ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Construction, Validation, and Application of a Teacher Status Scale (TSS): A Case of Iranian Junior High School Teachers
The role of teachers in the educational context could go beyond simply teaching the subject matter. It is not uncommon for some students to be greatly influenced by certain teachers and even consider them as their role models. An interesting and novel way of inferring the impact a teacher has on the students is through revealing the status of the teacher as perceived by the students. The present study pursued two goals: first, to construct and validate a teacher status scale (TSS); and second, to reveal the relative status of English language teachers as compared to other school teachers in students’ perceptions. Regarding the first goal, an 18-item teacher status scale was designed and, using the data collected from 200 students, its construct validity was substantiated through Rasch model. As for the second goal, 650 junior high school students rated their 300 teachers. The data was then analyzed using Chi-square test. In addition, 135 students participated in short interviews and a total of 530 minutes of recorded interviews constituted the qualitative data. Based on the results, English teachers were found to have the highest status of all school teachers as perceived by the students. Finally, statistical results were discussed, and implications were provided for English language teaching in the formal context of education.
https://ilt.atu.ac.ir/article_1361_5f0bbbca913d91ec77c5a6f53a488df0.pdf
2013-12-01
1
26
teacher status
Rasch Model
Validation
English language teacher
Reza
Pishghadam
pishghadam@um.ac.ir
1
Associate Professor, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran
AUTHOR
Fahimeh
Saboori
fahime.saboori@gmail.com
2
Ph.D. Candidate of TEFL, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran
AUTHOR
Altrichter, H., Posch, P., & Somekh, B. (1993). Teachers investigate their work: An introduction to the methods of action research. London: Routledge.
1
Allami H., Jalilifar A., & Hashemian, M. (2009). Are Iranian school students' language needs taken into consideration? Iranian Journal of Language Studies, 3(1), 125-142.
2
Allwright, D. (1992). Exploratory teaching: Bringing research and pedagogy together in the language classroom. Revue de Phonetique Appliqee, 103, 101-117.
3
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.
5
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
7
Brown, H. D. (2002). English language teaching in the "post-method" era: Toward better diagnosis, treatment, and assessment. In: A. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 9-18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (5th ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
9
Curry, M. J. (1996). Action research for preparing reflective language teachers. In Zuber-Skerritt O (Ed.), New directions in action research. London: Falmer Press.
10
Cutforth, N. (1999). Reconciling the moral and technical dimensions of teaching: Moving beyond notions of good and bad pedagogy. Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 5(4), 386-405.
11
Douglas, D. (2012). Commentary on establishing a life-language model of proficiency: A new challenge for language testers. Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 2(2), 109-111.
12
Fox, J. (2012). Commentary on establishing a life-language model of proficiency: A new challenge for language testers. Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 2(2), 112-115.
13
Garinger, D. (2002). Textbook selection for the ESL classroom. Retrieved from http://www.cal. org/resources/digest/0210garinger.html Ghadiri, M., Tavakoli, M., & Ketabi, S. (in press). Introducing culturally-adaptive English language pedagogy (CELP): Integrating critical cultural awareness through the ‘little-c’ culture in Iran’s EFL curriculum. International Journal of Scoiety, Culture, and Language.
14
Ghorbani, M. R. (2011). The impact of phonetic instruction on Iranian students’ listening ability enhancement. Asian EFL Journal, 52, 24-34.
15
Ghorbani, M. R. (2009). ELT in Iranian high schools in Iran, Malaysia and Japan: Reflections on how tests influence use of prescribed textbooks. Journal of RELT, 8(2), 131-139.
16
Gordon, D, & Schwinge, D. (2009). Action research in teacher preparation: Scaffolding reflective practitioners. National Language Teacher Education Conference, Washington D.C.
17
Halliday, M. A. K., McIntoch, A., & Strevensm, P. D. (1964). The linguistic sciences and language teaching. Harlow: Longman.
18
Hosseini, S. M. H. (2007). ELT in higher education in Iran and India – A critical view. Language in India, 7, 1-11.
19
Hui, M. F., & Grossman, D. L. (2008). Improving teacher education through action research. New York: Routeledge.
20
Jahangard, A. (2007). Evaluation of EFL materials taught at Iranian public high schools. The Asian EFL Journal, 9(2), 130-150.
21
Kincheloe, J. L. (1991). Teachers as researchers: Qualitative inquiry as a path to empowerment. Bristol: Falmer Press.
22
Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications for international communication and English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The post-method condition: Emerging strategies for second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 27-48.
24
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1999). Theorizing practice, practicing theory: Critical classroom observation. In H. Trappes-Lomax & A. McGrath (Eds.), Theory in language teacher education (pp. 33-45). London: Prentice-Hall.
25
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
26
Lin, A. M. Y., & Luk, J. C. M. (2005). Local creativity in the face of global domination: Insights of Bakhtin for teaching English for dialogic communication. In G. K. Hall, G. Vitanova, & L. Marchenkova, (Eds.), Dialogue with Bakhtin on second and foreign language learning: New perspectives. (pp. 77-98). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27
Mahmoodzadeh, M. (2012). Towards an understanding of ecological challenges of second language teaching: A critical review. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3, 1157-1164.
28
Mena-Marcos, J. J., Sanchez, E., & Tillema, H. (2011). Promoting teacher reflection: What is said to be done. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(1), 21-36.
29
Noffke, S. (1997). Professional, personal, and political dimensions of action research. In M. Apple (Ed.) Review of research in education. (pp. 305-343).Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
30
Norton, B., & Gao, Y. (2008). Identity, investment, and Chinese learners of English. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 18(1), 109-120.
31
Ostovar-Namaghi, S. A. (2006). Forces steering Iranian language teachers’ work: A grounded theory. The Reading Matrix, 6(2), 90-105.
32
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33
Pishghadam, R. (2011). Introducing applied ELT as a new approach in second/foreign language studies. Iranian EFL Journal, 7(2), 8-14.
34
Pishghadam, R., & Adamson, B. (2013). Educational language learning textbooks: A new outlook on materials development. In N. Bakić-Mirić & D. E. Gaipov (Eds.), Building cultural bridges in education (pp. 93-102). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
35
Pishghadam, R., & Kamyabi A. (2008). On the relationship between cultural attachment and accent mimicry. Unpublished manuscript, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad.
36
Pishghadam, R., & Mirzaee, A. (2008). English language teaching in postmodern era. TELL, 2(1), 89-109.
37
Pishghadam, R., & Navari, S. (2009). Cultural literacy in language learning: Enrichment or derichment. Paper presented at International Conference on Languages, Malaysia.
38
Pishghadam, R., & Saboori, F. (2011a). A quantitative survey on Iranian English learners' attitudes toward varieties of English: World English or world Englishes? English Language and Literature Studies, 1(1), 86-95.
39
Pishghadam, R., & Saboori F. (2011b). A qualitative analysis of ELT in the language institutes of Iran in the light of the theory of ‘World Englishes’. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(3), 569-579.
40
Pishghadam, R., & Sadeghi, M. (2011). Culture and identity change among Iranian EFL teachers. Ozean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(3), 147-162.
41
Pishghadam, R., & Zabihi, R. (2012). Life syllabus: A new research agenda in English language teaching. Perspectives, 19(1), 23-27.
42
Pishghadam, R., Zabihi R., & Norouz-Kermanshahi, P. (2012). Educational language teaching: A new movement beyond reflective/critical teaching. Life Science Journal, 9(1), 892-897.
43
Prabhu, N. S. (1990). There is no best method-why? TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 161-176.
44
Razmjoo, S. A., & Riazi, M. (2006). Is communicative language teaching practical in the expanding circle? A case study of teachers of Shiraz high schools and institutes. Journal of Language and Learning, 4 (2), 144-171.
45
Rice, K. J. (2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes. Retrieved 7 June 2007 from http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/books_teacher_quality_
46
execsum_intro
47
Schmuck, R. (2006). Practical action research for change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
48
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
49
Sheldon, L. (1988). Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT Journal, 42(4), 237-246.
50
Schmitt, N. (2002). An introduction to applied linguistics. London: Arnold.
51
Stone, M., & Wright, B. (1988). Separation statistics in Rasch measurement (Research Memorandum No. 51). Chicago, IL.: MESA.
52
Strevens, P. (1992). Applied linguistics: An overview. In W. Grabe & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 13-31). London: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
53
Swandee, A. (1995). Students' perceptions of university instructors' effective teaching characteristics. SLLT Journal, 5, 6-22.
54
Timmis, I. (2007). The attitudes of language learners towards target varieties of the language. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Language acquisition and development (pp. 122-139). London: Continuum.
55
Wallace, M. (1998). Action research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56
Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: A social constructivist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
57
Zeichner, K. M., & Liston D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
58
Characteristic
59
Social sciences
60
Physical education
61
Open-minded
62
Knowledgeable
63
With a sense of humor
64
Intelligent
65
Trustworthy
66
Respectable
67
High-class
68
Well-educated
69
Well-dressed
70
Entertaining
71
Influential
72
Good speaker
73
Consultable
74
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
The Effect of Teaching Vocabulary through Synonymous, Semantically Unrelated, and Hyponym Sets on EFL Learners’ Retention
Many textbooks include semantically related words and sometimes teachers add synonyms, antonyms, etc. to the words in order to present new vocabulary items without questioning the possible effects. This study sought to investigate the effect of teaching vocabulary through synonym, semantically unrelated, and hyponym sets based on Higa’s (1963) proposed continuum. A total of 120 Iranian intermediate EFL adults were selected and classified into two high and low language proficient learners based on their PET (2003) scores. They learned the vocabulary items based on the three above-mentioned methods. Learners’ vocabulary achievement was measured using Paribakht and Wesche’s (1993) Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS) in order to assess both the quantitative (number of learnt vocabulary [NLV]) and the qualitative knowledge of vocabulary (depth of learnt vocabulary [DLV]) by administering the same test twice with a two-week interval for obtaining ST and LT results. To address research questions, two independent two-way ANOVAs and two mixed design two-way ANOVAs were conducted. The results revealed that the learners from synonym sets group gained better ST vocabulary achievement quantitatively and language proficiency level proved not to play any significant role in the learners’ vocabulary accomplishment based on belonging to any given group. It was also revealed that quantitatively hyponym, semantically unrelated, and synonym set groups were respectively the most effective methods of clustering that lead to less forgetting in LT which supports Higa’s proposition.
https://ilt.atu.ac.ir/article_1362_90b02383002a81166bf372fd4d6c38e5.pdf
2013-12-01
27
56
hyponym set
semantically unrelated set
synonym set
vocabulary knowledge scale
number of learnt vocabulary
depth of learnt vocabulary
Elaheh
Sotoudehnama
esotoude@alzahra.ac.ir
1
Associate Professor, Alzahra University, Iran
AUTHOR
Faezeh
Soleimanifard
2
M.A. in TEFL, Alzahra University, Iran
AUTHOR
Learning and teaching vocabulary has received much attention in the past few decades in the field of language teaching (McKeown, Beck, & Sandora, 2012; Schmitt, 2008). Nevertheless, in spite of a great deal of noticeable advancement, the issue seems to be far from reaching consensus considering how learners can learn vocabulary conveniently or how it can be taught effectively.
1
One of the first important points regarding vocabulary learning is the decision to be made about which words should be taught, in which order, and how they should be presented (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2013). Webb (2007) highlights that researchers and teachers must be very careful in selecting target words, as “the type of words chosen, and their L2 relationships may determine the size of gains” (p.77). A glance into most of the English language textbooks shows that each unit usually contains related words that the teacher should present in one session and the students should learn them all together. Top Notch Fundamentals (Saslow & Ascher, 2006), Interchange Intro (Richards, 2005), and Connect2 (Richards, Barbisan, Sandy, 2004) all provide many vocabularies that are semantically related words in a way.
2
Scholars who have done researches in this area keep two opposite positions in argument: advocates of semantic relationship between words who believe in the facilitative impact of learning semantically related words simultaneously (Channel, 1981; Dunbar, 1992; Neuner, 1992; all cited in Nation, 2000; Hashemi & Gowdasiaei, 2005) and opponents who highlight the obstructive impact (Finkbeiner & Nicol, 2003; Hakkı Erten & Tekin, 2008; Papathanasiou, 2009; Tinkham, 1997; Waring, 1997).
3
LITERATURE REVIEW
4
The Role of Clustering New Words in Learning Vocabulary
5
There are two opposing hypotheses with respect to learning clustered words together in linguistics. Based on the interference theory, “as similarity increases between targeted information and other information learned either before or after the targeted information, the difficulty of learning and remembering the targeted information also increases” (Tinkham, 1993, p. 372). Hunt and Elliot’s (1980, cited in Tinkham, 1997) distinctiveness hypothesis also relates ease of learning to the distinctiveness and non-similarity of the information that are going to be learned.
6
On the other hand, semantic activation theory indicates that words are processed in memory through mental structures called nodes. When a node is activated, activation spreads through mutually connected links to other associated concepts (Aitchison, 2003). Thus, if words in mental lexicon are related in such associative networks as Aitchison (2003) cites, then teaching items in lexical sets would possibly assist learning words.
7
Thus, although it is crystal clear that the meaning of each word in a language is related to some other words in that language and this sense relation is what is needed for understanding new words; there is still controversy whether new items should be taught through relations such as synonymy, hyponymy, etc. or not.
8
Higa (1963) studied seven kinds of meaning relationships between pairs of words (near synonyms, free associates, opposites, unrelated, connotation, partial response identity, and coordinate) and developed a continuum starting from near synonyms (e.g., fast and rapid) that are “most interfering” in his term, having unrelated ones in the middle that are “neutral” (e.g., bread and foot), and ending in coordinates (e.g., apple and pear) that are “most helpful”. His continuum shows that teaching lexical sets, at least with some particular meaning relations could have obstructive impacts on learning new vocabulary.
9
Tinkham (1993) found that learning semantically related groups of words (which directly descend from a common superordinate) together interfered with actual learning of the words. He emphasized that when learners were given a list of words that share a common superordinate, they learned more slowly than words not sharing a superordinate. Waring (1997) who replicated Tinkham’s experimental study also obtained the same results.
10
Moreover, Finkbeiner and Nicol (2003) investigated learning new words paired with their pictures and found that participants translated L2 words learnt in semantic sets more slowly than those learnt in random order. They suggested “simultaneous activation of semantically related lexical items is at the root of the effect” and concluded that presenting semantically grouped words has a deleterious effect on L2 learners’ learning (p.377). Hakkı Erten and Tekin (2008) also reported that in their study, the test completion time was much longer for the semantically related vocabulary items and concluded that “synonyms, antonyms, hyponyms, or other such relations among words can cause confusion, and thus require extra time and effort” (p.418).
11
Those scholars who believe that teaching related items together has facilitative impacts have justified their stance with reference to the following findings: It (1) requires less learning to learn words in a set (Neuner, 1992, cited in Nation, 2000); (2) is easier to retrieve related words from memory; (3) helps learners see how knowledge can be organized (Dunbar, 1992, cited in Nation, 2000); (4) reflects the way such information is stored in the brain; and (5) makes the meaning of words clearer by seeing how they relate to and are different from other words in the set (as cited in Nation, 2000, p.6).
12
Schmitt and Schmitt (2009) assert that organized material is easier to learn and highlight that a great number of related words can be learned in a quite short time. Carter (1987) argues that since words in lexical grids can be defined in relation to each other, their “fine gradations and differences” with respect to their meaning would be plain in a “very efficient and economic manner” (p.7).
13
The results of Hashemi and Gowdasiaei’s (2005) research showed that the lexical sets students’ gains in their vocabulary depth (VD) and vocabulary breadth (VB) knowledge were more satisfactory than the semantically unrelated ones. Schneider, Healy, and Bourne’s (1998) study also demonstrated that learning related words together was easier than learning unrelated ones, although the retention test results showed difficulty in recalling them in long-term.
14
The results of Zheng, Kang, and Kim’s (2009) research also supported that a number of semantic relationships including hypernymy, hyponymy, meronymy, and holonymy are effective methods of clustering that can be applied for better learning and retrieving. Higa’s (1963) and Hoshino’s (2010) researches also showed that coordinates or categorical sets (i.e., hyponyms) are helpful and effective in learning.
15
The Role of Proficiency Level in Learning Lexical Sets
16
Nation (2000) emphasizes that “learning new words is a cumulative process, with words being enriched and established as they are met again” and adds that learning related words in sets is not good to be used for initial learning but “as learners’ knowledge becomes more established, seeing related words in sets can have a more positive effect” (p.6). Carter (1998) also believes that using word lists would be useful for beginners; teaching words in context would be more suitable in upper levels of proficiency; and then word sets and grids would be better for advanced learners.
17
Based on the results of Papathanasiou’s (2009) study, it was supported that the presentation of unrelated vocabulary assists learning new L2 words more than related vocabulary at adult beginners’ level. Hence, she concludes that at first, it is better to present unrelated vocabulary and then later, at a more advanced level, present semantically related vocabulary. In Hashemi and Gowdasiaei’s (2005) research, too, the upper level students showed greater achievement in their vocabulary depth and vocabulary breadth knowledge than their peer lower level ones. Then based on this result, the writers propose that in L2 vocabulary learning, there is possibly a period like the L1 vocabulary spurt in which words are learned more quickly and it “probably begins after the L2 learner has built up an initial vocabulary and has reached a higher language proficiency” (p.356).
18
Zipoli, Michael, Coyne, and McCoach (2010) also highlight that semantically related reviews can be used to “promote high levels of word learning” (p.12). Therefore, it is stressed that working with a group of related words should be delayed till secondary stage of learning L2, during which the learners are ready for taking advantage of making connections and noticing distinctions between lexical sets.
19
The Retention of Learned Vocabulary through Lexical Sets
20
Vocabulary is not learned in a linear manner that is only progressing without any backsliding. Learners usually forget material as well and this forgetting is a natural reality about learning. Memory researches have shown that forgetting occurs within a short time after the learning phase and then its speed reduces gradually (Baddeley, 1990, cited in Schmitt, 2008). Additionally, it is widely suggested that the more cognitive energy a learner spends during learning phase, the more likely that person will be for remembering the learned items whenever needed (Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001; Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001; Schmitt & McCarthy, 1997). This idea is shaped based on the Depth (or Levels) of Processing Hypothesis that highlights a deeper engagement with words would result in better retention (Schmitt, 2008). McKeown, Beck, and Sandora (2012) also mention that “(1) multiple exposures of the words being taught; (2) breadth of information_ definitional and contextual; and (3) engagement of active or deep processing by getting students to think about the words and interact with them” are features that are effective for enhancing vocabulary knowledge (p. 18).
21
Considering the retention aspect of teaching vocabulary through semantically related sets, Hakkı Erten and Tekin’s (2008) research supported that presenting new words in related sets interfered with learning and retrieving words. Based on the results of the short term posttest and long term posttest, teaching vocabulary in semantically unrelated sets produced better results than teaching words in semantically related sets and also this difference remained the same in second testing. Schneider et al.’s (1998) research also contributed noticeable findings to this area. They initially found that learning related words together was easier; while the results of long term retention test showed that the participants from unrelated vocabulary group were faster and made fewer errors than those from the related vocabulary group. Therefore, they emphasized that “blocking vocabulary by category…may aid initial acquisition but may not yield optimal retention” (p. 86).
22
Vocabulary Assessment
23
Vocabulary skill as one of the priorities in L2 teaching requires tests to assess word knowledge of the learners in order to check their progress and meet their needs. Schmitt (1999) justifies that recently scholars coincided that the measure of the vocabulary size by itself is not an adequate description of vocabulary knowledge and “how well individual words are known (depth of knowledge)” is also needed to have more complete view of lexical knowledge (p.191).
24
Paribakht and Wesche’s (1993) Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS) demands learners to report on their own knowledge of each word while answering five questions that start from recognizing the word, to being able to make a sentence using that word. In order to assess the learner’s word knowledge through VKS, the target words are presented and then learners are supposed to demonstrate their knowledge responding to five categories shown in Figure 1.
25
Self-report categories
26
I don’t remember having seen this word before.
27
I have seen this word before, but I don’t know what it means.
28
I have seen this word before, and I Think it means … . (synonym or translation)
29
I know this word. It means … . (synonym or translation)
30
I can use this word in a sentence: … . (If you do this section, please also do section IV.)
31
32
Figure 1: VKS elicitation scale self-report categories (Wesche & Paribakht, 1996, p. 30)
33
Paribakht and Wesche (1997) mention that vocabulary gains through a course of vocabulary teaching would be both quantitative that would be reflected in “the number of words known to some degree versus not known” and qualitative that would be obtained from increases in depth of knowledge of given words (p.189). Therefore, two scores based on the learners’ knowledge of the target words would be estimated: (a) depth of vocabulary and (b) known vocabulary.
34
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
35
So far, the reported background clarifies that there is still lack of consensus among scholars about the advantages and disadvantages of teaching semantically related words. Therefore, this research aimed to obtain the initial (near synonyms), central (unrelated), and final (coordinates) relationships in Higa’s (1963) continuum to study their effects on learning vocabulary adding two new variables: level of proficiency and retention with a different way of assessment from that of Higa’s (1963) i.e., VKS.
36
The present study concentrated on the effect of teaching words in three different meaning sets, i.e., synonyms, semantically unrelated, and hyponyms on both ST (short-term) and LT(long-term) retention of Iranian high and low proficient EFL learners. Thus, the study intended to answer the following questions:
37
(a) Is there any significant quantitative difference between the short-term vocabulary achievements of high and low language proficient level learners who learn new items through either synonyms, semantically unrelated sets, or hyponyms (as reflected in the number of learnt vocabulary [NLV])?
38
(b) Is there any significant qualitative difference between the short-term vocabulary achievements of high and low language proficient level learners who learn new items through either synonyms, semantically unrelated sets, or hyponyms (as reflected in the depth of learnt vocabulary [DLV])?
39
(a) Is there any significant quantitative difference between the short-term and long-term retention of the learned items among the learners who learn new items through either synonyms, semantically unrelated sets, or hyponyms (as reflected in the number of learnt vocabulary [NLV])?
40
(b) Is there any significant qualitative difference between the short-term and long-term retention of the learned items among the learners who learn new items through either synonyms, semantically unrelated sets, or hyponyms (as reflected in the depth of learnt vocabulary [DLV])?
41
Participants
42
The participants of this research were 120 Iranian learners, ranging in age from 16 to 25 years old who were learning English as a foreign language in Abhar Shokouh Language Institute. They were at intermediate level based on the criteria of the institute and were studying Top Notch (Saslow & Ascher, 2006) series at the institute during the summer and autumn of 2010. They were selected from among six intact classes including 143 learners from whom 120 were selected and then divided into two groups of 60 high and low proficient learners based on .05 SD above or below the mean of their PET exam results (appropriate for the participants’ level) which the ratio of male to female learners was not controlled in this study. The participants were from six different classes and six teachers taught them the target words.
43
Instrumentation
44
Target Words
45
Forty words—that were all nouns—were selected based on the results of a VKS pretest that separated new words from the already known ones and then they were classified into 10 groups. Each group had one common superordinate (e.g., shoes) and four hyponym words that included two synonym pairs (e.g., sneakers=trainers and wellingtons=rubber boots). As the criterion of relatedness had priority over frequency in this particular study, the lexical sets were checked only for relatedness, not frequency.
46
Tests
47
Four tests were administered during this study, two of which were applied before the treatment and the others were given to the learners after that. Initially, the PET test (2003) was administered in order to classify the learners into high and low language proficiency levels. Since the actual level of the participants was intermediate, based on the institute criteria, PET which is a standard test appropriate for an intermediate level was used. Then, a vocabulary pretest was carried out to check whether the words selected to be taught were not known for all participants or not. Another vocabulary test based on Paribakht and Wesche’s Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS) was administered after teaching 40 words: once within 2 or 3 days after the treatment (ST posttest) and once with 2 week interval (LT posttest) to check the ST and LT effects. This time interval was selected as Mackey and Gass (2005, p. 149) suggest, “ Often this is 1 week following the first posttest and then 2 weeks later and even 2 or 3 months later.”
48
Data Collection Procedure
49
First of all, the PET test (2003) was administered. Since the participants’ level, based on the institute’s criteria was intermediate, this test was selected. In fact if any other standard test like FCE or TOEFL were selected, due to the participants’ level, the normality of distribution could not be achieved. The results showed that there was a normal distribution (Z=.882, p>.05) and the scores were highly reliable (α=.91). Then, 120 learners of all 143 participants of the PET test were chosen: 60 high proficient learners whose scores fell between 0.5 to 2 standard deviations above the mean score and 60 low proficient learners whose scores ranged from 0.5 to 2 standard deviations below the mean score. Afterwards, both the high and low students were assigned to three different groups in which they were supposed to learn the target words through one of the three different ways of presentation. Therefore, 20 participants from each proficiency level received instruction in one of the three ways of the vocabulary presentation.
50
All participants in each group took the pretest before the beginning of the instructional phase in order to make sure that they did not know the meaning of the preselected target words in the lists. Based on the results of the pretest, 12 out of 52 words were discarded. The target words were put into three different lesson plans based on the meaning relationships between them to be presented to three different groups of participants (see Appendices A, B, & C). As all 40 words were aimed to be taught in five 45-minute-sessions, each time 8 words were planned to be introduced based on Gairns and Redman’s (2006, p.66) suggestion: “It is impossible to be dogmatic about the number of new lexical item that should be presented in a sixty-minute lesson. We would suggest an average of eight to twelve productive items as representing a reasonable input.” In this study to assure of learning, the minimum figure suggested, i.e., eight, was considered as the basis. In each session, the synonym groups (high and low) were supposed to learn 8 words that included 4 synonym pairs (e.g., merchant=retailer, receptionist=desk clerk, sneakers=trainers, and expo=fair). The hyponym groups had other 8 words that were 4 hyponym pairs (e.g., negative emotions: woe and fury, accused people: culprit and detainee, people with extraordinary skills: sorcerer and soothsayer, and parts of something: kernel and pinnacle). And finally semantically unrelated groups received 8 words that did not have any meaning relationships (e.g., craftsman, wellingtons, pinnacle, bombardment, buffoon, woe, felon, and wizard).
51
Six intermediate intact classes of Abhar Shokouh Institute, including both male and female learners were selected. The number of participants in these six classes was 22, 25, 24, 25, 23, and 24 which altogether it made 143. Each of the two above- mentioned classes was supposed to be considered for teaching one of the three methods of teaching vocabulary, i.e., semantically unrelated, synonymous and hyponymous sets. In the first pair, including 49 participants, 20 were low, 22 high, and 5 not within the determined range. In the second pair, including 49 again, 23 were low, 21 high, and 4 not within the range and in the third pair including 47, 21 were high, 20 low, and 6 out of the range. Since the minimum number of high and low level participants in two of the pairs was 20, to keep the number of the participants constant in the three sets, the rest of the participants were excluded from the data.
52
Six teachers taught the target words in these six regular intermediate intact classes. The teachers were all colleagues of the researcher and requested to stick to the lesson plans. The definitions, translations, and examples presented in all classes were the same. After giving the definition and building the meaning relations (except in the case of unrelated sets), the teachers provided some sentence examples for the learners and required them to offer their own examples, as well. After clarifying the meaning of each new vocabulary item, its Persian translation was also provided as an additional help and a check for understanding.
53
Thus, the semantically unrelated groups learned new items separately and in an unrelated manner through attending to sentence context and clarifying dictionary definition only. Their teachers taught eight semantically unrelated words each session, for example craftsman, wellingtons, pinnacle, bombardment, buffoon, woe, felon, and wizard were presented in the first session through their dictionary definition and two sentences by teacher and several other sentences by learners themselves. After practicing the words through making sentences, the teachers were supposed to elicit translation or provide it themselves in case the learners were unable to suggest correct Persian equivalent. The hyponym groups also followed the same procedure plus associating new items to other words in the list under the same superordinate before starting to practice them through sentence making. And finally, the synonym groups made use of synonymous links in learning synonym words before practicing them in context of sentences.
54
At the end of the teaching phase, a VKS was administered to all groups two or three days after teaching 40 words. In order to evaluate learners’ depth of learnt vocabulary and to calculate the number of learnt vocabulary, Paribakht and Wesche’s (1993) VKS was applied. After two weeks, the same test was administered again in order to check the retention of the target words. The scoring procedure was done based on Wesche and Paribakht’s (1996) rubric for interpreting the learners’ answers shown in Figure 2.
55
Self-report categories possible scores Meaning of scores
56
1 The word is not familiar at all.
57
2 The word is familiar but its meaning is not known
58
3 A correct synonym or translation is given.
59
4 The word is used with semantic appropriateness in a
60
sentence.
61
S5 The word is used with semantic appropriateness and
62
grammatical accuracy in a sentence.
63
Figure 2: VKS scoring categories: Meaning of scores (Wesche & Paribakht, 1996, p. 30)
64
Considering the fact that a learner’s depth of learnt vocabulary (DLV) score for each word would range from 1 to 5 points and since the total number of the target words in this study was forty, the maximum DLV score for each student in a test was 200 (40´5=200) and the minimum DLV score was 40 (40´1=40). Also, in order to measure the students’ number of learnt vocabulary (NLV), scores 3, 4, and 5 in the DLV were given only one point while scores 1 and 2 received no points this time. Thus, due to the fact that 40 words were assessed in a test, the maximum NLV score could be 40 points for every student (40´1=40) and the minimum NLV score was 0 (40´0=0).
65
Data Analysis
66
Before running any of the needed analyses for each research question, the necessary assumptions were observed by checking histograms and one-sample K-S for normality of distribution and also box plot for identification of outliers and extremes. Then, to investigate the effect of teaching new vocabulary items through either synonyms, semantically unrelated sets, or hyponyms on vocabulary achievements of learners with high and low language proficiency level, both quantitatively (reflected in NLV scores) and qualitatively (reflected in DLV scores), two independent two-way ANOVAs were conducted. Furthermore, in order to investigate the difference between the ST and LT retention of the taught items among the language learners who learned new items through either synonyms, semantically unrelated sets, or hyponyms both quantitatively (reflected in the NLV scores) and qualitatively (reflected in the DLV scores), two mixed design two-way ANOVAs were applied.
67
Results of the First Research Question
68
The results of the first independent two-way ANOVA (see Table 2) revealed that the type of the vocabulary presentation had a significant effect, F(2,114)=7.371, p=.001, and the effect size was almost large based on Cohen’s (1988) criterion that considers .01=small effect; .06=moderate effect; and.14=large effect (eta squared=.115). Also, the main effect for level reached statistical significance, F(1,114) = 9.236, p=.003, however the effect size was moderate (eta squared=.075). Moreover, the interaction effect was not significant F(2,114)=1.531, p=.221.
69
Table 1: Descriptive statistics for NLV scores in high and low groups
70
Std. Deviation
71
Synonym sets
72
Hyponym sets
73
Semantically unrelated sets
74
Synonym sets
75
Hyponym sets
76
Semantically unrelated sets
77
Synonym sets
78
Hyponym sets
79
Semantically unrelated sets
80
81
As theTable indicates, there is difference between the two different levels of language proficiency in NLV. The following Table reveals the degree of this difference.
82
Table 2: Tests of between-subject effects for NLV scores
83
Type III Sum of Squares
84
Mean Square
85
Partial Eta Squared
86
Corrected Model
87
Level * Group
88
Corrected Total
89
Therefore, it could be concluded that there was a significant difference in quantitative knowledge of learners belonging to three groups in which target words were clustered and presented through synonym, semantically unrelated, and hyponym sets. In order to find the best method of clustering, Tamhane’s post hoc test (see Table 3) was conducted due to the result of Levene’s test (p<.05). The results showed that the participants receiving instruction through synonymous sets outperformed the others. No other significant difference was observed. As far as the level is concerned, the high level outperformed the low level.
90
Table 3: Tamhane’s post hoc test for NLV scores
91
Mean Difference (I-J)
92
Std. Error
93
95% Confidence Interval
94
Lower Bound
95
Upper Bound
96
Synonym sets
97
Hyponym sets
98
Semantically unrelated sets
99
Hyponym sets
100
Synonym sets
101
Semantically unrelated sets
102
Semantically unrelated sets
103
Synonym sets
104
Hyponym sets
105
The analysis based on the second two-way ANOVA revealed that there was not any significant difference between the DLV scores of the learners from different groups (see Table 5); i.e., synonym, hyponym, and semantically related sets, F (2,114)=1.219, p=.299, but there was a significant difference for different proficiency levels, F (1,114)=16.660, p=.000, and the effect size was moderate (eta squared=.128) and no significant difference considering the interaction of the level and group factors, F (2,114)=.568; p=.568. Table 4 shows the descriptive statistics and the difference between the two levels of proficiency in DLV. In Table 5 the degree of this difference is presented.
106
Table 4: Descriptive statistics for DLV scores in high and low groups
107
Std. Deviation
108
Synonym sets
109
Hyponym sets
110
Semantically unrelated sets
111
Synonym sets
112
Hyponym sets
113
Semantically unrelated sets
114
Synonym sets
115
Hyponym sets
116
Semantically unrelated sets
117
118
Thus, teaching new vocabulary items through either synonyms, semantically unrelated sets, or hyponyms did not make any significant difference in ST vocabulary learning of language learners qualitatively, i.e., the depth of learnt vocabulary. Moreover, although all high language proficient level learners gained better achievements, there was not any significant difference between the qualitative vocabulary learning of high and low level learners based on their membership in different treatment groups.
119
Table 5: Tests of between-subject effects for DLV scores
120
Type III Sum of Squares
121
Mean Square
122
Partial Eta Squared
123
Corrected Model
124
12492.942a
125
2296610.008
126
2296610.008
127
Level * Group
128
2379489.000
129
Corrected Total
130
Results of the Second Research Question
131
Based on the results of the first mixed design two-way ANOVA (see Table 7), the effect of time (ST vs. LT) was significant, F(1,117) = 147.803, p=.000 with a very large effect size (eta squared=.558), and also the interaction of them with different semantic groups the learners belonged to, proved to be significant as well, F(2,117)=7.105, p=.001 and the effect size was moderate (eta squared=.108).
132
Table 6: Descriptive statistics for NLV scores comparing ST and LT
133
Std. Deviation
134
STPosttestNLV
135
Synonym sets
136
Hyponym sets
137
Semantically unrelated sets
138
LTPosttestNLV
139
Synonym sets
140
Hyponym sets
141
Semantically unrelated sets
142
Based on Table (6), there is difference between these short and long term NLV posttests. Next Table is to see if this difference is significant or not.
143
Table 7: Tests of within-subject effects for NLV comparing ST and LT
144
Type III Sum of Squares
145
Mean Square
146
Partial Eta Squared
147
Sphericity Assumed
148
Greenhouse-Geisser
149
Huynh-Feldt
150
Lower-bound
151
Time * Group
152
Sphericity Assumed
153
Greenhouse-Geisser
154
Huynh-Feldt
155
Lower-bound
156
Error(Time)
157
Sphericity Assumed
158
Greenhouse-Geisser
159
Huynh-Feldt
160
Lower-bound
161
Due to the result of Levene’s Test (p<.05), Tamhane post hoc was conducted and as it is shown in Table (8), there was a significant difference between the quantitative scores of learners’ ST and LT retention tests in synonym and semantically unrelated sets groups (p<.05) and also in synonym and hyponym sets group (p<.05). The difference in both cases was in favor of synonym sets group that indicates these learners gained higher scores in LT in comparison with other two groups. On the other hand, there were no significant differences between the scores in hyponym and semantically unrelated sets groups (p>.05).
162
Table 8: Tamhane’s post hoc for NLV scores comparing ST and LT
163
Mean Difference (I-J)
164
Std. Error
165
95% Confidence Interval
166
Lower Bound
167
Upper Bound
168
Synonym sets
169
Hyponym sets
170
Semantically unrelated sets
171
Hyponym sets
172
Synonym sets
173
Semantically unrelated sets
174
Semantically unrelated sets
175
Synonym sets
176
Hyponym sets
177
It was also observed that there was less attrition in knowledge of learners who had learned target words through hyponyms and semantically related sets within a two-week interval. Comparing the mean differences of the ST posttest and LT posttest scores, it could be concluded that learners from hyponym sets group lost the smallest amount of their NLV scores while learners from synonym sets group lost the greatest amount of their NLV scores.
178
Figure 3: Estimated marginal means for STPosttest NLV (1) and LTPosttest NLV (2)
179
The results of the second mixed design two-way ANOVA showed that there is a significant difference between the ST posttest and LT posttest qualitative scores of the learners, F(1,117)=88.662, p=.000, and the effect size was very large (eta squared=.431). The interaction of ST and LT retention of target words and different semantic groups the learners belonged to also proved to be significant, F(2,117)=3.378, p=.037, however the effect size was small (eta squared=.055). Finally, there was not any significant difference between the qualitative scores of learners’ ST and LT retention tests in any of the groups F(2,117)=1.076, p=.344 as shown in Table (10).
180
Considering the means and standard deviations as shown in Table (9), there are differences between the short term and long term DLV posttests. Synonym sets in both short term and long term have the higher means and a higher mean for semantically unrelated sets for short term but a higher mean for hyponym sets in the long term.
181
Table 9: Descriptive statistics for DLV scores comparing ST and LT
182
Std. Deviation
183
STPosttestDLV
184
Synonym sets
185
Hyponym sets
186
Semantically unrelated sets
187
LTPosttestDLV
188
Synonym sets
189
Hyponym sets
190
Semantically unrelated sets
191
192
Table 10: Tests of within-subject effects for DLV scores comparing ST and LT
193
Type III Sum of Squares
194
Mean Square
195
Partial Eta Squared
196
Sphericity Assumed
197
Greenhouse-Geisser
198
Huynh-Feldt
199
Lower-bound
200
Time * Group
201
Sphericity Assumed
202
Greenhouse-Geisser
203
Huynh-Feldt
204
Lower-bound
205
Error(Time)
206
Sphericity Assumed
207
Greenhouse-Geisser
208
Huynh-Feldt
209
Lower-bound
210
To understand the reason, two one-way ANOVAs were run. The results of the first one indicates that there is no significant difference in the qualitative scores of the learners from three different treatment groups in ST, F(2,117)=1.082, p =.342. Likewise, the second one proved that there is no significant difference in the qualitative scores of the learners from synonymous, semantically unrelated, and hyponymous sets groups in LT, F(2,117)=1.386, p=.254. These findings explain why the results of post hoc tests did not show any significance considering different groups of clustering and presenting vocabulary. The main reason for initial significance was Time factor not the Group. Table 11 provides more information.
211
Table 11: Pairwise comparison of time factor for DLV Scores comparing ST and LT
212
(I) Time
213
Mean Difference (I-J)
214
Std. Error
215
95% Confidence Interval for Differencea
216
Lower Bound
217
Upper Bound
218
STPosttestDLV
219
LTPosttestDLV
220
LTPosttestDLV
221
STPosttestDLV
222
Hence, although the mean differences were in favor of synonym sets group being compared to other two groups, the statistic was not significant. It can be concluded that there was no significant difference between the qualitative scores of learners’ ST and LT retention tests in synonym, hyponym, and semantically unrelated sets groups after a two-week interval.
223
DISCUSSION
224
The results obtained from the first research question highlighted that learning new items through synonym sets resulted in better ST vocabulary learning, thus it was in line with Schmitt and Schmitt’s (2009) belief that learning organized material would be easier and a great number of new words could be learned in a quite short time.
225
The findings from this research question did not support Higa’s (1963) continuum by showing that presenting words through synonyms resulted in better ST vocabulary learning; while presenting words through both hyponyms and semantically unrelated sets took the second place without any significant difference with each other. The findings also had some points in common with Hashemi and Gowdasiaei’s (2005) and Schneider et al.’s (1998) researches. Synonyms as kind of semantically related sets supported to cause in better ST vocabulary achievement quantitatively; however, hyponyms again as another kind of semantically related sets did not lead to any significant difference in learning words quantitatively being compared with semantically unrelated sets.
226
Synonym sets’ superiority in leading to higher NLV scores in ST showed that the greater semantic relationship between words, the more economic vocabulary learning, at least in ST which was close to Neuner (1992, cited in Nation, 2000) and Carter’s (1987) stance in literature. The researchers’ informal chat with the learners in synonym sets group revealed that the participants felt excited about learning two synonym new words each time. They believed that it was easier and it could save their time and effort learning them together. Some of the learners believed that synonym pairs were stored together in their mind and whenever thinking about their translation, both words would come to their mind.
227
The same chat with learners from hyponym sets group showed that they could also remember pair words, but in some cases they were confused about their exact meaning and they needed to think which meaning belonged to which form. This finding supported Nation and Newton’s (1997) opinion about the difficulty of learning hot and cold together because of mixing their forms and meanings. Learners from semantically unrelated sets group, however, seemed to have normal vocabulary learning experience.
228
Another finding of the first research question was the fact that teaching new vocabulary items through either synonyms, semantically unrelated sets, or hyponyms did not make significant difference in ST vocabulary learning of language learners qualitatively (DLV). Therefore, although the learners from synonyms group gained higher scores for remembering much more target words, it was not found that they were also significantly superior in their depth of knowledge of those words. The findings of Hashemi and Gowdasiaei’s (2005) study however, showed that students belonged to semantically related group gained more satisfactory VB (NLV in this study) and VD (DLV in this study) knowledge, being compared to semantically unrelated ones. There seemed to be differences between the results of this research and their study, because synonym group learners could not gain higher score in DLV like their high NLV scores. The most convincing reason could be the learners’ lack of familiarity with VKS. It was the first time in testees’ history of language learning that they were evaluated both on how many target words they learned and how well each word was learned. That was the reason they functioned better and gained higher NLV scores that was usual type of checking words’ meaning by demanding translation or synonym.
229
On the other hand, it was obvious from some test papers that some students from synonym sets group could remember the word pairs without remembering the exact meaning and needed knowledge to put them in semantically and grammatically correct sentences. So some learners had obtained 3 points by remembering that detainee and internee were synonyms just by writing these words in stage 4 of the VKS scale without being able to write a sentence on stage 5 to get the highest score that was expected from them because of their high NLV score. Hence, it was observed that stage 4 which required testees to write a synonym or L1 translation for any given word was not a perfect evaluation of knowing a word by itself. Checking deeper knowledge of target words was possible through stage 5 which required a semantically and grammatically correct sentence including any given word. So clustering and presenting new words through synonyms can improve learning greater number of words in ST but in order to add more depth of knowledge to this learning activity, something more would be needed to supplement this experience which requires more exposure to the context.
230
Additionally, the findings of this research question showed that the difference between high and low language proficiency learners’ quantitative knowledge of target words was significant. However, the interaction between level and group did not lead to any significant differences in the learners’ scores. It can be reasoned that better NLV and DLV scores of the high groups in this study could be as a result of the ‘vocabulary spurt’(Hashemi & Gowdasiaei, 2005) which led to easier vocabulary learning for more proficient learners.
231
As the learners from both levels were adults, reasons like having different motivations for learning with more ease that Papathanasiou (2009) discusses could not be justified by this study. Nation (2000) who points to the cumulative nature of learning new words with words being enriched as they are met again, emphasized that learning related words in sets is not good to be used for initial learning but “as learners’ knowledge becomes more established, seeing related words in sets can have a more positive effect” (p.6). Additionally, Carter (1998) also believes that using word sets and grids would be better for advanced learners. These two points could be in line with the results of this study considering the superiority of high proficient learners to the low proficient ones.
232
The findings from second research question showed that both NLV and DLV scores of the learners in the ST posttest were higher than the LT posttest with a two-week interval for all groups. Moreover, as the learners were not aware of the second posttest, it actually showed the true amount of retained words after forgetting some within two weeks. As Baddeley (1990, cited in Schmitt, 2008) states, forgetting occurs within a short time after the learning phase. Likewise, Schmitt (2000) has pointed out that partially learned vocabulary would probably be forgotten if the learner failed to fix them in mind by deliberate repeated exposure and principled recycling. Therefore, the finding that both NKV and DKV scores were decreased in LT posttest was because of natural forgetting that resulted from not recycling the words during the interval between the two posttests. The results of this research question also confirmed Schmitt and Schmitt’s (2009) warning that ignoring recycling would cause forgetting many partially-known words and wasting all the effort already put into learning them.
233
The findings of this study manifested that learners from synonym sets group gained higher NLV and DLV scores both in their ST posttest and LT posttest. It was also observed that learners from synonym sets group lost the greatest scores within a two-week interval comparing their ST versus LT retention but this fact did not clear out the superiority for this group in general. Learners from hyponym sets group, however, demonstrated greater retention both quantitatively and qualitatively.
234
The finding that the lowest forgetting has been found in the case of the learners’ NLV and DLV scores from hyponym sets group could be explained based on Hulstijn and Laufer’s (2001) key for retention in which learners would be more likely to retain words by paying careful attention to more word properties than only one or two of them. Learners in hyponyms group had to process the lexical sets more deeply by learning two pronunciations, forms, meanings, semantic relationships with each other and the shared superordinate, and also the differences that made them two different words and the similarities that placed them under the same head word or phrase. Thus, the kind of mental processing in the case of learning hyponym sets seemed to be greater than learning synonyms which only helped saving learning time and effort by having two words for one meaning. The same was true about learning semantically unrelated sets that were presented and learned without any semantic relations,so the learners required more processing and paying attention that led to lower forgetting in comparison with synonym sets.
235
The findings of this research question were not similar to Hakkı Erten and Tekin’s (2008) research that showed presenting new words in related sets interfered with learning and retrieving words. Although the synonyms group functioned better in the first posttest and the hyponym group had the lowest forgetting in the second posttest, the semantically unrelated sets group could not take the first place on any of the above mentioned tests.
236
In the case of the learners’ scores from the synonym sets, the results seemed to be similar to Schneider et al.’s (1998) study by causing easier ST learning and greater forgetting in LT, but the difference is here that learners from the synonym sets group in this study still gained better scores in LT posttest compared with those from semantically unrelated sets group. It also supported Bunker’s (1988, cited in Hatch &Brown, 1995) tip that synonym words should not be learned with each other is not incorrect at least whenever LT retention is necessary. The findings indicated that recycling the newly learned words would change learning synonym sets to a better method for clustering and learning new words.
237
Although the findings from the first research question had not anything in common with Higa’s continuum, the findings from the second research question demonstrated great similarities with this continuum but in LT retention tests. Higa’s continuum was produced based on quantitative scores and comparing the findings from the NLV scores of the learners in this study, it was shown that hyponym, semantically unrelated, and synonym sets groups were the most effective methods of clustering leading to less forgetting from left to right. So hyponyms were the most useful in LT test considering less attrition and this finding was exactly in line with Higa (1963) and Hoshino’s (2010) research in which teaching new words through coordinates and categorical lists proved to be rewarding for the learners. Thus, there was less attrition in quantitative knowledge of learners who had learned target words through hyponyms and semantically related sets within a two-week interval.
238
Finally, one may conclude that NLV is a better criterion for checking the difference in learning vocabulary than DLV. However, lower DLV scores of the learners of this study in comparison with their NLV scores could be because of their lack of familiarity with this kind of testing or the insufficient work on developing sentences with target words in the class.
239
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
240
The present study yielded the following results in terms of vocabulary learning and teaching process. Considering NLV scores, the learners gained better ST vocabulary achievement being taught in classes in which new items were presented through synonym sets than the other two clustering methods (hyponym and semantically unrelated sets) that brought about similar results.
241
The findings also indicated that language proficiency played a significant role in learning target words considering both NLV and DLV scores. Thus, high proficient learners from all groups having different semantic relations outperformed the low proficient ones. However, the interaction between language proficiency level and different grouping based on the methods of clustering and presenting new words did not lead to any significant difference in learners’ NLV and DLV scores.
242
Moreover, although the interaction of ST and LT retention of target words and different semantic groups which the learners belonged to found not to be significant based on their DLV scores, there was a significant difference between the NLV scores of learners’ ST and LT retention tests in synonym sets group and semantically unrelated and hyponym sets groups. In fact, although there was greater loss in learners’ scores comparing their ST with LT scores, still the NLV mean score of the learners from synonym sets group was the highest. On the other hand, there were no significant differences between the NLV scores in synonym and hyponym sets groups and also hyponym and semantically unrelated sets groups.
243
Another finding of this study was the difference in the amount of forgetting among the learners from synonym, hyponym, and semantically unrelated sets group. It was found out that the learners from hyponym sets group demonstrated greater retention both quantitatively and qualitatively. Learners from semantically unrelated sets group showed less forgetting in their NLV scores while learners from synonym sets group had less forgetting in their DLV scores to take the second position. Also, the greatest forgetting happened to synonym sets group by noticeable decrease in their NLV scores, and semantically unrelated sets group by getting lower DLV scores.
244
Considering the impact of teaching vocabulary based on the three stages of Higa’s (1963) continuum including the initial (synonyms), central (unrelated sets), and final (hyponyms) levels, the findings indicated that language proficiency level caused differences in NLV and DLV scores of the learners so that high proficient learners in all groups outperformed their low peers. However, language proficiency level did not play any significant role in the learners’ vocabulary achievement based on belonging to any given group. It was shown that the results of ST testing did not support Higa’s continuum while the findings that supported the existence of the difference in the amount of the learners’ retention in different groups after two weeks brought the continuum to the foreground. The learners’ NLV scores in hyponyms group showed less forgetting and that was the reason hyponyms were called the most useful semantic relation (by Higa) for learning words and retaining them in the long run. NLV scores from semantically unrelated group took the second place as called neutral in Higa’s continuum. And finally, the greatest loss in NLV scores was found through the administration of the same test to the learners from synonyms group after two weeks. The results manifested that synonyms were not as useful over time as they were in ST and that could be called the reason Higa listed them as the most interfering semantic relation in his continuum.
245
Thus, on the basis of this study, L2 syllabus designers and textbook writers who select and order words that should be presented in different courses and classes can cluster words under the shared superordinate. They can also avoid synonym sets to be presented and learned together, as most of the books are not meant to teach vocabulary for a short time that would be forgotten easily. As all of the clustering and presenting methods showed not to function differently with high or low proficient level learners, using semantically related sets should not be postponed for higher levels.
246
Teachers can preferably present the new words through hyponym sets with emphasizing on the semantic relations and the superordinates. The learners who are going to study and learn the vocabulary independently can also use the results of this study, using the books which are organized in this way. The learners can cluster the words into synonym sets if they are supposed to learn a great number of words in a short time and for a special test in the near future. Yet, whenever they wanted to learn words aiming to keep them in mind for a longer time, they should utilize hyponym sets and pay more attention to the semantic relations.
247
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Construction of Evaluative Meanings by Kurdish-Speaking Learners of English: A Comparison of High- and Low-Graded Argumentative Essays
Academic writing ability is an important goal that learners of English as a Second Language (ESL) or English as a Foreign Language (EFL) try to attain. While ESL students’ academic writings have been widely explored, owing to few studies investigating appraisal resources in EFL students’ argumentative writing, the gap still exists about EFL students’ academic writing. This study aimed to see how Kurdish-speaking learners of English employ appraisal resources in their writings. It further aimed to explore whether the appraisal framework can be utilized as an assessment scale for evaluating the students’ argumentative writing. To this end, the study investigated the argumentative essays written by 15 bilingual Kurdish-Iranian graduates of English within the framework of the appraisal theory. The instruments applied in this study consisted of a modified rating scale for assessing the essays in terms of the macrostructures exploited in them and the framework for the analysis of appraisal resources. Quantitative findings revealed high-graded essays employ more attitudinal items and fewer monoglossic resources than low-graded ones. Qualitatively, the high-graded essays articulated attitudinal values in nominal forms and sometimes in a backgrounded manner while these values were mostly presented by surge of feelings and in a foregrounded way in the low-graded essays. Regarding engagement, unlike the high-graded essays, the low-graded ones were poor in recognizing other voices and alternative positions. Inspired by the strength of the appraisal model evaluating writing, results suggest that high-graded essays are successful in positioning readers attitudinally and clarifying the ethical message to readers.
https://ilt.atu.ac.ir/article_1363_46ce400f40e54f3f07121049e5d7d896.pdf
2013-12-01
57
84
argumentative writing
appraisal theory
high- and low-graded essays
Kurdish
Alireza
Jalilifar
ar.jalilifar@gmail.com
1
Associate Professor, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Iran
AUTHOR
Ali
Hemmati
ali_hemati5363@yahoo.com
2
Ph.D. Candidate, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Iran
AUTHOR
Abedi, J., Lord, C., & Plummer, J. (1997). Language background as a variable in NAEP mathematics performance (Tech. Rep. No. 429). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation/National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Students Testing.
1
Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J. J., & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban school districts. Exceptional Children, 71(3), 1-17
2
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3
Charles, M. (2009). Stance, interaction and the rhetorical patterns of restrictive adverbs: Discourse roles of only, just, simply and merely. In M. Charles, D. Pecorari & S. Hunston (Eds.), Academic writing: An interface of corpus and discourse (pp. 152-169). London: Continuum.
4
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5
Connor, U., & Mbaye, A. (2002). Discourse approaches to writing assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 263-278.
6
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd edition). London: Edward Arnold.
7
Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). The language of early childhood. London: Continuum.
8
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.
9
HawKey, R., & Barker, F. (2004). Developing a common scale for the assessment of writing. Assessing Writing, 9(2), 122-159.
10
Ho, V. L. (2011). Non–native argumentative writing by Vietnamese learners of English: A contrastive study. Unpublished PhD thesis. Washington, DC.
11
Hood, S. (2004). Appraising research: Taking a stance in academic writing. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Technology, Sydney.
12
Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation and the planes of discourse: Status and value in persuasive tests.
13
In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 176-208). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
15
Hyland, K. (2002a). Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112.
16
Hyland, K. (2002b). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 215-239.
17
IELTS (2006). IELTS scores explained. Retrieved from: http://www.ielts.org
18
IELTS (2006). Research note, Issue 23. Retrieved from: http://www.ielts.org
19
Irvin, L. L. (2010). What is academic writing? In C. Lowe & P. Zemliansky (Eds.), Writing spaces: Readings on writing (Vol. 1), (pp. 3-17). Indiana: Parlor Press LLC.
20
Jacobs, H., Zingraf, S., Wormuth, D., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hughey, J. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. MA: Newbury House Publishers.
21
Kisting, W. (2007). Writing effective essays: A guide to college–level writing. North Charleston, US: Creatspace Independent Publishing Platform.
22
LaCelle–Peterson, M. W., & Rivera, C. (1994). Is it real for all kids? A framework for equitable assessment policies for English language learners. Harvard Educational Review, 64(1), 55-75.
23
Lee, S. H. (2006). The use of interpersonal resources in argumentative/persuasive essays by East–Asian ESL and Australian tertiary students. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Sydney.
24
Lee, S. H. (2008). Attitude in undergraduate persuasive essays. Prospect, 23(3), 43-58.
25
Liu, X. (2013). Evaluation in Chinese university EFL students’ English argumentative writing: An appraisal study. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 10(1), 40-53.
26
Liu, X., & Thompson, P. (2009). Attitude in students’ argumentative writing: A contrastive perspective. In L. J. O’Brien & D. S. Giannoni (Eds.), Language studies working papers (Vol. 1. pp. 3-15). Reading: University of Reading.
27
MaCswan, J., & Rolstad, K. (2006). How language proficiency tests mislead us about ability: Implications for English language learner placement in special education. Teachers College Record, 108(11), 2304-2328.
28
Martin, J. R. (1997). Analysing genre: functional parameters. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and Institutions: Social process in the workplace and school (pp. 3-39). London: Cassell.
29
Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange: Appraisal system in English. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text (pp.145-175). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30
Martin, J. R. (2004). Sense and sensibility: Texturing evaluation. In J. Foley (Ed.), Language, education, and discourse (pp. 270-304). London: Continuum.
31
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (1st ed.). London: Continuum.
32
Martin, J. R., & White, P. P. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
33
Mousavi, S. A. (1999). A dictionary of Language testing (2nd edition). Tehran: Rahnama Publications.
34
Nakamura, A. (2009). Construction of evaluative meanings in IELTS writing: An intersubjective and intertexual perspective. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Wollongong, Wollongong.
35
Nordquist, R. (2011). Academic writing. Retrieved from: http://grammar.about.com/od/g/academicwritingterm.htm
36
Ramage, J. D., Bean, J. C., & Johnson, J. (2012). Writing arguments: A rhetorical with readings (9th edition). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
37
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (3rd ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
38
Schultz, J. M. (1991). Writing mode in the articulation of language and literature classes: Theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 411-417.
39
Umair, N. (2011). Problems of multi-ability academic English writing classes in Arab countries. Arab World English Journal, 2(2), 230-242.
40
White, P. R. R. (2001). An introductory tour through appraisal theory. Retrieved from: http://www.Grammatics.Com/appraisal/index.html.
41
White, P. R. R. (2005).Update on engagement. Retrieved from: http://www.grammatics.Com/appraisal/Engagement.Latest.doc
42
Wu, S. M. (2007). The use of engagement resources in high- and low-graded undergraduate geography essays. Journal of English for academic Purposes, 6(3), 254-271.
43
Wu, S. M. (2008). Investigating the effectiveness of arguments in undergraduate essay from an evaluation perspective. Prospect, 23(3), 59-75.
44
Yumin, C. (2009). Interpersonal meaning in the textbooks for teaching English as a foreign language in China: A multimodal approach. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sydney.
45
46
Appendix: The Modified Assessment Scale for Essays (adopted from Jacobs, et al., 1981; Ramage, et al., 2012)
47
48
Content
49
EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: knowledgeable • substantive • thorough development of thesis• relevant to assigned topic • audience/reader awareness
50
GOOD TO AVERAGE: some knowledge of subject • adequate range • limited development of thesis• mostly relevant to topic, but lacks detail • somewhat the awareness of audience/reader
51
FAIR TO POOR: limited knowledge of subject • little substance • inadequate development of topic • inadequate audience/reader awareness
52
VERY POOR: does not show knowledge of subject • non-substantive • not pertinent • OR not enough to evaluate • no awareness of audience/reader
53
Organization plan for an argument
54
EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: presents the complete introduction ( attention grabber, writer’s thesis) • presents the reason(s) supporting the claim • summarizes the views differing from writer’s • discusses for and against the views • brings essay to closure
55
GOOD TO AVERAGE: somewhat introduces the thesis • presents and supports the reason(s) to some extent • loosely presents the main body of essay • limited discussion for and against the views • loosely sums up argument
56
FAIR TO POOR: incomplete thesis • disconnected reasons • incomplete discussion of views • ambiguous and incomplete summary of argument
57
VERY POOR: no organization of thesis, reason(s) and conclusion
58
Vocabulary
59
EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: sophisticated range • effective word/idiom choice and usage • word form mastery • appropriate register
60
GOOD TO AVERAGE: adequate range • occasional errors of word/idiom form, choice, usage but meaning not obscured
61
FAIR TO POOR: limited range • frequent errors of word/idiom form, choice, usage • meaning confused or obscured
62
VERY POOR: essentially translation • little knowledge of English vocabulary, idioms, word form • OR not enough to evaluate
63
Language Use
64
EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: effective complex constructions • few errors of agreement, tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, prepositions
65
GOOD TO AVERAGE: effective but simple constructions • minor problems in complex constructions • several errors of agreement, tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, prepositions but meaning seldom obscured
66
FAIR TO POOR: major problems in simple/complex constructions • frequent errors of negation, agreement, tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, prepositions and/or fragments, run-ons, deletions • meaning confused or obscured
67
VERY POOR: virtually no mastery of sentence construction rules • dominated by errors • does not communicate • OR not enough to evaluate
68
Mechanics
69
EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: demonstrates mastery of conventions • few errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing
70
GOOD TO AVERAGE: occasional errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing but meaning not obscured
71
FAIR TO POOR: frequent errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing • poor handwriting • meaning confused or obscured
72
VERY POOR: no mastery of conventions • dominated by errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing • handwriting illegible • OR not enough to evaluate
73
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
EFL Learning, EFL Motivation Types, and National Identity: In Conflict or in Coalition
The present study was aimed at examining concerns about the social effects of EFL learning, a challenging area of research which has not been discussed sufficiently. It tried to investigate the relationship between EFL learning and national identity. In addition, attempt was made to find a relationship between language motivation types and national identity. Furthermore, the role of two demographic variables, gender and age was examined. To this end, a sample consisting of 350 undergraduates studying at Allameh Tabataba'i University in Tehran took part in the study. A questionnaire on national identity and another one on language motivation types followed by an interview were the instruments used. The questionnaires had already been developed. However, there were some major modifications for the former which consisted of 30 items measuring national identity for all participants. The latter contained 42 items measuring language motivation types for only EFL learners. The Regression analysis, independent samples t-tests and a one-way ANOVA were run. The results revealed that claims over the harmful social effects of EFL learning were not arguably significant and it was found that among the eight language motivation types, going abroad and social responsibility were correlated with national identity. Furthermore, gender and age indicated significant differences among the participants' tendencies. The findings indicated that the social concerns about EFL learning are too pessimistic. So, materials developers, syllabus designers and teachers might consider the potentiality of some social elementsand demographic variables for the development of EFL learning.
https://ilt.atu.ac.ir/article_1364_017860bba9a37b80c7205bb3a5050251.pdf
2013-12-01
85
111
motivation
Identity
National Identity
foreign language learning
Mahnaz
Mostafaei Alaei
mahnaz.mostafaei@yahoo.ca
1
Assistant Professor, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Iran
AUTHOR
Mohammad Reza
Ghamari
dr_m_rezaghamary2@yahoo.com
2
Ph.D. Candidate, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Iran
AUTHOR
Ahmadi, H. (2010). Principles of Iranian national identity. Tehran: Institute for Cultural and Social Studies.
1
Alizadehaghdam, M. B., Shiri, M., & Ogaghloo, S. (2010). The role of training in components of national identity. Cultural Researches, 3(9), 181-206.
2
Atkinson, D. (Ed.). (2011). Alternative approaches to second language Acquisition. London: Routledge.
3
Back, L., Bennett, A., Edles, L. D., Gibson, M., Inglis, D., Jacobs, R., & Woodward, I. (2011). Cultural sociology. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
4
Bagheri, M. S., Yamani, M., & Riazi, A. (2009). Motivational and learning strategies of Iranian EFL learners exposed to an e-learning program. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 17(1), 1-20.
5
Block, D. (2007). Second language identities. London: Continuum.
6
Blum, D. W. (2007). National identity and globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7
Chirot, D. (2011). Contentious identities. New York, NY: Routledge.
8
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9
Gao, Y., Zhao, Y., Cheng, Y., & Zhou, Y. (2004). Motivation types of Chinese university students. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 14(2), 45-64.
10
Gao, Y., Cheng, Y., Zhao, Y., & Zhou, Y. (2005). Self-identity changes and English learning among Chinese undergraduates. World Englishes, 24, 39-51.
11
Gao, Y., Zhao, Y., Cheng, Y., & Zhou, Y. (2007). Relationship between English learning motivation types and self-identity changes among Chinese students. TESOL Quarterly, 41(1), 133-155.
12
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
13
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
14
Ghamari, M. R., & Hassanzadeh, M. (2010). The role of language in national identity. Zabanpazhuhi Biannual Journal of Language Studies, 2(3), 153-172.
15
Hajiani, I. (2000). The sociological analysis of national identity in Iran and introducing some hypotheses. A Quarterly on National Studies, 2(5), 193-228.
16
Hall, J. (2008). Language education and culture. In S. May, & N. Hornberger (Ed.), Language policy and political issues in education (pp. 45- 55). New York, NY: Springer.
17
Hassani, H. (2005). The relationship between intrinsic/extrinsic motivation and Iranian EFL students' gender, level of university instruction, and EFL proficiency. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Shiraz University, Shiraz.
18
Hinkel, E. (Ed.) (2011). Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19
Hinkel, E. (2006). Culture, interaction, and learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (6th ed.) (pp. 1-13). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20
Lambert, W. (1974). Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In E. Abound & R. Meade (Eds.), Cultural factors in learning and education. Bellingham, Washington: Fifth Western Washington Symposium on Learning.
21
Lantolf, J. & Thorne, S. (2007). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. In B. VanPatten, & J. Williams, (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 201-225).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Inc.
22
Lotfabadi, H., & Nouroozi, V. (2004). How Iranian high school students think about globalization and its effect on religious and national identity. Journal of Educational Innovations, 9, 88-119.
23
McKinlay, A., & McVittie, C. (2011). Identities in context. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
24
Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 409-429.
25
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. London: Pearson Education.
26
Norton, B. (2001). Non-participation, imagined communities and the language classroom. In M. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 159-171). Harlow: Pearson Education.
27
Norton, B. (2006). Identity as a sociocultural construct in second language education. In K. Cadman & K. O'Regan (Eds.), TESOL in Context [Special Issue], 22-33.
28
Norton, B. (2010). Language and identity. In N. Hornberger & S. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
29
Norton, B., & Mckinney, C. (2011). An identity approache to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (73-94). New York, NY: Routledge.
30
Norton, B., & Early, M. (2011). Researcher identity, narrative, and language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 45(3), 415-439.
31
Nunan, D., & Choi, J. (2010). Language and culture. New York, NY: Routledge.
32
Omidian, M. (2010). Identity from the viewpoint of psychology. Yazd: Yazd University Publications.
33
Pavlenko, A., & Norton, B. (2007). Imagined communities, identity and English language learning. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Ed.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 669-680). New York, NY: Springer.
34
Rahiminezhad, A., & Ahmadi, A. A. (2006). An analytic study of identity formation by Iranian adolescents and its relation with social, economic and educational structure of family among high school students in Tehran. Tehran: Training Department for Ministry of Education and Training.
35
Razmjoo, S. A. (2010). Language and identity in the Iranian context: The impact of identity aspects on EFL learners' achievement. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 2(2),100-121.
36
Riley, P. (2008). Language, culture and identity. London: continuum.
37
Schwartz, S. J., Luyckx, K., & Vignoles, V. L. (2011). Handbook of identity theory and research. New York, NY: Springer.
38
Shamshiri, B. (2008). Introduction to national Identity. Shiraz: Novid Publications.
39
Tajfel, H. (1978) (Ed.). Inter-individual behavior and intergroup behavior. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 27-60).Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
40
Talebi, S. (2000). Change of national identity among primary to high school girl students in Tehran. Unpublished MA thesis, Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran, Iran.
41
Tremblay, P. F., & Gardner, R. C. (1995). Expanding the motivation construct in language learning. Modern Language Journal, 79, 505-518.
42
Warschauer, M. (2007). Language, identity, and the internet. In B. Kolko, L. Nakamura, & G. Rodman (Eds.), Race in cyberspace. New York, NY: Routledge.
43
Weber, J., & Horner, K. (2012). Introducing multilingualism: A social approach. London: Routledge.
44
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
An Investigation into Cultural Representation in Interchange Textbooks
Language and culture are now deemed to be co-constitutive; hence English language teaching (ELT) textbooks should incorporate cultural aspects and promote intercultural competence. However, careful decisions should be made as regards to the cultural content of materials and the ways in which culture is represented. This study was an attempt to deconstruct the patterns of cultural representation and intercultural interactions in Interchange textbooks, an ELT textbook series taught to English as a foreign language (EFL) learners in Iran. Using content analysis of texts and images and with the focus on nationality, gender and race, it examined how different cultures were reflected in Interchange 1, Interchange 2, Interchange 3, and whether cultural bias or inequality was present. The quantitative and qualitative data analysis revealed that the white male group was dominant in all three textbooks. And, to use Kachru’s (1985) terms, inner, outer and expanding circle nationalities were represented in the textbooks, with the expanding circle constituting the major nationality, but American culture of inner circle was predominant. Additionally, the interactions were mainly limited to superficial aspects of the target culture although these textbooks sought to show various intercultural interactions. Dominance of male and white characters and the US culture indicated inequality in race and gender, and the superficial treatment of culture in the textbooks. Less attention to the hybrid culture and deeper level of intercultural aspects, i.e. critical reflections, in the textbooks suggests that the materials be supplemented by EFL teachers’ constructive discussion of the cultures that interact.
https://ilt.atu.ac.ir/article_1365_5ba6ec463bb99f7eb822b63249057950.pdf
2013-12-01
113
136
Culture
intercultural competence
Textbooks
Interchange
bias
Ali
Roohani
roohani-a@lit.sku.ac.ir
1
Assistant Professor, Shahrekord University, Iran
AUTHOR
Elham
Molana
elham_m1982@yahoo.com
2
M.A. Student of TEFL, Shahrekord University, Iran
AUTHOR
Adaskou, K., Britten, D., & Fahsi, B. (1990). Design decisions on the cultural content of a course for Morocco. ELT Journal, 44(1), 3-10.
1
Aliakbari, M. (2004). The place of culture in the Iranian ELT textbooks in high school level. Paper presented at the 9th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, Seoul, Korea.
2
Alptekin, C. (1993). Target-language culture in EFL materials. ELT Journal, 47(2), 136-143.
3
Amal Saleh, E., Sajjadi, S., & Yarmohammadi, L. (2006). The representation of social actors in the EFL high school textbooks in Iran. MEXTESOL Journal, 30(1), 9-23.
4
Ansary, H., & Babaii, E. (2003). Subliminal sexism in current ESL/EFL textbooks. Asian EFL Journal, 5, 200-241.
5
Apple, M. W. (2001). Educational and curricular restructuring and the neo-liberal and neoconservative agendas: Interview with Michael Apple. Curriculo Sem Fronteiras, 1 (1), 1-26.
6
Bahman, M., & Rahimi, A. (2010). Gender representation in EFL materials: an analysis of English textbooks of Iranian high schools. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 273-277.
7
Baleghizadeh, S., & Jamali Motahed, M. (2010). An analysis of the ideological content of internationally-developed British and American ELT textbooks. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 2(2), 1-27.
8
Banks, J. A. (1994). Transforming the mainstream curriculum. Educational Leadership, 51(8), 4-8.
9
Birjandi, P., & Soheili, A. (1999). Right path to English I and II. Iran. Tehran: Ministry of Education, Center for the Publication of University Textbooks.
10
Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002). World English: A study of its development. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
11
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
12
Byram, M., Gribkova, B., & Starkey, H. (2002). Developing the intercultural dimension in language teaching: A practical introduction for teachers. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
13
Cawyer, C. S., Bystrom, D., Miller, J., Simonds, C., O’Brien, M., & Storey-Martin, J. (1994). Communicating gender equity: Representation and portrayal of women and men in introductory communication textbooks. Communication Studies, 45(3/4), 325-331.
14
Corbett, J. (2003). An intercultural approach to English language teaching. Languages for intercultural communication and education. Clevedon: Multilingual matters.
15
Dervin, F. (2010). Assessing intercultural competence in language learning and teaching: A critical review of current efforts. In F. Dervin & E. Suomela-Salmi (Eds.), New approaches to assessment in higher education (pp. 157-173). Bern: Peter Lang.
16
Dominguez, L. M. (2003). Gender textbook evaluation. A paper submitted to CELS as course requirement for the degree of Master of Arts in teaching English as a second language (TESL/TEFL). University of Birmingham, United Kingdom.
17
Goode, T., Sockalingam, S., Brown, M., & Jones, W. (2000). Infusing principles, content and themes related to cultural and linguistic competence into meetings and conferences. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center for Child and Human Development.
18
Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English? London: The British Council.
19
Gullicks, K. A., Pearson, J. C., Child, J. T., & Schwab, C. R. (2005). Diversity and power in public speaking textbooks. Communication Quarterly, 53(2), 247-258.
20
Hamdan, M. S. T. (2008). Analyzing aspects of gender in English language Jordanian basic stage curriculum from a socio-cultural perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Amman Arab University for Graduate Studies, Jordan.
21
Hanson, T. L. (1999). Gender sensitivity and diversity issues in selected basic public speaking texts. Women and Language, 22(2), 13-19.
22
House, J. (2003). English as a lingua franca: A threat to multiculturalism? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 556-578.
23
Iran Language Institute. (2004). The ILI English Series: Intermediate. Tehran: Iran Language Institute.
24
Jiang, P. (1999). The relationship between culture and language. ELT Journal, 54(4), 328-334.
25
Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11-30). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
26
Kobia, J. M. (2009). Femininity and masculinity in English primary school textbooks in Kenya. The International Journal of Language Society and Culture, 28, 57-71.
27
Kramsch, C. (1995). The cultural component of language teaching. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 8, 83-92.
28
Lederach, J. P. (1995). Preparing for peace: Conflict transformation across cultures. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
29
Lee, I. (2009). Situated globalization and racism: An analysis of Korean high school EFL textbooks language and literacy. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 11(1), 1-14.
30
Levine, D., & O’ Sullivan, M. (2010). Gender and images in the EFL textbook Talk a lot, Starter Book, Second Edition. The Journal and Proceedings of GALE, 3, 33-42.
31
Majdzadeh, M. (2002). Disconnection between language and culture: A case study of Iranian English textbooks. Unpublished MA thesis, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia.
32
Matsuda, A. (2002). Representation of users and uses of English in beginning Japanese EFL textbooks. JALT Journal, 24(2), 182-200.
33
McAllister, L., Whiteforda, G., Hilla, B., Thomasa, N., & Fitzgerald, M. (2006). Reflection in intercultural learning: Examining the international experience through a critical incident approach. Reflective Practice, 7(3), 367-381.
34
McConachy, T., & Hata, K. (2013). Addressing textbook representations of pragmatics and culture. ELT Journal, 67(3), 294-301.
35
Méndez Garcia, M. C. (2005). International and intercultural issues in English teaching textbooks: The case of Spain. Intercultural Education, 16(1), 57-68.
36
Mineshima, M. (2008). Gender representations in an EFL textbook. Retrieved August 15, 2014 from: www.niit.ac.jp/lib/contents/kiyo/genko/13/14_MINESHIMA.pdf
37
Nault, D. (2006). Going global: Rethinking culture teaching in ELT contexts. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19(3), 314-328.
38
Oakes, J., & Saunders, M. (2004). Education’s most basic tools: Access to textbooks and instructional materials in California’s public schools. Teachers College Record, 106, 1967-1988.
39
Peterson, E., & Coltrane, B. (2003). Culture in second language teaching. CAL Digest, 3(9), 1-6.
40
Roohani, A., & Heidari, N. (2012). Evaluating an instructional textbook: A critical discourse perspective. Issues in Language Teaching, 1(1), 123-159.
41
Roohani, A., & Zarei, M. (2013).Evaluating gender-bias in the Iranian pre-university English textbooks. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 115-125.
42
Sahragard, R., & Davatgarzadeh, G. (2010). The representation of social actors in Interchange Third Edition series: A critical discourse analysis. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 2(1), 67-89.
43
Saslow, J., & Ascher, A. (2006). Top notch 1: English for today’s world. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
44
Shin, J., Eslami, Z. R., & Chen, W. C. (2011). Presentation of local and international culture in international English language teaching textbooks. Language, culture, and curriculum, 24(3), 253-268.
45
Sileo, T. W., & Prater, M. (1998). Preparing professionals for partnerships with parents of students with disabilities: Textbook considerations regarding cultural diversity. Exceptional Children, 64(4), 513-528.
46
Song, H. (2013). Deconstruction of cultural dominance in Korean EFL textbooks. Intercultural Education, 24(4), 382-390.
47
Tajeddin, Z., & Janebi Enayat, M. (2010). Gender representation and stereotyping in ELT textbooks: A critical image analysis. TELL, 4(2), 51-79.
48
Tajeddin, Z., & Teimournezhad, Sh. (2014). Exploring the hidden agenda in the representation of culture in international and localised ELT textbooks. The Language Learning Journal, 1, 1-14.
49
Thompson, J. (1990). Ideology and Modern Culture. Standard, CA: Stanford University Press.
50
Usó-Juan, E., & Martínez-Flor, A. (2006). Approaches to language learning and teaching: Towards acquiring communicative competence through the four skills. In E.Usó-Juan & A. Martínez-Flor (Eds.), Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills (pp. 3-26). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
51
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
The Effect of Task Repetition and Task Recycling on EFL Learners' Oral Performance
One of the major criticisms leveled at task-based language teaching (TBLT), despite its countless merits, is developing fluency at the cost of accuracy. The post-task stage affords a number of options to counteract this downside through task repetition and task recycling. These two options are considered to positively affect learners' oral performance in terms of fluency, accuracy, and complexity (CAF). The purpose of the present study is to compare the relative effect of task repetition and task recycling on Iranian EFL (English as a foreign language) learners’ oral performance in terms of CAF. To this end, eight intermediate EFL learners, randomly selected from 30 students in two classes of 15, took part in this study. The participants in both task repetition and task recycling groups were assigned to perform a total of eight tasks. Four of these tasks were identical in both groups. Each session included one task plus its second performance, namely repetition for the first group and recycling for the second. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test was used to statistically analyze the recorded data of learners' performances on all eight occasions in terms of CAF. The results revealed a significant effect of task repetition on all three measures of performance while task recycling did not prove to have a significant effect except for fluency. On the level of between-group differences, task repetition was found to be dominant outweighing task recycling in all three measures of oral performance. Task repetition is hence advised to be incorporated in teaching English, particularly in EFL contexts as a viable tool to hone learners’ oral performance on CAF.
https://ilt.atu.ac.ir/article_1366_9ef58ff82355bbbfc7d04379a0a7ab65.pdf
2013-12-01
137
163
Task
task repletion
task recycling
Complexity
fluency
accuracy
Sasan
Baleghizadeh
sasanbaleghizadeh@yahoo.com
1
Associate Professor, Shahid Beheshti University, Iran
AUTHOR
Reza
Asadi
reza7asadi@gmail.com
2
M.A. in TEFL, Shahid Beheshti University, Iran
AUTHOR
Ahmadian, M. J. (2012). The effects of guided careful online planning on complexity, accuracy and fluency in intermediate EFL learners’ oral production: The case of English articles. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 129-149.
1
Ahmadian, M. J., & Tavakoli, M. (2011). The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 35-59.
2
Baleghizadeh, S., & Nasrollahi Shahri, M. N. (2013). The effect of online planning, strategic planning and rehearsal across two proficiency levels. Language Learning Journal, 41(1), 104-114.
3
Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of learners. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 136-146). Oxford: Heinemann.
4
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp.23-48). Harlow: Longman.
5
Bygate, M., & Samuda, V. (2005). Integrative planning through the case of task-repetition. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 37-74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
6
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.) (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching, and testing. Harlow: Longman.
7
Crookes, G., & Gass, S. (Eds.) (1993). Tasks in a pedagogical context: Integrating theory and practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
8
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language teaching and learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9
Ellis, R. (Ed.) (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
10
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221-246.
11
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus-on-form. System, 30(4), 419-432.
12
Estaire, S., & Zanon, J. (1994) Planning classwork: A task-based approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13
Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 1-23.
14
Garcia Mayo, M. P. (2007). Investigating tasks in formal language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
15
Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M. J., & Fernandez-Garcia, M. (1999). The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49(4), 549-581.
16
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1985). Task variation and nonnative/nonnative negotiation of meaning. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 149-161). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
17
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Massachusetts, MA: MIT Press.
18
Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2000). Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research 4(3), 221-250.
19
Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2001). A case of exercising: Effects of immediate task repetition on learners' performance. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 141-162). Harlow: Longman.
20
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22
Prabhu, N.S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. (4th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education.
24
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
25
Skehan, P. (1996). Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 17-30). Oxford: Heinemann.
26
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27
Skehan, P. (2003) Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1-14.
28
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125-144). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29
Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 376-401.
30
Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 61(Suppl. 1), 37-72.
31
van Lier, L. (1994). Forks and hopes: Pursuing understanding in different ways. Applied Linguistics, 15(3), 328-346.
32
Widdowson, H. (1998). Skills, abilities, and contexts of reality. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 323-333.
33
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Longman.
35
Willis, J., & Willis, D. (Eds.) (1996). Challenge and change in language teaching. Oxford: Heinemann.
36
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H-Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
37
Appendix A
38
Samples of tasks used in this study
39
The following pictures demonstrate two common problems in today's world. Work in pairs and discuss how they can harm people and the society. Give reasons to support your answers. (6 minutes)
40
41
42
How do you think the problems depicted in the pictures below can affect people and the society? Work in pairs and discuss the possible effects. Give reasons to support your answers. (6 minutes)
43
44
45