Қаралық ғылымипрактикалық конференция I том
жүктеу/скачать 9,92 Mb. Pdf көрінісі
|
- Бұл бет үшін навигация:
- Contrastive Analysis Error analysis
- Aitmaganbetova G.M 1 , Syzdykov K. 2
- “TEACHING NARRATIVE STRUCTURE TO STUDENTS WITH LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENTS IMPROVE COMPREHENSION OF EXPOSITORY TEXTS”
- Keywords
- The role of narrative text structures
- Solutions of the problem
- References
- TEACHING RUSSIAN-ENGLISH FALSE FRIENDS THROUGH PROJECT-BASED LEARNING Аннотация.
Interference 305
“When writing or speaking the target language (L2), second language learners tend to rely on their native language (L1) structures to produce a response. If the structures of the two languages are distinctly different, then one could expect a relatively high frequency of errors to occur in L2, thus indicating an interference of L1 on L2” [1]. Thus, the greater differences between two languages the more negative the effects of interference are likely to be and interference inevitably occurs in any situation when learner has an imperfect command of a second language (L2). Many researches have already been done in the area of native language interference on the target language. For instance, Dulay defines interference as “the automatic transfer, due to habit, of the surface structure of the first language onto the surface of the target language”[2]. Lott defines interference as “errors in the learner’s use of the foreign language that can be traced back to the mother tongue”[3]. Ellis refers to interference as ‘transfer’, which he says is “the influence that the learner’s L1 exerts over the acquisition of an L2”[4]. He argues that transfer is governed by learners’ perceptions about what is transferable and by their stage of development in L2 learning. “In learning a target language, learners construct their own interim rules with the use of their L1 knowledge, but only when they believe it will help them in the learning task or when they have become sufficiently proficient in the L2 for transfer to be possibl”[5]. It appears to be much more difficult for an adult to learn a second language system that is as well learned as the first language. Usually, “a person learns a second language partly in terms of the kinds of meanings already learned in the first language” [6]. Beebe suggests that in learning a second language, L1 responses are grafted on to L2 responses, and both are made to a common set of meaning responses. Other things being equal, the learner is less fluent in L2, and the kinds of expressions he/she uses in L2 bear telltale traces of the structure of L1.[7] Carroll argues that the circumstances of learning a second language are like those of a mother tongue. Sometimes there are interferences and occasionally responses from one language system will intrude into speech in the other language. It appears that “learning is most successful when the situations in which the two languages (L1 and L2) are learned, are kept as distinct as possible” [8]. To successfully learn L2 requires the L2 learner to often preclude the L1 structures from the L2 learning process, if the structures of the two languages are distinctly different. Beardsmore suggests that “many of the difficulties a second language learner has with the phonology, vocabulary and grammar of L2 are due to the interference of habits from L1”[9]. The formal elements of L1 are used within the context of L2, resulting in errors in L2, as the structures of the languages, L1 and L2 are different. The relationship between the two languages must then be considered. Albert and Obler claim that “people show more lexical interference on similar items”[10]. So it may follow that languages with more similar structures (e.g English and French) are more susceptible to mutual interference than languages with fewer similar features (e.g English and Kazakh). On the other hand, according to claims of scholars as Selinker in1979; Dulay et al in 1982; BlumKulka & Levenston, 1983; Faerch & Kasper, 1983, Bialystok, 1990 and Dordick, 1996, we might also expect more learning difficulties, and thus more likelihood of performance interference at those points in L2 which are more distant from L1, as the learner would find it difficult to learn and understand a completely new and different usage. Hence the learner would resort to L1 structures for help.(in Bhela B. Native language interference in learning a second language) [19]. Dechert suggests that “the further apart the two languages are structurally, the higher the instances of errors made in L2 which bear traces of L1 structures”[1]. In both cases the interference may result from a strategy on the part of the learner which assumes or predicts equivalence, both formally and functionally, of two items or rules sharing either function or form. More advanced learning of L2 may involve a greater number of rules or marking features for distinguishing between the two languages. Sometimes learner can create ‘other language’ by mixing mother tongue and target/second language which is called interlanguage.
Interlanguage is a language created by learners of a second language which is between the target language and the learner's first language (L1). An interlanguage is an emerging 306
linguistic system that has been developed by a learner of a second language (or L2) who has not become fully proficient yet but is only approximating the target language: preserving some features of their first language (or L1) in speaking or writing the target language and creating innovations. An interlanguage is uniquely based on the learners' experiences with the L2. It can ossify in any of its developmental stages. The learner creates an interlanguage using different learning strategies such as language transfer, overgeneralization and simplification. Interlanguage is based on the theory that there is a "psychological structure latent in the brain" which is activated when one attempts to learn a second language. Larry Selinker proposed the theory of interlanguage in 1972, noting that in a given situation the utterances produced by the learner are different from those native speakers would produce had they attempted to convey the same meaning. This comparison reveals a separate linguistic system. Richards refers interlanguage as “the rulebased linguistic system that has been developed by a learner of a second language (or L2) who has not yet reached proficiency” [11]. A learner's interlanguage preserves some features of their first language (or L1), and can also overgeneralize some L2 writing and speaking rules. These two characteristics of an interlanguage result in the system's unique linguistic organization. As interlanguage is idiosyncratically based on the learners' experiences with the L2, it can "fossilize", or cease developing, in any of its developmental stages. The interlanguage rules are claimed to be shaped by several factors, including L1 transfer, previous learning strategies, strategies of L2 acquisition (i.e., simplification), L2 communication strategies (i.e., circumlocution), and overgeneralization of L2 language patterns. Interlanguage can be variable across different contexts; for example, it may be more accurate, complex and fluent in one domain than in another. To study the psychological processes involved one can compare the interlanguage utterances of the learner with two things: Utterances in the native language (L1) to convey the same message produced by the learner; utterances in the target language (L2) to convey the same message, produced by a native speaker of that language. It is possible to apply an interlanguage perspective to a learner's underlying knowledge of the target language sound system (interlanguage phonology), grammar (morphology and syntax), vocabulary (lexicon), and languageuse norms found among learners (interlanguage pragmatics). By describing the ways in which learner language conforms to universal linguistic norms, interlanguage research has contributed greatly to our understanding of linguistic universals in secondlanguage acquisition. Contrastive Analysis & Error analysis
Up to now, many scholars have pointed out the importance of second/foreign language learners' errors. Pit Corder, for instance, in his influential article states that "they are significant in three different ways. First, to the teacher, in that they show how far towards the goal the learner has progressed. Second, they provide to the researcher evidence of how a language is acquired, what strategies the learner is employing in his learning of a language. Thirdly, they are indisputable to the learner himself because we can regard the making of errors as a device the learner uses in order to learn"[12]. Concerning the difficulties and errors in language acquisition, there are two systematic studies as Contrastive Analysis (CA) and Error analysis (EA). Contrastive analysis and error analysis are two different studies that attempted to facilitate second language acquisition. Contrastive analysis aims at predicting the errors of the second language learner by the comparison of L1 and L2 peculiarities. In contrast, error analysis focused on observing the learner’s errors in an endeavor to understand how second language is cognitively processed. However, both approaches contributed much to understanding some of the reasons behind L2 learners’ errors.
The main idea of Contrastive Analysis, as propounded by Robert Lado in his book “Linguistics Across Cultures”, was that it is possible to identify the areas of difficulty a particular foreign language will present for native speakers of another language by systematically comparing the two languages and cultures. Where the two languages and cultures are similar, learning difficulties will not be expected, where they are different, then learning difficulties are to be expected, and the greater the difference, the greater the degree of
307
expected difficulty [13]. On the basis of such analysis, it was believed, teaching materials could be tailored to the needs of learners of a specific first language. As this approach aimed at predicting difficulty it was equated with predicting second language learners’ errors. Though difficulty does not necessarily lead to produced errors if the learner is aware and controls these difficult features. This shows that CA ignores the learner’s active role in the acquisition of L2.”The learners in their attempt to deal with difficulties can avoid using the difficult feature, can infer or test hypotheses based on the knowledge of L1, L2 or of a third language”[14]. Another limitation of CA is its ability to predict all kinds of errors that can be produced by second language learners since not all errors are due to differences between the learner’s native and second language. “Some errors were found to be common across learners of different first languages or relevant to similar features rather than different ones between L2 and the learner’s L1. Such errors occur due to communication or learning strategies” [15]. Moreover, one impact of difficult L2 features is avoidance which is very difficult to be predicted by CA. Many of the errors predicted by CA do not actually occur and many occur only unidirectional, in other words not by both learners of the two contrasted languages. “The errors may occur by English speakers of French rather than French speakers of English.”[16] All learners of various L1 background tend to follow the same developmental order of structures and errors in the acquisition of specific language structures such as that of the interrogative, subordinate clauses or negation. [17] It was revealed that CA can predict only a limited percentage of the learner’s errors, only those due to interlingual (L1 interference) influence. Nevertheless, James argued that “CA allows teachers to realize the reasons behind some of the learners’ errors”[16]. If the errors do not result due to L1 interference then CA has guided to observing other reasons. Generally speaking, knowing the reasons behind errors helps the teacher to provide feedback and can even guide the student to correct and avoid them later. Later, the approach of CA was replaced by Error Analysis (ЕА).
In turn, error analysis (ЕА) as an alternative to contrastive analysis (CA), demonstrates that learner errors were not only because of the learner’s native language but also they reflected some universal learning strategies, and it deals with the learners’ performance in terms of the cognitive processes they make use of in recognizing or coding the input they receive from the target/second language. Therefore, a primary focus of error analysis is on the evidence that learners’ errors provide with an understanding of the underlying process of second language acquisition. Comparing with CA, error analysis starts with errors in second language learning and studies them in the broader framework of their sources and significance. Moreover, EA unlike CA provides data on actual attested problems and so it forms a more efficient basis for designing pedagogical strategies, and CA studies interlingual error (interference) whereas EA studies intralingual errors besides interlingual. After the inability of CA to interpret all learners’ errors, the error analysis approach was adopted by many researchers in 1970s. The purpose of the error analysis hypothesis (EA) was to explore what learners know about L2 through the analysis and description of learners’ errors. CA tried to predict the learners’ errors through comparing L1 and L2 language systems; however, error analysis observed learners’ errors in an attempt to explore how the second language learner process and acquire second language. EA compared the acquisition of second language by adults to that of L1 by children. Both have a language system with its own rules. “Many of the adult second language learners’ errors were similar to those of children developing their L1, such as the use of –ed with irregular verbs in the past tense”[18]. However, in this approach has been also found some limitations, because identifying the errors are not always that easy since many of them requires awareness of the learner’s intentions. Moreover, distinguishing between errors of competence and that of performance is very difficult due to the fact that they can be consecutive. Another challenge is classifying the errors. Since many errors can be relevant to more than one level or included in another error, for example the error can be relevant to phonology and semantics at the same time. Finding the psycholinguistic reasons behind errors is very challenging as well because the same error can occur due to L1 transfer (interference), and communication 308
strategies or the Interlanguage subsystem, for example. And above all, avoidance cannot be even revealed as an error. Error Correction
It is obviously that committing errors is inevitable in second language acquiring process, also according to some scholars as P. Corder for instance, it is defined as steps toward progress or some kind of tool, which is beneficial in SLA. Anyways, we think errors are beneficial if they are possible to be corrected and serve as identification of language learning gaps to teachers and learners as well. Mendelssohn added that error correction is divided into two very broad categories: linguistic correction and sociolinguistic correction (in Bhela B. Native language interference in learning a second language) [18]. The first includes correction of grammar, pronunciation and other linguistic system. Sociolinguistic correction includes register, tone of voice and body language. Providing linguistic feedback and sociolinguistic one are important in the foreign language teaching. However, it must be noted that sociolinguistic correction is much more important than linguistic correction. In normal communication, even when people talking in their mother tongue, linguistics errors often exist without breaking the communication. In regard with linguistic correction, there are main errors and mistakes that should be corrected: Here are the main types of mistakes that need to be corrected: Grammatical mistakes (mistakes of verb tenses, preposition use, etc.) Vocabulary mistakes (incorrect collocations, idiomatic phrase usage, etc.) Pronunciation mistakes (errors in basic pronunciation, errors in word stressing in sentences, errors in rhythm and pitch) Written mistakes (grammar, spelling and vocabulary choice mistakes in written work)
Concerning these errors there are strategies that teachers should lead in giving feedback to learners. Here, it is important for teachers to select right strategy in particular situations and take into account learners’ reaction to error correction. Sometimes, strict correction may ‘frighten’ learners to make steps towards progress in language learning, that is why teacher should be able to point to the errors and mistakes, so that learner could correct himself. Therefore, the main error correction strategies as follows: – Explicit correction: Clearly indicating that the students’ utterance was incorrect, the teacher provides the correct form. – Recast:Without directly indicating that the student’s utterance was incorrect, the teacher implicitly reformulates the student’s error or provides the correction. – Clarification request: By using phrases like “Excuse me?” or “I don’t understand”, the teacher indicates that the message has not been understood or that the student’s utterance contained some kind of mistake and that a repetition or a reformulation is required. – Metalinguistic clues:Without providing the correct form, the teacher poses questions or provides comments or information related to the formation of the student’s utterance (for example “Do we say it like that”, “That’s not how you say it in English”, and “Is it feminine?”). – Elicitation: The teacher directly elicits the correct form from the student by asking questions (e.g. “How do we say that in English?”, by pausing to allow the student to complete the teacher’s utterance (e.g. “It’s a…..) or by asking students to reformulate the utterance (e.g. “Say that again”). Elicitation questions differ from questions that are defined as metalinguistic dues in that they require more than a yes\no response. – Repetition: Teacher repeats the student’s error and adjusts intonation to draw students’ attention to it Conclusion
Drawing conclusions, due to the endeavor to understand the process of second language acquisition, predict learners’ difficulties and facilitate the process of L2 learning, the mother tongue’s impact, i.e. Interference and theory of interlanguage, as well as CA and EA contributes a lot. They proved to be complementary. James claimed that “CA can guide
309
realizing if the error observed is due to L1 transfer or other interlanguage influence. In his attempt to support the use of CA, he also claimed that the developmental processing of language features in the interlanguage from simple to more difficult can be guided through determining simple features that are similar to the learner’s L1”[16]. In spite of the limitations of each approach, they can still guide second language acquisition process.
1 Dechert H. W. How a story is done in a second language in Strategies in Interlanguage Communication, eds. C. Faerch and G. Kasper. – 1983. 2 Dulay H. et al. Language Two. – Oxford University Press, 200 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016, 1982. 3 Lott D. Analysing and counteracting interference errors //ELT journal. – 1983. – Т. 37. – №. 3. – С. 256261. 4 Ellis R. Second language acquisition //The United States: Oxford. – 2012. 5 Selinker L. The psychologicallyrelevant data of secondlanguage learning in The Psychology of Second Language Learning, ed. P. Pimsleur and T. Quinn, Cambridge University Press, London 1971 6 Carroll J. B. Language and thought //Reading Improvement. – 1964. – Т. 2. – №. 1. – С. 80. 7 Beebe L. M. Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives. – Newbury House, 1988. 8 Fsrch C., Kasper G. Plans and strategies in foreign language communication' //Strategies in interlanguage communication. – 1983. – С. 2044. 9 Beardsmore H. B. Bilingualism: basic principles. – Multilingual Matters, 1986. – Т. 1. 10 Albert M. L., Obler L. K. The bilingual brain: Neuropsychological and neurolinguistic aspects of bilingualism. – New York: Academic Press, 1978. 11 Richards J. C. A noncontrastive approach to error analysis //Error analysis: Perspectives on second language acquisition. – 1974. – С. 172188. 12 Corder S. P. The significance of learner's errors //IRALInternational Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. – 1967. – Т. 5. – №. 14. – С. 161170. 13 Lado R. Linguistics Across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers. – 1957.
14 Lennon P. Contrastive analysis, error analysis, interlanguage //Bielefeld Introduction to Applied Linguistics. A Course Book. Bielefeld: Aisthesis Verlag. – 2008. 15 Selinker L. Interlanguage //IRALInternational Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. – 1972. – Т. 10. – №. 14. – С. 209232. 16 James C. Contrastive Analysis. London, Longman Press – 1980. 17 Pienemann M. The second language acquisition of immigrant children //Second language development: trends and issues. – 1980. – С. 4156. 18 Bhela B. Native language interference in learning a second language: Exploratory case studies of native language interference with target language usage //International Education Journal. – 1999. – Т. 1. – №. 1. – С. 2231.
310
UDC 372.881.111.1 Aitmaganbetova G.M 1 , Syzdykov K. 2 1 MA,. Suleyman Demirel University, Almaty,Kazakhstan,e-mail:galia.zvezda@mail.ru 2 cand of ped.sc., assist.professor., Suleyman Demirel University, Almaty, Kazakhstan, e-mail: kanat_asyl@mail.ru “TEACHING NARRATIVE STRUCTURE TO STUDENTS WITH LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENTS IMPROVE COMPREHENSION OF EXPOSITORY TEXTS”
point of view of its use for better understanding of read material. The purpose of the current study was to determine if an oral language intervention that highlighted knowledge of narrative text structure was associated with improved comprehension of expository passages that contained aspects of narrative text structure. This study examined whether training in narrative text structure was associated with improved comprehension for expository passages that contained aspects of narrative structure. The findings indicate that literaturebased narrative training has a positive impact on comprehension of expository text recall. Keywords: narrative analysis, language impairments, expository texts
Reading plays a vital role in learning foreign languages and reading can best be organized around the traditional division of discourse into a number of structural patterns. Practice in these structural patterns encourages students to organize knowledge and to see the ways in which information can be conveyed. Teaching narrative structure is intended for use by students to know classifying, comparing, defining, looking for organizational structures, seeking the answers and cause. Thus, involves to read attentively and critical activities. Narratives or stories are integral parts of our social interactions and our ways of conceptualizing the world. By having at its core the telling of experience, narrative encompasses much of our daily discourse. Narratives are used to report on, evaluate, and regulate activities, as well as to provide an implicit common organization of experience and feeling of emotional involvement and solidarity. Narrative is compelling because it provides an account not only of what happens to people, the "landscape of action", but what those involved in the action (and those telling it) know, think, or feel—the "landscape of consciousness" [1, 99].
It is meaningful that community is established and students are socialized through the daily flow of narratives. Narratives maintain the social history and historical knowledge base of the community. Narrative discourse occurs in all societies, with variation that reflects the culture of its tellers, but also with certain universal characteristics. Topiccentered, chronological, and decontextualized recounts are most typical, but other narrative structures exist, such as the topicassociated, poetic, and contextualized style of some African Americans or the short, minimalist, and implicit style of some Japanese Americans (Minami). The narrative is the earliest emerging monologue discourse form. It has aspects of both oral and literate styles of language so can be an effective context in which to learn language skills and acquire knowledge. Not only do we talk in stories, but we think in them. Bruner describes the episodic organization of mind as a narrative mode of thought, predominant in young children, but basic to all human experience. Narrative organization may arise out of children's earliest concepts: generalized scripts reflecting the daily life events through which world knowledge is experienced. Decontextualization and abstraction of events gradually occur, but the primacy of the activity schema as an organizing framework continues. This means that children (and adults) often learn a concept as part of a meaningful event, and may continue to remember the concept as part of a generalized version of that event.
311
The role of narrative text structures The main aim of the narrative is to teach reading and comprehension the reading material, to analyse it and to be ready for transferring the message into one’s own conscious and motivate him or her thinking and speaking. The objective of the topic is to analyse the role and reasons of text structure for improving comprehension of expository texts. The methods of investigating are bibliographical, analysis, comparative, observational. As a rule, students first learn to read narrative text structures, which are storylike structures that facilitate their learning to read. Consequently, students enter school having a sense of narrative structures as they appear in texts. Across the years of studying, their awareness of text structures must increase as they progressively shift from reading a story line or casual text to reading for information. There is a noticeable shift to reading texts for information, information that is often dense and written in long passages. As a matter of fact, reading teachers may find teaching text structure for expository texts an effective technique to improve reading achievement averages. There have been several studies have addressed the question of how to improve the ability of students with learning disabilities to use narrative structure. For example, IdolMaestas (1985), developed a strategy that consisted of the following steps:
Using this strategy, called TELLS, students improved their performance on comprehension questions and raised their scores on a standardized reading test. However, when the intervention was removed, student performance declined [6]. Let us turn to the reasons of teaching expository text structures. Most expository texts are structured to facilitate the study process for prospective readers. These texts contain structural elements that help guide students through their reading. Authors of expository texts use these structures to arrange and connect ideas. Students who understand the idea of text structure and how to analyze it are likely to learn more than students who lack this understanding [2]. The research literature in this field reveals that students' reading comprehension skills improve when they acquire knowledge of texts' structural development and use them properly. Instruction on text structure indeed has a positive effect on the students' recall protocols. Knowledge of the rhetorical relationship of the ideasmain idea, major ideas, and supporting detailshelps readers with their comprehension of the expository texts. There is no doubt that knowledge of text organization or structure is an important factor for text comprehension. Text features can help readers locate and organize information in the text. For example, headings help introduce students to specific bits of information. Presenting information in this manner helps students hold each bit of information in their shortterm memory. Students then can process it or connect it to background knowledge and store it in their longterm memory. Without headings, information would be overwhelming, making it difficult to be processed effectively. Solutions of the problem Structural elements in expository texts vary; therefore, it is important to introduce students to the components of various texts throughout the study year. It is also important to teach and model the use of these components properly at the beginning of the year. The recognition and use of text organization are essential processes underlying comprehension and retention. Students are expected to recognize expository text structures at the end of pre intermediate level. Meyer classified these text structures as follows [3]:
312
1. DescriptionThe author describes a topic. 2. SequenceThe author uses numerical or chronological order to list items or events. 3. Compare/contrastThe author compares and contrasts two or more similar events, topics, or objects. 4. Cause/effectThe author delineates one or more causes and then describes the ensuing effects. 5. Problem/solutionThe author poses a problem or question and then gives the answer. The ability to identify and analyze these text structures in expositorytexts helps readers to comprehend the text more easily and retain it longer. To achieve better results, it is highly recommended to introduce and work on text structures in the order prescribed in what follows. Tompkins (1998) suggested the following three steps to teach expository text structures [4]: Introduce an organizational patternThe teacher introduces the signal words and phrases that identify each text structure and gives students a graphic organizer for each pattern. Give students opportunities to work on the textThe teacher provides the students with chances to analyze the text structures in informational books, not stories. At this stage, students learn the signal words and phrases in the text that identify each text pattern. They also may use graphic organizers to illustrate these patterns. Invite students to write paragraphs using each text structure patternThe students' first writing activity should be a wholeclass activity, followed by smallgroup, partner, and independent writing activities. This involves selecting a topic and using a graphic organizer to plan the paragraphs. Finally, the students write a rough draft using signal words and phrases for the text structure, revise, and edit the paragraph to produce the final product. The teacher can then repeat these steps for each of the five text structures to ensure a comprehensive text structure coverage. Having applied the procedure recommended by Tompkins [4], we would like to share our own experience in teaching expository text structure and shed more light on the practical aspects of teaching text structure in reading classes. The first and most important thing for you as a teacher is to be well informed about different text structures for expository texts, the signal words and phrases for each text structure, and the appropriate graphic organizer specific to each text structure. Before you prepare any instructional plan to start training students and embark on reading activities, you must model all the procedures. Meanwhile, the students watch you focusing on the steps you have mentioned, from recognizing the signal words and phrases to applying the graphic organizers to each text. After you have practiced for the first few sessions and students have collected enough background on what they are going to do, it is time to use the following recommended procedure: 10 Introduce the text structures in order, starting with description and finishing with compare/ contrast. This order is followed in most textbook readings. 11 Introduce and work on a single text structure in each lesson. Do not combine them. Work on one text structure for three or four sessions, then proceed to the next one. 12 Prepare short passages (about six to eight lines) for the text structure you are going to work on in that session. As the texts are short, you can work on at least four texts according to the time allocated for each session. 13 Try to highlight and emphasize the signal words and phrases in each text and elaborate on a series of signal words for each text structure. Tell students that authors of informational texts use specific signal words and phrases for each rhetorical structure. After students are familiar with signal words and phrases, ask them to find these clues in structure of each text through signal words and phrases. Then, invite them to write some short paragraphs and use some of the signal words and phrases appropriate to each text structure. 313
Working with graphic organizers is the next step after teaching signal words and phrases. For the first few sessions of working with graphic organizers, prepare for your students a completed graphic organizer before they start working on the text. This will help them create a better image of the hierarchy of ideas and their interrelationships discussed in the passage. Graphic organizers help students’ list major ideas under the main idea of the text and put the supporting details under the related major idea. Having a graphic representation of the text's ideas helps readers comprehend and retain the content. Once students are comfortable with different kinds of graphic organizers, you can give them an incomplete graphic organizer after they have finished reading the passage. Let them complete it on their own. At this stage, the students would be able to work on a blank graphic organizer independently, elicit the ideas from the text, and demonstrate the hierarchy of the ideas in a graphic organizer. These activities may vary from partially blank graphic organizers to totally blank schematic representations. Research has shown that knowledge of text structures enhances students' abilities to identify important ideas, construct meaning, acquire new content knowledge, predict future events, summarize, and monitor comprehension when reading or writing narrative and informational texts. An emerging body of evidence suggests that training in oral language skills can result in significant and lasting improvements in later reading comprehension. A randomized clinical trial was conducted and three approaches were compared to improving comprehension for participants with specific readingcomprehension deficits. Eightyfour students, who demonstrated specific reading comprehension deficits (i.e., an average discrepancy of 16 standard points between reading comprehension and reading fluency), were randomly assigned to one of three interventions targeting reading comprehension including text comprehension training, oral language training and a combination of both trainings. The text comprehension program focused on working with written texts and developing skills such as application of metacognitive strategies (i.e., visualizing, rereading, thinking aloud etc.), inferential reasoning from written texts and producing written narratives. The oral language program concentrated on spoken language and included learning specific vocabulary, figurative language and production of spoken narratives. The combined program incorporated all components from both the text and oral programs equally. Results indicated that all students made significant gains in reading comprehension. However, the students who received the oral language intervention demonstrated increased readingcomprehension skills up to 11months after the intervention; whereas, those who were part of the text comprehension and combined programs did not show as much generalization of skills or increases in their ability to comprehend reading passages. This provides evidence that orallanguage therapy may have far reaching effects as it pertains to knowledge of text structures and readingcomprehension. The purpose of the current study was to determine if an intervention designed to improve oral language and knowledge of narrative text structure improved comprehension of expository passages that were descriptive in nature and contained aspects of narrative structure. It was hypothesized that knowledge of narrative structure would serve to improve comprehension of informational passages that contained similar structures (eg., character, setting, actions, feelings, plans). In order to reason that increased knowledge of narrative structure was associated with comprehension of expository information, students first had to demonstrate significant gains in narrative language and structure when compared to students who did not receive the instruction. In the current study, students in the experimental group demonstrated significantly better comprehension performance as measured by their ability to answer questions about the descriptive material. This finding is particularly compelling given the fact that the content in the informational passages may have been unfamiliar to elementary students. Further, all of the
314
students had been identified as having language impairment, so it is a compelling finding that they were able to improve their performance in answering comprehension questions about the descriptive passages. Findings Participants, despite age differences, made statistically and clinically significant changes in their comprehension of expository text and knowledge of narrative text structure. These findings have educational implications. Students with language impairments have increased difficulty identifying important ideas, constructing meaning, acquiring new content knowledge, predicting future events, summarizing, and monitoring comprehension when reading or writing narrative and informational texts. The narrative intervention utilized in this study did show the transfer of comprehension from narrative to expository text structure. This indicates that training in one structure can provide improvement in another. This is important because an intervention that can transfer to multiple situations is preferred. It will be more feasible and efficient to find an intervention that will aid students with language impairments in all aspects of text structure to ensure success in the classroom. To find a more productive way to improve recall of text as well as comprehension, further study of narrativebased intervention is warranted.
Reading expository texts is critical for growth in reading ability and most urgent to rank normal achievers; the ability to read, comprehend, and analyze expository texts (i.e., identifying main idea, major ideas, and supporting details) could be good criteria to rank students' academic reading achievement. One way to measure and rank students' reading achievement of the expository texts is to teach reading through text structures. This will raise text structure awareness and is assumed to lead to a permanent improvement in reading skill. One of the principles of the reading expository texts is that students should deal with as much authentic contents as their language level allows. Students will improve different skills through the authentic texts which cover a wide range of interesting topics and stories, to develop student’s comprehensions in different areas, to teach communicate freely and express their opinion and thoughts. Through reading the students learn creative tools using in writing and students become an active participant in this process of communication.
1 Bruner, J. Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986. 2 Structure to Facilitate Reading Comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 64: 368372. doi: 10.1598/RT.64.5.9Akhondi, M., Malayeri, F. A. and Samad, A. A. [2011], How to Teach Expository Text 3 Meyer, B., & Poon, L. Effects of structure training and signaling on recall of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2001. 93, 141159. 4 Tompkins, G. E. Language arts: Content and teaching strategies. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Merrill, 1998. 5 Williams, J. P. [November, 2000]. Strategic Processing of Text: Improving Reading Comprehension for Students with Learning Disabilities. ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. Council for Exceptional Children.
315
UDC 372.881.111.1 Argynbayev A. MA Suleyman Demirel University, Kaskelen, Almaty, Kazakhstan e-mail:arman.argynbayev@sdu.edu.kz
LEARNING Аннотация. Исследования пометоду проектов были проведены в изобилиив различных областяхпреподаванияиностранного языка, в то время какисследованияпо применениюметоду проектовв преодоленииязыковой интерференцииоченьредки. Таким образом, цельюданного исследованиябыло изучение эффективности использования метода проектовв обучениирусскоанглийскимложным друзьям переводчикастудентамв возрасте1719 летна кафедре иностранных языков университета имени Сулеймана Демиреля, Казахстан. Исследование показало,что применениеметода проектовв обученииложных друзей переводчика было достаточно эффективнымв сравнениистрадиционными методами. Тем не менее, участники отметили, чтометод проектовтоже имел своинедостатки также как и преимущества, которые противоречят популярному мнению об эффективности метода проектов над традиционными методами. Среди преимуществ метода проектов участникивыделилитворчество, лучшее запоминание лексики, более эффективную работу в группах и сотрудничество, в то время как недостатки включали двусмысленныеинеясныеинструкции,недостаточное время для завершения проектов исложные или неподходящие задачи. Ключевые слова: ложные друзья переводчика, метод проектов, языковая интерференция.
Projectbased learning is commonly defined as studentcentered, inquirybased education, which utilizes formative assessment and presents students with realworld challenges (Markham, 2011; Larmer, 2014; Hickey, 2014). Advantages of PBL are many, among which are: efficient collaborative work in teams, independent work of differentlevel students at their own pace, motivation for gifted students, integration of knowledge and practice, studentcentered environment, and so on. However, to make PBL work effectively researchers suggest several fundamental criteria when implementing it. For instance, Larmer and Mergendoller (2010) suggest the following seven essentials: 1) A need to know 2) A driving question 3) Student voice and choice 4) 21 st
5) Inquiry and innovation 6) Feedback and revision 7) A publicly presented product. In line with Larmer, Markham (2011) proposes the following stages of PBL: 1) Identify the challenge 2) Craft the driving question 3) Build the assessment (establish evaluation criteria at the beginning) 4) Enroll and engage (student voice and choice) 5) Facilitate the teams (coach teams how to work more efficiently) 6) Keep the end in mind (presentation of the project to audience). Similarly, Hickey (2014) emphasizes two major objectives for a successful PBL project. Primarily a project must fulfill an education purpose or standard. Secondly, it is important that students are aware of the relevance of the project and they have to be genuinely interested in completing it. 316
With this in mind, we designed and conducted a research, using PBL in teaching false friends, as they tend to occur rather frequently in the speech of Russianspeaking learners of English. This is a descriptive, experimental qualitative study, which means it is an attempt to explore the phenomenon in depth and show its complexity. According to Myers (2002), "A major strength of the qualitative approach is the depth to which explorations are conducted and descriptions are written, usually resulting in sufficient details for the reader to grasp the idiosyncrasies of the situation." Myers adds that "The ultimate aim of qualitative research is to offer a perspective of a situation and provide wellwritten research reports that reflect the researcher's ability to illustrate or describe the corresponding phenomenon. One of the greatest strengths of the qualitative approach is the richness and depth of explorations and descriptions." In order to achieve reliable and valid results multiple measurements were employed in the study to triangulate research findings. Apart from the experiment, observation, survey and in-depth semi-structured interviews were applied to obtain rich information, which supplemented the statistical findings. Interviewing the participants enabled the researchers to verify students’ responses in the survey, and shed light on ambiguous answers, that were given in error, hurry or incorrect interpretation. The aimof this study was to study the effectiveness of ProjectBased learning in preventing lexical interference, namely RussianEnglish false friends, in the speech of Kazakh speaking learners of English in comparison with Traditional Methods. In order to achieve the research goals the following objectives were set: 1. To observe the participants and collect data of their lexical mistakes, specifically false friends interferences; create a database of RussianEnglish false friends errors for the experiment; 2. To develop a model for teaching RussianEnglish false friends through ProjectBased Learning; 3. Conduct an experiment at the B1 level to study the effectiveness of PBL in avoiding lexical interference in comparison with traditional methods.
1. Is Projectbased learning a more effective technique in teaching RussianEnglish false friends than traditional methods? 2. What is the students’ attitude towards PBL when learning RussianEnglish false friends? The hypothesis in this research was as follows: Lexical interference can be prevented more effectively, if EFL teachers apply Project Based Learning instead of other traditional methods in teaching English. The study was carried out with a population of 94 Intermediate (B1) level students in Foreign Languages Department at Suleyman Demirel University. Four groups of firstyear students were selected. Demographics for the participants were classified as 68 female and 26 male Kazakh students between ages of 17 and 19. One of the main sources of collecting the data was nonparticipant observation. Participant observation was not opted for as we believed that the presence of the researcher in the classroom and taking an active part in the activities might have affected the participants’ behavior, which would vary from natural situations. For this reason we reduced our presence in the classroom to minimum. We analyzed written work of the participants such as homework, essays, written reports, essays, and reading logs for occurrence of RussianEnglish false friends, which we recorded. All lexical interference errors were noted down for the future use and analysis. Selection of the items was done according to the frequency of their appearance. In other words, only the most common false friends were carefully handpicked and double checked. As a result, 50 RussianEnglish and EnglishRussian false friends were selected for conducting the research. Additionally, notes from senior students’ oral presentations, such as
317
diploma predefense and defense, pedagogical practicum reports, practicum defense, and public speaking presentations were taken. Before engaging into the experiment both experimental and control groups were given a pretest. The subjects took several different tests such as Vocabulary Level test by Nation, a First Certificate Exam by Cambridge University Press, listening and speaking test. The questions were of various types such as multiplechoice, True / False, and open ended. The participants were given these pretests so that we could obtain more reliable data of the participants’ proficiency level via testretest method. As a result, we succeeded in forming two homogeneous groups with a very similar level of proficiency in English. The vast majority of the participants were at B1 level with a few exceptions of B2. Results of the pretests were thoroughly analyzed and compared. Objectivity of evaluation was reached through applying several evaluators at a time, especially when measuring speaking level of the participants. The answers of the participants were recorded this time as they were warned before. The recorded material was evaluated by several independent experienced teachers. The average was calculated and taken as the final grade for speaking exam. In the experimental part of the research the participants from the experimental group had to select and complete four different project work assignments on RussianEnglish False Friends during a semester, while the control group was given explicit instruction every week by the instructor where they were taught the meaning of RussianEnglish False Friends and given drill exercises. The project work assignments in the experiment were as follows: 1) Find the origin of RussianEnglish false friends. 2) Make a poster of RussianEnglish false friends. 3) Draw / websearch / take pictures of RussianEnglish false friends. 4) Write a song or a poem using RussianEnglish false friends. 5) Record a podcast which teaches RussianEnglish false friends. 6) Record a podcast which teaches RussianEnglish false friends. 7) Shoot a video lesson which teaches RussianEnglish false friends. 8) Compile a booklet/dictionary of RussianEnglish false friends. 9) Compile flashcards of RussianEnglish false friends (paperback or electronic); 10) Construct RussianEnglish false friends exercises; 11) Interview native speakers or experts about RussianEnglish false friends. After completion of each project the participants demonstrated their work to their peers in class. The students compared their works, gave feedback and evaluated their peers’ assignments. By doing so we believe that we taught the participants to take responsibility and, thus, the learners learnt an authentic skill needed in a real life. Following the experiment both the experimental and control groups were given a post test, in which they had to translate 50 sentences from Russian/Kazakh into English. The students were deliberately told to pay special attention to grammar. By saying so we made an attempt to have the participants translate the sentences in a more spontaneous and natural way, and thus, elicit false friends interferences. Both Kazakh and Russian equivalents were typed in the worksheet so that the students had no language issues when translating. Another purpose of such a technique was to find out if the participants used several languages (Russian and Kazakh) while translating or employed Russian only. In addition, the test consisted of both true and false friends so as students would not figure out the purpose of the posttest and, thus, affect the results negatively. A sample of the posttest is shown in Table 1.
Table 1 – Excerpt from translation posttest on false friends. # Russian Kazakh English 1 Она получила компенсацию за сломанную руку. Ол сынған қолы үшін өтемақы алды.
Марат очень аккуратный Марат өте жинақы студент.
318
студент. 3 В этом году семестр закончился рано. Осы жылы семестр ерте бітті.
4
курса. Назгуль үшінші курс студенті. 5 Я никогда не забуду этот фрагмент фильма. Мен фильмдегі мына үзіндіні ешқашан ұмытпаймын.
After conducting posttest and analyzing the results, we believed that it was necessary to conduct a delayed posttest to verify our findings and prove them statistically. The delayed posttest was conducted two months later after conducting the posttest. By doing so we aimed at finding out a more effective technique in terms of vocabulary retention. The delayed posttest was of a True/False type. The participants had to identify if the underlined true friends and false friends were used correctly. If the word was used correctly students had to check True in the box. In case the word was used in the incorrect context, students had to tick False. It should be noted here that true friends were also used in the delayed posttest purposefully. The idea was to make sure that students were unaware of the fact that they were taking a false friend delayed posttest, because testwise learners could easily realize that fact. True friends and false friends were mixed in order. In total, there were 50 false friends and 20 true friends in the test. An excerpt from the delayed posttest is shown in Table 2.
Table 2 – Excerpt from the delayed posttest on false friends # Statements Correct Incorrect 1 Nazgul is a 3 rd course student.
I will never forget the fragment of the film when Robert kisses Jane’s eyes.
Marat is a very accurate student. He always keeps his desk in order.
4 I will send the answer via mail. Is your mail john25@gmail.com?
5 ‘John walks in his sleep.’ – ‘Oh, really? I didn’t know he was a lunatic.’
The results of posttest and delayed posttest showed that both groups displayed very similar results in the posttest, which means both methods, PBL and Traditional, are comparably effective in terms of shortmemory vocabulary retention. However, the delayed posttest, which was conducted two months later, demonstrated relatively different results. The participants in the experimental group outperformed their peers in the control group by 13%, to be precise 74% and 61% respectively. Thus, the posttest provided us with more significant and reliable data in terms of longterm vocabulary retention and efficiency of PBL over Traditional methods, such as explicit explanation of new words by translation, using them in the context and doing drill exercises. The detailed results of the tests are displayed in Table 3 below.
#
жүктеу/скачать 9,92 Mb. Достарыңызбен бөлісу:
|