﺛﺮﺍﺕ ﻣﻌﻠﻢ‪/‬‬
‫ﮐﻼﺱﺑﻪ ﮐﺎﺭ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬

‫ﺩﺭﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﻩ ‪ 2/4‬ﺳﺎﻋﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻔﺘﻪ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺵ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ‬
‫ﺩﺭﯾﺎﻓﺖﻣﯽ ﮐﺮﺩﻧﺪ )ﺍﺯ ‪ 3‬ﺳﺎﻋﺖ ﺩﺭ ﮐﻼﺱ ﻫﺎﯼ ‪ 5‬ﺗﺎ ‪ .(9‬ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺗﻤﺎﺱ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﻓﺮﺍﺗﺮ ﺍﺯ ﮐﻼﺱ ﺩﺭﺱ‪،‬‬
‫ﺗﻮﺟﻪﺑﻪ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻧﮑﺘﻪ ﻣﻬﻢ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻟﻤﺎﻥ ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮ ﺭﺳﺎﻧﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺤﺒﻮﺏ ﺩﻭﺑﻠﻪ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﻧﺪ )ﺍﺯ ﺟﻤﻠﻪ‬
‫ﻓﯿﻠﻢ ﻫﺎﻭ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺗﻠﻮﯾﺰﯾﻮﻧﯽ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﯿﻦ ﺑﺎﺯﯼ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻭﯾﺪﯾﻮﯾﯽ ﺑﻮﻣﯽ ﺳﺎﺯﯼ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺑﺎﺯﺍﺭ‬
‫ﺁﻟﻤﺎﻥ(‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ ﮐﻪ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻻ ًﺑﺮﺍﯼ‬
‫ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥﺩﺭ ﺁﻟﻤﺎﻥ ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮ ﺍﺯ ﮐﺸﻮﺭﻫﺎﯾﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺗﻠﻮﯾﺰﯾﻮﻧﯽ ﺯﯾﺮﻧﻮﯾﺲ ﻣﻨﺒﻊ ﺍﺻﻠﯽ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ‬
‫ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻦﺩﺭ ﻣﻌﺮﺽ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ )ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺳﻮﺉﺪ‪ ،‬ﻫﻠﻨﺪ ﯾﺎ ﺑﻠﮋﯾﮏ( ﯾﮏ ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﺗﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥﺩﺭ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﻫﻤﮕﯽ ﺑﻪ ﺭﺍﯾﺎﻧﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺘﺼﻞ ﺑﻪ ﺍﯾﻨﺘﺮﻧﺖ ﻭ‪/‬ﯾﺎ ﺩﺳﺘﮕﺎﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺗﻠﻔﻦ‬
‫ﻫﻤﺮﺍﻩﺩﺭ ﺧﺎﻧﻪ ﺩﺳﺘﺮﺳﯽ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻨﺪ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺳﻨﯿﻦ ‪ 15‬ﺗﺎ ‪ 16‬ﺳﺎﻟﮕﯽ‪ ،‬ﺍﺯ ﺍﺳﺘﻘﻼﻝ ﺑﺎﻻﯾﯽ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯼﺗﻔﺮﯾﺤﯽ ﻭ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺍﯾﻨﺘﺮﻧﺖ ﺑﺮﺧﻮﺭﺩﺍﺭ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﯾﻦ‪ ،‬ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﻓﺮﺻﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺯﯾﺎﺩﯼ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﯼﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺍﻭﻗﺎﺕ ﻓﺮﺍﻏﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻭﯾﮋﻩ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻨﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺩﺭﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪ ﺍﻭﻝ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ‪ 47 ،‬ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯ )ﺩﻭ ﮐﻼﺱ ﺩﺭ ﯾﮏ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﻪ( ﺩﺭ ﻣﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻧﯿﻤﻪ‬
‫ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﯾﺎﻓﺘﻪﮔﺮﻭﻩ ﻣﺘﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﺮﺩﻧﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺳﺎﺧﺖ ﺍﻭﻟﯿﻪ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ‪ ISLE‬ﺧﺒﺮ ﺩﺍﺩ‪ .‬ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﻧﺴﺨﻪﺍﻭﻝ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺑﺎ ﮔﺮﻭﻫﯽ ﻣﺘﺸﮑﻞ ﺍﺯ ‪ 77‬ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯ )ﭼﻬﺎﺭ ﮐﻼﺱ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﻪ( ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺻﻮﺭﺕﺁﺯﻣﺎﯾﺸﯽ ﺍﺟﺮﺍ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﺑﺮﺧﯽ ﺗﻌﺪﯾﻞ ﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺍﺭﺯﯾﺎﺑﯽ ﺭﻭﺍﻥ ﺳﻨﺠﯽ ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪﺩﯾﮕﺮﯼ ﺍﺯ ‪ 258‬ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯ )‪ 15‬ﮐﻼﺱ ﺩﺭ ﺷﺶ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﻪ( ﺟﻤﻊ ﺁﻭﺭﯼ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﯾﮏ ﻧﻤﺎﯼ ﮐﻠﯽ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﻭﯾﮋﮔﯽﻫﺎﯼ ﺟﻤﻌﯿﺖ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺳﻪ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪ ﺍﺭﺍﺉﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖﻣﯿﺰ ‪.1‬‬

‫ﻣﯿﺰ‪.1‬ﻭﯾﮋﮔﯽ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺩﻣﻮﮔﺮﺍﻓﯿﮏ ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺳﻪ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪ ﺟﻤﻊ ﺁﻭﺭﯼ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎ‬

‫ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪ‪:3‬‬ ‫ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪ‪:2‬‬ ‫ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪ‪ :1‬ﻣﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪ ﮔﺮﻭﻫﯽ ﻣﺘﻤﺮﮐﺰ‬

‫ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭ‬ ‫ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭ‬ ‫ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭﺍﻃﻼﻉ ﺭﺳﺎﻧﯽ‬
‫ﺍﺭﺯﯾﺎﺑﯽ‬ ‫ﺧﻠﺒﺎﻧﯽ‬ ‫ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪ‬

‫‪258‬‬ ‫‪77‬‬ ‫‪47‬‬ ‫ﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩﮐﻞ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺩﺧﺘﺮﺍﻥ‬

‫‪(53%)137‬‬ ‫‪(71%)55‬‬ ‫‪(79%)37‬‬
‫‪(46%)119‬‬ ‫‪(27%)21‬‬ ‫‪(21%)10‬‬ ‫ﭘﺴﺮﺍﻥ‬
‫‪(1%)2‬‬ ‫‪(1%)1‬‬ ‫‪-‬‬ ‫ﺟﻨﺴﯿﺖﻏﯿﺮ ﺩﻭﺩﻭﯾﯽ‬
‫‪(90%)231‬‬ ‫‪(87%)67‬‬ ‫‪(87%)41‬‬ ‫ﺗﮏﺯﺑﺎﻧﻪ ﺑﺰﺭﮒ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‬
‫‪(11%)27‬‬ ‫‪(13%)10‬‬ ‫‪(12%)6‬‬ ‫ﭼﻨﺪﺯﺑﺎﻧﻪ ﻣﻄﺮﺡ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‬
‫‪(65.)15.68‬‬ ‫‪(52.)15.38‬‬ ‫‪(40.)15.40‬‬ ‫ﻣﯿﺎﻧﮕﯿﻦﺳﻨﯽ )‪(SD‬‬
‫‪(1.22)7.89‬‬ ‫‪(1.05)7.70‬‬ ‫‪(1.21)7.64‬‬ ‫ﻣﯿﺎﻧﮕﯿﻦﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﺳﺎﻝ‬
‫ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ )‪(SD‬‬

‫‪1‬ﮊﯾﻤﻨﺎﺳﺖﻣﺪﺍﺭﺱ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻄﻪ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻣﻘﺎﯾﺴﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻣﺪﺍﺭﺱ ﮔﺮﺍﻣﺮ ﻭ ﮐﺎﻟﺞ ﻫﺎﯼ ﮐﻼﺱ ﺷﺸﻢ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﺴﺘﺎﻥ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﮐﻪ ﻫﺪﻑ‬
‫ﺍﺻﻠﯽﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﺟﺪ ﺷﺮﺍﯾﻂ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﻦ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻭﺭﻭﺩ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﯾﺎ ﺳﺎﯾﺮ ﺍﺷﮑﺎﻝ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺵ ﻋﺎﻟﯽ ﺍﺳﺖ )ﺍﮔﺮﭼﻪ ‪ 20‬ﺗﺎ ‪٪25‬‬
‫ﺍﺯﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﺳﺎﻝ ﺁﺧﺮ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﺵ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﻨﺪ ﮐﻪ ﻗﺼﺪ ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ ﻣﺴﯿﺮﻫﺎﯼ ﺩﯾﮕﺮﯼ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺗﺤﺼﯿﻼﺕ ﺗﮑﻤﯿﻠﯽ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥﻣﺜﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﺭﻭﺩ ﺑﻪ ﺷﻐﻞ ﯾﺎ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺵ ﺣﺮﻓﻪ ﺍﯼ؛ ﺍﺷﻨﺎﯾﺪﺭ ﻭ ﻓﺮﺍﻧﮑﻪ‪ .(2014،‬ﺑﺎ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻘﺶ ﻓﺰﺍﯾﻨﺪﻩ ﻣﻬﻤﯽ ﮐﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽﺩﺭ ﺑﺎﺯﺍﺭ ﮐﺎﺭ ﺁﻟﻤﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺵ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻄﻪ ﺍﯾﻔﺎ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ )ﺩﺍﻭﯾﺪﻭﺍ‪2020،‬ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﯽ ﺭﺳﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺍﮐﺜﺮ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﺍﯾﻦ‬
‫ﻣﺪﺍﺭﺱﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺁﯾﻨﺪﻩ ﺷﺨﺼﯽ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺑﺴﯿﺎﺭ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﻣﯽ ﺩﺍﻧﻨﺪ‪.‬‬

‫‪https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000572‬ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﮐﻤﺒﺮﯾﺞ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‬

‫‪1465‬‬ ‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖﺩﺭ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻏﯿﺮ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ‬

‫ﺩﺭﻣﺠﻤﻮﻉ‪ 229 ،‬ﺩﺧﺘﺮ )‪ (%60‬ﻭ ‪ 150‬ﭘﺴﺮ )‪ ،(%39‬ﻋﻼﻭﻩ ﺑﺮ ﺳﻪ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﯼ ﮐﻪ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﻏﯿﺮﺩﻭﺩﻭﯾﯽﻣﻌﺮﻓﯽ ﮐﺮﺩﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﺮﺩﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﻫﻤﻪ ﻓﺮﺍﮔﯿﺮﺍﻥ ‪ 15‬ﺗﺎ ‪ 16‬ﺳﺎﻟﻪ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ )ﻡ¼‬
‫‪15‬ﺳﺎﻝ‪8¼mos، SD8‬ﻣﻮﺱ(‪،‬ﻭ ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺗﮏ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﻪ ﺁﻟﻤﺎﻧﯽ ﺑﺰﺭﮒ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ )‪¼n‬‬
‫‪.89٪ ;339‬ﺍﺯ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﺑﺎ ﺯﻣﯿﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﭼﻨﺪ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﻪ )‪ ،11٪;43¼n‬ﺍﮐﺜﺮﯾﺖ ﻗﺮﯾﺐ ﺑﻪ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻕ ﺑﺎ‬
‫ﺯﺑﺎﻥﺁﻟﻤﺎﻧﯽ ﺩﺭ ﮐﻨﺎﺭ ﺭﻭﺳﯽ ﯾﺎ ﮐﺮﺩﯼ ﺑﺰﺭﮒ ﺷﺪﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﯾﮏ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺗﺠﺰﯾﻪ ﻭ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪ ‪1‬‬
‫ﮐﻨﺎﺭﮔﺬﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺷﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺑﺪﻭ ﺗﻮﻟﺪ ﺁﻟﻤﺎﻧﯽ‪-‬ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ ﺩﻭﺯﺑﺎﻧﻪ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﯿﻦ ﺩﻭ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪ‪ 3‬ﮐﻪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺁﻟﻤﺎﻧﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻏﯿﺮﺑﻮﻣﯽ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ )ﯾﮑﯽ ﺍﺧﯿﺮﺍ ًﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﭘﻨﺎﻫﻨﺪﻩ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻟﻤﺎﻥ ﺁﻣﺪﻩ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻭ‬
‫ﯾﮏﺩﺍﻧﺸﺠﻮﯼ ﺍﺭﺯﯼ(‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﺯ‪ 378‬ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﻩ ﺑﺎﻗﯽ ﻣﺎﻧﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﺍﮐﺜﺮﯾﺖ ﻗﺮﯾﺐ ﺑﻪ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻕ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻦ ﻫﺸﺖ ﺳﺎﻟﮕﯽ ﯾﺎ ﺳﺎﻝ ﺳﻮﻡ‬
‫ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍﯾﯽ‪،‬ﺯﻣﺎﻧﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮ ﺩﺭ ﺍﯾﺎﻟﺖ ﻧﯿﺪﺭﺯﺍﮐﺴﻦ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﯽ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ‬
‫ﯾﮏﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﯽ ﯾﺎﺩ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺍﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﯾﻦ ﺩﺭ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﻫﺸﺖ ﺳﺎﻝ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺍﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ )ﻡ¼‪7‬ﺳﺎﻝ‪1¼mos، SD9‬ﺳﺎﻝ‪2‬ﻣﻮﺱ(‪.‬ﻣﻌﻠﻤﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ ﺗﺨﻤﯿﻦ ﺯﺩﻧﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ‬
‫ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﺑﺮ ﺍﺳﺎﺱ ﭼﺎﺭﭼﻮﺏ ﻣﺮﺟﻊ ﻣﺸﺘﺮﮎ ﺍﺭﻭﭘﺎﯾﯽ )‪CEFR‬؛ ﺷﻮﺭﺍﯼ ﺍﺭﻭﭘﺎ‪،‬‬
‫‪ (B1-B2‬ﻣﻬﺎﺭﺕ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻨﺪ‪ .(2001.‬ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﻄﺎﺑﻖ ﺑﺎ ﺁﻧﭽﻪ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﺩﺭﺳﯽ ‪ Gymnasien‬ﺩﺭ ﻧﯿﺪﺭﺯﺍﮐﺴﻦ‬
‫ﺗﺼﺮﯾﺢﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﺳﺎﻝ ‪ 10‬ﺑﺎﯾﺪ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻥ ﺑﺮﺳﻨﺪ )‪.(2006,.Böwing et al‬‬

‫ﺭﻭﺵ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪ‪ :1‬ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﺪﻻﻝﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺑﯿﻨﺶ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﻧﺪﻩ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺒﻨﺎﯾﯽ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪ ﺁﯾﺘﻢ ﻫﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﮐﯿﻔﯿﺖﻭ ﺗﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭﻫﺎﯼ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ ﺭﺍ ﺍﻓﺰﺍﯾﺶ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﺪ )‪ .(2010,Dörnyei‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﯾﻦ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺍﮔﯿﺮﺍﻥﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﻫﺪﻑ ﺩﻋﻮﺕ ﮐﺮﺩﻡ ﺗﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺷﯿﻮﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺩﺭ ﻃﯽ‬
‫ﻣﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪﻫﺎﯼ ﮔﺮﻭﻫﯽ ﻣﺘﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﺍﮐﺘﺸﺎﻓﯽ ﺻﺤﺒﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻧﺘﻈﺎﺭ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻢ ﮐﻪ ﮔﺮﻭﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﮐﺎﻧﻮﻧﯽ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼﻏﻨﯽ ﺗﺮﯼ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻓﺮﺩﯼ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺳﺖ ﺁﻭﺭﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺯﯾﺮﺍ ﻋﻀﻮﯾﺖ ﺩﺭ ﯾﮏ ﮔﺮﻭﻩ )‬
‫ﺍﺣﺴﺎﺱﻧﮑﺮﺩﻥ »ﺩﺭﺟﺎ«( ﻭ ﮔﻮﺵ ﺩﺍﺩﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮﺍﺕ ﺩﯾﮕﺮﺍﻥ ﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﯾﯽﻭ ﺗﺄﻣﻞ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﯿﺎﺕ ﺧﻮﺩ ﮐﻤﮏ ﮐﻨﺪ )ﻫﻮ‪ ;2006،‬ﮐﺮﻭﮔﺮ ﻭ ﮐﯿﺴﯽ‪.(2015،‬‬
‫ﻣﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪﻫﺎﯼ ﻧﯿﻤﻪ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﯾﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﺑﺎ ﮔﺮﻭﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﭼﻬﺎﺭ ﺗﺎ ﺷﺶ ﻧﻔﺮﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﺮﺟﻠﺴﻪ ﺑﯿﻦ ‪ 40‬ﺗﺎ ‪ 60‬ﺩﻗﯿﻘﻪ ﻃﻮﻝ ﮐﺸﯿﺪ‪ .‬ﺗﺎ ﺟﺎﯾﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺍﻣﮑﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺷﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﺍﺟﺎﺯﻩ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺩﻩﺷﺪ ﺗﺎ ﮔﺮﻭﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺗﺸﮑﯿﻞ ﺩﻫﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺍﻣﯿﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺩﺭ ﮐﻨﺎﺭ ﺩﻭﺳﺘﺎﻧﺸﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻋﺚﺷﻮﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺍﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﺭﺍﺣﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺁﺯﺍﺩﯼ ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮﯼ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺑﯿﺎﻥ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻣﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪﺁﻟﻤﺎﻧﯽ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺳﻮﺍﻻﺕ )‪ (2023,Arndt‬ﺍﮐﺘﺸﺎﻓﯽ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺤﻘﻖ ﻓﺮﺻﺘﯽ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺩﺭﮎ‬
‫ﭼﮕﻮﻧﮕﯽﻭ ﭼﺮﺍﯾﯽ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﺠﻮﯾﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ‪ ISLP‬ﺍﺭﺍﺉﻪ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺷﯿﻮﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ‬
‫ﻫﺮﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺘﯽ ﺗﻌﺮﯾﻒ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﺧﻮﺍﻧﺪﻥ‪ ،‬ﻧﻮﺷﺘﻦ‪ ،‬ﺻﺤﺒﺖ ﮐﺮﺩﻥ‪ ،‬ﯾﺎ ﮔﻮﺵ ﺩﺍﺩﻥ ‪ L2‬ﺍﺳﺖ‬
‫ﮐﻪﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻭﻗﺎﺕ ﻓﺮﺍﻏﺖ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺻﺮﺍﺣﺖ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ‬
‫ﺯﺑﺎﻥﻃﺮﺍﺣﯽ ﻧﺸﺪﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ )ﯾﻌﻨﯽ ﻣﻮﺍﺩ ﻃﺮﺍﺣﯽ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻞ( ﻭ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺩﯾﮕﺮﺍﻥ‬
‫ﺗﺨﺼﯿﺺﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻧﺸﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﻠﻤﺎﻥ ﯾﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﯾﻦ(‪ .‬ﺍﮔﺮﭼﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻓﺮﺍﮔﯿﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ‬
‫ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖﻫﺎﯾﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﯾﮕﺮﯼ ﻏﯿﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻣﺎﺩﺭﯼ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﺗﻘﺮﯾﺒﺎ ً‬
‫ﻫﻤﻪﮔﺰﺍﺭﺵ ﮐﺮﺩﻧﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻫﯿﭻ ‪ L2‬ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺘﯽ ﻏﯿﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ )ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻧﺘﯿﺠﻪ ﺗﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﺑﻘﯿﻪ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ‬
‫ﺷﺪ( ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﻧﻤﯽ ﺩﺍﺩﻧﺪ‪.( .‬‬
‫ﻣﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪﻫﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺻﻮﺗﯽ ﺿﺒﻂ ﻭ ﺑﻌﺪﺍ ًﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﻣﺤﻘﻖ ﺭﻭﻧﻮﯾﺴﯽ ﺷﺪ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﺍﯼ‬
‫ﻫﺪﺍﯾﺖﺷﺪﻩ‪،‬ﻓﺮﺁﯾﻨﺪﯼ ﮐﻪ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﻗﯿﺎﺳﯽ ﻭ ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﯾﯽ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﻣﺤﻘﻖ ﺍﺯ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﺎﺕ ﻭ‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮﯾﻪ ﻫﺎﯼﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ ﺗﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺍﻃﻼﻉ ﺩﻫﺪ‪ ….‬ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﯾﯽ ﺩﺳﺘﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻧﻮﻇﻬﻮﺭ« )‬
‫ﺭﻧﯿﻨﮕﺮﻭ ﺑﺎﮐﺮﺍﺥ‪ ،2015،‬ﭖ‪ .(63 .‬ﺗﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﺍﺻﻠﯽ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭﯾﺎﻓﺖ ﺍﯾﺪﻩ ﺍﯼ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺎﻫﯿﺖ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ‬
‫ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﯼ‪،‬ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ ﻭ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ‪ ISLP‬ﺑﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﯾﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻫﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻭﯾﮋﻩ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩﻥ‬
‫ﻧﻮﻉﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺻﺤﺒﺖ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﯿﺎﺕ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻣﯽ ﮐﺮﺩﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﺭﺯﺷﻤﻨﺪ‬
‫ﺑﻮﺩ‪،‬ﮐﻪ ﻣﺘﻌﺎﻗﺒﺎ ًﺑﻪ ﻫﺪﺍﯾﺖ ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﻭ )ﺩﻭﺑﺎﺭﻩ( ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺕ )ﯾﻌﻨﯽ ﺳﺎﺯﮔﺎﺭﯼ ﻭ ﺍﻧﻄﺒﺎﻕ ﻭ( ﮐﻤﮏ ﮐﺮﺩ‪.‬‬

‫‪https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000572‬ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﮐﻤﺒﺮﯾﺞ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‬

 ‫ﻫﻨﺮﯾﺖﺍﻝ ﺁﺭﻧﺖ‬ ‫‪1466‬‬

‫ﺗﻮﻟﯿﺪ( ﺁﯾﺘﻢ ﻫﺎﯼ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ‪) ISLE‬ﻣﺘﻦ ﺯﯾﺮ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺒﯿﻨﯿﺪ(‪ .‬ﻋﻼﻭﻩ ﺑﺮ ﺍﯾﻦ‪ ،‬ﯾﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﮐﯿﻔﯽ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻬﺎﻡ ﺑﺨﺶﭘﯿﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺟﺪﺍﮔﺎﻧﻪ ﺍﯼ ﺍﺯ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺯﯾﺮﺍ‬
‫ﺍﮐﺜﺮﯾﺖﻗﺮﯾﺐ ﺑﻪ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻕ ﻓﺮﺍﮔﯿﺮﻧﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﻣﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﺵ ﮐﺮﺩﻧﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻧﺪﺭﺕ ﯾﺎ ﻫﺮﮔﺰ ﺑﻪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ‪ L2‬ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ )ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﮐﻢ( ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺣﺘﯽ ﺍﮔﺮ ﺍﻏﻠﺐ ﺍﻭﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﺣﺴﺎﺱ‬
‫ﻣﯽﮐﺮﺩﻧﺪ ﮐﺎﻣﻼ ًﺑﺮ ﺭﻭﯼ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯾﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﻟﺬﺕ ﻣﯽ ﺑﺮﺩﻧﺪ ﻣﺘﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ ﯾﺎ ﻏﻮﻃﻪ ﻭﺭ‬
‫ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ)ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ ﺑﺎﻻ(‪.‬‬

‫ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﯼ ﺩﺭ ‪ ISLE‬ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺪﺕ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﻭ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺘﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﺩﺭﺳﺖ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﭘﺮﮐﺮﺩﻥ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﻋﻤﻠﯿﺎﺗﯽ ﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺣﺎﻟﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ‪،‬‬
‫ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺧﻮﺩﮔﺰﺍﺭﺷﯽ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﻧﮕﺮ ﺑﺎ ﭘﺎﺳﺦ ﺗﻔﺎﺿﻠﯽ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﯾﯽ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ‬
‫ﻫﺪﻑﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ‪ .‬ﻣﻘﯿﺎﺱ ﻫﺎ )ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ‪» ،‬ﺩﺭ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻉ‪ ،‬ﺍﯾﻦ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ]ﺧﺴﺘﻪ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﻩ –‬
‫ﺳﺮﮔﺮﻡ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﻩ[ ﺑﻮﺩ«(‪ .‬ﺑﺮﭼﺴﺐ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﻘﯿﺎﺱ ﺩﺭ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﺑﺎﻻﯼ ﯾﮏ ﻣﻘﯿﺎﺱ ﻟﻐﺰﻧﺪﻩ ‪100‬‬
‫ﺍﻣﺘﯿﺎﺯﯼﻧﻤﺎﯾﺶ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭﮎ ﺁﺳﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺷﻬﻮﺩﯼ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﻓﺮﺍﻫﻢ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ‬
‫ﺗﺎﻃﯿﻒ ﮐﺎﻣﻠﯽ ﺍﺯ ﺣﺎﻻﺕ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﯿﺎﻥ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ )ﺑﺮ ﺧﻼﻑ ﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩ ﺷﺪﻥ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩ‬
‫ﮐﻤﯽﺍﺯ ﻣﻘﯿﺎﺱ ﻫﺎ(‪ .‬ﻣﺮﺍﺣﻞ ﻃﺮﺍﺣﯽ ﭼﮏ ﺑﺎﮐﺲ ﺑﻪ ﺳﺒﮏ ﻟﯿﮑﺮﺕ(‪.‬‬

‫‪12‬ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺍﻭﻟﯿﻪ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ ﻭ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩ ﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎﺕﺁﻣﻮﺯﺷﯽ ﺍﻗﺘﺒﺎﺱ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ )ﺍﭘﻠﺘﻮﻥ ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪ ;2006،‬ﮐﺎﮐﺲ‪ ;2014،‬ﺍﮔﺒﺮﺕ‪;2003،‬‬
‫ﺭﻭﺯﮔﻞ ﻭ ﺷﺮﻭ‪ ;2003،‬ﻓﺮﺩﺭﯾﮏ ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪ ;2005 ،‬ﻓﯿﻠﭗ ﻭ ﺩﻭﺷﻦ‪ ;2016،‬ﺍﺳﮑﯿﻨﺮ ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪،‬‬
‫‪ ;2009‬ﻣﺸﻌﻞ‪ ;2008،‬ﺍﺳﻮﺍﻟﺒﺮﮒ‪ .(2009،‬ﻫﯿﭻ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭﯼ ﺭﺍ ﻧﻤﯽ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﮐﺎﻣﻞ ﭘﺬﯾﺮﻓﺖ‪ ،‬ﺯﯾﺮﺍ‬
‫ﻓﻘﻂﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﮐﻤﯽ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﻣﻨﺤﺼﺮﺍ ًﺑﺮ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻭﻇﯿﻔﻪ ﻣﺘﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ )ﺑﺮﺧﻼﻑ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ‬
‫ﺩﺭﺳﻄﺢ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﻪ ﻭ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ(‪ ،‬ﻭ ﻫﻤﻪ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻮﺍﺭﺩﯼ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺻﺮﺍﺣﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻭﯾﮋﮔﯽ ﻫﺎﯼ‬
‫ﻣﺤﯿﻂ ﻫﺎﯼﺁﻣﻮﺯﺷﯽ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﻣﯽ ﮐﺮﺩﻧﺪ )ﻣﺜﻼ ﻣﻌﻠﻤﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻫﻤﺴﺎﻻﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻇﺎﯾﻒ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ(‪ .‬ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻫﻤﯿﻦﺣﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺷﺶ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﻭﻟﯿﻪ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺑﺎﯾﺪ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺎﺯﮔﯽ ﻓﺮﻣﻮﻟﻪ ﻣﯽ ﺷﺪﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺯﯾﺮﺍ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ‬
‫ﺑﻌﺪﺟﺪﯾﺪﯼ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻧﻄﺒﺎﻕ ﻣﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﻓﺮﻣﻮﻝ ﺑﻨﺪﯼ ﺳﺆﺍﻻﺕ ﺟﺪﯾﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺎﺱﺗﻌﺎﺭﯾﻒ ﮐﺎﺭﯼ ﺍﺑﻌﺎﺩ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﯿﻦ‬
‫ﺑﯿﻨﺶ ﻫﺎﯼﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﮔﺮﻭﻫﯽ ﻣﺘﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﺑﻮﺩ ﮐﻪ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﺪ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﻧﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﭼﮕﻮﻧﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻓﮑﺎﺭﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺳﺎﺯﯼ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﻭ ﺍﺣﺴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺩﺭ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ ﺑﺎ ‪ISLP‬ﻫﺎ‪.‬‬

‫ﺩﻭﻣﺘﺨﺼﺺ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺍﻭﻟﯿﻪ ﺩﻋﻮﺕ ﺷﺪﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺁﻥ ﻫﺎ ﺷﺶ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺭﺩﺭﺍ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩﻧﺪ ﮐﻪ ﻓﮑﺮ ﻣﯽ ﮐﺮﺩﻧﺪ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻋﻤﻠﯿﺎﺗﯽ ﮐﺮﺩﻥ ﺳﺎﺯﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺗﻌﺮﯾﻒ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺍﯾﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪﮐﺎﺭﺍﯾﯽ ﮐﻤﺘﺮﯼ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭ ‪ 12‬ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻭﻟﯿﻦ ﭘﯿﺶ ﻧﻮﯾﺲ ‪ ISLE‬ﺑﺎﻗﯽ ﮔﺬﺍﺷﺘﻨﺪ )ﻫﺮ‬
‫ﮐﺪﺍﻡﭼﻬﺎﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ‪ ،‬ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ(‪ .‬ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﻪ ﺷﺪ‬
‫ﻭﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺟﺮﺍﯼ ﺁﺯﻣﺎﯾﺸﯽ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻟﻤﺎﻧﯽ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﮔﺮﻭﻩ ﺗﻤﺮﮐﺰ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﯼﺻﺤﺒﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﯿﺎﺕ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﮐﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ ﻫﺪﺍﯾﺖ ﺷﺪ ﻭ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﯾﻖ ﯾﮏ ﻓﺮﺁﯾﻨﺪ‬
‫ﺗﮑﺮﺍﺭﯼﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩ ﯾﺎﻓﺖ )ﺑﺎ ﭘﯿﺮﻭﯼ ﺍﺯ ﺩﺳﺘﻮﺭﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺑﻬﺘﺮﯾﻦ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ‪ (2010،Dörnyei‬ﺷﺎﻣﻞ‬
‫ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪﺑﺮﮔﺸﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺑﺎﺯﺧﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﺯ ﺩﺍﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﻣﺘﺨﺼﺺ ﻭ ﻏﯿﺮﻣﺘﺨﺼﺺ ﻫﻤﺘﺎ )ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﻘﻘﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺩﺭ‪ SLA‬ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻋﻠﻮﻡ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺷﯽ ﮔﺴﺘﺮﺩﻩ ﺗﺮ(‪.‬‬

‫ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪ‪ :2‬ﺧﻠﺒﺎﻧﯽ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼﺁﺯﻣﺎﯾﺸﯽ ﺍﺯ ‪ ۷۷‬ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺁﻣﻮﺯ ﺟﻤﻊ ﺁﻭﺭﯼ ﺷﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﺨﺸﯽ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺑﺰﺭﮒ ﺗﺮ‪ ،‬ﯾﮏ‬
‫ﺁﺯﻣﻮﻥ‪ C‬ﻭ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﺍﯼ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﻧﮕﯿﺰﻩ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻧﮕﺮﺵ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽﻭ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﻭ ﺍﻃﻼﻋﺎﺕ ﭘﯿﺶ ﺯﻣﯿﻨﻪ ﮐﻠﯽ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺗﮑﻤﯿﻞ ﮐﺮﺩﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﺗﮑﻤﯿﻞ ﺁﺯﻣﻮﻥ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻭﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﭘﯿﺸﯿﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺩﺳﺘﻮﺭ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺷﺪ ﮐﻪ ﻟﯿﻨﮏ ﻧﻈﺮﺳﻨﺠﯽ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ‪ ISLE‬ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺗﻠﻔﻦﻫﻤﺮﺍﻩ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺫﺧﯿﺮﻩ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ ﻭ ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﻫﺮ ﺑﺎﺭ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ ﺩﺭ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﺁﺯﺍﺩ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻫﻔﺖﺭﻭﺯ ﺁﯾﻨﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺗﮑﻤﯿﻞ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ‪.‬‬

‫‪https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000572‬ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﮐﻤﺒﺮﯾﺞ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‬

‫‪1467‬‬ ‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖﺩﺭ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻏﯿﺮ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ‬

‫ﺩﺍﺩﻩﻫﺎﯼ ﺟﻤﻊ ﺁﻭﺭﯼ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺩﺭ ﻧﺮﻡ ﺍﻓﺰﺍﺭ ‪) SPSS‬ﻧﺴﺨﻪ ‪2017,IBM Corp ،25‬ﺑﺎ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩﺍﺯ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ ﺍﮐﺘﺸﺎﻓﯽ )‪ (EFA‬ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﮐﺸﻒ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻫﺎﯼ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ ﺯﯾﺮﺑﻨﺎﯾﯽ‪ ،‬ﯾﻌﻨﯽ ﺍﯾﻨﮑﻪ‬
‫ﺁﯾﺎﺁﯾﺘﻢ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻃﺮﺍﺣﯽ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩ ﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺟﻨﺒﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﻧﺪﻩ‪-‬ﺩﺍﺧﻠﯽ )ﺑﻌﺪ‬
‫ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ‪،‬ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ( ﺑﺮ ﺭﻭﯼ ﺳﺎﺯﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻧﻬﻔﺘﻪ ﻣﺘﻤﺎﯾﺰ ﺑﺎﺭﮔﺬﺍﺭﯼ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ )ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺗﻮﮐﻞ ﻭ‬
‫ﻭﺗﺰﻝ‪.2020،‬ﻋﻤﻠﯿﺎﺗﯽ ﺷﺪ (ﮔﺰﺍﺭﺵ ﮐﺮﺩﻧﺪ ‪ ISLP‬ﯾﻌﻨﯽ ﻣﯿﺎﻧﮕﯿﻦ ﺯﻣﺎﻧﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ‬
‫ﺍﻧﻮﺍﻉﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ) ﻟﺤﺎﻅ ﻧﺸﺪ‪ ،‬ﺯﯾﺮﺍ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﯾﻖ ﻣﺘﻐﯿﺮﻫﺎﯼ ﺁﺷﮑﺎﺭ ﻭ ﻧﻪ ﭘﻨﻬﺎﻥ (‪ )CFA‬ﻫﻤﭽﻨﯿﻦ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ‬
‫ﮐﺎﻫﺶﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﺍﻗﻼﻡ ﺑﺎ ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﻣﻮﺍﺭﺩﯼ ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺷﺪﺕ ﻫﺮ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺭﺍ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﻤﺴﺎﻧﯽﺩﺭﻭﻧﯽ ﻣﻘﯿﺎﺱ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺑﻪ ﺭﻭﺯ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻟﻔﺎﯼ ﮐﺮﻭﻧﺒﺎﺥ ﺍﺭﺯﯾﺎﺑﯽ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ‬
‫ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﯼﺩﺭ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﻫﺎ ﯾﺎ ﺗﺠﺰﯾﻪ ﻭ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺗﺄﯾﯿﺪﯼ ﺑﻌﺪﯼ ‪(. EFA‬‬

‫ﺩﺭﻋﻮﺽ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﯼ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺗﻮﺻﯿﻔﯽ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﯼﺗﺄﯾﯿﺪ ﺍﯾﻨﮑﻪ ﻫﯿﭻ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺭﺍﯾﺠﯽ ﺍﺯ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺎﺧﺖ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﻧﺎﺩﯾﺪﻩ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ‬
‫ﻧﺸﺪﻩﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻋﻼﻭﻩ ﺑﺮ ﺍﯾﻦ‪ ،‬ﻧﮕﺎﻩ ﺩﻗﯿﻖ ﺗﺮﯼ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻬُﺮﻫﺎﯼ ﺯﻣﺎﻧﯽ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ ﮐﻪ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﻫﻨﺪﻩ‬
‫ﺯﻣﺎﻥﺍﺭﺳﺎﻝ ﭘﺎﺳﺦ ﻫﺮ ﻧﻈﺮﺳﻨﺠﯽ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﯾﻦ ﻫﺎ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﻨﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺍﮐﺜﺮ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﺎ ً‬
‫ﺗﺠﺮﺑﯿﺎﺕ‪ L2‬ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﺭﻭﺯ )ﯾﻌﻨﯽ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﻏﯿﺮ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﻪ ﭘﺨﺶ‬
‫ﻣﯽ ﮐﺮﺩﻧﺪ( ﺿﺒﻂ ﻣﯽ ﮐﺮﺩﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺎ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺣﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﯾﮏ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺁﺯﻣﺎﯾﺸﯽ ﯾﮏ ﭘﺎﺳﺦ‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮﺳﻨﺠﯽﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﭘﺎﯾﺎﻥ ﻫﺮ ﺭﻭﺯ ﺍﺭﺍﺉﻪ ﮐﺮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ‪ ISLP‬ﻫﺎﯾﯽ ﺭﺍ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺭﻭﺯ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮ ﺁﻥ ﻫﺎ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ‬
‫ﻓﻬﺮﺳﺖﮐﺮﺩ ﻭ ﺗﺨﻤﯿﻦ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻻ ًﮐﻞ ﻣﺪﺕ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ‪ ،‬ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺭﺍﺉﻪ‬
‫ﮐﺮﺩ‪.‬ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻣﺘﻌﺎﻗﺒﺎ ًﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﯾﻖ ﺑﻪ ﺭﻭﺯﺭﺳﺎﻧﯽ ﺩﺳﺘﻮﺭﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﻩ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺗﺄﮐﯿﺪ ﺑﺮ‬
‫ﺍﯾﻨﮑﻪﯾﮏ ﻧﻈﺮﺳﻨﺠﯽ ﺟﺪﯾﺪ ﺑﺎﯾﺪ ﺗﮑﻤﯿﻞ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ‪.‬ﻫﺮ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ" )ﺗﺎﮐﯿﺪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺻﻞ(‬
‫ﺩﺍﻧﺶﺁﻣﻮﺯﯼ ﮐﻪ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺗﺠﺰﯾﻪ ﻭ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖﺍﻭﻟﯿﻪ ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﯼ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﯿﻦ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺭﺍ ﺁﺷﮑﺎﺭ ﮐﺮﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﮔﻤﺸﺪﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻮﺍﺭﺩﯼ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺁﻥﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﻧﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﯾﮏ ﺭﻭﺯ ﻣﻌﯿﻦ ﺩﺭ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ‪ L2‬ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﻧﮑﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻧﻤﯽ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺍﺭﺩﯼﮐﻪ ﻓﺮﺍﻣﻮﺵ ﮐﺮﺩﻩ ﯾﺎ ﻋﻤﺪﺍ ًﻧﺎﺩﯾﺪﻩ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻣﺘﻤﺎﯾﺰ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺍﺭﺍﺉﻪ ﭘﺎﺳﺦ ﻫﺎﯼ‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮﺳﻨﺠﯽ)ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺑﺤﺚ ﺩﻗﯿﻖ ﺗﺮ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﭘﯿﺎﻣﺪﻫﺎﯼ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺍﺯ ﺩﺳﺖ ﺭﻓﺘﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ‬
‫‪ Arndt & Rose‬ﻣﺮﺍﺟﻌﻪ ﮐﻨﯿﺪ‪ .(2022،‬ﺩﺭ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪ ﺑﻌﺪﯼ ﮔﺰﯾﻨﻪ ﭘﺎﺳﺦ ”ﻣﻦ ﺍﻣﺮﻭﺯ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﻪ‬
‫ﺍﺯﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻧﮑﺮﺩﻡ‪.‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﯾﻦ ﺑﻪ ‪ ISLE‬ﺍﺿﺎﻓﻪ ﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭﯼ ﮐﻪ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎﻧﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﯾﮏ‬
‫ﺭﻭﺯﻣﻌﯿﻦ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻏﯿﺮ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻧﮑﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺘﻮﺍﻧﻨﺪ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺭﺍ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﺵ‬
‫ﮐﻨﻨﺪ‪.‬‬

‫ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪ‪ :3‬ﺍﺭﺯﯾﺎﺑﯽ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭ‬

‫ﻧﺴﺨﻪﺍﺻﻼﺡ ﺷﺪﻩ ‪ ISLE‬ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺟﻤﻊ ﺁﻭﺭﯼ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎ ﺍﺯ ‪ 254‬ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯ ﺩﯾﮕﺮ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﻫﻤﺎﻧﻨﺪ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪﻗﺒﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﯾﻦ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﯿﻦ ﯾﮏ ﺁﺯﻣﻮﻥ ‪ C‬ﻭ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺍﯼ ﺭﺍ ﺗﮑﻤﯿﻞ ﮐﺮﺩﻧﺪ ﮐﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻃﻼﻋﺎﺕﺯﻣﯿﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻧﮕﯿﺰﻩ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻭ ﻧﮕﺮﺵ ﺑﻪ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﻭ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮ ﻣﯽ‬
‫ﮔﺮﻓﺖ‪.‬ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﺨﺸﯽ ﺍﺯ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﭘﯿﺸﯿﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﺯ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﯿﻦ ﺧﻮﺍﺳﺘﻪ ﺷﺪ ﺗﺎ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺍﻭﺍﻧﯽ"ﻣﻌﻤﻮﻟﯽ" ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ‪) L2‬ﭘﯿﻮﺳﺖ ‪ (A‬ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻣﻘﺎﯾﺴﻪ ﺑﺎ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺩﻩﻫﺎﯼ ‪ ISLE‬ﺑﺮﺁﻭﺭﺩ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺩﺍﺩﻩﻫﺎﯼ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ‪ ،‬ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺟﻤﻊ ﺁﻭﺭﯼ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ‪CFA‬‬
‫ﺑﻪﺟﺎﯼ ‪ EFA‬ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺗﺠﺰﯾﻪ ﻭ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ‪ ،EFA .‬ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﯾﮏ ﺭﻭﺵ "ﭘﺎﯾﯿﻦ ﺑﻪ ﺑﺎﻻ"‪ ،‬ﺑﺮﺍﯼ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽﮐﻮﻭﺍﺭﯾﺎﻧﺲ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﯾﮏ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﺩ )ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ‪،‬‬
‫ﺗﻮﮐﻞﻭ ﻭﺗﺰﻝ‪ .(2020،‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﯾﻦ‪ ،‬ﻣﺪﻝ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺮﺍﺝ ﺷﺪﻩ ﻣﯽ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻐﯿﯿﺮﺍﺕ ﮐﻮﭼﮏ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺷﺪﺕﺗﻐﯿﯿﺮ ﮐﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭﯼ ﮐﻪ ‪ EFA‬ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﯽ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺷﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺍﻭﻟﯿﻪ ﺍﯼ ﺍﺯ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻫﺎﯼ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ ﺯﯾﺮﺑﻨﺎﯾﯽ‬
‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ ﺍﯼﺍﺯ ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩ ﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺭﺍﺉﻪ ﺩﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ‪ CFA ،‬ﯾﮏ ﺭﻭﺵ "ﺑﺎﻻ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﭘﺎﯾﯿﻦ" ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﻣﯿﺰﺍﻥ ﺳﺎﺯﮔﺎﺭﯼ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ ﺍﯼ ﺍﺯ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ ﻣﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﺭﺯﯾﺎﺑﯽ‬
‫ﻣﯽﮐﻨﺪ )ﻫﻤﺎﻥ(‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﯾﻦ ﺩﺭ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ‪ CFA ،‬ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺍﺭﺯﯾﺎﺑﯽ ﻣﯿﺰﺍﻧﯽ ﮐﻪ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ ﺩﻭﻡ ﻭ ﺑﺰﺭﮒ ﺗﺮ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ‪ ،ISLE‬ﺗﻤﺎﯾﺰ ﻓﺮﺿﯽ ﺑﯿﻦ ﻣﺘﻐﯿﺮﻫﺎﯼ ﻧﻬﻔﺘﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ‪ ،‬ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻨﻌﮑﺲ‬
‫ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ‪،‬ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ‪ .‬ﯾﮏ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺩﻭ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ ﺑﺎ ﯾﮏ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ‪-‬ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺘﺮﮎﻧﯿﺰ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺁﺯﻣﺎﯾﺶ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻭﯾﮋﻩ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺍﺭﺯﯾﺎﺑﯽ ﻣﯿﺰﺍﻥ ﺣﻤﺎﯾﺖ ﭘﯿﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩﯼ ﺑﯿﻦ‬
‫ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺩﺭ‬

‫‪https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000572‬ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﮐﻤﺒﺮﯾﺞ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‬

 ‫ﻫﻨﺮﯾﺖﺍﻝ ﺁﺭﻧﺖ‬ ‫‪1468‬‬

‫ﺩﺍﺩﻩ‪.‬ﺗﺠﺰﯾﻪ ﻭ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ‪ CFA‬ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯﮔﺪﺍﺯﻩﺑﺴﺘﻪ ﺩﺭ ‪) R‬ﻧﺴﺨﻪ ‪3-0.6‬؛ ﺭﺍﺳﻞ ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪.(2018،‬‬

‫ﻃﯿﻒﻭﺳﯿﻌﯽ ﺍﺯ ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺑﺮﺍﺯﺵ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺍﺭﺯﯾﺎﺑﯽ ﺑﺮﺍﺯﺵ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ‪ ،‬ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺟﻤﻠﻪﺁﺯﻣﻮﻥ ﻣﺠﺬﻭﺭ ﮐﺎﯼ ﺳﻨﺘﯽ‪ ،‬ﮐﻪ ﺗﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺑﯿﻦ ﮐﻮﻭﺍﺭﯾﺎﻧﺲ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﭘﯿﺶ ﺑﯿﻨﯽ ﺷﺪﻩ ﻭ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﻩ ﺷﺪﻩﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺭﺍ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩ ﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﯾﮏ ﺁﻣﺎﺭﻩ ﮐﺎﯼ ﺍﺳﮑﻮﺉﺮ ﻏﯿﺮ ﻣﻌﻨﯽ ﺩﺍﺭ )‪(05p< :‬‬
‫ﻣﻄﻠﻮﺏﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﮐﻪ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﺪ ﮐﻮﻭﺍﺭﯾﺎﻧﺲ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﻧﺘﻈﺎﺭ ﻭ ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺗﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﻣﻌﻨﯽ ﺩﺍﺭﯼ‬
‫ﻧﺪﺍﺭﻧﺪ‪.‬ﯾﮑﯽ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺰﯾﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺁﻣﺎﺭﻩ ‪ chisquare‬ﺍﯾﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﻣﯽ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻣﻘﺎﯾﺴﻪ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﯿﻢ ﺭﺍﻩ‬
‫ﺣﻞﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺪﻝ "ﺗﻮﺩﺭﺗﻮ" ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﮐﺮﺩ )ﺑﻪ ‪ ;2013،Blunch‬ﺑﺮﻥ‪ .(2010،‬ﺑﺎ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺣﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺁﺯﻣﻮﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩ‬
‫ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪﺑﺴﯿﺎﺭ ﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺗﻘﺮﯾﺒﺎ ًﻫﻤﯿﺸﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺑﺰﺭﮒ ﺗﺮ ﺍﻫﻤﯿﺖ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ )ﺑﺮﻥ‪.(2010،‬‬
‫ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﯾﻦ‪،‬ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﺗﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻣﻘﺎﯾﺴﻪ ﺍﯼ )‪ (CFI‬ﻭ ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﺗﺎﮐﺮ‪-‬ﻟﻮﺉﯿﺲ )‪ (TLI‬ﻧﯿﺰ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ‬
‫ﮔﺮﻓﺖ‪،‬ﮐﻪ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻣﺸﺨﺺ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎ ﯾﮏ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺍﺷﺒﺎﻉ ﺷﺪﻩ )ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﻫﻤﻪ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﻪ ﻫﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻫﻤﻪ ﺍﺟﺰﺍﯼ ﺩﯾﮕﺮ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﻭ ﻣﻨﺠﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺣﺪﺍﮐﺜﺮ ﺗﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﻧﺪ( ﻭ ﯾﮏ ﺍﺳﺘﻘﻼﻝ ﻣﻘﺎﯾﺴﻪ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﻣﺪﻝ )ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ‬
‫ﻫﻤﻪﻣﺘﻐﯿﺮﻫﺎ ﻧﺎﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﮐﻪ ﻣﻨﺠﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺣﺪﺍﻗﻞ ﺑﺮﺍﺯﺵ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﺩ(‪ .‬ﻣﻘﺎﺩﯾﺮ ‪ CFI‬ﻭ ‪ TLI‬ﺩﺭ ﺑﺎﻻ‪ 90 .‬ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻃﻮﺭﮐﻠﯽ "ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ" ﻭ ﻣﻘﺎﺩﯾﺮ ﺑﺎﻻﯼ ‪" 0.95‬ﻋﺎﻟﯽ" ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﻧﺪ )‪ ;2013,Blunch‬ﺑﺮﻥ‪،‬‬
‫‪ .(2010‬ﺩﺭ ﻧﻬﺎﯾﺖ‪ ،‬ﺭﯾﺸﻪ ﻣﯿﺎﻧﮕﯿﻦ ﻣﺮﺑﻌﺎﺕ ﺧﻄﺎﯼ ﺗﻘﺮﯾﺐ )‪ (RMSEA‬ﻭ‬
‫(‪ StandardizedRootMeanSquaredResidual )SRMR‬ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﮐﻪ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﺪ‬
‫ﻣﺪﻝﻣﺸﺨﺺ ﺷﺪﻩ ﭼﻘﺪﺭ ﮐﻮﻭﺍﺭﯾﺎﻧﺲ ﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺑﯿﻦ ﻣﺘﻐﯿﺮﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﺎﺯﺗﻮﻟﯿﺪ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﻣﻘﺎﺩﯾﺮ‬
‫ﭘﺎﯾﯿﻦ ﺗﺮﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﻫﻨﺪﻩ ﺗﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﻫﺎﯼ ﮐﻮﭼﮏ ﺗﺮ ﺑﯿﻦ ﮐﻮﻭﺍﺭﯾﺎﻧﺲ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺁﻭﺭﺩ ﺷﺪﻩ )‬
‫ﺑﺎﻗﯿﻤﺎﻧﺪﻩ ﻫﺎ( ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻣﻘﺎﺩﯾﺮ ﺯﯾﺮ ‪ 0.10‬ﻣﻌﻤﻮﻻ ًﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ "ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ" ﻭ ﻣﻘﺎﺩﯾﺮ ﺯﯾﺮ ‪ 0.06‬ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ "‬
‫ﻋﺎﻟﯽ" ﺫﮐﺮ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﻧﺪ )‪ ;2013,Blunch‬ﺑﺮﻥ‪.(2010،‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﺭﻫﺎﯼﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ ﻭ ﻭﺍﺭﯾﺎﻧﺲ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺑﺎﻗﯿﻤﺎﻧﺪﻩ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺳﺖ ﺁﻣﺪﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺪﻝ ‪ CFA‬ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﻪ‬
‫ﭘﺎﯾﺎﯾﯽﺗﺮﮐﯿﺒﯽ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ‪ ،‬ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﻌﯿﺎﺭ ﺳﺎﺯﮔﺎﺭﯼ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻭﻧﯽﺑﻪ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﺷﺪ ﮐﻪ ‪ CFA‬ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩ ﮐﻪ ﻓﺮﺽ ﺯﯾﺮﺑﻨﺎﯼ ﺁﻟﻔﺎﯼ ﮐﺮﻭﻧﺒﺎﺥ ﺳﻨﺘﯽ‪ ،‬ﮐﻪ‬
‫ﻫﻤﻪﺁﯾﺘﻢ ﻫﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﮐﺎﻣﻞ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﭘﻨﻬﺎﻥ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﻨﺪ )ﯾﻌﻨﯽ ﺑﺎﺭ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﺑﺎ ﯾﮏ‬
‫ﺑﺪﻭﻥﮐﻮﻭﺍﺭﯾﺎﻧﺲ ﺧﻄﺎ ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ(‪ ،‬ﺩﺭﺳﺖ ﻧﯿﺴﺖ‪ .‬ﻗﺎﺑﻠﯿﺖ ﺍﻃﻤﯿﻨﺎﻥ ﻣﺮﮐﺐ ﻭﺍﺭﯾﺎﻧﺲ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺧﻄﺎﯼ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻗﻌﯽﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﯽ ﮔﯿﺮﺩ ﻭ ﺿﺮﯾﺐ ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﺭﺍ ﻣﯽ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻣﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺁﻟﻔﺎﯼ ﮐﺮﻭﻧﺒﺎﺥ ﺗﻔﺴﯿﺮ‬
‫ﮐﺮﺩ‪،‬ﺑﺎ ﻧﻤﺮﺍﺕ ﻧﺰﺩﯾﮏ ﺑﻪ ﯾﮏ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﻫﻨﺪﻩ ﺳﺎﺯﮔﺎﺭﯼ ﺩﺭﻭﻧﯽ ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ )ﻫﯿﺮ ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪.(2016،‬‬

‫ﺩﺭﻧﻬﺎﯾﺖ‪ ،‬ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﯽ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻪ ﺭﺗﺒﻪ ﺍﺳﭙﯿﺮﻣﻦ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻣﻘﺎﯾﺴﻪ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﯼ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﺩﺳﺖ ﺁﻣﺪﻩﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ‪ ISLE‬ﺑﺎ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﭘﯿﺶ ﺯﻣﯿﻨﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﯾﻨﮑﻪ‬
‫ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥﯾﮑﺴﺎﻥ »ﻣﻌﻤﻮﻻ«ً ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮ ﺍﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﻪ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺎ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺟﻪﺑﻪ ﺗﺎﺯﮔﯽ ‪) ISLE‬ﻭ ﺭﻭﯾﮑﺮﺩ ‪ ESM‬ﮐﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﯾﻖ ﺁﻥ ﺍﺟﺮﺍ ﺷﺪ(‪ ،‬ﺍﺯ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﯾﺴﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﻣﯿﺰﺍﻥ‬
‫ﺍﺭﺍﺉﻪﺩﻭ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺟﻤﻊ ﺁﻭﺭﯼ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎ ﺗﺼﻮﯾﺮ ﻣﺸﺎﺑﻬﯽ ﺍﺯ ﻣﯿﺰﺍﻥ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺷﯿﻮﻩ‬
‫ﻫﺎﯼﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺷﺪ )ﯾﻌﻨﯽ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻫﻤﮕﺮﺍﯼ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﮐﻨﯿﺪ(‪.‬‬

‫ﻧﺘﺎﯾﺞ‬
‫ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ‪ ،‬ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ‬
‫ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﻫﺎﯼﺍﯾﻦ ﺑﺨﺶ ﺑﺮ ‪ RQ1‬ﻣﺘﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ :‬ﮐﺪﺍﻡ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﯼ ﺍﺑﻌﺎﺩ ﺩﺭﻭﻧﯽ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﻧﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻬﺘﺮ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﺪ؟ ﺍﺑﻌﺎﺩ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﻘﯿﺎﺱ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ‬
‫‪) EFA‬ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪ ‪ (2‬ﻭ ‪) CFA‬ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪ ‪ (3‬ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺗﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﻭﯾﮋﻩ ﺩﺭ ﻃﻮﻝ ﻫﺮ ﺩﻭ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺑﻮﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺁﯾﺎ‬
‫ﺗﻤﺎﯾﺰﻧﻈﺮﯼ ﭘﯿﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩﯼ ﺑﯿﻦ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺑﺎ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺗﻮﺟﯿﻪ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﺩ ﯾﺎ ﺧﯿﺮ‪.‬‬

‫ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ ﺍﮐﺘﺸﺎﻓﯽ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻣﯿﺎﻧﮕﯿﻦ ﻧﻤﺮﺍﺕ ﻫﺮ ﻓﺮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﻫﻔﺘﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻫﺮ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ‪ ،‬ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺷﺪ‬
‫)ﺁﻣﺎﺭ ﺗﻮﺻﯿﻔﯽ ﺩﺭ ‪EFA‬‬

‫‪https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000572‬ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﮐﻤﺒﺮﯾﺞ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‬

‫‪1469‬‬ ‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖﺩﺭ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻏﯿﺮ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ‬

‫ﺿﻤﯿﻤﻪ‪ .(B‬ﺗﺠﺰﯾﻪ ﻭ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺍﻭﻟﯿﻪ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺍﮐﺜﺮ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻧﻤﺮﺍﺕ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻣﻌﻤﻮﻝ ﺗﻮﺯﯾﻊ ﺷﺪﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺪ‪،‬ﺍﮔﺮﭼﻪ ﺩﻭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺗﻮﺟﻬﯽ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﯼ ﺍﻧﺤﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ‪z∣.‬ﭼﻮﻟﮕﯽ∣ <‪ ;1:96‬ﺭﺟﻮﻉ ﮐﻨﯿﺪ ﺑﻪ ﮐﯿﻢ‪،‬‬
‫‪ .(2013‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﯾﻦ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﮐﺘﻮﺭﯾﻨﮓ ﻣﺤﻮﺭ ﺍﺻﻠﯽ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﯾﮏ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺮﺍﺟﯽ ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﺷﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ‬
‫ﻏﯿﺮﻋﺎﺩﯼﺑﻮﺩﻥ ﻗﻮﯼ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﺩ )‪ .(2008,Finney & DiStefano‬ﺍﺯ ﺁﻧﺠﺎﯾﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺍﻧﺘﻈﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻣﯽﺭﻓﺖ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺑﻪ ﺷﺪﺕ ﺑﺎ ﻫﻢ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﯾﮏ ﭼﺮﺧﺶ ﻣﻮﺭﺏ )ﻣﺴﺘﻘﯿﻢ‬
‫‪ (Oblimin‬ﺍﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺗﺄﯾﯿﺪ ﮐﻔﺎﯾﺖ ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ ﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻌﯿﺎﺭ ﮐﺎﯾﺰﺭ‪-‬ﻣﺎﯾﺮ‪-‬ﺍﻭﻟﮑﯿﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪80:¼KMO‬ﻭ ﻫﻤﻪ ﻣﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﻓﺮﺩﯼ ‪Þ60: < KMO‬ﻭ ﭘﯿﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩ ﮐﺮﺩ ﮐﻪ ﻋﻠﯿﺮﻏﻢ ﮐﻮﭼﮏ ﺑﻮﺩﻥ ﻧﺴﺒﺘﺎ ً‬
‫ﺣﺠﻢﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ )‪(77¼n‬ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺗﺠﺰﯾﻪ ﻭ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ‪ EFA‬ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﺭﯾﺰﯼ ﺷﺪﻩ ﮐﺎﻓﯽ ﺑﻮﺩ )ﻫﻤﭽﻨﯿﻦ ﺭﺟﻮﻉ ﮐﻨﯿﺪ‬
‫ﺑﻪ‪ De Winter‬ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪.(2009،‬‬

‫ﯾﮏﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﺍﻭﻟﯿﻪ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩ ﮐﻪ ﯾﮏ ﺁﯾﺘﻢ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ )"ﺑﺴﯿﺎﺭ ﺁﺳﺎﻥ ‪ -‬ﺑﺴﯿﺎﺭ ﺩﺷﻮﺍﺭ ﺑﻮﺩ[‬
‫ﺣﻔﻆﺫﻫﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺑﺮ ﺭﻭﯼ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ"( ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻮﺑﯽ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ ﺁﯾﺘﻢ ﻫﺎ ﺗﻄﺎﺑﻖ ﻧﺪﺍﺷﺖ )ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﯽ‬
‫ﻫﺎﯼﮐﻤﯽ < ‪ 0.3‬ﺑﺎ ﺳﺎﯾﺮ ﻣﻮﺍﺭﺩ؛ ﮐﻤﺘﺮﯾﻦ ﻭﺍﺭﯾﺎﻧﺲ ﮐﻠﯽ ﻣﺸﺘﺮﮎ ﺩﺭ ‪ 38‬ﺩﺭﺻﺪ‪ .‬ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﺣﺬﻑ ﺍﯾﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺭﺩﺍﺯ ﺗﺠﺰﯾﻪ ﻭ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮ‪ ،‬ﺳﻪ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﭘﻨﻬﺎﻥ ﺑﺎ ﻣﻘﺎﺩﯾﺮ ﻭﯾﮋﻩ ﺑﺎﻻﺗﺮ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻌﯿﺎﺭ ﻗﯿﺼﺮ ‪) 1‬ﻗﯿﺼﺮ‪،‬‬
‫‪ ،(1970‬ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﯾﯽ ﺷﺪﻧﺪ ﮐﻪ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎ ً‪ 62.40‬ﺩﺭﺻﺪ ﺍﺯ ﮐﻞ ﻭﺍﺭﯾﺎﻧﺲ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻤﺮﺍﺕ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺭﺍ ﺗﻮﺿﯿﺢ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺩﻧﺪ‪.‬ﻃﺮﺡ ﻓﯿﻠﻢ ﺍﺯ ﺗﺼﻤﯿﻢ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺮﺍﺝ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺳﻪ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺣﻤﺎﯾﺖ ﮐﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﺑﺎﺭﻫﺎﯼ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﭼﺮﺧﺶ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻟﯿﺴﺖ ﺫﮐﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .2‬ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ‪ 39.8 1‬ﺩﺭﺻﺪ ﺍﺯ ﮐﻞ ﻭﺍﺭﯾﺎﻧﺲ ﺭﺍ ﺗﻮﺿﯿﺢ ﺩﺍﺩ‪ ،‬ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ‪2‬‬
‫‪19.8‬ﺩﺭﺻﺪ ﻭ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ‪ 11.5 3‬ﺩﺭﺻﺪ‪ .‬ﻣﻮﺍﺭﺩﯼ ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺷﺪﺕ ﺑﺮ ﺭﻭﯼ ﻫﺮ ﯾﮏ ﺍﺯ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺑﺎﺭﮔﺬﺍﺭﯼ‬
‫ﻣﯽﺷﻮﻧﺪ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺮﺗﯿﺐ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﻫﻨﺪﻩ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ‪ ،‬ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﻭ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ‬
‫ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ‪.‬‬
‫) ﻣﻨﺠﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺣﺬﻑ ﺳﻪ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺩﯾﮕﺮ ﺷﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺗﻮﺟﻬﯽ ﺑﺎﺭﮔﺬﺍﺭﯼ ﺷﺪﻧﺪ ‪ (30:≤EFA‬ﺑﺮ‬
‫ﺭﻭﯼﺑﯿﺶ ﺍﺯ ﯾﮏ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ )ﻣﻮﺍﺭﺩ ‪،11-9‬ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .(2‬ﺍﺯ ﻫﺸﺖ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺑﺎﻗﯽ ﻣﺎﻧﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﭼﻬﺎﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺑﻪ ﻭﺿﻮﺡ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺩﻭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻫﺮ ﮐﺪﺍﻡ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﻭﺍﺭﺩ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﯾﻦ ﻋﺪﻡ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺎﺩﻝ‪،‬ﺗﺎ ﺣﺪﯼ ﻧﺎﺷﯽ ﺍﺯ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﯿﺖ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺩﻭ ﺁﯾﺘﻢ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻫﺪﻑ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﺍﺩﻥ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ‬
‫ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ )ﻣﻮﺍﺭﺩ ‪،3-2‬ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ‪ (2‬ﺑﻪ ﺟﺎﯼ ﺁﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﺑﺎﺭﮔﺬﺍﺭﯼ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬‬

‫ﺟﺪﻭﻝ‪.2‬ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ ﺍﮐﺘﺸﺎﻓﯽ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﺭﻫﺎﯼ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﭼﺮﺧﺶ‬

‫ﻓﺎﮐﺘﻮﺭ‪3‬‬ ‫ﻓﺎﮐﺘﻮﺭ‪2‬‬ ‫ﻓﺎﮐﺘﻮﺭ‪1‬‬

‫ﺗﺎﺛﯿﺮﮔﺬﺍﺭ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﺑﺴﺘﻪﺑﻪ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﺸﻨﺎﺳﯽ‬ ‫ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ‬
‫‪Engmt.‬‬ ‫‪Engmt.‬‬ ‫‪Engmt.‬‬ ‫ﻣﻮﺭﺩ‬

‫‪07 .‬‬ ‫– ‪16 .‬‬ ‫‪84 .‬‬ ‫‪.1‬ﺩﺭ ﮐﻞ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ]ﺍﺻﻼ ً‪ -‬ﮐﺎﻣﻼ ً[ ﺭﻭﯼ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﺍ ﻣﺘﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﺑﻮﺩﻡ‪.‬‬

‫– ‪18 .‬‬ ‫‪28 .‬‬ ‫‪74 .‬‬ ‫‪.2‬ﻣﻦ ]ﺍﺻﻼ ً‪ -‬ﮐﺎﻣﻼ[ً ﺭﻭﯼ ﺗﻼﺵ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺩﺭﮎ ﺗﮏ ﺗﮏ ﮐﻠﻤﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻤﺮﮐﺰﺑﻮﺩﻡ‪.‬‬
‫‪29 .‬‬ ‫– ‪03 .‬‬ ‫‪73 .‬‬ ‫‪.3‬ﻣﺤﺘﻮﺍﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻣﻦ ]ﺍﺻﻼ ﺟﺎﻟﺐ ﻧﺒﻮﺩ ‪ -‬ﺧﯿﻠﯽ ﺟﺎﻟﺐ[‬
‫ﺑﻮﺩ‪*.‬‬
‫‪02 .‬‬ ‫‪20 .‬‬ ‫‪59 .‬‬ ‫‪.4‬ﺩﺭ ﻃﻮﻝ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ]ﺍﺻﻼ ًﺗﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﻧﺪﺍﺷﺘﻢ ‪ -‬ﺑﻪ ﺷﺪﺕ‬
‫ﺭﻭﯼﺁﻥ ﺗﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﮐﺮﺩﻡ‪.‬‬
‫‪24 .‬‬ ‫‪89 .‬‬ ‫– ‪01 .‬‬ ‫‪.5‬ﺩﺭ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻉ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺩﺭ ﻃﻮﻝ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ]ﺧﯿﻠﯽ ﮐﻢ – ﺯﯾﺎﺩ[ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺯﺑﺎﻥﻓﮑﺮ ﮐﺮﺩﻡ‪.‬‬
‫– ‪11 .‬‬ ‫‪55 .‬‬ ‫‪28 .‬‬ ‫‪.6‬ﺩﺭ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻉ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ]ﺍﺻﻼ ً‪ -‬ﮐﺎﻣﻼ ً[ ﺭﻭﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻣﺘﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﺑﻮﺩﻡ‪.‬‬

‫‪86 .‬‬ ‫‪09 .‬‬ ‫– ‪18 .‬‬ ‫‪.7‬ﺩﺭ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻉ‪ ،‬ﺍﯾﻦ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ] ﺧﺴﺘﻪ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﻩ – ﺳﺮﮔﺮﻡ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﻩ[ ﺑﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫‪84 .‬‬ ‫– ‪07 .‬‬ ‫‪07 .‬‬ ‫‪.8‬ﺍﯾﻦ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﺭﺍ ]ﻭﺍﻗﻌﺎ ًﺩﻭﺳﺖ ﻧﺪﺍﺷﺘﻢ ‪ -‬ﻭﺍﻗﻌﺎ ًﺩﻭﺳﺖ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻢ[‪.‬‬
‫‪49 .‬‬ ‫‪13 .‬‬ ‫‪32 .‬‬ ‫‪.9‬ﺍﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﻣﯽ ﮐﺮﺩﻡ ]ﺍﺻﻼ ً‪ -‬ﮐﺎﻣﻼ ً[ ﺩﺭ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﺟﺬﺏ‬
‫ﺷﺪﻩﺍﻡ‪.‬‬
‫‪46 .‬‬ ‫– ‪39 .‬‬ ‫‪33 .‬‬ ‫‪.10‬ﺩﺭ ﻃﻮﻝ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﺣﺴﺎﺱ ]ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺲ‪ -‬ﻏﺮﻕ[ ﮐﺮﺩﻡ‪) .‬ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺑﺎ ﮐﺪ ﻣﻌﮑﻮﺱ(‬
‫‪42 .‬‬ ‫‪12 .‬‬ ‫‪30 .‬‬ ‫‪.11‬ﺍﯾﻦ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ]ﺑﺴﯿﺎﺭ – ﺍﺻﻼ[ً ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ‬
‫ﻣﻦﻣﻔﯿﺪ ﺑﻮﺩ‪) .‬ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺑﺎ ﮐﺪ ﻣﻌﮑﻮﺱ(‬

‫* ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺕ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﺎﺩﻩ ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺁﺯﻣﺎﯾﺸﯽ ﺍﺻﻼﺡ ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬

‫‪https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000572‬ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﮐﻤﺒﺮﯾﺞ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‬

 ‫ﻫﻨﺮﯾﺖﺍﻝ ﺁﺭﻧﺖ‬ ‫‪1470‬‬

‫ﺩﺭﺣﺎﻟﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺳﻪ ﻣﻘﯿﺎﺱ ﭘﺎﯾﺎﯾﯽ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﯽ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻗﺒﻮﻟﯽ ﺭﺍ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩﻧﺪ‪2‬ﮐﺮﻭﻧﺒﺎﺥ ‪)α‬ﭼﺮﺥ ﺩﻧﺪﻩ¼‪α ;85:‬ﻟﯿﻨﮓ¼‬
‫‪;73:‬ﻭ ‪(84:¼affα‬ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﮐﻠﯽ ﺗﻮﺻﯿﻪ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﺩ ﮐﻪ ﻣﻘﯿﺎﺱ ﻫﺎﯼ ﭼﻨﺪ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭﻩ ﺑﺎﯾﺪ ﺣﺪﺍﻗﻞ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻪ‬
‫ﻣﺎﺩﻩﺗﺸﮑﯿﻞ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ )ﻣﺜﻼ ً‪ .(2010،Dörnyei‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﯾﻦ‪ ،‬ﻋﻼﻭﻩ ﺑﺮ ﺑﺎﺯﻧﻮﯾﺴﯽ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ‪ 3‬ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻫﺪﻑ‬
‫ﻗﺮﺍﺭﺩﺍﺩﻥ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ ﺑﺎ ﻭﺿﻮﺡ ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮ‪ ،‬ﯾﮏ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺟﺪﯾﺪ ﻧﯿﺰ ﺍﺿﺎﻓﻪ ﺷﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺍﻣﯿﺪ ﻣﯽ ﺭﻭﺩ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ‬
‫ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽﯾﺎ ﻣﯿﺰﺍﻥ ﺗﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺑﺮ ﻭﯾﮋﮔﯽ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺧﺎﺹ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻘﺎﯾﺴﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﯼ ﮐﻠﯽ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﻘﯿﻢ ﺗﺮﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ )"ﺩﺭ ﻃﻮﻝ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺭﺟﻪ ﺍﻭﻝ ﺑﺮ ]‬
‫ﻣﻌﻨﺎﯼﮐﻠﯽ ‪ -‬ﮐﻠﻤﺎﺕ‪/‬ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻓﺮﺩﯼ[ ﺗﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻢ"(‪ .‬ﻭﯾﮋﮔﯽ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩ ﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺁﯾﺘﻢ ﻫﺎﯼ‬
‫ﺍﺻﻼﺡ ﺷﺪﻩ‪/‬ﺟﺪﯾﺪ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﺨﺸﯽ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺭﺯﯾﺎﺑﯽ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭ ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪ ﺩﺍﺭ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ‪ CFA‬ﺩﺭ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪ ‪ 3‬ﻣﻮﺭﺩ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ‪ .‬ﻓﻬﺮﺳﺖ ﻧﻬﺎﯾﯽ ﻣﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ‪ ،‬ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺩﺭ ﺿﻤﯿﻤﻪ ‪ C‬ﻭ‬
‫ﻧﺴﺨﻪﮐﺎﻣﻞ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ‪ ISLE‬ﮔﻨﺠﺎﻧﺪﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪) .‬ﺍﺯ ﺟﻤﻠﻪ ﺳﻮﺍﻻﺕ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﯼ( ﺭﺍ ﻣﯽ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺍﻥﺍﺯ ﭘﺎﯾﮕﺎﻩ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ‪.(2023,IRIS )Arndt‬‬

‫ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ ﺗﺎﯾﯿﺪﯼ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﯼﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﺍﯾﻨﮑﻪ ﺁﯾﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﻣﯽ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻣﻮﺟﻬﯽ ﻣﺘﻤﺎﯾﺰ ﺍﺯ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺩﻭ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ‪ CFA‬ﻣﻘﺎﯾﺴﻪ ﺷﺪﻧﺪ )ﻧﮕﺎﻩ ﮐﻨﯿﺪ ﺑﻪﺷﮑﻞ ‪:(2‬‬

‫ﻣﺪﻝ‪:1‬ﯾﮏ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺳﻪ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ ﺑﺎ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ‪ ،‬ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﭘﻨﻬﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻤﺎﯾﺰﺍﻣﺎ ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﻪ‪.‬‬

‫ﻣﺪﻝ‪:2‬ﯾﮏ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺩﻭ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ ﺑﺎ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ ﻭ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ‪-‬ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﭘﻨﻬﺎﻥ‬

‫ﻣﺘﻤﺎﯾﺰﺍﻣﺎ ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﻪ‪.‬‬

‫ﺑﺮﺍﯼﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻦ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﻪ ﻣﺮﺍﺗﺒﯽ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ‪ ،ISLE‬ﮐﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﻣﺘﻐﯿﺮﯼ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻘﺎﻁ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ‬
‫ﺗﺸﮑﯿﻞﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ )ﮐﻞ ﭘﺎﺳﺦ ﻫﺎ‪n‬ﻭﺭﻭﺩﯼ ﻫﺎﯼ¼‪(1786‬ﺗﻮ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻮ ﺩﺭ ﻣﯿﺎﻥ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ )ﻥﺩﺍﻧﺶ‬
‫ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ¼‪(258‬ﺗﺠﺰﯾﻪ ﻭ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺗﺎﯾﯿﺪﯼ ﭼﻨﺪ ﺳﻄﺤﯽ )‪ (MCFA‬ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺷﺪ‬

‫ﺷﮑﻞ‪.2‬ﻣﺪﻝ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﻪ ﺩﻭ ﻭ ﺳﻪ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ ﻓﺮﺿﯿﻪ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ‪ ،‬ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ‪.‬‬

‫‪2‬ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﺑﻮﺩﻥ ﺁﻟﻔﺎﯼ ﮐﺮﻭﻧﺒﺎﺥ ﺑﺎ ﻣﻘﯿﺎﺱ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺩﻭ ﻣﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﯼ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺯﯾﺮﺍ »ﺗﻘﺮﯾﺒﺎ ًﻫﻤﯿﺸﻪ ﭘﺎﯾﺎﯾﯽ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﯽ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﺩﺳﺖ ﮐﻢﻣﯽ ﮔﯿﺮﺩ‪ ،‬ﮔﺎﻫﯽ ﺍﻭﻗﺎﺕ ﺗﺎ ﺣﺪ ﺯﯾﺎﺩﯼ« )ﺍﯾﺰﯾﻨﮕﺎ ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪ ،2013،‬ﭖ‪ .(641 .‬ﺑﺎ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺣﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﯾﻦ ﯾﮏ ﻣﺸﮑﻞ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪﺣﺎﺿﺮ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﻧﺸﺪ‪ ،‬ﺯﯾﺮﺍ ﺁﻣﺎﺭ ﻣﻘﺎﺩﯾﺮ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻗﺒﻮﻟﯽ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﻘﯿﺎﺱ ﻫﺎ ﺑﺮﻣﯽ ﮔﺮﺩﺍﻧﺪ‪.‬‬

‫‪https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000572‬ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﮐﻤﺒﺮﯾﺞ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‬

‫‪1471‬‬ ‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖﺩﺭ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻏﯿﺮ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ‬

‫ﺑﻪ ﺟﺎﯼﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻤﺮﺍﺕ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺟﻤﻊ ﺁﻭﺭﯼ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻫﺮ ﻧﻔﺮ ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ‪ EFA‬ﻗﺒﻠﯽ‪ MCFA .‬ﻧﻪ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻣﮑﺎﻥﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﺟﺪﺍﮔﺎﻧﻪ ﺍﻟﮕﻮﻫﺎﯼ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭ ﺳﻄﺢ )ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ( ﺭﺍ ﻓﺮﺍﻫﻢ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﻠﮑﻪﺍﻣﮑﺎﻥ ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﻪ ﺍﻣﺘﯿﺎﺯﻫﺎﯼ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ ﺭﺍ ﻧﯿﺰ ﻓﺮﺍﻫﻢ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﺩﻗﯿﻖ ﺳﻄﻮﺡ ﮐﻠﯽ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﻫﺮ‬
‫ﺷﺮﮐﺖﮐﻨﻨﺪﻩ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻨﻌﮑﺲ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﮐﻪ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻣﯿﺎﻧﮕﯿﻦ ﺁﯾﺘﻢ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺳﺎﺩﻩ ﮐﻤﺘﺮ ﻣﻐﺮﺿﺎﻧﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺯﯾﺮﺍ‬
‫ﺁﻧﻬﺎﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﺭﺍ ﺣﺬﻑ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﺭﯾﺎﻧﺲ ﺳﻄﺢ‬
‫ﺗﺠﺰﯾﻪﻭ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺍﻭﻟﯿﻪ )ﭘﯿﻮﺳﺖ ‪ (D‬ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺗﻘﺮﯾﺒﺎ ًﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻣﻌﻤﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺯﯾﻊﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ )ﻣﻘﺎﺩﯾﺮ ﻣﻄﻠﻖ‪3‬ﭼﻮﻟﮕﯽ ﻭ ﮐﺸﯿﺪﮔﯽ ﺑﯿﺶ ﺍﺯ ﺣﺪ >‪ ،(2‬ﺗﺄﯾﯿﺪ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺗﺨﻤﯿﻦﺣﺪﺍﮐﺜﺮ ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻝ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﺍﺳﺖ )‪ .(2010 ,Byrne‬ﺩﻭ ‪ MCFA‬ﺍﻭﻟﯿﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻣﻘﺎﯾﺴﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﺯﺵ‬
‫ﺩﻭﻣﺪﻝ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﯼ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺷﺪﺷﮑﻞ ‪ .2‬ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻫﺎ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ‬
‫ﭘﻨﻬﺎﻥ)ﺑﯿﻀﯽ( ﮐﻪ ‪ 9‬ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ )ﻣﺴﺘﻄﯿﻞ( ﺭﻭﯼ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﺭﮔﺬﺍﺭﯼ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺘﻤﺎﯾﺰ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﻫﺮ‬
‫ﺁﯾﺘﻢﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﻮﺩ ﮐﻪ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺭﻭﯼ ﯾﮏ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﺎﺭﮔﺬﺍﺭﯼ ﺷﻮﺩ )ﻓﻠﺶ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺭﻭ ﺑﻪ ﭘﺎﯾﯿﻦ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺘﻐﯿﺮﻫﺎﯼ‬
‫ﭘﻨﻬﺎﻥﺑﻪ ﻣﺘﻐﯿﺮﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ( ﻭ ﺍﺻﻄﻼﺣﺎﺕ ﺧﻄﺎ )ﻓﻠﺶ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺩﻭ ﺳﺮ ﻣﻨﺤﻨﯽ ﺩﺭ ﮐﻨﺎﺭ ﻫﺮ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻐﯿﺮ( ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﯽ ﻧﺪﺍﺷﺘﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﺭﯾﺎﻧﺲ ﺧﻄﺎﯼ ﻣﺘﻐﯿﺮﻫﺎﯼ ﭘﻨﻬﺎﻥ ﺑﻪ ﯾﮏ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﺷﺪ ﺗﺎ ﺍﻣﮑﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﯾﯽﻣﺪﻝ ﻓﺮﺍﻫﻢ ﺷﻮﺩ )‪ ;2013,Blunch‬ﺑﺮﻥ‪ .(2010،‬ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺩﺭ ﻫﺮ ﺩﻭ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ‬
‫ﻭﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﻩ ﯾﮑﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﻮﺩ‪.‬‬

‫ﺩﺭﻃﻮﻝ ﺗﺠﺰﯾﻪ ﻭ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﺍﻭﻟﯿﻪ‪ ،‬ﻫﺮ ﺩﻭ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺩﺭﺳﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺯﯾﺮ ﺳﻄﻮﺡ ﺑﺮﺍﺯﺵ ﮐﻠﯽ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺭﺳﯿﺪﻧﺪ)ﻧﮕﺎﻩ ﮐﻨﯿﺪ ﺑﻪﺟﺪﻭﻝ ‪ ،3‬ﺍﮔﺮﭼﻪ ﻣﺪﻝ ‪ 1‬ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺗﻮﺟﻬﯽ ﺑﻬﺘﺮ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺪﻝ ‪Δ) 2‬ﺍﯾﮑﺲ‪¼-4½2‬‬
‫‪.(001p>:،128:42‬ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﯾﯽ ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻟﯽ ﻧﺎﺳﺎﺯﮔﺎﺭﯼ‪ ،‬ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺍﺻﻼﺡ )‪ (MI‬ﻭ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺭﻫﺎﯼﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺁﯾﺘﻢ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻣﯿﺰﺍﻥ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﺍﯾﺠﺎﺩ ﺗﻐﯿﯿﺮﺍﺕ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻫﺎﯼ‬
‫‪ CFA‬ﺑﺮ ﺍﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ :‬ﺑﺮﺧﯽ ﺍﺳﺘﺪﻻﻝ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ ﮐﻪ ﻣﺤﻘﻘﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺑﺎﯾﺪﺑﻪ ‪ EFA‬ﺑﺮﮔﺮﺩﻧﺪ ﺗﺎ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﺗﺮﯼ ﺭﺍ ﺑﯿﺎﺑﻨﺪ ﻭ ﻣﺘﻌﺎﻗﺒﺎ ًﻣﺠﺪﺩﺍ ًﺁﺯﻣﺎﯾﺶ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ )ﻣﺜﻼ ًﺑﺮﺍﻭﻥ‪،‬‬
‫‪ (2001‬ﺩﺭ ﺣﺎﻟﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺩﯾﮕﺮﺍﻥ ﺣﺬﻑ ﻣﻮﺍﺭﺩﯼ ﺭﺍ ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﻣﻮﺛﺮ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻧﺎﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ‬
‫ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ‪،‬ﯾﺎ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﮐﺮﺩﻥ ﺑﺮﺧﯽ ﻭﺍﺭﯾﺎﻧﺲ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺧﻄﺎ ﺩﺭ ﯾﮏ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﻣﯽ ﺩﺍﻧﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻫﻤﭽﻨﯿﻦﻫﺸﺪﺍﺭ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﻨﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺗﻐﯿﯿﺮﺍﺕ ﺑﺎﯾﺪ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺩﺭ ﺟﺎﯾﯽ ﺍﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺷﻮﻧﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺘﻮﺍﻥ ﺗﻮﺿﯿﺢ ﻧﻈﺮﯼ‬
‫ﭘﯿﺪﺍﮐﺮﺩ )ﻣﺜﻼ‪ ;2013،Blunch ً،‬ﺑﺮﻥ‪ ;2010 ،‬ﺍﺷﻤﯿﺖ‪ .(2011،‬ﺍﺯ ﺁﻧﺠﺎﯾﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﻭ ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﮐﻨﻮﻧﯽ ﻣﺎﻧﻊ ﺍﺯ ﺑﺎﺯﮔﺸﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪ ﻃﺮﺍﺣﯽ ﺍﻭﻟﯿﻪ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭ ﻣﯽ ﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﻘﻖ ﺗﺼﻤﯿﻢ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﯼﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﯾﯽ ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﻧﺎﻫﻤﺎﻫﻨﮕﯽ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻫﺮ ﮐﺠﺎ ﮐﻪ ﻻﺯﻡ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﻭ ﺗﻐﯿﯿﺮﺍﺕ ﭘﯿﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩﯼ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺎﺭﯾﻒﻧﻈﺮﯼ ﺳﺎﺯﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﭘﻨﻬﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎ ‪ MIs‬ﻣﺸﻮﺭﺕ ﮐﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺕ ﺑﻨﺪﯼ ﻣﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﻣﻨﻔﺮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﯿﻦ‬
‫ﯾﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ‪ EFAs‬ﺩﺭ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪ ‪.2‬‬

‫ﺩﺭﻫﺮ ﺩﻭ ﻣﺪﻝ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﻣﯿﻦ ﺁﯾﺘﻢ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ )‪" :Ling3‬ﺩﺭ ﻃﻮﻝ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ‪ ،‬ﺭﻭﯼ ]ﻣﻌﻨﺎﯼ ﮐﻠﯽ‬
‫‪-‬ﮐﻠﻤﺎﺕ‪/‬ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻓﺮﺩﯼ[ ﺗﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﮐﺮﺩﻡ"( ﺑﻪ ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﺑﺎﺭﻫﺎﯼ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ ﺑﺴﯿﺎﺭ ﮐﻢ ﺁﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ )‬
‫‪0.03‬ﻭ ‪ (.‬ﺑﺮﺟﺴﺘﻪ ﺷﺪ‪ (15 .‬ﻭ ﺑﺎﺭﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﻨﻔﯽ ﺩﺭ ﺳﻄﺢ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﻩ‪ MI .‬ﻫﻤﭽﻨﯿﻦ ﺑﺎﺭﮔﺬﺍﺭﯼ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻘﺎﻃﻊﺯﯾﺎﺩ ﻭ ﻏﯿﺮﻣﻨﺘﻈﺮﻩ ﺍﯼ ﺭﺍ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩ‬

‫ﺟﺪﻭﻝ‪.3‬ﺁﻣﺎﺭ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﺑﻮﺩﻥ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻫﺎﯼ ‪ MCFA‬ﺩﻭ ﻭ ﺳﻪ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ‬

‫‪*plSRMR‬‬ ‫‪*alSRMR‬‬ ‫‪RMSEA‬‬ ‫‪TLI‬‬ ‫‪CFI‬‬ ‫ﭖ‬ ‫‪df‬‬ ‫ﺍﯾﮑﺲ‪2‬‬ ‫ﻣﺪﻝ‬

‫‪25 .‬‬ ‫‪10 .‬‬ ‫‪09 .‬‬ ‫‪78 .‬‬ ‫‪85 .‬‬ ‫>‪001.‬‬ ‫‪48‬‬ ‫‪502.24‬‬ ‫ﻣﺪﻝ‪1‬‬
‫‪19 .‬‬ ‫‪07 .‬‬ ‫‪08 .‬‬ ‫‪87 .‬‬ ‫‪92 .‬‬ ‫>‪001.‬‬ ‫‪34‬‬ ‫‪297.26‬‬ ‫ﻣﺪﻝ‪ 1‬ﺑﻪ ﺍﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﯼ ‪ Ling3‬ﻣﺪﻝ ‪،1‬‬
‫‪06 .‬‬ ‫‪04 .‬‬ ‫‪05 .‬‬ ‫‪95 .‬‬ ‫‪95 .‬‬ ‫>‪001.‬‬ ‫‪34‬‬ ‫‪220.69‬‬ ‫‪ Cog2‬ﺩﺭ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺑﺎﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺍﺳﺖ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ‬
‫‪25 .‬‬ ‫‪10 .‬‬ ‫‪10 .‬‬ ‫‪72 .‬‬ ‫‪80 .‬‬ ‫>‪001.‬‬ ‫‪52‬‬ ‫‪630.66‬‬ ‫ﻣﺪﻝ‪2‬‬
‫‪20 .‬‬ ‫‪10 .‬‬ ‫‪10 .‬‬ ‫‪82 .‬‬ ‫‪87 .‬‬ ‫>‪001.‬‬ ‫‪38‬‬ ‫‪436.37‬‬ ‫ﻣﺪﻝ‪ 2‬ﺑﻪ ﺍﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﯼ ﻟﯿﻨﮓ‪3‬‬

‫* ﻣﺸﺘﺮﮐﯿﻦ‪al‬ﻭ‪pl‬ﺑﻪ ﺗﺮﺗﯿﺐ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻭ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﻩ ﻣﺮﺍﺟﻌﻪ ﮐﻨﯿﺪ‪.‬‬

‫‪3‬ﺑﻪ ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﺑﺴﯿﺎﺭ ﺯﯾﺎﺩ ﻧﻘﺎﻁ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﺟﺎﯼ ‪ z-score‬ﺍﺯ ﻣﻘﺎﺩﯾﺮ ﻣﻄﻠﻖ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺷﺪ )ﮐﯿﻢ‪.(2013 ،‬‬

‫‪https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000572‬ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﮐﻤﺒﺮﯾﺞ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‬

 ‫ﻫﻨﺮﯾﺖﺍﻝ ﺁﺭﻧﺖ‬ ‫‪1472‬‬

‫ﺷﮑﻞ‪.3‬ﻣﺪﻝ ﻧﻬﺎﯾﯽ ﺳﻪ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ‪ ،‬ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ‪.‬‬

‫ﻣﻮﺭﺩﺭﻭﯼ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ ﺍﯾﻦ ﯾﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻫﺎ ﺑﺎ ﻫﻢ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﻨﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺁﯾﺘﻢ ﻣﺴﺉﻮﻝ ﺑﺨﺶ ﺑﺰﺭﮔﯽ‬
‫ﺍﺯﻋﺪﻡ ﺗﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﻣﻌﯿﺎﺭ ﺧﻮﺑﯽ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﻧﯿﺴﺖ‪ .‬ﯾﮏ ﺗﻮﺿﯿﺢ ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻟﯽ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ‬
‫ﺍﯾﻦﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺁﯾﺘﻢ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮ ﺷﺪﻥ ﺑﺎ ﻭﯾﮋﮔﯽ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻭﺍﮊﮔﺎﻧﯽ ﺭﺍ ﻫﺪﻑ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ‬
‫ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﺪﺩﺭ ﺣﺎﻟﯽ ﮐﻪ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﺵ ﺁﮔﺎﻫﺎﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺩﺳﺘﻮﺭ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻭ ﻭﺍﺝ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﯽ ﺭﺍ ﻧﺎﺩﯾﺪﻩ ﻣﯽ ﮔﯿﺮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﭘﺲﺍﺯ ﺣﺬﻑ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺁﯾﺘﻢ‪ ،‬ﻣﺪﻝ ﺳﻪ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﺎﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺗﻮﺟﻬﯽ ﺑﺮﺍﺯﺵ ﺑﻬﺘﺮﯼ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻣﺪﻝﺩﻭ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺳﺖ ﺁﻭﺭﺩ‪)Δ .‬ﺍﯾﮑﺲ‪.(001p > :،139:11¼-4½2‬ﻫﻤﺮﺍﻩ ﺑﺎ ﺑﺎﺭﻫﺎﯼ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﺎﻻﺗﺮ‬
‫ﮐﻠﯽﺩﺭ ﻣﺪﻝ ‪ ،1‬ﺍﯾﻦ ﯾﮏ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﯼ ﻗﻮﯼ ﺗﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺭﺍﻩ ﺣﻞ ﺳﻪ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ ﺭﺍ ﭘﯿﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩ ﮐﺮﺩ‪.‬‬

‫ﺩﺭﺣﺎﻟﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﺯﺵ ﻣﺪﻝ ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﺣﺬﻑ ‪Ling3 )Δ‬ﺍﯾﮑﺲ‪(001p>: ،363¼-14½2‬ﺭﺍ‪TLI‬ﻭ‪SRMR‬‬

‫‪p:l:‬ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻣﺪﻝ ‪ 1‬ﻫﻨﻮﺯ ﮐﺎﻣﻼ ًﺩﺭ ﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩﻩ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻧﺒﻮﺩ‪ MI .‬ﭘﯿﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩ ﮐﺮﺩ ﮐﻪ ﯾﮑﯽ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺁﯾﺘﻢ ﻫﺎﯼﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ )‪» Cog2‬ﻣﻦ ]ﺍﺻﻼ ً‪ -‬ﮐﺎﻣﻼ[ً ﺑﺮ ﺗﻼﺵ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺩﺭﮎ ﺗﮏ ﺗﮏ ﮐﻠﻤﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻤﺮﮐﺰﺑﻮﺩﻡ«( ﺑﺎﺭﮔﺬﺍﺭﯼ ﺍﺳﺎﺳﯽ ﺗﺮﯼ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩ‪ .‬ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺍﯾﻨﮑﻪ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺁﯾﺘﻢ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩ ﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﻃﺮﺍﺣﯽ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﺠﺐ ﺁﻭﺭ ﻧﺒﻮﺩ )ﺍﻣﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺷﮑﻠﯽ ﻗﻮﯼ ﺗﺮ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﺩﺭ ‪ EFA‬ﻇﺎﻫﺮ ﺷﺪ(‪ .‬ﺍﺟﺎﺯﻩ ﺩﺍﺩﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺑﺎﺭﮔﺬﺍﺭﯼ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﻣﻨﺠﺮ‬
‫ﺑﻪﺗﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻋﺎﻟﯽ ﺷﺪ )ﻧﮕﺎﻩ ﮐﻨﯿﺪ ﺑﻪ ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ‪.(3‬ﺷﮑﻞ ‪3‬ﺑﺎﺭﻫﺎﯼ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﺳﺘﺎﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ ﺷﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﺭﯾﺎﻧﺲ‬
‫ﻫﺎﯼﺧﻄﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﯽ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﭘﻨﻬﺎﻥ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻧﻬﺎﯾﯽ ﺭﺍ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﺪ‪.‬‬

‫ﺩﺭﻧﻬﺎﯾﺖ‪ ،‬ﺿﺮﺍﯾﺐ ﭘﺎﯾﺎﯾﯽ ﺗﺮﮐﯿﺒﯽ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ‪ ،‬ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺩﺭ ﻫﺮ ﺩﻭ ﺳﻄﺢ‬
‫ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖﻭ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﻩ )ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ‪ (4‬ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺑﺎﺭﻫﺎﯼ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﺳﺘﺎﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﻭ ﻭﺍﺭﯾﺎﻧﺲ ﻫﺎﯼ‬
‫ﺧﻄﺎﯼﺫﮐﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺘﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﻪ ﺷﺪﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺳﺎﺯﮔﺎﺭﯼ ﺩﺭﻭﻧﯽ ﺧﻮﺑﯽ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺳﻪ ﻣﻘﯿﺎﺱ‬
‫ﻧﺸﺎﻥﺩﺍﺩﻧﺪ )ﻫﻤﻪ < ‪;80:‬ﻣﻮ ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪.(2016،‬‬

‫ﺟﺪﻭﻝ‪.4‬ﭘﺎﯾﺎﯾﯽ ﺗﺮﮐﯿﺒﯽ ﻣﻘﯿﺎﺱ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ‪ ،‬ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ‬

‫ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ‬ ‫ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ‬ ‫ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ‬

‫‪82 .‬‬ ‫‪82 .‬‬ ‫‪81 .‬‬ ‫ﺳﻄﺢﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ‬

‫‪92 .‬‬ ‫‪89 .‬‬ ‫‪97 .‬‬ ‫ﺳﻄﺢﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﻩ‬

‫‪https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000572‬ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﮐﻤﺒﺮﯾﺞ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‬

‫‪1473‬‬ ‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖﺩﺭ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻏﯿﺮ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ‬

‫ﺟﺪﻭﻝ‪.5‬ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﯽ ﺗﺮﺗﯿﺐ ﺭﺗﺒﻪ ﺍﺳﭙﯿﺮﻣﻦ ﺑﯿﻦ ﻓﺮﺍﻭﺍﻧﯽ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺩﺭ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻭ ﻓﺮﮐﺎﻧﺲ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺳﺖ ﺁﻣﺪﻩ‬
‫ﺍﺯﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ‪) ISLE‬ﻣﯿﺎﻧﮕﯿﻦ ﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﻭﺭﻭﺩﯼ ﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺭﻭﺯ(‬

‫‪n‬‬ ‫ﭖ‬ ‫‪r‬ﺱ‬ ‫ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ‬

‫‪254‬‬ ‫>‪001.‬‬ ‫‪22 .‬‬ ‫ﮐﺘﺎﺏﻫﺎ‬

‫‪255‬‬ ‫‪170.‬‬ ‫‪09 .‬‬ ‫ﻣﺠﻼﺕ‬
‫‪258‬‬ ‫>‪001.‬‬ ‫‪29 .‬‬ ‫ﻣﻮﺳﯿﻘﯽ‬
‫‪258‬‬ ‫>‪001.‬‬ ‫‪22 .‬‬ ‫ﻓﯿﻠﻢﻫﺎﯼ‬
‫‪257‬‬ ‫>‪001.‬‬ ‫‪42 .‬‬ ‫ﺳﺮﯾﺎﻝﺗﻠﻮﯾﺰﯾﻮﻧﯽ‬
‫‪258‬‬ ‫>‪001.‬‬ ‫‪24 .‬‬ ‫ﺭﺳﺎﻧﻪﻫﺎﯼ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯽ‬
‫‪254‬‬ ‫>‪001.‬‬ ‫‪48 .‬‬ ‫ﺑﺎﺯﯼﻫﺎﯼ ﻭﯾﺪﯾﻮﯾﯽ‬
‫‪258‬‬ ‫>‪001.‬‬ ‫‪46 .‬‬ ‫ﺟﻤﻊ‬

‫ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﯼ‬
‫) ﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺧﻮﺩﮔﺰﺍﺭﺷﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﺨﺸﯽ ﺍﺯ ﺑﺰﺭﮔﺘﺮ ﺍﺟﺮﺍ ﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ‪ ISLP‬ﻭ ﺗﺨﻤﯿﻦ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺍﺯ ﻓﺮﺍﻭﺍﻧﯽ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺩﺭ (ﻣﯿﺎﻧﮕﯿﻦ ﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﻭﺭﻭﺩﯼ‬
‫ﻫﺎﺩﺭ ﺭﻭﺯ) ‪ ISLE‬ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﯽ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺗﺮﺗﯿﺐ ﺭﺗﺒﻪ ﺍﺳﭙﯿﺮﻣﻦ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺍﺭﺯﯾﺎﺑﯽ ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ‬
‫ﺑﯿﻦﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ‪RQ2‬ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ‪.(5‬‬
‫ﺑﻪﻃﻮﺭ ﮐﻠﯽ‪ ،‬ﯾﮏ ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﯽ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﺑﯿﻦ ﻓﺮﺍﻭﺍﻧﯽ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺩﺭ ‪ISLP‬ﻫﺎ ﻫﻤﺎﻧﻄﻮﺭ ﮐﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﯾﻖ‬
‫ﺩﻭﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﺵ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﻮﺩ )‪r‬ﺱ¼‪.(001p>:،46:‬ﻋﻼﻭﻩ ﺑﺮ ﺍﯾﻦ‪ ،‬ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺟﺪﺍﮔﺎﻧﻪ ﺑﺮ ﺍﺳﺎﺱ‬
‫ﻧﻮﻉﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺩﻭ ﻣﻌﯿﺎﺭ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺗﻤﺎﺷﺎﯼ ﺳﺮﯾﺎﻝ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺗﻠﻮﯾﺰﯾﻮﻧﯽ ﻭ ﺑﺎﺯﯼ ﻫﺎﯼ‬
‫ﻭﯾﺪﯾﻮﯾﯽﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮ ﻣﻄﺎﺑﻘﺖ ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ‪r.‬ﺱ¼‪42:‬ﻭ ‪ 48.‬ﺑﻪ ﺗﺮﺗﯿﺐ( ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻮﺍﻧﺪﻥ ﮐﺘﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﺗﻤﺎﺷﺎﯼ‬
‫ﻓﯿﻠﻢ‪،‬ﮔﻮﺵ ﺩﺍﺩﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻮﺳﯿﻘﯽ ﻭ ﺷﺒﮑﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯽ )‪r‬ﺱ‬
‫ﺑﯿﻦ‪ 0.22‬ﻭ ‪ .(0.29‬ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﯽ ﻫﺎ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺁﻣﺎﺭﯼ ﻣﻌﻨﯽ ﺩﺍﺭ ﺑﻮﺩ )‪(001p>:‬ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻫﻤﻪ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺟﺰﺧﻮﺍﻧﺪﻥ ﻣﺠﻼﺕ )‪r‬ﺱ¼‪،09:‬ﭖ¼‪.(170:‬‬

‫ﺑﺤﺚ‬
‫ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ‪ ،‬ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ‬
‫ﺑﺨﺶﺍﻭﻝ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺑﺮ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ ﺯﯾﺮﺑﻨﺎﯼ ﺁﯾﺘﻢ ﻫﺎﯼ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ‪ ISLE‬ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ‬
‫ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ‪،‬ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ )‪ (RQ1‬ﻣﺘﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺗﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﻭﯾﮋﻩ ﺑﺮ ﺗﻤﺎﯾﺰ ﭘﯿﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩﯼ ﺑﯿﻦ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ‬
‫ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﻓﺰﻭﺩﻧﯽ ﺟﺪﯾﺪ ﺑﻪ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺍﻓﺰﺍﯾﺶ ﮐﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩ ﺁﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺯﻣﯿﻨﻪ‬
‫‪ SLA‬ﺑﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﻫﺮ ﺩﻭ ﻧﺘﺎﯾﺞ ‪ EFA‬ﻭ ‪ MCFA‬ﺍﺯ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺳﺎﺯﯼ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺩﻭ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺘﻐﯿﺮﻫﺎﯼ ﺟﺪﺍﮔﺎﻧﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻣﺎﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﭘﺸﺘﯿﺒﺎﻧﯽ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﻫﻤﺎﻧﻄﻮﺭ ﮐﻪ ﻓﺮﺽ ﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺪﻟﯽ ﺑﺎ ﺳﻪ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ )ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ‬
‫ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ‪،‬ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ( ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﻬﺘﺮﯾﻦ ﺭﺍﻩ ﺣﻞ ‪ EFA‬ﻇﺎﻫﺮ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ‪ MCFA‬ﻧﯿﺰ‪ ،‬ﻣﺪﻝ ﺳﻪ‬
‫ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽﺑﺎ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺗﻮﺟﻬﯽ ﺑﻬﺘﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺭﺍﻩ ﺣﻞ ﺩﻭ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ ﻣﻄﺎﺑﻘﺖ ﺩﺍﺷﺖ‪ ،‬ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺁﻥﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺩﺭ ﯾﮏ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﺗﺮﮐﯿﺐ ﺷﺪﻧﺪ‪.‬‬

‫ﺑﺮﺧﯽﺍﺯ ﻣﻮﺍﺭﺩﯼ ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺷﺪﺕ ﺑﺮ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ ﻣﺘﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﻧﺘﯿﺠﻪ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺗﺠﺰﯾﻪﻭ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﺣﺬﻑ ﺷﺪﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﯾﻦ‪ ،‬ﻣﺪﻝ ﻧﻬﺎﯾﯽ )ﺷﮑﻞ ‪ (3‬ﻓﻘﻂ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﺩﻭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ‬
‫ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽﺑﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺣﺎﻟﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﯼ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ‪ ISLE‬ﻓﻘﻂ ﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﮐﻤﯽ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ )ﺑﺮﺍﯼ‬
‫ﮐﺎﻫﺶﺑﺎﺭ ﻭ ﺍﻓﺰﺍﯾﺶ ﺍﻧﻄﺒﺎﻕ ﺯﻣﺎﻧﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﻣﺠﺒﻮﺭ ﺑﻪ ﭘﺮ ﮐﺮﺩﻥ ﯾﮏ ﻧﻈﺮﺳﻨﺠﯽ ﯾﮑﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ(‪ ،‬ﻣﺘﻐﯿﺮﻫﺎﯼ ﭘﻨﻬﺎﻥ ﻣﻌﻤﻮﻻ ًﺑﺎﯾﺪ ﺣﺪﺍﻗﻞ ﺑﺎ ﺳﻪ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺷﻮﻧﺪ )‪2010، .(Dörnyei‬‬
‫; ﺍﮔﺮﭼﻪ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﻣﻌﯿﺎﺭﻫﺎﯼ ﺗﮏ ﯾﺎ ﺩﻭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩﯼ ﺩﺭ ﺻﻮﺭﺗﯽ ﻣﯽ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﻨﺪ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ‬
‫ﻭﻣﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﭘﺎﺳﺦ ﺩﻫﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﻭ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﺑﻬﺎﻡ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺁﯾﻨﻠﯽ ﻭ ﭘﺎﺗﺮﯾﮏ‪.(2006،‬‬
‫ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﯾﻦ‪،‬ﺳﺆﺍﻻﺕ ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮﯼ ﮐﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﺭﺍ ﻫﺪﻑ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﻨﺪ ﺑﺎﯾﺪ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﺨﺸﯽ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺗﮑﺮﺍﺭﻫﺎﯼﺁﺗﯽ ‪ ISLE‬ﺁﺯﻣﺎﯾﺶ ﺷﻮﻧﺪ‪.‬‬

‫‪https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000572‬ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﮐﻤﺒﺮﯾﺞ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‬

 ‫ﻫﻨﺮﯾﺖﺍﻝ ﺁﺭﻧﺖ‬ ‫‪1474‬‬

‫ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺑﻪ ﺷﺪﺕ ﺩﺭ ‪ ،MCFA‬ﻫﻢ ﺩﺭ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻭ ﻫﻢ ﺩﺭ ﺳﻄﺢ‬

‫ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﻩ‪،‬ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﯽ ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺎ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺣﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﯽ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻗﻮﯼ ﻣﺸﺎﺑﻬﯽ ﺑﯿﻦ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ‬
‫ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽﻭ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ ﻧﯿﺰ ﯾﺎﻓﺖ ﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺣﺎﻟﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﻭ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﯽ ﺿﻌﯿﻔﯽ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻨﺪ‪.‬ﻋﺪﻡ ﺗﻘﺎﺭﻥ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﯽ ﻫﺎ ﺍﺯ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻧﺘﯿﺠﻪ ﺣﻤﺎﯾﺖ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ‪ ،‬ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ‬
‫ﻭﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺳﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﺠﺰﺍ ﺍﻣﺎ ﺑﺴﯿﺎﺭ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎ ﻫﻢ ﺭﺍ ﺗﺸﮑﯿﻞ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﻫﻤﺎﻧﻄﻮﺭ ﮐﻪ ﻓﺮﺿﯿﻪ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬‬

‫ﺩﺭﻭﺍﻗﻊ‪ ،‬ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﯽ ﺑﯿﻦ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ‪ ،‬ﭘﯿﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩﺍﺗﯽ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﭼﮕﻮﻧﮕﯽ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﭘﻮﯾﺎ ﺍﺑﻌﺎﺩ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞﺍﺭﺍﺉﻪ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﮐﯿﻔﯽ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﮔﺮﻭﻩ ﻣﺘﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪ ‪ 1‬ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﺪ‬
‫ﮐﻪﻣﯿﺰﺍﻥ ﺗﻮﺟﻬﯽ ﮐﻪ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﻧﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﻃﻮﻝ ‪) ISLP‬ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ( ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ ﺗﺎ ﺣﺪ ﺯﯾﺎﺩﯼ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ‬
‫ﺑﻪﺍﯾﻨﮑﻪ ﭼﻘﺪﺭ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺟﺎﻟﺐ ﻭ ﻟﺬﺕ ﺑﺨﺶ ﻣﯽ ﺩﺍﻧﻨﺪ )ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ( ﺗﻌﯿﯿﻦ‬
‫ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬ﻣﻘﺪﺍﺭ ﻣﺸﺨﺼﯽ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻮﺑﻪ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﻩ ﻭ ﺭﻣﺰﮔﺸﺎﯾﯽ ﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﻭﯾﮋﮔﯽ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ )‬
‫ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ( ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻧﯿﺎﺯ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﯽ ﺭﺳﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺮﺗﯿﺐ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﯽ ﻗﻮﯼ ﺑﯿﻦ‬
‫ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ ﻭ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﻣﻨﻌﮑﺲ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﻫﻤﯿﻦ ﺣﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮﺧﯽ‬
‫ﺍﺯﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ )ﻣﻌﻤﻮﻻ ًﺑﺎ ﻣﻬﺎﺭﺕ ﮐﻤﺘﺮ( ﺩﺭ ﻣﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪ ﻫﺎ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﺵ ﮐﺮﺩﻧﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺭﺳﯿﺪﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻄﺢ‬
‫ﮐﺎﻓﯽﺍﺯ ﺩﺭﮎ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﯾﺪ ﺭﻭﯼ ﺭﻣﺰﮔﺸﺎﯾﯽ ﻭﯾﮋﮔﯽ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺧﺎﺹ ﺗﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ ‪ -‬ﻭ ﻫﻤﯿﻦ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﻧﺪﮔﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻫﻤﭽﻨﯿﻦﺗﻮﺿﯿﺢ ﺩﺍﺩﻧﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﻟﺬﺕ ﮐﻤﺘﺮﯼ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻮﺩ‬
‫ﻣﯽ ﺑﺮﻧﺪ‪.‬ﻫﻤﺴﺎﻻﻥ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﻫﻨﺪﻩ ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ ﻣﻨﻔﯽ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺑﺮ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﻣﯽ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﯽ ﺿﻌﯿﻒ ﺗﺮ ﺑﯿﻦ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺩﻭ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ‪ MCFA‬ﺗﻮﺿﯿﺢ ﺩﻫﺪ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ‪،‬ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﺑﯿﻦ ﺍﺑﻌﺎﺩ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺭﺍ ﻧﻤﯽ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻨﻬﺎﯾﯽ ﺍﺯ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﯽ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺒﺎﻁ‬
‫ﮐﺮﺩ‪.‬ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎﺕ ﻃﻮﻟﯽ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺳﺖ ﺁﻭﺭﺩﻥ ﺩﺭﮎ ﺑﻬﺘﺮﯼ ﺍﺯ ﻧﺤﻮﻩ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻭ ﺗﻐﯿﯿﺮ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ )ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﯾﮏﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻏﯿﺮ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﯾﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻃﻮﻻﻧﯽ ﺗﺮ(‪ ،‬ﻣﺘﻐﯿﺮﻫﺎﯾﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺮ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺗﻐﯿﯿﺮﺍﺕ ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ ﻣﯽ‬
‫ﮔﺬﺍﺭﻧﺪ‪،‬ﻭ ﺭﺍﻩ ﻫﺎﯾﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺑﺎ ﻧﺘﺎﯾﺞ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻧﯿﺎﺯ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬

‫ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﯼ‬
‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪﺩﻭﻡ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﻫﺎ ﺑﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﯾﺴﻪ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﯼ ‪ ISLE‬ﺑﺎ ﻧﻮﻉ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﯽ ﺧﻮﺩ‬
‫ﮔﺰﺍﺭﺷﯽﮐﻪ ﻣﻌﻤﻮﻻ ًﺩﺭ ﺳﺎﯾﺮ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎﺕ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻣﺘﻤﺮﮐﺰ‬
‫ﺑﻮﺩ‪.‬ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﮐﻠﯽ‪ ،‬ﻓﺮﺍﻭﺍﻧﯽ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺩﺭ ‪ ISLP‬ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻫﻤﺎﻧﻄﻮﺭ ﮐﻪ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ‪ISLE‬‬
‫ﻧﺸﺎﻥﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺑﺎ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﯾﮑﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻄﯽ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ ،‬ﮐﻪ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﯽ‬
‫ﺩﻫﺪﻫﺮ ﺩﻭ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺗﺼﻮﯾﺮ ﮐﻤﯽ ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺍﺯ ‪ ISLP‬ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺍﺭﺍﺉﻪ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﮔﺮﭼﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﻭﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻌﯿﺎﺭﻣﺮﺟﻊ‪ ،‬ﻧﻤﯽ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﯿﻢ ﺑﺪﺍﻧﯿﻢ ﮐﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺩﻗﯿﻖ ﺗﺮﯼ ﺍﺭﺍﺉﻪ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﺎﺕ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺩﻩﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﺵ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺷﺨﺼﯽ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﯽ ﻣﯽ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﻨﺪ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﺧﻄﺎﻫﺎﯼ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩ ﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻧﺎﺷﯽ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺳﻮﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻫﺎﯼﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺷﮑﺴﺖ ﺩﺭ ﯾﺎﺩﺁﻭﺭﯼ ﺁﺳﯿﺐ ﭘﺬﯾﺮ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ )ﺑﻪ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﻫﺎﯼ ‪ Hektner‬ﻭ‬
‫ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥﻣﺮﺍﺟﻌﻪ ﮐﻨﯿﺪ‪ ;2011،‬ﺷﯿﻔﻤﻦ ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪ .(2008،‬ﺑﻪ ﻧﻮﺑﻪ ﺧﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺭﻭﺵ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻟﯽ‬
‫ﺭﻭﯾﺪﺍﺩ‪،‬ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ‪ ،ISLE‬ﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮ ﺗﺤﺖ ﺗﺎﺛﯿﺮ ﻭﺍﮐﻨﺶ ﭘﺬﯾﺮﯼ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﯿﺮﻧﺪ )ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﻫﺎﯼﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﻧﺘﯿﺠﻪ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺗﻐﯿﯿﺮ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻼ ًﺑﻪ ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﺍﻓﺰﺍﯾﺶ ﺁﮔﺎﻫﯽ( ﻭ‬
‫ﻋﺎﺩﺕ)ﮐﺎﻫﺶ ﺑﺎﺯﺗﺎﺏ ﻭ ﺩﻗﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﺗﮑﻤﯿﻞ ﻣﮑﺮﺭ ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﻧﻈﺮﺳﻨﺠﯽ( )ﺑﻮﻟﮕﺮ ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪.(2003،‬‬

‫ﺑﺎﺍﯾﻦ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺩﻟﯿﻠﯽ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺎﻭﺭ ﮐﻨﯿﻢ ‪ ISLE‬ﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺛﺒﺖ ﺍﻟﮕﻮﻫﺎﯼ ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﻫﺎﯼ‬
‫ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺭﻭﺯﻣﺮﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺍﯾﻨﺘﺮﻧﺖ )ﻣﻘﺎﯾﺴﻪ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼﺭﺩﯾﺎﺑﯽ ﻭ ﻧﻈﺮﺳﻨﺠﯽ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﯾﻖ ﺗﻠﻔﻦ ﻫﻤﺮﺍﻩ( ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺍﻓﺮﺍﺩﯼ ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻣﮑﺮﺭ ﺍﻣﺎ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ‬
‫ﻣﺪﺕﮐﻮﺗﺎﻫﯽ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﺵ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻧﻈﺮﺳﻨﺠﯽ ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ ﻧﮕﺮ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺩﻗﺖ ﮐﻤﺘﺮﯼ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻨﺪ‬
‫)‪ Araujo‬ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪ .(2017،‬ﺩﺭ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ‪ ،‬ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﯽ ﺑﯿﻦ ‪ ISLE‬ﻭ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﯽ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﯼﻣﺮﻭﺭ ﺭﺳﺎﻧﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯽ ﻭ ﮔﻮﺵ ﺩﺍﺩﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻮﺳﯿﻘﯽ )ﯾﻌﻨﯽ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯾﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ‬
‫ﺑﻪﻃﻮﺭ ﻣﮑﺮﺭ ﺍﻣﺎ ﻣﺨﺘﺼﺮ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ( ﮐﻤﺘﺮ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺪﺕ ﻃﻮﻻﻧﯽ ﺗﺮ ﺑﻮﺩ‪.‬‬

‫‪https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000572‬ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﮐﻤﺒﺮﯾﺞ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‬

‫‪1475‬‬ ‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖﺩﺭ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻏﯿﺮ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ‬

‫ﺗﻤﺮﯾﻦﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺪﺍﻭﻡ ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺗﻤﺎﺷﺎﯼ ﺗﻠﻮﯾﺰﯾﻮﻥ ﯾﺎ ﺑﺎﺯﯼ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻭﯾﺪﯾﻮﯾﯽ‪ .‬ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﯽ ﻫﺎ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺗﻤﺎﺷﺎﯼ‬
‫ﻓﯿﻠﻢﻭ ﺧﻮﺍﻧﺪﻥ ﮐﺘﺎﺏ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻣﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﮐﻤﺘﺮ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺣﺎﻟﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺧﻮﺍﻧﺪﻥ ﻣﺠﻼﺕ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺘﯽ ﺑﻮﺩ ﮐﻪ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺩﻩﻫﺎﯼ ‪ ISLE‬ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺗﻮﺟﻬﯽ ﺑﺎ ﻧﻈﺮﺳﻨﺠﯽ ﺧﻮﺩ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﺷﯽ ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﯽ ﻧﺪﺍﺷﺖ‪ .‬ﻫﻤﻪ ﺍﯾﻨﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖﻫﺎﯾﯽ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺍﮐﺜﺮ ﻓﺮﺍﮔﯿﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻧﺪﺭﺕ ﯾﺎ ﻫﺮﮔﺰ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﻧﺪﺍﺷﺘﻨﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﻤﺎﻧﻄﻮﺭﮐﻪ ﻫﮑﺘﻨﺮ ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻧﺶ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﮐﺮﺩﻧﺪ )‪ ،2011‬ﭼﻨﯿﻦ ﭘﺪﯾﺪﻩ ﻫﺎﯾﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻧﺪﺭﺕ ﺭﺥ ﻣﯽ‬
‫ﺩﻫﻨﺪﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺑﺎ ﺭﻭﺵ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻟﯽ ﺭﻭﯾﺪﺍﺩ )ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ‪ (ISLE‬ﺑﻬﺘﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺼﻮﯾﺮ ﮐﺸﯿﺪﻩ ﺷﻮﻧﺪ ﺯﯾﺮﺍ‬
‫ﺷﺮﮐﺖﮐﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺑﻪ ﺧﺎﻃﺮ ﺳﭙﺮﺩﻥ ﯾﺎ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﺵ ﺩﺭ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﯽ‬
‫ﺁﻧﻘﺪﺭﺑﯽ ﺍﻫﻤﯿﺖ ﺑﺪﺍﻧﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﭘﺮﺗﻮ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﻼﺣﻈﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﯾﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﺁﺯﻣﺎﯾﺸﯽ ﺍﯾﻦ‬
‫ﻧﺘﯿﺠﻪﺭﺍ ﺗﺄﯾﯿﺪ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ ﮐﻪ ‪ ISLE‬ﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺟﻨﺒﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺧﺎﺻﯽ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﺑﻬﺘﺮﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮﺳﻨﺠﯽ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺧﻮﺩﮔﺰﺍﺭﺵ ﺩﻫﯽ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﯽ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﻫﺪ‪ ،‬ﻋﻼﻭﻩ ﺑﺮ ﺁﻥ ﺑﯿﻨﺸﯽ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ‬
‫ﺣﺎﻻﺕﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ ﻫﻤﺰﻣﺎﻥ ﻓﺮﺍﮔﯿﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﺭﺍﺉﻪ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﺪ‪.‬‬

‫ﻧﺘﯿﺠﻪ‬
‫ﺍﯾﻦﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪ ﻭ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺳﻨﺠﯽ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭﯼ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩ ﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺍﺑﻌﺎﺩ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺷﯿﻮﻩﻫﺎﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﺵ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻋﻼﻭﻩ ﺑﺮ ﺟﻨﺒﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﯼ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﻩ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞﻓﺮﺍﮔﯿﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﺎ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ‪ L2‬ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ )ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﯼ(‪ ،‬ﭼﺎﺭﭼﻮﺏ ﻧﻈﺮﯼ ﮐﻪ ﻣﺒﻨﺎﯼ ﺍﯾﻦ‬
‫ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪﺭﺍ ﺗﺸﮑﯿﻞ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﺪ‪ ،‬ﺳﻪ ﺟﻨﺒﻪ ﺩﺭﻭﻧﯽ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﻧﺪﻩ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺭﺍ ﻣﺸﺨﺺ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ‪ :‬ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ‬
‫ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ‪،‬ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ‪ .‬ﻧﺘﺎﯾﺞ ‪ EFA‬ﻭ ‪ CFA‬ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺍﯾﻨﻬﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻫﺎﯼ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺗﻤﺎﯾﺰ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻣﺎﺑﺎ ﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﯽ ﻧﺰﺩﯾﮏ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺟﺪﯾﺪﯼ ﺍﺯ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ‬
‫ﭘﯿﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺍﯾﺪﻩ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺘﻮﺍﻥ ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﮐﻠﯽ ﺗﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﻭﻇﯿﻔﻪ )ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ( ﻓﺮﺍﮔﯿﺮﺍﻥ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﺍﺯﺟﻬﺖ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ )ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﺳﻌﺖ( ﺟﺪﺍ ﮐﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﺗﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﺑﺮ ﻓﺮﻡ(‪ .‬ﻧﺘﺎﯾﺞ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ‬
‫ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﺁﺯﻣﺎﯾﺸﯽ ﺍﺯ ﺗﻤﺎﯾﺰ ﺑﯿﻦ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﺑﻌﺎﺩ ﺟﺪﺍﮔﺎﻧﻪ ﭘﺸﺘﯿﺒﺎﻧﯽ‬
‫ﻣﯽﮐﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﮔﺮﭼﻪ ﻧﯿﺎﺯ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻤﺎﯾﺰ ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮ ﺍﯾﻦ ﺩﻭ ﺳﺎﺯﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺗﮑﺮﺍﺭﻫﺎﯼ ﺁﺗﯽ ‪ ISLE‬ﻭ‪/‬ﯾﺎ ﺳﺎﯾﺮ ﺍﻗﺪﺍﻣﺎﺕ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮ‬
‫ﺷﺪﻥﺩﺭ ‪ ISLP‬ﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﻧﻘﺶ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺭﺷﺪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎﺕ ﺁﺗﯽ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﯿﻦ ﻣﯽ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ‬
‫ﺷﺎﻣﻞﺍﺑﻌﺎﺩ ﺩﯾﮕﺮﯼ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﮐﻪ ﭘﯿﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ ﺩﺭ ‪ SLA‬ﺍﻫﻤﯿﺖ ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺍﯾﻦ‬
‫ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪﮔﻨﺠﺎﻧﺪﻩ ﻧﺸﺪﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻭﯾﮋﻩ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯽ‪ ،‬ﮐﻪ ﭼﻨﺪﯾﻦ ﻣﺤﻘﻖ ﺍﺳﺘﺪﻻﻝ ﮐﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ‬
‫ﮐﻪﯾﮑﯽ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺑﻌﺎﺩ ﮐﻠﯿﺪﯼ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺭ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ )ﺭﺳﻤﯽ( ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻫﯿﻮﺭ ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪;2021a،‬‬
‫ﻣﺮﺳﺮ‪.(2019،‬‬

‫ﺍﺯﻧﻈﺮ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﯼ‪ ،‬ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﯿﻦ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺟﻤﻊ ﺁﻭﺭﯼ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﺎ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩﺍﺯ ‪ ISLE‬ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺟﻤﻊ ﺁﻭﺭﯼ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﯾﻖ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺧﻮﺩﮔﺰﺍﺭﺷﯽ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻮﻣﯽ ﺗﺮﻫﻤﺒﺴﺘﮕﯽ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻄﯽ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﯾﻦ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﺪ ﮐﻪ ﻫﺮ ﺩﻭ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭ ﺗﺼﺎﻭﯾﺮ ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺗﯽ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﻣﯿﺰﺍﻥﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺑﺎ ﺍﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ‪ ISLP‬ﺍﺭﺍﺉﻪ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺎ ﺗﮑﯿﻪ ﺑﺮ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺩﯾﮕﺮﯼﮐﻪ ﺭﻭﯾﮑﺮﺩﻫﺎﯼ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻣﺸﺎﺑﻬﯽ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻘﺎﯾﺴﻪ ﮐﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﭘﯿﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩ ﺷﺪ ﮐﻪ ‪ ISLE‬ﻣﻤﮑﻦ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺑﺴﯿﺎﺭ ﻧﺎﺩﺭ )ﻣﺜﻼ ًﺧﻮﺍﻧﺪﻥ ﻣﺠﻼﺕ( ﯾﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯾﯽ ﮐﻪ ﻣﮑﺮﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻣﺎﻣﺨﺘﺼﺮ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ )ﻣﺜﻼ ًﻣﺮﻭﺭ ﺭﺳﺎﻧﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯽ( ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎ ﺩﻗﺖ ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮﯼ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﻫﺪ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩﯾﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ‪ ISLE‬ﻧﯿﺰ ﺑﺎﯾﺪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺗﺎﯾﯿﺪ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﯿﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻭﻝ ﻭ ﻣﻬﻤﺘﺮ ﺍﺯ ﻫﻤﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﯾﻦﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮ ﺍﺳﺎﺱ ﻃﺮﺍﺣﯽ‪ ،‬ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﺗﺼﻮﯾﺮﯼ ﺍﺯ ﺷﯿﻮﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﻓﺮﺍﮔﯿﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﻃﻮﻝ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺧﺎﺹ‬
‫ﺟﻤﻊﺁﻭﺭﯼ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺭﺍﺉﻪ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﺪ ‪ -‬ﺑﺮ ﺧﻼﻑ ﺍﮐﺜﺮ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺧﻮﺩﮔﺰﺍﺭﺵ ﺩﻫﯽ‪ ،‬ﮐﻪ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﭘﺎﺳﺦﺩﻫﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﻣﯽ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﻨﺪ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﺵ ﻫﺎﯼ ﮐﻠﯽ ﺗﺮﯼ ﺍﺯ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﯿﺎﺕ "ﻣﻌﻤﻮﻝ" ﯾﺎ ﺍﺧﯿﺮ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺭﺍﺉﻪ‬
‫ﺩﻫﻨﺪ‪.‬ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﺎﺕ ﻗﺒﻠﯽ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﺪ ﮐﻪ ‪ ISLP‬ﻫﺎ ﻣﯽ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﻨﺪ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺗﻮﺟﻬﯽ ﺍﺯ ﺭﻭﺯ ﺑﻪ ﺭﻭﺯ ﻭ‬
‫ﻫﻤﭽﻨﯿﻦﺩﺭ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻃﻮﻻﻧﯽ ﺗﺮ ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ )‪ ;2017,Kusyk‬ﺷﻮﺍﺭﺗﺰ‪2020،‬ﻣﺜﻼ ًﺑﺎ ﺗﻐﯿﯿﺮ‬
‫ﻋﻼﯾﻖﺷﺨﺼﯽ ﻭ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﺁﺯﺍﺩ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﺩﺭ ﭼﻨﯿﻦ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯾﯽ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﯾﻦ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﻘﻘﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﯾﺪ‬
‫ﺯﻣﺎﻥﺍﺟﺮﺍﯼ ‪ ISLE‬ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻗﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺑﮕﯿﺮﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ‬

‫‪https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000572‬ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﮐﻤﺒﺮﯾﺞ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‬

 ‫ﻫﻨﺮﯾﺖﺍﻝ ﺁﺭﻧﺖ‬ ‫‪1476‬‬

‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪﻓﻌﻠﯽ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺟﻤﻊ ﺁﻭﺭﯼ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻃﻮﻝ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﻋﺎﺩﯼ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﻪ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﺭﯾﺰﯼ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﯾﻌﻨﯽ‬
‫ﻧﺰﺩﯾﮏﺑﻪ ﻫﻔﺘﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺍﻣﺘﺤﺎﻧﯽ ﻧﯿﺴﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻻ ًﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﮐﻤﺘﺮﯼ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﺩﺭ‬
‫‪ ISLP‬ﺧﻮﺍﻫﻨﺪ ﺩﺍﺷﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻃﻮﻝ ﻫﻔﺖ ﺭﻭﺯ ﺟﻤﻊ ﺁﻭﺭﯼ ﺷﺪ ﺗﺎ ﻫﻢ ﺗﻤﺮﯾﻦ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺭﻭﺯﻫﺎﯼ ﻫﻔﺘﻪ ﻭ‬
‫ﺁﺧﺮﻫﻔﺘﻪ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺼﻮﯾﺮ ﺑﮑﺸﺪ‪ .‬ﻣﺤﻘﻘﺎﻥ ‪ ESM‬ﺗﻤﺎﯾﻞ ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ ﺗﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ ﮐﻪ ﯾﮏ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ‪ 7‬ﺭﻭﺯﻩ ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻻ ًﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ‬
‫ﺍﯼﻣﻌﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﺯ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﻌﻤﻮﻟﯽ ﺭﻭﺯﺍﻧﻪ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺗﺤﻤﯿﻞ ﺑﺎﺭ ﺑﯿﺶ ﺍﺯ ﺣﺪ ﺑﺮ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖﺑﻪ ﺩﺳﺖ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﺪ )ﻫﮑﺘﻨﺮ ﻭ ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﺍﻥ‪.(2011،‬‬
‫ﺛﺎﻧﯿﺎ‪ً،‬ﺍﺭﺯﯾﺎﺑﯽ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ ﺑﺮ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﭘﻨﻬﺎﻥ ‪ ISLE‬ﻭ ﻣﻘﺎﯾﺴﻪ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ‬
‫ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﯼﺑﺎ ﯾﮏ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﯾﮑﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﮐﺸﻒ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻫﻤﮕﺮﺍ ﻣﺘﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﮐﺎﻣﻞ‬
‫ﻭﯾﮋﮔﯽ ﻫﺎﯼﺭﻭﺍﻥ ﺳﻨﺠﯽ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭ ﺟﺪﯾﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﺯ ﺟﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺗﻤﺎﯾﺰ ﻭ ﻣﻌﯿﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﺎﺕ ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮﯼ ﻧﯿﺎﺯ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻣﺘﺪﺍﺩ ﺧﻄﻮﻁ ﻣﺸﺎﺑﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﯾﺪ ﺗﺎﮐﯿﺪ ﮐﺮﺩ ﮐﻪ ‪ ISLE‬ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﺎﺕ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﺧﺎﺹ ﺑﺎ‬
‫ﺯﺑﺎﻥﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ‪ L2‬ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻟﻤﺎﻥ ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪ ﯾﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ‪ .‬ﻫﻤﺎﻧﻄﻮﺭ ﮐﻪ ﻗﺒﻼ ً‬
‫ﺫﮐﺮﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﻘﻘﺎﻥ ﺗﺎﮐﯿﺪ ﮐﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ ﮐﻪ ‪ISLP‬ﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻫﺎﯾﯽ ﻏﯿﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﻣﻮﻗﻌﯿﺖ‬
‫ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯽﻭ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮕﯽ ﺧﺎﺹ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺮﺍﺳﺮ ﺟﻬﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻻ ًﺑﺴﯿﺎﺭ ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﯽ ﺭﺳﻨﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻋﻼﻭﻩﺑﺮ ﺍﯾﻦ‪ ،‬ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺩﺭ ﯾﮏ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺧﺎﺹ ﺍﺯ ﺩﺑﯿﺮﺳﺘﺎﻥ ﺁﻟﻤﺎﻥ ﺛﺒﺖ ﻧﺎﻡ‬
‫ﮐﺮﺩﻧﺪ‪.‬ﻭﺭﺯﺷﮕﺎﻩ(‪،‬ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﺠﻮﯾﺎﻥ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻭﺭﻭﺩ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺵ ﻋﺎﻟﯽ ﻫﺪﻑ ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﯾﻦ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻣﯽﺩﻫﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺳﺎﯾﺮ ﮔﺮﻭﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﺩﺑﯿﺮﺳﺘﺎﻧﯽ ﺑﻪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽﻋﻼﻗﻪ ﻣﻨﺪ ﻭ ﻣﺴﻠﻂ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺎ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﯾﻦ ﻭﯾﮋﮔﯽ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ ﺧﺎﺹ ﺫﺍﺗﺎ ًﺑﻪ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻧﯿﺴﺖﮐﻪ ‪ ISLE‬ﻧﻤﯽ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺍﻟﮕﻮﻫﺎﯼ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﮔﺮﻭﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺩﯾﮕﺮ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﻧﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ‬
‫ﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬ﺩﺭ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ‪ ،‬ﺍﯾﻦ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭ ﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺤﻘﻘﺎﻥ ﮐﻤﮏ ﮐﻨﺪ ﺗﺎ ﺭﺍﻩ ﻫﺎﯾﯽ ﺭﺍ ﮐﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﯾﻖ ﺁﻥ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ‬
‫‪ L2‬ﻣﯽ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺑﺎ ﻭﺿﻌﯿﺖ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮕﯽ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻫﺪﻑ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻭ ﻧﻘﺸﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺯﻣﯿﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺷﺨﺼﯽ‪،‬ﺗﺤﺼﯿﻠﯽ ﻭ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯽ ﻓﺮﺍﮔﯿﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﺎﺯﯼ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﮐﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭﮎ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ‬
‫‪) ISLE‬ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﻫﺮ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭ ﺩﯾﮕﺮﯼ( ﺩﺭ ﺯﻣﯿﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﯾﯽ ﻏﯿﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻧﭽﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺍﯾﺠﺎﺩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻧﯿﺎﺯ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﺳﻨﺠﯽﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﯾﻖ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎﺕ ﺑﺎ ﺟﻤﻌﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺁﻣﻮﺯ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻫﺪﻑ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪.‬‬

‫ﺩﺭﻧﻬﺎﯾﺖ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ ﺑﺎﯾﺪ ﺍﻧﻄﺒﺎﻕ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﻧﯿﺰ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺑﮕﯿﺮﯾﻢ‪ ،‬ﯾﻌﻨﯽ ﺍﯾﻨﮑﻪ ﺁﯾﺎ‬
‫ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥﮔﺰﺍﺭﺵ ﻫﺎﯾﯽ ﺍﺯ ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ‪ L2‬ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻨﺪ ﺍﺭﺍﺉﻪ‬
‫ﮐﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ)ﺑﻪ ﺑﺤﺚ ﺩﺭ ‪ Arndt & Rose‬ﻣﺮﺍﺟﻌﻪ ﮐﻨﯿﺪ‪ .(2022،‬ﺍﻧﻄﺒﺎﻕ ﺗﺤﺖ ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ ﻣﯿﺰﺍﻥ ﺗﻼﺵ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺭﺩﻧﯿﺎﺯ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺗﮑﻤﯿﻞ ﯾﮏ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺎﯾﺪ ﻫﻨﮕﺎﻡ ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ‬
‫ﺷﻮﺩ‪ ISLE.‬ﻣﺴﺘﻠﺰﻡ ﺗﻼﺵ ﺧﻮﺩ‪-‬ﻣﺤﻮﺭ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺗﻮﺟﻬﯽ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻮﯼ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻭﯾﮋﻩ‬
‫ﺁﻧﻬﺎﯾﯽﮐﻪ ﺍﻏﻠﺐ ﺩﺭ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻫﻤﯿﻦ ﺩﻟﯿﻞ‪ ISLEmight ،‬ﺑﺮﺍﯼ‬
‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪﺭﻭﯾﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻧﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻣﮑﺎﻥ ﻫﺎﯾﯽ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﯽ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻣﻘﺼﺪ ﻣﻌﻤﻮﻻ ً‬
‫ﺻﺤﺒﺖﻧﻤﯽ ﺷﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺗﻤﺎﺱ ‪ L2‬ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻻ ًﮐﻤﺘﺮ ﺭﺥ ﻣﯽ ﺩﻫﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﺗﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺗﺎ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻧﯽ‬
‫ﮐﻪﺩﺭ ﺟﻮﺍﻣﻊ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻣﻘﺼﺪ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﯽ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ )ﻣﺜﻼ‪ ً،‬ﺩﺭ ﺗﺤﺼﯿﻞ ﺩﺭ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﺯ ﮐﺸﻮﺭ(‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻣﺸﺎﺑﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﮔﺮﻫﺪﻑ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺳﺖ ﺁﻭﺭﺩﻥ ﯾﮏ ﺩﯾﺪ ﮐﻠﯽ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻣﯿﺎﻥ ﯾﮏ‬
‫ﺟﻤﻌﯿﺖﺧﺎﺹ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﻧﺪﻩ ﻣﺤﺒﻮﺏ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﯾﺎ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﺗﻘﺮﯾﺒﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺍﯾﻦ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﻧﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﻣﻌﻤﻮﻻ ًﺑﺎ ‪ L2‬ﺧﻮﺩ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺍﺗﺮﺍﺯ ﮐﻼﺱ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻤﺎﺱ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺧﻮﺩ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﺵ ﮐﻠﯽ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﻫﺎ ﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩ ﮐﺎﻓﯽ‬
‫ﺩﻗﯿﻖﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻏﻨﯽ ﺗﺮﯼ ﮐﻪ ﻣﯽ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﯾﻖ ‪ ISLE‬ﺟﻤﻊ ﺁﻭﺭﯼ ﮐﺮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﯾﻦ‬
‫ﭘﺘﺎﻧﺴﯿﻞﺭﺍ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺤﻘﻘﺎﻥ ﮐﻤﮏ ﮐﻨﺪ ﺗﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻓﺮﺩﯼ ﻭ ﺗﻨﻮﻉ ﺩﺭ ‪ ،ISLL‬ﻧﺤﻮﻩ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻭ‬
‫ﺗﻐﯿﯿﺮﺟﻨﺒﻪ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ ﺩﺭ ﻃﻮﻝ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﻭ ﻧﻘﺶ ﺁﻥ ﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ‬
‫ﺯﺑﺎﻥﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭﮎ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ‪. .‬‬

‫ﻣﻮﺍﺩﺗﮑﻤﯿﻠﯽﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﻩ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺗﮑﻤﯿﻠﯽ ﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻟﻄﻔﺎ ًﻣﺮﺍﺟﻌﻪ ﮐﻨﯿﺪ‪/ 10.1017/S0272263122000572‬‬
‫‪.http://doi.org‬‬

‫ﺑﯿﺎﻧﯿﻪﺩﺭ ﺩﺳﺘﺮﺱ ﺑﻮﺩﻥ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﻧﺴﺨﻪ ﻧﻬﺎﯾﯽ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ ﻭ ﺭﺍﻫﻨﻤﺎﯼ ﻣﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪ ﮔﺮﻭﻫﯽ ﻣﺘﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﻣﯽﺗﻮﺍﻧﯿﺪ ﺍﺯ ﭘﺎﯾﮕﺎﻩ ‪ IRIS‬ﺩﺍﻧﻠﻮﺩ ﮐﻨﯿﺪ‪.https://www.irisdatabase.org/details/xFCKb-IxdcC:‬‬

‫‪https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000572‬ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﮐﻤﺒﺮﯾﺞ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‬

‫‪1477‬‬ ‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖﺩﺭ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻏﯿﺮ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ‬

‫ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻓﺮﺁﯾﻨﺪﻫﺎﯼ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺧﻮﺩﺗﻨﻈﯿﻤﯽ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﯾﻖ ﺍﻟﮕﻮﻫﺎﯼ ﺭﺩﯾﺎﺑﯽ ‪Ainley, M., & Patrick, L. )2006(.‬‬
‫ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯ ﺑﺎ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ﭘﯿﺸﺮﻓﺖﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﺭﻭﺍﻧﺸﻨﺎﺳﯽ ﺗﺮﺑﯿﺘﯽ‪/s10648-006-9018-z.267-286،18 ،‬‬
‫‪https://doi.org/10.1007‬‬
‫ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺭﻭﺍﻧﯽ ‪Appleton، JJ، Christenson، SL، Kim، D.، & Reschly، AL )2006(.‬‬
‫ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ‪:‬ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺳﻨﺠﯽ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯ‪.‬ﻣﺠﻠﻪ ﺭﻭﺍﻧﺸﻨﺎﺳﯽ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﻪ‪/j.jsp.2006.04.002 .427-445،44 ،‬‬
‫‪https://doi.org/10.1016‬‬
‫ﭼﻘﺪﺭﺍﺯ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﻓﻀﺎﯼ ﻣﺠﺎﺯﯼ ﻣﯽ ﮔﺬﺭﺍﻧﯿﺪ؟ ‪ de Vreese، C. )2017(.‬ﻭ ‪Araujo، T.، Wonneberger، A.، Neijens، P.،‬‬
‫ﺩﺭﮎﻭ ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩ ﺩﻗﺖ ﻣﻌﯿﺎﺭﻫﺎﯼ ﺧﻮﺩ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﺵ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺍﯾﻨﺘﺮﻧﺖ‪.‬ﺭﻭﺵ ﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺍﻗﺪﺍﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻃﯽ‪.173-190،11 ،‬‬
‫‪https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2017.1317337‬‬
‫ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼﻏﯿﺮ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ‪ :‬ﻧﻘﺶ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ‪ ،‬ﻣﻬﺎﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻧﮕﺮﺵ ﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭ ‪Arndt، HL )2019(.‬‬
‫ﺍﻧﮕﯿﺰﻩ]ﭘﺎﯾﺎﻥ ﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﺩﮐﺘﺮﯼ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﺁﮐﺴﻔﻮﺭﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻧﮕﻠﺴﺘﺎﻥ[‪/objects/uuid:c579077d-61fd-4b94-bd57-de7063389122.‬‬
‫‪https://ora.ox.ac.uk‬‬
‫ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽﭘﺘﺎﻧﺴﯿﻞ ﺭﻭﺵ ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ ﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻪ ‪Arndt، HL، Granfeldt، J.، & Gullberg، M. )2021(.‬‬
‫‪.‬ﺑﺮﺍﯼﮔﺮﻓﺘﻦ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻦ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻌﺮﺽ ﻭ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ (‪)ESM‬ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ‪.39-58،39 ،‬‬
‫‪https://doi.org/10.1177/02676583211020055‬‬
‫‪.‬ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻦﺯﻧﺪﮔﯽ ﻫﻤﺎﻧﻄﻮﺭ ﮐﻪ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﺎ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﯽ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﺩ؟ ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺭﻭﺯﺍﻧﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﺎﺕ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺷﯽ ‪Arndt، HL & Rose، H. )2022(.‬‬
‫ﻣﺠﻠﻪﺑﯿﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻠﯽ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ ﻭ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺵ‪.‬ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﭘﯿﺸﺮﻓﺘﻪ‪/ 10.1080/1743727X.2022.2094360‬‬
‫‪https://doi.org‬‬
‫ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭﻫﺎﯼﻣﻨﺒﻊ ﺑﺎﺯ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﭘﯿﺎﺩﻩ ﺳﺎﺯﯼ ‪Arndt، HL، Granfeldt، J. & Gullberg، M. )2022(. Lang-Track-App:‬‬
‫ﺭﻭﺵﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ ﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻪ ﺩﺭ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶ ﺍﮐﺘﺴﺎﺏ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ‪.‬ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺵ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‪.‬ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﭘﯿﺸﺮﻓﺘﻪ‪/10.1111/lang.12555‬‬
‫‪https://doi.org‬‬
‫ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ ﻭ ﺭﺍﻫﻨﻤﺎﯼ ﻣﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪ ﮔﺮﻭﻫﯽ ﻣﺘﻤﺮﮐﺰ ‪Arndt، HL )2023(.‬‬
‫]ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ ﻣﻮﺍﺩ[‪.‬ﭘﺎﯾﮕﺎﻩ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ‪،IRIS‬ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﯾﻮﺭﮎ‪ ،‬ﺍﻧﮕﻠﺴﺘﺎﻥ‪ https://doi.org/10.48316/xFCKb-IxdcC‬ﺑﻨﺴﻮﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﭘﯽ‪،‬ﻭ ﺭﯾﻨﺪﺭﺯ‪ ،‬ﺍﭺ )‪.(2011‬ﻓﺮﺍﺗﺮ ﺍﺯ ﮐﻼﺱ ﺯﺑﺎﻥﭘﺎﻟﮕﺮﯾﻮ ﻣﮏ ﻣﯿﻼﻥ‪https://doi.org/.‬‬
‫‪10.1057/9780230306790‬‬
‫ﺑﻼﻧﭻ‪،‬ﻧﯿﻮﺟﺮﺳﯽ )‪.(2013‬ﻣﻘﺪﻣﻪ ﺍﯼ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺳﺎﺯﯼ ﻣﻌﺎﺩﻻﺕ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﯼ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ‪ IBM SPSS Statistics‬ﻭ ‪2) Amos‬‬
‫ﻭﯾﺮﺍﯾﺶ(‪ .‬ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺳﯿﺞ‪https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526402257.‬‬
‫‪.‬ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﯾﮏ ﺟﻨﺒﻪ ﺫﺍﺗﯽ ﺍﺯ ﻓﺮﺁﯾﻨﺪ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ‪Boekaerts, M. )2016(.‬ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻭ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺵ‪،43 ،‬‬
‫‪https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.001.76-83‬‬
‫‪.‬ﺭﻭﺵﻫﺎﯼ ﺩﻓﺘﺮ ﺧﺎﻃﺮﺍﺕ‪ :‬ﺑﻪ ﺗﺼﻮﯾﺮ ﮐﺸﯿﺪﻥ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﯽ ﻫﻤﺎﻧﻄﻮﺭ ﮐﻪ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﯽ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮﺩ ‪Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. )2003(.‬ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﺳﺎﻻﻧﻪ‬
‫ﺭﻭﺍﻧﺸﻨﺎﺳﯽ‪https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145030.579-616،54،‬‬
‫‪Kerncurriculum für das GymnasiumBöwing, C., Frome, W., Gerking, K., Haupt, D., & Schulte, W. )2006(.‬‬
‫ﺷﻮﻟﺠﺎﻫﺮﮔﺎﻥ‪] .10-5‬ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﺩﺭﺳﯽ ﺍﺻﻠﯽ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﮐﻼﺱ ﻫﺎﯼ ‪-5-10-eng lisch-niedersachsen.html.[Gymnasien 5-10‬‬
‫‪/10838846- Niedersaechsisches-kultusministerium-kerncurriculum-fuer-das-gymnasium-schuljahrgaenge‬‬
‫‪http://docplayer.org‬‬
‫ﺑﺮﯾﮕﺰﺑﺎﻓﻮ ﺩﯾﺠﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺟﯽ‪ ،.‬ﻭ ﮊﻭ‪ ،‬ﺍﺱ‪ .(2020) .‬ﺑﺮﺧﻮﺭﺩ ﻧﺰﺩﯾﮏ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺳﻮﻡ‪ :‬ﮐﻤﯿﺖ‪ ،‬ﻧﻮﻉ ﻭ ﮐﯿﻔﯿﺖ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺗﻤﺎﺱﺩﺭ ﺣﯿﻦ ﺗﺤﺼﯿﻞ ﺩﺭ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﺯ ﮐﺸﻮﺭ ‪ .InM‬ﻫﻮﺍﺭﺩ )ﻭﯾﺮﺍﯾﺶ(‪،‬ﺗﺤﺼﯿﻞ ﺩﺭ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﺯ ﮐﺸﻮﺭ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺁﻣﻮﺯ ﺩﻭﻡ‪ :‬ﺍﻧﺘﻈﺎﺭﺍﺕ‪،‬‬
‫ﺗﺠﺮﺑﯿﺎﺕﻭ ﭘﯿﺸﺮﻓﺖ )ﺻﺺ ‪ .(89-69‬ﺑﻠﻮﻣﺰﺑﺮﯼ‪ https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350104228.ch-004‬ﺑﺮﺍﻭﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﮕﺎﻭﺍﺕ)‪ .(2001‬ﻣﺮﻭﺭﯼ ﺑﺮ ﭼﺮﺧﺶ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻠﯽ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ ﺍﮐﺘﺸﺎﻓﯽﭼﻨﺪ ﻣﺘﻐﯿﺮﻩ‬
‫ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﺎﺕﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﯼ‪https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3601_05.111-150،36 ،‬‬
‫ﺑﺮﻥ‪،‬ﺑﯽ ﺍﻡ )‪.(2010‬ﻣﺪﻝ ﺳﺎﺯﯼ ﻣﻌﺎﺩﻻﺕ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﯼ ﺑﺎ ‪) AMOS‬ﻭﯾﺮﺍﯾﺶ ﺩﻭﻡ(‪ .‬ﺭﺍﺗﻠﺞ‪.‬‬
‫ﮐﺮﯾﺴﺘﻨﺴﻮﻥ‪ ،SL،‬ﺭﺳﻠﯽ‪ ،.A ،‬ﻭ (‪.Wylie، C. )2012‬ﮐﺘﺎﺏ ﺭﺍﻫﻨﻤﺎﯼ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﺠﻮﯾﯽ‪.‬ﺍﺳﭙﺮﯾﻨﮕﺮ‪.‬‬
‫‪https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7‬‬
‫ﮐﻮﻝ‪،‬ﺟﯽ )‪.(2015‬ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﯽ ﺩﺭ ﻋﺼﺮ ﺍﯾﻨﺘﺮﻧﺖ‪] .‬ﭘﺎﯾﺎﻥ ﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﺩﮐﺘﺮﯼ[‪ .‬ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﺁﮐﺴﻔﻮﺭﺩ‪،‬‬
‫ﺁﮐﺴﻔﻮﺭﺩ‪،‬ﺍﻧﮕﻠﺴﺘﺎﻥ‬

‫ﺷﻮﺭﺍﯼﺍﺭﻭﭘﺎ )‪.(2001‬ﭼﺎﺭﭼﻮﺏ ﻣﺮﺟﻊ ﻣﺸﺘﺮﮎ ﺍﺭﻭﭘﺎﯾﯽ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻫﺎ‪ :‬ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ‪ ،‬ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺵ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﺭﺯﯾﺎﺑﯽ‪https://rm.coe.int/1680459f97‬‬
‫ﮐﺎﮐﺲ‪،‬ﺳﯽ ﺑﯽ )‪.(2014‬ﻣﻬﺎﺭﺕ ﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺍﺻﻮﻝ ﻓﻠﻮﺭ ﻗﺮﻥ ﺑﯿﺴﺖ ﻭ ﯾﮑﻢ ﺩﺭ ﮐﻼﺱ ﺩﺭﺱ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﯽ‪] .‬ﭘﺎﯾﺎﻧﻨﺎﻣﻬﯽ ﮐﺎﺭﺷﻨﺎﺳﯽ ﺍﺭﺷﺪ[‪.‬‬
‫ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩﺑﺮﯾﮕﺎﻡ ﯾﺎﻧﮓ‪ ،‬ﭘﺮﻭﻭ‪ ،‬ﯾﻮﺗﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺩﺍﻭﯾﺪﻭﺍ‪،‬ﺟﯽ )‪ .(2020‬ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻟﻤﺎﻥ‪ :‬ﺷﻮﺍﻫﺪﯼ ﺍﺯ ﺣﻮﺯﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻭ ﻧﮕﺮﺵ ﻫﺎﻣﺠﻠﻪ ﺭﻭﺳﯽ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺯﺑﺎﻧﺸﻨﺎﺳﯽ‪https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2020-24-3-687-702.702–687،24،‬‬
‫ﺩﯼﻭﯾﻨﺘﺮ‪ ،JCF ،‬ﺩﻭﺩﻭ‪ ،‬ﺩﯼ ﻭ ﻭﯾﺮﯾﻨﮕﺎ‪ .PA )2009( ،‬ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ ﺍﮐﺘﺸﺎﻓﯽ ﺑﺎ ﺣﺠﻢ ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ ﮐﻮﭼﮏ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﺎﺕﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﯼ ﭼﻨﺪ ﻣﺘﻐﯿﺮﻩ‪https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170902794206.147-181،44 ،‬‬

‫‪https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000572‬ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﮐﻤﺒﺮﯾﺞ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‬

 ‫ﻫﻨﺮﯾﺖﺍﻝ ﺁﺭﻧﺖ‬ ‫‪1478‬‬
‫‪Dörnyei, Z. )2010(.‬ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ‪ :‬ﺳﺎﺧﺖ‪ ،‬ﻣﺪﯾﺮﯾﺖ ﻭ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﺵ‪.‬‬
‫ﺭﺍﺗﻠﺞ‪https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203864739.‬‬
‫‪.‬ﻧﻘﺶﻣﺘﻐﯿﺮﻫﺎﯼ ﻓﺮﺩﯼ ﻭ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯽ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺗﮑﻠﯿﻒ ﺷﻔﺎﻫﯽ ‪Dörnyei, Z., & Kormos, J. )2000(.‬‬
‫ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖﺁﻣﻮﺯﺵ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‪https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880000400305.300–275،4 ،‬‬
‫ﺍﮐﻠﺲ‪،‬ﺟﯽ ﺍﺱ )‪ .(2016‬ﻧﺎﻣﺰﺩﯼ‪ :‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﮐﺠﺎ؟ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻭ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺵ‪https://doi.org/10.1016/.71-75،43 ،‬‬
‫‪j.learninstruc.2016.02.003‬‬
‫ﺍﮔﺒﺮﺕ‪،‬ﺟﯽ )‪ .(2003‬ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﺗﺉﻮﺭﯼ ﺟﺮﯾﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﮐﻼﺱ ﺩﺭﺱ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﯽ‪.‬ﻣﺠﻠﻪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻣﺪﺭﻥ‪،87 ،‬‬
‫‪https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00204.499-518‬‬
‫ﭘﺎﯾﺎﯾﯽﻣﻘﯿﺎﺱ ﺩﻭ ﺁﯾﺘﻤﯽ‪ :‬ﭘﯿﺮﺳﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﮐﺮﻭﻧﺒﺎﺥ ﯾﺎ ‪ Pelzer، B. )2013(.‬ﻭ ‪Eisinga، R.، te Grotenhuis، M.،‬‬
‫ﺍﺳﭙﯿﺮﻣﻦ‪-‬ﺑﺮﺍﻭﻥ؟ﻣﺠﻠﻪ ﺑﯿﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻠﯽ ﺑﻬﺪﺍﺷﺖ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﯽ‪/10.1007/s00038- 012-0416-3.642–637،58 ،‬‬
‫‪https://doi.org‬‬
‫ﻓﯿﻦ‪،‬ﺟﯽ ﺩﯼ )‪ .(1989‬ﮐﻨﺎﺭﻩ ﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﻪ‪.‬ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺷﯽ‪https://doi.org/.117-142،59 ،‬‬
‫‪10.3102/00346543059002117‬‬
‫ﻓﯿﻦ‪،‬ﺟﯽ ﺩﯼ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺯﯾﻤﺮ‪ .KS )2012( ،‬ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﺠﻮﯾﯽ‪ :‬ﭼﯿﺴﺖ؟ ﭼﺮﺍ ﻣﻬﻢ ﺍﺳﺖ؟ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺱ ﺍﻝ ﮐﺮﯾﺴﺘﻨﺴﻮﻥ‪،‬‬
‫(‪ C. Wylie )Eds.‬ﻭ ‪AL Reschly‬ﮐﺘﺎﺑﭽﻪ ﺭﺍﻫﻨﻤﺎﯼ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﺠﻮﯾﯽ )ﺻﺺ ‪ .(132-97‬ﺍﺳﭙﺮﯾﻨﮕﺮ‪.‬‬
‫‪https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_5‬‬
‫ﻓﯿﻨﯽ‪،‬ﺍﺱ ﺟﯽ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺩﯼ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﻧﻮ‪ ،‬ﺳﯽ )‪ .(2008‬ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻏﯿﺮ ﻋﺎﺩﯼ ﻭ ﻣﻘﻮﻟﻪ ﺍﯼ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺳﺎﺯﯼ ﻣﻌﺎﺩﻻﺕ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﯼ‪ .‬ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ‬
‫‪GR Hancock & RD Mueller )Eds.(,‬ﻣﺪﻝ ﺳﺎﺯﯼ ﻣﻌﺎﺩﻻﺕ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﯼ‪ :‬ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺩﻭﻡ )ﺻﺺ ‪ .(314-269‬ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻋﺼﺮﺍﻃﻼﻋﺎﺕ‪.‬‬
‫‪.‬ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﺑﺮ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻭ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ ‪Flowerday، T.، & Schraw، G. )2003(.‬ﻣﺠﻠﻪ‬
‫ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﺎﺕﺁﻣﻮﺯﺷﯽ‪https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670309598810.207-215،96 ،‬‬
‫‪ KA Moore & L.‬ﻧﺎﻣﺰﺩﯼ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﻪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ‪Fredericks, JA, Blumenfeld, PC, Friedel, J., & Paris, AH )2005(.‬‬
‫ﻟﯿﭙﻤﻦ)ﻭﯾﺮﺍﯾﺸﺎﺕ(‪،‬ﮐﻮﺩﮐﺎﻥ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺷﮑﻮﻓﺎﯾﯽ ﺑﻪ ﭼﻪ ﭼﯿﺰﻫﺎﯾﯽ ﻧﯿﺎﺯ ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ؟ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺳﺎﺯﯼ ﻭ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩ ﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪ ﻣﺜﺒﺖ )‬
‫ﺻﺺ‪https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-23823- 9_19.Springer Science and Business Media .(321-305‬‬

‫ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼﻣﺪﺭﺳﻪ‪ :‬ﭘﺘﺎﻧﺴﯿﻞ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﺿﻌﯿﺖ ‪Fredericks, JA, Blumenfeld, PC, & Paris, AH )2004(.‬‬
‫ﺷﻮﺍﻫﺪ‪.‬ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺷﯽ‪ https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059.59-109،74 ،‬ﮔﺮﻧﻔﻞ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻡ‪،.‬ﻭ ﻣﺎﮐﺎﺭﻭ‪ ،‬ﺍﯼ‪ .(2007) .‬ﺍﺩﻋﺎﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﺩﺍﺕ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ‪ AD‬ﮐﻮﻫﻦ ﻭ ﺍﯼ‪ .‬ﻣﺎﮐﺎﺭﻭ )ﻭﯾﺮﺍﯾﺶ ﻫﺎ(‪،‬ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺁﻣﻮﺯ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﮋﯼﻫﺎ‪ :‬ﺳﯽ ﺳﺎﻝ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ ﻭ ﺗﻤﺮﯾﻦ )ﺹ ‪ .(28-9‬ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﺁﮐﺴﻔﻮﺭﺩ‪.‬‬
‫‪ Sarstedt، M. )2016(.‬ﻭ ‪Hair، JFJ، Hult، GTM، Ringle، C.،‬ﺁﻏﺎﺯﮔﺮ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﯼ ﺑﺮ ﺭﻭﯼ ﺣﺪﺍﻗﻞ ﻣﺮﺑﻌﺎﺕ ﺟﺰﺉﯽ‬
‫ﻣﺪﻝﺳﺎﺯﯼ ﻣﻌﺎﺩﻻﺕ )‪.(PLS-SEM‬ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺳﯿﺞ‪.‬‬
‫‪Hektner, JM, Schmidt, JA, & Csíkszentimihályi, M. )2011(.‬ﺭﻭﺵ ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ ﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﯽ‪ :‬ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩ ﮔﯿﺮﯼ‬
‫ﮐﯿﻔﯿﺖﺯﻧﺪﮔﯽ ﺭﻭﺯﻣﺮﻩﺣﮑﯿﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﯿﻮﺭ‪،‬ﭘﯽ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺤﻮﺭﯼ‪ ،‬ﻕ‪ ،‬ﻭﯾﺘﺎ‪ ،‬ﺟﯽ ﭘﯽ ﻭ ﻭﻭ‪ ،‬ﺝ‪ .(2021a) .‬ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺭ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‪ :‬ﯾﮏ ﺳﯿﺴﺘﻤﺎﺗﯿﮏ‬
‫ﻣﺮﻭﺭﯼﺑﺮ ‪ 20‬ﺳﺎﻝ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ ﻭ ﺗﻌﺎﺭﯾﻒ‪.‬ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺵ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‪/ 10.11777/13621688211001289.1-30،‬‬
‫‪https://doi.org‬‬
‫ﻫﯿﻮﺭ‪،‬ﭘﯽ‪ ،‬ﻣﺮﺳﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﺱ‪ ،.‬ﻭ ﺍﻟﺤﻮﺭﯼ‪ ،‬ﻕ )‪ .(2021b‬ﻣﻌﺮﻓﯽ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ‪P. Hiver، AH Alhoorie، & S. Mercer‬‬
‫)ﻭﯾﺮﺍﯾﺶ(‪،‬ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﮐﻼﺱ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ )ﺻﺺ ‪ .(17-1‬ﻣﺴﺎﺉﻞ ﭼﻨﺪ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﻪ‪/ 10.21832/9781788923613‬‬
‫‪https://doi.org‬‬
‫ﻫﻮ‪ .DGE )2006( ،‬ﻣﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪ ﮔﺮﻭﻫﯽ ﻣﺘﻤﺮﮐﺰ‪ :‬ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻠﻪ ﺑﺎ ﭼﺎﻟﺶ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﯽ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ ﮐﯿﻔﯽ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﻟﯿﺎﯾﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﺸﻨﺎﺳﯽ ﮐﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩﯼ‪Corp )2017(. https://doi.org/10.2104/aral0605.05.19–.05.01،29 ،‬‬
‫‪IBM‬ﺁﻣﺎﺭ ‪ IBM SPSSS‬ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻣﮑﯿﻨﺘﺎﺵ‪ ،‬ﻧﺴﺨﻪ ‪] 25.0‬ﻧﺮﻡ ﺍﻓﺰﺍﺭ ﮐﺎﻣﭙﯿﻮﺗﺮ[‪ .IBM Corp. Janosz, M. )2012( .‬ﺗﻔﺴﯿﺮ‬
‫ﻗﺴﻤﺖﭼﻬﺎﺭﻡ‪ :‬ﻧﺘﺎﯾﺞ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻭ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻧﺘﯿﺠﻪ‪ :‬ﺑﺮﺧﯽ‬
‫ﺍﺟﻤﺎﻉ‪،‬ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺳﻮﺍﻻﺕ ﺑﯽ ﭘﺎﺳﺦ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ‪ ،SL Christenson، AL Reschly‬ﻭ ‪) C. Wylie‬ﻭﯾﺮﺍﯾﺸﮕﺮﺍﻥ(‪ ،‬ﮐﺘﺎﺑﭽﻪ‬
‫ﺭﺍﻫﻨﻤﺎﯼﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﺠﻮﯾﯽ )ﺻﺺ ‪ .(703-695‬ﺍﺳﭙﺮﯾﻨﮕﺮ‪/10.1007/978-1- 4614-2018-7_33.‬‬
‫‪https://doi.org‬‬
‫‪.‬ﯾﮏﺟﻔﺖ ﮐﻮﭼﮏ ﻧﺴﻞ ﺩﻭﻡ ‪https://doi.org/10.1007/.401-415Psychometrika، 30،Kaiser, HF )1970(.‬‬
‫‪BF02291817‬‬
‫ﮐﯿﻢ‪،‬ﺍﭺ‪-.‬ﺍﯼ‪ .(2013) .‬ﯾﺎﺩﺩﺍﺷﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺁﻣﺎﺭﯼ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻣﺤﻘﻘﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﯿﻨﯽ‪ :‬ﺍﺭﺯﯾﺎﺑﯽ ﺗﻮﺯﯾﻊ ﻧﺮﻣﺎﻝ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﭼﻮﻟﮕﯽ ﻭ‬
‫ﮐﺸﯿﺪﮔﯽﺩﻧﺪﺍﻧﭙﺰﺷﮑﯽ ﺗﺮﻣﯿﻤﯽ ﻭ ﺍﻧﺪﻭﺩﻧﺘﯿﮑﺲ‪: https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.52.52-54،38 ،‬ﮐﯿﺴﯽ )‪(2015‬‬
‫‪Krueger, RA, & MA‬ﮔﺮﻭﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﮐﺎﻧﻮﻧﯽ‪ :‬ﺭﺍﻫﻨﻤﺎﯼ ﻋﻤﻠﯽ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﺎﺕ ﮐﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩﯼﻭﯾﺮﺍﯾﺶ ﭘﻨﺠﻢ(‪ .‬ﺣﮑﯿﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ‪.‬‬
‫ﮐﻮﭘﻨﺰ‪،‬ﻕ )‪ .(2010‬ﻓﺮﺍﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﯽ ﺍﺯ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻦ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻌﺮﺽ ﺭﺳﺎﻧﻪ ﻫﺎ‪.‬ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ‪ ،‬ﺭﺳﺎﻧﻪ ﻭ‬
‫ﻓﻨﺎﻭﺭﯼ‪https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880903561876.65-85،35،‬‬

‫‪https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000572‬ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﮐﻤﺒﺮﯾﺞ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‬

‫‪1479‬‬ ‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖﺩﺭ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻏﯿﺮ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ‬
‫ﺍﺯﻃﺮﯾﻖ ‪ L2‬ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪ ﭘﯿﭽﯿﺪﮔﯽ‪ ،‬ﺩﻗﺖ ﻭ ﺭﻭﺍﻧﯽ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻮﻟﯿﺪ ﻧﻮﺷﺘﺎﺭﯼ ‪Kusyk، M. )2017(.‬‬
‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖﻏﯿﺮ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺩﺭ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ‪https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.29513.75-96CALICO Journal, 34,‬‬
‫ﻻﯼ‪،‬ﺳﯽ‪ ،‬ﮊﻭ‪ ،‬ﺩﺑﻠﯿﻮ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﮔﻮﻧﮓ‪ ،‬ﺟﯽ‪ .(2015) .‬ﺩﺭﮎ ﮐﯿﻔﯿﺖ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﺯ ﮐﻼﺱ‪TESOL‬‬
‫ﻓﺼﻠﻨﺎﻣﻪ‪https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.171.278-308،49،‬‬
‫ﺩﺭﮎﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯ ﺑﺎ ﺯﻣﯿﻨﻪ ‪Lam، SF، Wong، BPH، Yang، H.، & Liu، Y. )2012(.‬‬
‫ﻣﺪﻝ‪.‬ﺩﺭ ‪ ،SL Christenson، AL Reschly‬ﻭ ‪) C. Wylie‬ﻭﯾﺮﺍﯾﺸﮕﺮﺍﻥ(‪،‬ﮐﺘﺎﺏ ﺭﺍﻫﻨﻤﺎﯼ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﺠﻮﯾﯽ )‬
‫ﺹ‪ .(420-403‬ﺍﺳﭙﺮﯾﻨﮕﺮ‪https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_19.‬‬
‫ﻟﯽ‪،‬ﺟﯽ ﺍﺱ )‪ .(2019‬ﮐﻤﯿﺖ ﻭ ﺗﻨﻮﻉ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺩﯾﺠﯿﺘﺎﻝ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ‪.‬ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺵ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ &‬
‫ﻓﻨﺎﻭﺭﯼ‪.114-126،23،‬‬
‫ﯾﮏﮐﺎﺭﮔﺎﻩ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ ﺩﺭﺳﺖ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﻨﺪ‪ :‬ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺩﯾﺠﯿﺘﺎﻝ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ‪ IDLE‬ﻭﻗﺘﯽ ﺩﺳﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ‪Lee, JS, & Dressman, M. )2017(.‬‬
‫ﺗﺴﻠﻂﺑﻪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‪.‬ﻓﺼﻠﻨﺎﻣﻪ ‪ https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.422.435-445،TESOL، 52‬ﻟﯿﺮﯾﮕﮑﻮ‪،‬‬
‫ﺳﯽ)‪.(2016‬ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﺟﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﺎ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻭﻗﺎﺕ ﻓﺮﺍﻏﺖ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﯾﻖ ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ‪ .‬ﭼﮕﻮﻧﻪ‬
‫ﺁﯾﺎﻓﺮﺍﻭﺍﻧﯽ ﻣﻮﺍﺟﻬﻪ‪ ،‬ﺗﻼﺵ ﻭ ﺍﻧﮕﯿﺰﻩ ﺑﺮ ﺗﻮﻟﯿﺪ ﺩﻫﺎﻥ ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮ ﻣﯽ ﮔﺬﺍﺭﺩ؟ ]ﭘﺎﯾﺎﻧﻨﺎﻣﻬﯽ ﮐﺎﺭﺷﻨﺎﺳﯽ ﺍﺭﺷﺪ[‪ .‬ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﺁﮐﺴﻔﻮﺭﺩ‪،‬‬
‫ﺁﮐﺴﻔﻮﺭﺩ‪،‬ﺍﻧﮕﻠﺴﺘﺎﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﺎﮐﺎﺭﻭ‪،‬ﺍﯼ‪ .(2006) .‬ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﮋﯼ ﻫﺎﯼ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‪ :‬ﺑﺎﺯﻧﮕﺮﯼ ﺩﺭ ﭼﺎﺭﭼﻮﺏ ﻧﻈﺮﯼ‬
‫ﻣﺠﻠﻪﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻣﺪﺭﻥ‪(، https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00425.x.320-337،90 ،‬ﻭﯾﺮﺍﯾﺶ) ‪R. Hickey‬‬
‫ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽﺩﺭ ﺟﻬﺎﻥ ﺁﻟﻤﺎﻧﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‪ :‬ﺣﻀﻮﺭﯼ ﺍﺟﺘﻨﺎﺏ ﻧﺎﭘﺬﯾﺮ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ‪Mair, C. )2020(.‬ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺩﻧﯿﺎﯼﺁﻟﻤﺎﻧﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ )ﺻﺺ ‪ .(30-13‬ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﮐﻤﺒﺮﯾﺞ‪https://doi.org/10.1017/ 9781108768924.002.‬‬

‫ﻣﺮﺳﺮ‪،‬ﺍﺱ‪ .(2019) .‬ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺁﻣﻮﺯ‪ :‬ﺗﻨﻈﯿﻢ ﺻﺤﻨﻪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ‪) X. Gao‬ﻭﯾﺮﺍﯾﺶ(‪،‬ﺩﻓﺘﺮﭼﻪ ﺭﺍﻫﻨﻤﺎ ﺩﻭﻡ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺵﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ )ﺻﺺ ‪ .(660-643‬ﮐﺘﺎﺏ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺷﯽ ﺑﯿﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻠﯽ ‪.Springer‬‬
‫‪https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-030-02899-2_40‬‬
‫ﻣﺮﺳﺮ‪،‬ﺍﺱ‪ ،.‬ﻭ ﺩﻭﺭﻧﯿﺉﯽ‪ ،‬ﺯﯼ )‪.(2021‬ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮ ﮐﺮﺩﻥ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﮐﻼﺱ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺩﺭﺱ ﻣﻌﺎﺻﺮ‪.‬ﮐﻤﺒﺮﯾﺞ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ‪https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009024563.‬‬
‫ﻧﻮﻧﺎﻥ‪،‬ﺩﯼ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺭﯾﭽﺎﺭﺩﺯ‪ ،‬ﺟﯽ ﺳﯽ )‪.(2015‬ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻓﺮﺍﺗﺮ ﺍﺯ ﮐﻼﺱ ﺩﺭﺱﺭﺍﺗﻠﺞ‪https://doi.org/.‬‬
‫‪10.4324/9781315883472‬‬
‫ﺍﻭﮔﺎ‪-‬ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻭﯾﻦ‪ .WLQ )2019( ،‬ﺑﺎﺯﯾﮕﺮﯼ‪ ،‬ﺗﻔﮑﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﺣﺴﺎﺱ‪ ،‬ﺳﺎﺧﺘﻦ‪ ،‬ﻫﻤﮑﺎﺭﯼ‪ :‬ﻓﺮﺁﯾﻨﺪ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﯽﺳﯿﺴﺘﻢ‪https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102128.1-10،86 ،‬‬
‫ﺁﮐﺴﻔﻮﺭﺩ‪،‬ﺁﺭ )‪.(2016‬ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺵ ﻭ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺭﺍﻫﺒﺮﺩﻫﺎﯼ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‪.‬ﺭﺍﺗﻠﺞ‪https://doi.org/10.4324/.‬‬
‫‪9781315719146‬‬
‫ﻓﯿﻠﭗ‪،‬ﺟﯽ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺩﻭﺷﻦ‪ ،‬ﺍﺱ‪ .(2016) .‬ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻭﻇﺎﯾﻒ ﺩﺭ ﮐﻼﺱ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‪.‬ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﺳﺎﻻﻧﻪ‬
‫ﺯﺑﺎﻧﺸﻨﺎﺳﯽﮐﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩﯼ‪https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190515000094.50-72،36 ،‬‬
‫ﺭﯾﻮ‪،‬ﺟﯽ‪ ،.‬ﻭ ﺗﺴﻨﮓ‪ ،‬ﺳﯽ‪-.‬ﺍﻡ‪ .(2011) .‬ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯿﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﭼﻬﺎﺭﻣﯿﻦ ﺟﻨﺒﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﻃﻮﻝ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ‪.‬‬
‫ﺭﻭﺍﻧﺸﻨﺎﺳﯽﺗﺮﺑﯿﺘﯽ ﻣﻌﺎﺻﺮ‪ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002.257-267،36 ،‬ﺭﯾﻨﺪﺭﺯ‪ ،‬ﺍﭺ‪ ،‬ﻭ‬
‫ﻧﺎﮐﺎﻣﻮﺭﺍ‪،‬ﺍﺱ‪ .(2021) .‬ﻧﺎﻣﺰﺩﯼ‪ .InT .‬ﮔﺮﮔﺮﺳﻦ ﻭ ﺍﺱ‪.‬ﻣﺮﺳﺮ )ﻭﯾﺮﺍﯾﺸﮕﺮﺍﻥ(‪،‬ﮐﺘﺎﺏ ﺭﺍﻫﻨﻤﺎﯼ ﺭﻭﺗﻠﺞ‬
‫ﺭﻭﺍﻧﺸﻨﺎﺳﯽﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻭ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺵ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ )ﺻﺺ ‪ .(148-137‬ﺭﺍﺗﻠﺞ‪https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9780429321498-14.‬‬

‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪﻣﺤﺮﮎ ﻫﺎﯼ ﻋﻼﻗﻪ ﻭ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﻩ ‪ Bachrach، JE )2015(.‬ﻭ ‪Renninger، KA‬‬
‫ﻣﻮﺍﺩﻭ ﺭﻭﺵ ﻫﺎ‪.‬ﺭﻭﺍﻧﺸﻨﺎﺱ ﺗﺮﺑﯿﺘﯽ‪ https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.999920.58-69،50 ،‬ﺭﺳﻠﯽ‪ ،‬ﺁﻝ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﮐﺮﯾﺴﺘﻨﺴﻮﻥ‪ .SL )2012( ،‬ﺟﺮﻧﮓ ﺟﺮﻧﮓ‪ ،‬ﺟﻨﮕﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﮔﯿﺠﯽ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﯽ‪ :‬ﺗﮑﺎﻣﻞ ﻭ ﺁﯾﻨﺪﻩ‬
‫ﺟﻬﺖ ﻫﺎﯼﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺩﺭ ‪ ،SL Christenson، AL Reschly‬ﻭ ‪ .C‬ﻭﯾﻠﯽ )ﻭﯾﺮﺍﯾﺸﮕﺎﻩ(‪،‬ﮐﺘﺎﺑﭽﻪ ﺭﺍﻫﻨﻤﺎﯼ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺭﺩﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﺠﻮﯾﯽ )ﺻﺺ ‪ .(20-3‬ﺍﺳﭙﺮﯾﻨﮕﺮ‪ https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_1.‬ﺭﻭﻫﺮ‪-‬‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﮐﯿﻦ‪،‬ﮎ‪.(2018) .‬ﺁﮔﺎﻫﯽ ﻓﺮﺍﺯﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﻭ ﻓﺮﺍﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ‪.‬ﺭﺍﺗﻠﺞ‪https://.‬‬
‫‪doi.org/10.4324/9781315661001‬‬
‫ﺭﺍﺳﻞ‪،‬ﯼ‪ ،.‬ﺍﻭﺑﺮﺳﮑﯽ‪ ،‬ﺩﯼ‪ ،.‬ﺑﺮﻧﺰ‪ ،‬ﺟﯽ‪ ]Jorgensen، RD )2018(.…،.‬ﺗﺠﺰﯾﻪ ﻭ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﻣﺘﻐﯿﺮ ﭘﻨﻬﺎﻥ ‪lavaan:‬ﮐﺎﻣﭙﯿﻮﺗﺮ‬
‫ﻧﺮﻡﺍﻓﺰﺍﺭ[‪https://cran.r-project.org/package=lavaan.‬‬
‫ﺳﺎﺯﻩﻫﺎﯼ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻭ ﻫﻤﺮﺍﻫﯽ ﺩﺭ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‪ :‬ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺳﺎﺯﯼ ‪Sang, Y., & Hiver, P. )2021(.‬‬
‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﮐﻼﺱ ﺩﻭﻡ (‪،InP.Hiver، AH Alhoorie، & S. Mercer )Eds.‬ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﮐﻼﺱﺯﺑﺎﻥ )ﺻﺺ ‪ .(37-17‬ﻣﺴﺎﺉﻞ ﭼﻨﺪ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﻪ‪ https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788923613‬ﺍﺷﻨﺎﯾﺪﺭ‪ ،‬ﺍﭺ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺑﯽ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺍﻧﮑﻪ)‪Bildungsentscheidungen von Studienberechtigten ].(2014‬ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺷﯽ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺍﻓﺮﺍﺩﺩﺍﺭﺍﯼ ﺻﻼﺣﯿﺖ ﻭﺭﻭﺩ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺵ ﻋﺎﻟﯽ[‪Zentrum für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsforschung .‬‬
‫‪https://www.dzhw.eu/pdf/pub_fh/fh-201406.pdf.Deutsches‬‬
‫ﺍﺷﻤﯿﺖ‪ .TA )2011( ،‬ﻣﻼﺣﻈﺎﺕ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﻓﻌﻠﯽ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ ﺍﮐﺘﺸﺎﻓﯽ ﻭ ﺗﺎﯾﯿﺪﯼ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﺠﻠﻪﺳﻨﺠﺶ ﺭﻭﺍﻥ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺷﯽ‪https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911406653.304-321،29 ،‬‬

‫‪https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000572‬ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﮐﻤﺒﺮﯾﺞ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‬

 ‫ﻫﻨﺮﯾﺖﺍﻝ ﺁﺭﻧﺖ‬ ‫‪1480‬‬
‫ﺷﻮﺍﺭﺗﺰ‪،‬ﺍﻡ‪.(2020) .‬ﻓﺮﺍﺗﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺩﯾﻮﺍﺭﻫﺎ‪ :‬ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺭﻭﺵ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺗﺮﮐﯿﺒﯽ ﺷﯿﻮﻩ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﻪ ﻧﻮﺟﻮﺍﻧﺎﻥ ﻭ‬
‫ﺩﺍﻧﺶﻭﺍﮊﮔﺎﻥ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ]ﭘﺎﯾﺎﻥ ﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﺩﮐﺘﺮﯼ[‪ .‬ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﻭﯾﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﯾﻦ‪ ،‬ﺍﺗﺮﯾﺶ‪.‬‬
‫ﺳﯿﺪﻟﻬﻮﻓﺮ‪،‬ﺑﯽ )‪.(2011‬ﺩﺭﮎ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ‪.lingua franca‬ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﺁﮐﺴﻔﻮﺭﺩ‪https://doi.org/.‬‬
‫‪10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0243‬‬
‫ﺍﺭﺯﯾﺎﺑﯽﻟﺤﻈﻪ ﺍﯼ ﺍﮐﻮﻟﻮﮊﯾﮏ ‪Shiffman, S., Stone, AA, & Hufford, M. )2008(.‬ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﺳﺎﻻﻧﻪ‬
‫ﺭﻭﺍﻧﺸﻨﺎﺳﯽﺑﺎﻟﯿﻨﯽ‪https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091415.1-32،4 ،‬‬
‫ﺍﺳﮑﯿﻨﺮ‪ ،EA،‬ﮐﯿﻨﺪﺭﻣﻦ‪ ،TA ،‬ﻭ ﻓﻮﺭﺭ‪ ،‬ﺳﯽ ﺟﯽ )‪ .(2009‬ﺩﯾﺪﮔﺎﻩ ﺍﻧﮕﯿﺰﺷﯽ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﻭ‬
‫ﻧﺎﺭﺿﺎﯾﺘﯽ‪:‬ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺳﺎﺯﯼ ﻭ ﺍﺭﺯﯾﺎﺑﯽ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﯼ ﻭ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ ﮐﻮﺩﮐﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺗﺤﺼﯿﻠﯽ ﺩﺭ ﮐﻼﺱ ﺩﺭﺱ‪.‬‬
‫ﺳﻨﺠﺶﺗﺮﺑﯿﺘﯽ ﻭ ﺭﻭﺍﻧﯽ‪https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164408323233.493-525،69 ،‬‬

‫ﺍﺳﮑﯿﻨﺮ‪ ،EA،‬ﻭ ﭘﯿﺘﺰﺭ‪ .JR )2012( ،‬ﭘﻮﯾﺎﯾﯽ ﺭﺷﺪ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯ‪ ،‬ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺭﻭﺯﻣﺮﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻧﻌﻄﺎﻑﭘﺬﯾﺮﯼ ﺩﺭ ‪ ،SL Christenson، AL Reschly‬ﻭ ‪) C. Wylie‬ﻭﯾﺮﺍﯾﺸﮕﺮﺍﻥ(‪،‬ﮐﺘﺎﺑﭽﻪ ﺭﺍﻫﻨﻤﺎﯼ ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ‬
‫ﺩﺍﻧﺸﺠﻮﯾﯽ)ﺹ ‪ .(44-21‬ﺍﺳﭙﺮﯾﻨﮕﺮ‪https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_2.‬‬
‫ﺳﻮﮐﺖ‪،‬ﺟﯽ )‪.(2014‬ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺵ ﻏﯿﺮﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ‪.‬ﭘﺎﻟﮕﺮﯾﻮ ﻣﮏ ﻣﯿﻼﻥ‪https://doi.org/10.1057/.‬‬
‫‪9781137414885‬‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻮﺭﭺ‪،‬ﻥ‪ .(2008) .‬ﻣﺘﺎﺗﺎﮎ ﺩﺭ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﯿﺖ ﮐﺎﺭ ﺩﻭ ﻧﻔﺮﻩ‪ :‬ﺳﻄﺢ ﺩﺭﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻭ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﯿﻢ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪ‪.‬ﺁﮔﺎﻫﯽ ﺍﺯ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‪. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410802146644.95-114،17 ،‬ﯾﮏ ﻣﺴﯿﺮ ﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ‬
‫ﭘﯿﺸﺮﻓﺖ‪:‬ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﻪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ ﺩﺭ ﺳﻮﺉﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﭖ ‪Sundqvist، P. )2011(.‬‬
‫ﺑﻨﺴﻮﻥﻭ ﺍﭺ‪ .‬ﺭﯾﻨﺪﺭﺯ )ﻭﯾﺮﺍﯾﺸﺎﺕ(‪،‬ﻓﺮﺍﺗﺮ ﺍﺯ ﮐﻼﺱ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ )ﺻﺺ ‪ .(118-106‬ﭘﺎﻟﮕﺮﯾﻮ ﻣﮏ ﻣﯿﻼﻥ‪.‬‬
‫‪https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230306790_9‬‬
‫ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽﺩﺭ ‪ L2‬ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﮐﺎﻣﭙﯿﻮﺗﺮ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‪ :‬ﺗﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﺑﺮ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﺟﻮﺍﻥ ‪Sundqvist، P.، & Sylvén، LK )2014(.‬‬
‫ﺳﻮﺉﺪ‪https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344013000232.3-20ReCall, 26,.‬‬
‫‪Sundqvist، P.، & Sylvén، LK )2016(.‬ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﯿﺴﯽ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﺯ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺵ ﻭ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ‪.‬ﭘﺎﻟﮕﺮﯾﻮ ﻣﮏ ﻣﯿﻼﻥ‪.‬‬
‫‪https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-46048-6‬‬
‫‪.‬ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞﺑﺎ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‪ :‬ﺑﺎﺯﺟﻮﯾﯽ ﺍﺯ ﯾﮏ ﺳﺎﺯﻩ ‪Svalberg، AM )2009(.‬ﺁﮔﺎﻫﯽ ﺍﺯ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‪،18 ،‬‬
‫‪https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410903197264.242-258‬‬
‫ﺗﻮﮐﻞ‪،‬ﻡ‪ ،.‬ﻭ ﻭﺗﺰﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪ .(2020) .‬ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﯽ‪ :‬ﻭﺳﯿﻠﻪ ﺍﯼ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪ ﻧﻈﺮﯾﻪ ﻭ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﭘﺸﺘﯿﺒﺎﻧﯽﺍﺯ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺳﺎﺯﻩﻣﺠﻠﻪ ﺑﯿﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻠﯽ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺵ ﭘﺰﺷﮑﯽ‪/ 10.5116/ijme.5f96.0f4a.245-247،6 ،‬‬
‫‪https://doi.org‬‬
‫ﺗﯿﮕﭙﻦ‪،‬ﺳﯽ )‪ .(2019‬ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺳﻨﺠﺶ ﺳﻮﺍﻻﺕ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ ﻧﮕﺮ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻭﭼﺮﺧﻪ ﺳﻮﺍﺭﯼ‪ ،‬ﻧﮕﺮﺵ ﻭ‬
‫ﻣﻬﺎﺭﺕﺗﺤﻘﯿﻖ ﺣﻤﻞ ﻭ ﻧﻘﻞ ﻗﺴﻤﺖ ‪https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.11.002.453-461،F، 60‬‬
‫‪Verspoor, MH, de Bot, K., & Lowie, W. )2011(.‬ﺭﻭﯾﮑﺮﺩﯼ ﭘﻮﯾﺎ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ‪:‬‬
‫ﺭﻭﺵﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺗﮑﻨﯿﮏ ﻫﺎ‪.‬ﺟﺎﻥ ﺑﻨﺠﺎﻣﯿﻦ‪https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.29.‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻧﮓ‪،‬ﺍﻡ‪-.‬ﺗﯽ‪ ،‬ﻓﺮﺩﺭﯾﮑﺰ‪ ،‬ﺟﯽ‪ ،‬ﯾﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻑ‪ ،.‬ﻫﺎﻓﮑﻨﺰ‪ ،‬ﺗﯽ ﺍﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺷﺎﻝ ﻟﯿﻦ‪ ،‬ﺟﯽ‪ .(2016) .‬ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺭﯾﺎﺿﯽ ﻭ ﻋﻠﻮﻡ‬
‫ﻣﻘﯿﺎﺱﻫﺎ‪ :‬ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺳﻨﺠﯽ ﻭ ﻭﯾﮋﮔﯽ ﻫﺎﯼ ﺭﻭﺍﻥ ﺳﻨﺠﯽ‪.‬ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻭ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺵ‪.16-26،43 ،‬‬
‫‪https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.008‬‬
‫ﺩﺭﮎﺯﻣﺎﻥ‪ :‬ﺗﺤﻘﯿﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﺳﺎﺳﯽ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺧﯽ ﭘﯿﻮﻧﺪﻫﺎﯼ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﻩ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ‪Wearden، JH )2008(.‬‬
‫ﺯﺑﺎﻥﺁﻣﻮﺯﺵ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‪https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00468.x.149-171،58 ،‬‬
‫ﮊﻭ‪،‬ﺍﺱ‪ ،.‬ﻫﯿﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﭘﯽ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺍﻟﺤﻮﺭﯼ‪ ،‬ﻕ )‪ .(2021‬ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩ ﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ‪ :L2‬ﺑﺮﺭﺳﯽ ﻣﺴﺎﺉﻞ ﻭ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﻫﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺩﺭ (‪P. Hiver، AH Alhoorie، & S. Mercer )Eds.‬ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﮐﻼﺱ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ )ﺹ ‪ .(98-75‬ﻣﺴﺎﺉﻞ‬
‫ﭼﻨﺪﺯﺑﺎﻧﻪ‪https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788923613‬‬

‫ﺑﻪﺍﯾﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺎﺩ ﮐﻨﯿﺪ‪.:‬ﺳﺎﺧﺖ ﻭ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺳﻨﺠﯽ ﯾﮏ ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﮐﺖ ﺩﺭ ﯾﺎﺩﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﻏﯿﺮ ﺭﺳﻤﯽ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ‬
‫‪Arndt، HL )2023(.‬ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎﺕ ﻓﺮﺍﮔﯿﺮﯼ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﻡ‪/ 10.1017/S0272263122000572.1456-1480 :45،‬‬
‫‪https://doi.org‬‬

‫‪https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000572‬ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﮐﻤﺒﺮﯾﺞ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‬