آموزش منظورشناسی زبان انگلیسی با رویکرد اجتماعی-فرهنگی

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

دانشگاه اصفهان

چکیده

این پژوهش تأثیر روش تدریس با رویکرد اجتماعی-فرهنگی را بر ارتقا دانش منظور‌شناسی زبان انگلیسی در زبان‌آموزان ایرانی، با تاکید بر کنش گفتاری انتقاد‌کردن بررسی می‌کند. شرکت‌کنندگان دو کلاس 25 نفره از دانشجوی زبان انگلیسی بودند (گروههای ازمایش و کنترل). سعی بر آن شد که در این روش، زبان‌آموزان تحت اصول رویکرد اجتماعی- فرهنگی عمل‌کنند یعنی یادگیری حین انجام کارهای مشارکتی. همچنین مهم‌ترین روشی که در این تحقیق استفاده شد این بود که از دانشجویان خواسته می‌شد تا از تکالیف همدیگر به صورت شفاهی انتقاد‌کنند. معلم هم آموزش فردی و خصوصی منطبق با نیاز هر فرد را ارائه می‌داد. میزان یادگیری زبان-آموزان از طریق پیش آزمون، پس آزمون های فوری و تاخیری بررسی شد. آزمونهای استفاده شده، آزمون تکمیل گفتمان و آزمون ایفای نقش بودند . اطلاعات جمع اوری شده و به کمک آزمون تی تحلیل شدند. نتابج نشان داد که دانش منظور‌شناسی زبان‌آموزان در گروه آزمایش به طور معناداری بهبود پیدا کرد و آنها خیلی بهتر از گروه کنترل عمل‌کردند که نشان دهنده‌ی تأثیر فوق العاده عالی این روش تدریس بود . سپس از طریق مصاحبه با شرکت‌کنندگان، محققان به احساسات مثبت آنها در طی آموزش تحت این روش پی بردند (سطوح بالای هیجان و انگیزه، اضطراب کم، اوقات خوش، واضح بودن دستورالعملها و توضیحات) که خود سندی بر تأثیرات مثبت این روش است.

چکیده تصویری

آموزش منظورشناسی زبان انگلیسی با رویکرد اجتماعی-فرهنگی

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Teaching English Pragmatics by Taking a Sociocultural Stance

نویسندگان [English]

  • Elaheh Zaferanieh
  • Mansoor Tavakoli
  • Abbas EslamiRasekh
University of Isfahan
چکیده [English]

This study investigated the effects of sociocultural instruction on developing the speech act of criticizing. The participants were second language learners in two English learning classrooms as experimental and control groups. The participants in the experimental group operated under the basic principles of the socio-cultural approach with interactive tasks, cooperation, and scaffolding. They were asked to read and criticize a peer’s work orally. For this group, the teacher provided fined tuned instruction and mediated individual tutor feedback. For both the experimental and control groups, the learners’ pragmatic development was measured through pre-tests, immediate and delayed posttests performance of discourse completion and role-play tests. The researchers analyzed the results of tests through statistical procedures such as paired and independent t-tests. The results revealed that the experimental group significantly improved and performed better than the control group, indicating the successfulness of sociocultural instruction. Next, the researchers interviewed the participants to find about their feelings. After interviewing the participants, the researchers found positive feelings of learners about this kind of instruction including low degrees of stress, high levels of excitement, fun, motivation, and clarity that provided another evidence for worthwhile impacts of sociocultural instruction.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Teaching L2 Pragmatics
  • Sociocultural instruction
  • Speech Act of Criticizing
  • Discourse Completion test
  • Role-play test

[1] Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. State-of-the-art article. Language Teaching, 48, 1–50.

 

[2] Nguyen, T. T. M. (2013). Instructional effects on the acquisition of modifiers in constructive criticism by EFL learners. Language Awareness, 22(1),76-94. 

 

[3] Ellis, R.  (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 

[4] Jeon, E., & Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development: a meta-analysis. In: John, Norris, Ortega, Loudres (Eds.), Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 165–211). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.

 

[5] Rose, k. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33, 385–399.

 

[6] Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Blackwell, Oxford.

 

[7] Tateyama, Y. (2001). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines: Japanese sumimasen. In:Kenneth, Rose, Kasper, Gabriele (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 200–222). New York: Cambridge University Press.

 

 [8] Alcon Soler, E. (2007). Fostering EFL learners’ awareness of requesting through explicit and implicit consciousness-raising tasks. In M. P. García    Mayo (Ed.). Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 221-241). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

 

[9] Ghobadi, A., & Fahim, M. (2009). The effect of explicit teaching of English thanking formulas on Iranian EFL intermediate level students at English language institutes. System, 37, 526-537.

 

 [10] Li, Q. (2012). Effects of instruction on adolescent beginners’ acquisition of request modification. TESOL Quarterly, 46 (1), 30-55. 

 

[11] Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning, and interlanguage pragmatics. In: Gabriele, Kasper, Blum-Kulka, Shoshana (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 21–42). New York: Oxford University Press.

 

[12] Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165- 179.

 

[13] Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 

 [14] Ohta, A. S. (2001).  Second  language acquisition  processes in the classroom: Learning  Japanese. Mahwah, NJ:  Lawrence  Erlbaum Associates.

 

 [15] Takahashi, S. (2010). Assessing learnability in second language    pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Pragmatics across languages and cultures, Handbooks of pragmatics, Vol. 7 (pp. 391−421). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

 

[16] Nguyen, T.T.M., Pham, T.H., & Pham, M.T. (2012). The relative effects of explicit and implicit form-focused instruction on the development of L2 pragmatic competence. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(4), 416-434.

 

 [17] Shayer, M. (2002). Not just Piaget, not just Vygotsky, and certainly not Vygotsky as an alternative to Piaget. In: Shayer, M., ed. Learning intelligence, cognitive acceleration across the curriculum from 5 to 15 years. UK,Open University Press.

 

[18] Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J.P. Lantolf & G. Appel, (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

 

[19] Van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman.

 

[20] Takimoto, M. (2012). Assessing the effects of identical task repetition and task type repetition on recognition and production of second language request down graders. Intercultural Pragmatics, 9, 71–96.

 

[21] Van Compernolle, R. A. (2011). Developing second language socio pragmatic knowledge through concept-based instruction: A micro genetic case study. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3267–3283.

 

[22] Domakani, M., & Felfelian, S. (2012). L2 learner interlanguage pragmatic development within ZPD activated proximal context. Paper presented at the first conference on interdisciplinary approaches to language learning and teaching, Mashhad, Iran. 

 

 [23] Nguyen, T.T.M. (2005). Criticizing and responding to criticisms in a foreign language: a study             of Vietnamese learners of English. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Auckland, Auckland.

 

 [24] Lantolf, J.  P., & Poehner  M.,  E., (2011). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian  praxis for second language development, Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 11-33.

 

[25] Martinez-Flor, A., & Fukuya, Y. (2005). The effects of instruction on learners’ production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. System, 33, 463–480.

 

[26] Qing, X. (2011).  Role-play an effective approach to developing overall communicative competence. Cross-Cultural Communication, 7(4), 36-39. 

 

[27] Dornyei, Z. (1997) Psychological processes in cooperative language  learning: group dynamics and motivation. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 482-893.

 

[28] Turuk, M. C. (2008). The relevance and implications of Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory in the second language classroom. ARECLS, 5, 244-262.