Exploring Relations between Pre-Service English Teachers’ Psychological and Social Well-Being and their Perceptions of Positive Classroom Environment

Year 2016, Volume: 2 Issue: 2, 79 - 93, 15.09.2016

Julide İnözü Sehnaz Sahinkarakas

https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.461020

Cited By: 3

Abstract

This paper reports on findings of a research study that sought to investigate the relationship between

classroom environment and candidate teachers’ social and psychological wellbeing. Dimensions of

psychological and social well-being models include constructs such as personal growth, positive relations

with others, and social contribution. Such constructs have impacts on teachers’ creating a positive

classroom environment, which is a predictor of students’ academic achievement. Therefore, this study

aims at exploring whether and how psychological and social well-being shape candidate teachers’

perceptions of positive classroom environment. To address the focus of this study, the data were collected

from 157 senior students at the English Language Teaching department through three questionnaires.

The questionnaires measured mainly three variables: Participants’ perceptions of positive classroom

environment and their psychological and social well-being. The relationships between these variables

were tested through Structural Equation Model (SEM) using AMOS (22.0). The results of the study

revealed some significant relationships between some of the dimensions only, which may indicate that

the participant pre-service teachers are expected to promote positive classroom environment in some

aspects, but not all. Regarding this, the study provides valuable suggestions to be included in teacher development programs.

Keywords

positive functioning; positive classroom environment; teacher well-being; psychological wellbeing; social well-being

References

• Ard, J. and Homburg, T. (1983). Verification of language transfer. In S. M. Gass, & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning: Issues in second language research (pp. 157-176). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
• Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Barac, R., & Bialystok, E. (2011). Cognitive development of bilingual children. Language Teaching, 44(1), 36–54. http://doi.org/fwdmxt
• Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., & Luk, G. (2008). Lexical access in bilinguals: Effects of vocabulary size and executive control. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 21(6), 522–538. http://doi.org/d8m5mh
• Cenoz, J. (2000). Research on multilingual acquisition. In J. Cenoz, & U. Jessner (Eds.), English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language (pp. 39-53). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
• Cenoz, J. (2001). The effect of linguistic difference, L2 status and age on crosslinguistic influence in third language acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (9-20). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
• Cenoz, J. (2013). The influence of bilingualism on third language acquisition: Focus on multilingualism. Language Teaching, 46, 71-86.
• Cenoz, J., & Genessee, F. (1998). Psycholinguistic perspectives on multilingualism and multilingual education. In J. Cenoz, & F. Genesee (Eds.), Beyond bilingualism. Multilingualism and multilingual education (pp. 16-32). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
• Chen, X., Ramírez, G., Luo, Y. C., Geva, E., & Ku, Y. M. (2012). Comparing vocabulary development in Spanish- and Chinese-speaking ELLs: The effects of metalinguistic and sociocultural factors. Reading and Writing 25, 1991-2020.
• Cobb, T. (2000). One size fits all? Francophone learners and English vocabulary tests. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 295-324.
• de Angelis, G. (2007). Third or additional language acquisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
• De Angelis, G., & Selinker, L. (2001). Interlanguage transfer and competing linguistic systems in the multilingual mind. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 42-58). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
• García, G. E. (1991). Factors influencing the English reading test performance of Spanish-speaking Hispanic children. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 371-92. http://doi.org/fpmhpb
• Gass, S. M., & L. Selinker. (2001). Second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Gyllstad, H., Vilkaite, L., & Schmitt, N. (2015). Assessing vocabulary size through multiple-choice formats: Issues with guessing and sampling rates. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 166, 276–303.
• Hall, C. J. (2002). The automatic cognate form assumption: Evidence for the parasitic model of vocabulary development. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 40, 69–87. http://doi.org/cntmwz
• Harrington, M. (2006). The lexical decision task as a measure of L2 lexical proficiency. EUROSLA Yearbook, 6, 147-268.
• Helms-Park, R., & Perhan, Z. (2016). The role of explicit instruction in cross-script cognate recognition: The case of Ukrainian-speaking EAP learners. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 21, 17-33. http://doi.org/bq3n
• Laufer, B. & Goldstein, Z. (2004). Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength, and computer adaptiveness. Language Learning, 54, 469–523. http://doi.org/fv2rvk
• Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (2001). Passive vocabulary size and speed of meaning recognition. EUROSLA Yearbook, 1, 7–28.
• Meara, P. (1996). The dimensions of lexical competence. In G. Brown, K. Malmkjaer, & J. Williams (Eds.), Performance and competence in second language acquisition (pp. 35-53). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Meara, P. & Milton, J. (2003). X_Lex, The Swansea Levels Test. Newbury: Express.
• Milton, J. (2009). Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition, Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
• Milton, J. (2013). L2 vocabulary acquisition, knowledge and use. EUROSLA Monographs Series, 2, 57–78.
• Milton, J., & Daller, H. (2007). The interface between theory and learning in vocabulary acquisition. In Annual conference of the European second language association, Newcastle, UK
• Miralpeix, I., & Meara, P. (2014). Knowledge of the written word. In J. Milton & T. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Dimensions of vocabulary knowledge (pp. 30–44). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Molnar, T. (2008). Second language versus third language vocabulary acquisition: A comparison of the English lexical competence of monolingual and bilingual students. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics (TWPL), 33, 1-16.
• Molnar, T. (2010). Cognate recognition and L3 vocabulary acquisition. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Philologica, 2, 337−349.
• Nagy, W. E., García, G. E., Durgunoklu, A., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. (1993). Spanish-English bilingual children’s use and recognition of cognates in English reading. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 241–59.
• Nation, P. and Beglar, D. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher, 31(7), 9–13.
• Nation, P. (1983). Testing and teaching vocabulary. Guidelines, 5, 12-25.
• Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Nation, P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 59–82. http://doi.org/djfssx
• Pellicer-Sánchez, A., & Schmitt, N. (2012). Scoring Yes–No vocabulary tests: Reaction time vs. nonword approaches. Language Testing, 29(4), 489–509. http://doi.org/bq3m
• R Core Team (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.
• Reynolds, B. L., Wei-Hua, W., Hui-Wen, L., Shu-Yuan, K., & Ching-Hua, Y. (2015). Towards a model of advanced learners' vocabulary acquisition: An investigation of L2 vocabulary acquisition and retention by Taiwanese English majors. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(1), 121-144. http://doi.org/bq3k.
• Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing 18, 55-88.
• Stewart, J. (2014). Do multiple-choice options inflate estimates of vocabulary size on the VST? Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(3), 271–282.
• Szabo, Cz. (2015). Introducing a Romanian Frequency List and the Romanian Vocabulary Levels Test. Current Issues in Linguistic Variation: The 14th international conference of the Department of Linguistics, Vol. 2, University of Bucharest: Bucharest University Press, 304 – 316.
• Szabo, Cz. (forthcoming). Multilingual vocabulary knowledge and cognate recognition in the L2 and L3.
• Szubko-Sitarek, W. (2015). Multilingual lexical recognition in the mental lexicon of third language users. Berlin: Springer.
• Tanabe, M. (2016). Measuring second language vocabulary knowledge using a temporal method. Reading in a Foreign Language, 28(1), 1.
• Treffers-Daller, J., & Milton, J. (2013). Vocabulary size revisited: The link between vocabulary size and academic achievement. Applied Linguistics Review, 4(1), 151–172.
• Treffers-Daller, J. (2011). Operationalizing and measuring language dominance. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15(2), 147–63.
• Treffers-Daller, J., Helmut Daller, David Malvern, Brian Richards, Paul Meara, & James Milton (Eds.) (2008). Introduction: Special issue on knowledge and use of the lexicon in French as a second language. Journal of French Language Studies, 18(3). 269–276.
• Varadi, T. (2002). The Hungarian National Corpus. LREC 2002. 385–389.
• Wesche, M., & Paribakht, T. S. (1996). Assessing second language vocabulary knowledge: Depth versus breadth. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53(1), 13–40.
• Willis, M., & Ohashi, H. (2012). A model of L2 vocabulary learning and retention. The Language Learning Journal 40(1). 125–137.
• Zipf, G. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. New York: Addison-Wesley.