Grammar Learning Preferences of Turkish Undergraduate Students of Translation-Interpretation

Yıl 2013, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 1, 26 - 39, 02.01.2014

Kutay Uzun

Öz

 

The present study aimed to discover the grammar learning preferences of Turkish undergraduate students attending translation-interpretation department of a Turkish university.  Upon the review of the relevant literature, a survey questionnaire was administered on the students to find out their grammar learning preferences. The research is quantitative in nature. The participants were 100 undergraduate students whose genders, classes and majors varied. The results of the survey were analysed through in depth and detailed statistical analysis. Statistical analysis was also implemented to reveal if there exist statistically significant differences between different genders, classes and departments. To test the validity and reliability of the survey, varimax rotated subscale analysis, croanbach alpha and item-total correlation coefficients were calculated. Besides, T-test, Repeated Measures, and ANOVA were used to test the interaction of dependent variables with independent variables. The study revealed that the participants defended the use of formal instruction in grammar teaching either after or before communication takes place in the foreign language. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Grammar Teaching Approaches, Focus on Form, Focus on Forms, Student Preferences

Kaynakça

• Anderson, J. (2000). Learning and Memory: An Integrated Approach (Second edition). New York:Wiley.
• Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers‟ stated beliefs about incidental focus on form in their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 25, 243–272.
• Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London, England: Continuum.
• Brumfit, C. 1984. Communicative Methodology in Language Teaching: The Roles of Fluency and Accuracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
• Burgess, J., & Etherington, S. (2002). Focus on grammatical form: Explicit or implicit? System, 30, 433-458.
• Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical basis of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 89-112.
• Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• DeKeyser, R.M. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: an experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(3), 379–410.
• DeKeyser, R. M. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspective on learning and practical second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 42–63.
• DeKeyser, R.M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 499–533.
• Ellis, R. (2001a). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(Suppl. 1), 1- 2.
• Ellis, R. (2001b). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. In Ellis, R., editor, Form focused instruction and second language learning. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1– 46
• Ellis, R. (2006). Current Issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL
• Quarterly, 40(1), 83-107.
• Ellis, R. (2008). Principles of instructed second language acquisition. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
• Erlam, R. (2003). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition of direct object pronouns inFrench as asecond language. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 242–260.
• Ferris, D. (2004). The quote grammar correction debate in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49-62.
• Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingual education. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
• Haight, C., Herron, C., Cole, S.(2007) The Effects of Deductive and Guided Inductive Instructional Approaches on the Learning of Grammar in the Elementary Foreign Language College Classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 40(2).
• Hymes,D.H. (1966). Two types of linguistic relativity. In W. Bright (ed) Sociolinguistics. The Hague: Mouton, 114-158.
• Ismail, S.A.A. (2010). ESP students‟ views of ESL grammar learning. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 10(3), 143-156.
• Krashen, S. & Terrell, T.D. (1983), The Natural Approach, Pergamon
• Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (2008). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). NY: OUP
• Long, M.H. 1988. Instructed interlanguage development in L. Beebe (ed.). Issues in Second Language Acquisition: Multiple Perspectives. New York: Newbury House
• Long, M. H. 1991. Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology in K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, and C. Kramsch (eds.). Foreign Language Research in Cross- cultural Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–81.
• Motschnig-Pitrik, R. & Holzinger, A. (2002). Student-centred teaching meets new media: Concept and case study. Educational Technology & Society, 5(4), 160-172.
• Murphy, B., & Hastings, A. (2006). The uuter hopelessness of explicit grammar teaching. The International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 2(2), 9-11.
• Norris, J., 8c Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
• Ohta, A. (2001). Second Language Acquisition Process in the Classroom : Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Pazaver, A., & Wang, H. (2009). Asian students‟ perceptions of grammar teaching in the ESL classroom.The International Journal of Language, Society and Culture, 27, 27-35.
• Ponniah, R. J. (2008). Acquisition of grammar through comprehensible input versus explicit instruction. The Iranian Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), 2(2), 249-256.
• Radwan, A. A. (2005). The effectiveness of explicit attention to form in language learning. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 33 (1) 69-87. Retrieved December 7, 2008, from Eric database (EJ803865).
• Robinson, P. (1996). „Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions‟. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(1), 27–67.
• Roblyer, M. D., Edwards, J., & Havriluk, M. A. (1997). Integrating educational technology into teaching. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
• Savignon, S.J. (1997). Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice. New York: McGraw-Hill. 2nd edition.
• Scheffler, P. Cinciała, M. (2011) Explicit grammar rules and L2 acquisition. ELT Journal, 65(1), 13-23.
• Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perception concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA-Colombia. Modern Language Journal, 85, 244-258.
• Sheen, R. (2002). Focus on form and focus on forms. ELT Journal. 56(3), 303-305. doi:10.1093/elt/56.3.303.
• Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners´ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 85-304.
• Willis, D. and J. Willis (2007). Doing Task-based Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Yuqin Zhao, S., & Bitchener, J. (2007). Incidental focus on form in teacher–learner and learner–learner interactions. System, 35, 431–447.
• Varnosfadrani, Azizollah Dabaghi and Helen Basturkmen (2009). The effectiveness of implicit and explicit error correction on learners performance. System, 37(1), 82-98. Appendices
• Appendix A : Factor Analysis
• Table Rotated Component Matrix Component 1 2 3 4 5
• The aim of foreign language
• teaching is to teach both accurate
• communication and accurate grammar.
• Communication in a foreign
• language class should take place after
• the necessary structures are taught.
• A foreign language class should be
• based only on meaning and form.
• I should learn grammatical
• structures from my teacher‟s
• explanations before everything else.
• In order to communicate in a
• foreign language, I should learn both
• meaning and individual structures.
• A foreign language lesson should
• only focus on meaning and communication.
• In a foreign language lesson, the
• teaching of structures should be mainly emphasized.
• In foreign language teaching, the
• aim is to teach a new grammatical
• structure in each lesson.
• In foreign language teaching, the
• aim is to communicate and
• In order to understand a text, it is
• necessary to study its grammar first.
• In order to communicate in a
• foreign language, I should learn each
• grammatical structure individually.
• In a foreign language class,
• meaning and form should be taught
• first, grammar should come afterwards.
• In a foreign language class, the
• primary aim is to use the language
• and the secondary aim is to study grammar. -0,07497 0,638196 -0,37737 0,035435 -0,07536 -0,17556 0,727616 -0,15416 -0,06634 -0,01859 0,68722 -0,09674 0,330667 -0,08508 0,181056 0,711309 -0,25725 0,20167 0,167021 0,222881
• In foreign language teaching, the
• aim is to learn communication before 0,548494 -0,27151 0,276658 0,201319 0,196508
• individual grammatical structures.
• Foreign language lessons should
• be conducted on a communicative
• basis without grammar instruction.
• The primary aim of foreign
• language teaching is to enable
• learners use structures accurately.
• In a foreign language class, the
• main focus should be on meaning,
• communication and grammar equally.
• A foreign language lesson should
• begin with communication and
• language use, and continue with
• grammatical analysis.
• I should learn grammatical
• structures without instruction,
• through discovering in context.
• In order to understand a text, both
• meaning and grammar should be analyzed.
• I should learn grammar by both
• discovering in context and explicit instruction.
• A foreign language lesson should
• be based on communication through
• accurate use of grammar. 0,474453 -0,0096
• 0,5218 -0,10322 0,005289
• -0,21536 0,575067 0,106965 0,489121 0,035069
• 0,15918 0,090863 -0,53759 0,323477 -0,21975
• 0,813886 -0,01601 0,011329 0,054674 0,021466
• 0,366135 0,035011 0,200626 -0,14763 0,675004
• -0,02154 -0,09072 -0,29804 0,696145 0,063084
• -0,0435 0,045546 0,063263 0,057282 0,803531
• -0,35432 0,414751 -0,24523 0,393261 -0,16427