The Effect of Concept Mapping on Learning English Requests by Iranian High School Students

Número

Descargas

Visitas a la página del resumen del artículo:  391  

Información

Núm. 27: 2019
Artículos
385-406
Publicado: 01-12-2019

Autores/as

Resumen

The Research into interlanguage pragmatics has prominent significance nowadays. Due to severe negative consequences of failure in performing and interpreting speech acts such as request, the present study investigated the effect of concept mapping on learning English requests by Iranian high school students. To this aim, 72 intermediate male English students (ranging in age from 15 to 18) that were in two intact groups from a city in northeastern Iran, voluntarily took part in the study. Data for this study were collected using English Test- Beginner (proficiency test) and Multiple Discourse Completion Task Test (MDCT). The results indicated there was a statistically significant difference between the request speech act knowledge of those learners who were taught requests through concept mapping and those who were taught traditionally. The results of the current study have important implications for syllabus designers and material developers particularly in EFL contexts.

Palabras clave

Concept map Google Schoolar
English request Google Schoolar
Written Discourse Completion Task Google Schoolar

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Cómo citar

Zangoei, A., & Amirian, S. M. R. (2019). The Effect of Concept Mapping on Learning English Requests by Iranian High School Students. Pragmalingüística, (27), 385–406. Recuperado a partir de https://revistas.uca.es/index.php/pragma/article/view/3658

Biografía del autor/a

Ali Zangoei, Hakim Sabzevari University, Sabzevar, Iran

Ali Zangoei is a Ph.D. student in TEFL at Hakim Sabzevari University in Iran and his main research interests are language testing, pragmatic assessment, qualitative research, and teacher education.

Seyed Mohammad Reza Amirian

Seyed Mohammad Reza Amirian was born in Mashhad, Iran in 1982. He got her B.A in English literature, 2004, Hakim Sabzevari University, and M. A in TEFL, 2006, Allameh Tabatabaei University, and PhD in TEFL, 2012, University of Tehran, Iran. His major field of study is Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL). He is a Faculty member at Hakim Sabzevari University. He was also a book reviewer at SAMT, 2009, referee at Tehran Postgraduate Conference, 2010, and referee at TELLSI 11 Conference 2012. He has published many books and articles: 1) Analyzing Gender Differences with an English Proficiency Test in EFL Context, Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 2014 2) Teaching reading strategies to ESP readers, International Journal of Research Studies in Educational Technology, 2013 3) Definition-based vs. contextualized vocabulary learning. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2012. His primary research interest includes test fairness and validation, differential item functioning, assessing language skills and vocabulary.

Citas

ABU NADA, MK (2008): The effect of using concept maps on achiev-ing English grammar among ninth graders in Gaza gover-norate (Unpublished M. A. the-sis, The Islamic University of Gaza.).

AJABSHIR, ZF (2019): “The effect of synchronous and asynchro-nous computer-mediated communication (CMC) on EFL learners' pragmatic compe-tence”, Computers in Human Behavior, 92, pp. 169-177.

AUSUBEL, D. P. (1968): Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Bertrand, W. (n. d.). English Test – Beginner. (Available in: “http:// www.ispilledthebeans.com/exercis-es/PDF/exercisestestbeginner, (pdf)”).

BARRON, A. (2019): “Using corpus-linguistic methods to track longitudinal development: Routine apologies in the study abroad context”, Journal of Pragmatics, 146, pp. 87-105.

BELTRÁN-PLANQUES, V. & QUER-OL-JULIÁN, M. (2018): “Eng-lish language learners’ spoken interaction: What a multimod-al perspective reveals about pragmatic competence System, 77, pp. 80-90.

BERTRAND. E. (1994): Student as-sessment and evaluation. In B. Harp (ed.), Assessment and evaluation for student centered learning Norwood, MA; Chris-topher-Gordon, pp. 27-45.

BLUM-KULKA, S., HOUSE, J. & KASPER, G. (eds.) (1989): Cross cultural pragmatics: Re-quests and apologies. Nor-wood: Ablex Publishing.

BROWN, J. D. (2001): Pragmatics tests: Different purposes, dif-ferent tests. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 301-325.

BROWN, P. & LEVINSON, S. C. (1978): “Universals in language use: Politeness phenomena”. In E. N. Goody (ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–289.

BROWN, P. & LEVINSON, S. C. (1987): Politeness: Some uni-versals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

COOK, V. (2008): Second language learning and language teach-ing. 4th edn. London: Hodder education.

CHULARUT, P. & DEBACKER, T. K. (2004). “The influence of con-cept mapping on achievement, self-regulation, and self-efficacy in students of English as a second language”, Con-temporary Educational Psy-chology, 29(3), pp. 248-263.

DERAKHSHAN, A. (2014): The effect of consciousness-raising video-driven prompts on the compre-hension of implicatures and speech acts (Unpublished PhD dissertation, Allameh Tabata-ba’i University, Tehran, Iran.)

DERAKHSHAN, A. & ARABMOFRAD, A. (2018): “The Impact of In-struction on the Pragmatic Comprehension of Speech Acts of Apology, Request, and Re-fusal among Iranian Interme-diate EFL Learners”, English Teaching & Learning, pp. 1-20.

DERAKHSHAN, A. & ZANGOEI, A. (2014): “Video-Driven Prompts: A viable pragmatic conscious-ness-raising approach in EFL/ESL classrooms”, Interna-tional Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguis-tics World (IJLLALW), 5(2), pp. 368-380.

DIAS, R. (2010): “Concept map: a strategy for enhancing reading comprehension in English as L2. Proc. of Fourth Interna-tional Conference on Concept Mapping”. J. Sánchez, A. J. Cañas, J.D. Novak, Eds. Viña del Mar, Chile.

ELLIS, R. (2019): “Towards a modular language curriculum for using tasks”, Language Teaching Re-search, 23(4), pp. 454-475.

EMADI, M. (2015): Dynamic assess-ment of listening comprehen-sion in foreign language learn-ing (Unpublished MA thesis). Golestan Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad Universi-ty, Gorgan, Iran.

ESLAMI, Z. R. & ESLAMI-RASEKH, A. (2008). “Enhancing the pragmatic competence of non-native English-speaking teach-er candidates (NNESTCs) in an EFL context”, Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing, 30(2), pp. 178-197.

GARCIA, P. (2004): “Pragmatic com-prehension of high and low level language learners”, TESL-EJ, 8(2), pp. 1-15.

GASS, S. & SELINKER, L. (1994): Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Hill-dale. NI: Lawrence Erlbaum.

GREDLER, M. E. (2001): Learning and instruction: Theory into practice (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

HANCOCK, M. & MCDONALD, A. (2009): English Result Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

HASHEMI SHAHRAKI, S., KETABI, S. & BARATI, H. (2015): “Dynam-ic assessment in EFL class-rooms: Assessing listening comprehension in three profi-ciency levels”, International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 4(3), pp. 73-89

HOLTGRAVES, T. (2002): Language as social action. London: Law-rence Erlbaum Associates.

JEON, E. H. & KAYA, T. (2006): “Ef-fects of L2 instruction on in-terlanguage pragmatic devel-opment”, In J.M. Norris & L. Ortega (eds.), Synthesizing re-search on language learning and teaching Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 165-211.

JERNIGAN, J. E. (2012): “Output and English as a second language pragmatic development: The ef-fectiveness of output-focused video-based instruction”, Ca-nadian ELT Journal, 5(4), pp. 2-14.

KALHOR, M. & SHAKIBAEI, G. (2012): “Teaching reading comprehension through con-cept map”, Life Science Jour-nal, 9(4), pp. 725-731.

KARGAR, A., SADIGHI, F. & AH-MADI, A. R. (2012): “The Ef-fects of collaborative transla-tion task on the apology speech act production of Irani-an EFL learners”, The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 4 (3), pp. 47-78.

KERN, F. G. (2018): “The trials and tribulations of applied triangu-lation: weighing different data sources”, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(2), pp. 166-181.

KASPER, G. (1998): "Interlanguage pragmatics.", in H. Byrnes (ed.) Learning foreign and sec-ond languages: Perspectives in research and scholarship, New York: Modem Language Asso-ciation of America, pp. 183-208.

KASPER, G. & BLUM-KULKA, S. (1993): Interlanguage pragmat-ics, New York: Oxford Universi-ty Press.

KASPER, G. & ROSE, K. R. (2001): “Pragmatics in language teaching”, in K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 2-9.

KIM, H. (2016): “An Investigation into EFL Learners’ Perception towards L2 Pragmatic Instruc-tion”, Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(3), pp. 452-462.

KRIEGESKORTE, N. (2015): “Deep neural networks: a new frame-work for modeling biological vision and brain information processing”, Annual review of vision science, 1, pp. 417-446.

LEE, Y. & CHO, S. (2010): Concept mapping strategy to facilitate foreign language writing: A Ko-rean application (Retrieved De-cember 3, 2010 from http://aatk.org/html).

LIU, P. L., CHEN, C. J. & CHANG, U. J. (2010): “Effects of a comput-er-assisted concept mapping learning strategy on EFL col-lege students' English reading comprehension”, Computers & Education, 54, pp. 436-445.

MALEKI, M. & DABBAGHI, A. (2013): “The Influences of concept mapping strategy on reading comprehension of those stu-dents challenging in studying invalid books at some high schools”, MJAL, 5(2), pp. 101-127.

MORFIDI, E., MIKROPOULOS, A. & ROGDAKI, A. (2018): “Using concept mapping to improve poor readers’ understanding of expository text”, Education and Information Technologies, 23(1), pp. 271-286.

NAIDITCH, F. (2006): The pragmatics of permission: A study of Bra-zilian ESL learners (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3215491)

NAOKO, T. (2013): “Production of routines in L2 English: Effect of proficiency and study abroad experience”, System, 41(1), pp. 109-121.

NOROUZIAN, R. & ESLAMI, Z. (2016): “Critical perspectives on interlanguage pragmatic development: An agenda for re-search”, Issues in Applied Lin-guistics, 20, pp. 25-50.

NOVAK, J. D. (1990): Concept maps and Vee diagrams: Two meta-cognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Instruc-tional Science, 19, pp. 29-52.

NOVAK, J. D. (2010): “The universali-ty and ubiquitousness of con-cept maps. Proc. Of Fourth In-ternational Conference on Concept Mapping”. J. Sánchez, A. J. Cañas, J. D. Novak, Eds. Viña del Mar, Chile.

NOVAK, J. D. & CAŇAS, A. J. (2006): The theory underlying concept maps and how to Construct them (It is available in: http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/Theory C maps/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.htm).

OJIMA, M. (2006): “Concept mapping as pre-task planning: A case study of three Japanese ESL Writers”, System, 34(4), pp. 566-585.

OXENDEN, C., LATHAN-KOENIG, C. & SELIGSON, P. (2008): Amer-ican English file series. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

RICHARDS, J. C. & BOHLKE, D. (2011): Four Corners Series. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

RICHARDS, J. C. & RENANDYA, W. A. (eds.). (2002): Methodology in language teaching: An an-thology of current practice. Cambridge university press.

ROSE, K. R. (2005): “On the effect of instruction in second language pragmatics”, System, 33 (3), pp. 385-399.

MCCLELLAND, J. L. & RUMELHART, D. E. (1988): “A simulation-based tutorial system for ex-ploring parallel distributed processing”, Behavior Re-search Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 20(2), pp. 263-275.

SIFIANOU, M. (1992): Politeness phenomena in England and Greece: A cross-cultural per-spective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

SOO, J. Y. (2013): “Measuring syn-tactic complexity in L2 prag-matic production: Investigat-ing relationships among pragmatics, grammar, and pro-ficiency”, System, 42, pp. 270-287.

SYKES, J. M. (2018): “Interlanguage Pragmatics, Curricular Innova-tion, and Digital Technolo-gies”, calico journal, 35(2), pp. 120.

TAGUCHI. N. (2015): ‘Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going”, Lan-guage Teaching, 48, pp. 1-48.

TAGUCHI, N., XIAO, F. & LI, S. (2016): “Development of prag-matic knowledge in L2 Chi-nese: Effects of intercultural competence and social contact on speech act production in a study abroad context”, Modern Language Journal, 100, pp. 775-796.

TAGUCHI, N. (2017): “Interlanguage pragmatics”. In A. Barron, P. Grundy & G. Yueguo (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford/New York: Routledge, pp. 153–167.

TAKAHASHI, S. (2010): “Assessing learnability in second lan-guage pragmatics”, in A. Tros-borg (ed.) Handbook of Prag-matics: Pragmatics across Languages and Cultures. Ber-lin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 391-421.

TALEBINEZHAD, M. R. & MOUSA-POUR NEGARI, G. (2007): “The Effect of explicit teaching of concept mapping in expository writing on EFL students’ self-regulation”, The Linguistics Journal, 2(1), pp. 69-90.

TARICANI, E. M. (2002): Effects of the level of generativity in concept mapping with knowledge of correct response feedback on learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pa.).

TATEYAMA, Y. (2001): “Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatics routines: Japanese sumi-masen”, In K.R. Rose & G. Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 200-222). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

XIAO, F. (2015): “Proficiency effect on L2 pragmatic competence”, Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 5(4), pp. 557-581.

XU, W., CASE, R. E. & WANG, Y. (2009): “Pragmatic and gram-matical competence, length of residence, and overall L2 profi-ciency”, System, 37(2), pp. 205-216.

YANG, Q. (2015): “An Investigation of the Non-English Majors’ Pragmatic Competence”, Jour-nal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(6), pp. 1289-1296.

YULE, G. (1996): Pragmatics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.