İngilizce öğretmenlerinin edimbilim öğretimi için materyal uyarlaması konusundaki görüşleri üzerine örnek bir inceleme

Öz

İngiliz dili eğitimi alanında son zamanlarda edimbilimsel dil öğelerinin öğretimi daha fazla ilgi görmeye başlamıştır. Alandaki araştırmalar, İngilizce ders kitaplarının edimbilimsel öğeleri sunma konusunda yetersiz kaldığını göstermiştir. Ders kitaplarının öğrenciler için önemli bir bilgi kaynağı olması nedeniyle, öğretmenlerin ders kitaplarındaki edimbilim aktivitelerini zenginleştirebilmeleri önemlidir. Ancak, öğretmenlerin bunu ne ölçüde başarabileceği henüz araştırılmamıştır. İlgili alanyazın incelendiğinde öğretmenlerin edimbilim öğretim materyalleri hakkındaki görüşlerini inceleyen bir çalışmaya rastlanmamıştır. Bu boşluğu doldurmak için, ilk olarak amacı ricaları öğretmek olan bir ders kitabı aktivitesi alanyazın taranarak zenginleştirilmiştir. Sonra bu aktivite 100 Türk İngilizce öğretmeninin dikkatine sunulmuştur. Ardından öğretmenlerin görüşleri hakkında bilgi, bir anket ve yarı yapılandırılmış mülakat aracılığı ile toplanmıştır. Aynı zamanda öğretmenlerin edimbilim öğretimi için ders kitabı aktivitelerini uyarlama konusunda istekli olup olmadıkları da sorgulamaktadır. Bulgular, öğretmenlerin ders kitabı aktivitesinde yapılan değişiklikleri edimbilim öğretimi için faydalı bulduklarını göstermiştir. Ayrıca akademik eğitimleri sırasında edimbilim hakkında bir ders almış olan katılımcılar ile almayanlar arasında istatistiksel bir fark bulunmamıştır. Öğretmenler edimbilim öğretimi için materyal uyarlamanın bir zaruret olduğunu düşünmektedirler. Yine de, edimbilim konusunda yeterli bilgiye sahip olmadıkları için, katılımcıların tamamının bu tür uyarlamalar yapmadıklarını kabul etmişlerdir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• edimbilim öğretimi
• ingilizce materyal uyarlaması
• söz eylemleri
• ricalar

A case study on EFL teachers’ views on material adaptation for teaching pragmatics

Abstract

The teaching of pragmatic features in the field of ELT has received more attention recently. Many studies indicated that English textbooks fail to represent the features of pragmatics. Yet, textbooks are a valuable source of information for students, so it is vital for teachers to be able to enrich the textbook activities for teaching pragmatics. However, to what extent teachers can achieve this has not been investigated yet. Moreover, no studies have been found investigating the views of EFL teachers on the teaching materials for pragmatics instruction. To fill in this gap, a dialogue activity aiming to teach requests was modified based on the relevant literature. The modified activity was presented to the attention of 100 Turkish EFL teachers. Then, the views of EFL teachers on the modified activity were investigated through a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. The study also aimed to question if teachers were willing to adapt textbook activities for more effective pragmatics instruction. The results indicated that teachers found the modifications useful for pragmatics instruction. Furthermore, no statistically significant difference was found between those who had taken a course on pragmatics during their teacher training and the ones who had not. It was found that teachers regarded material adaptation for the instruction of pragmatics as a must. Even so, they admitted that none of them had made such adaptations as they thought they were not equipped with a satisfying level of knowledge on pragmatics.

Keywords

• pragmatics instruction
• ELT material adaptation
• speech acts
• requests

Kaynakça

1. Bardovi- Harlig, K. (2012). Formulas, routines, and conventional expressions in pragmatics research, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Vol. 32 , pp. 206 – 227. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000086
2. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Mahan-Taylor, R. (2003). Teaching pragmatics. Washington, DC: US Department of State, Office of English Language Programs.
3. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Mossman, S. (2017). Corpus-based materials development for teaching and learningpragmatic routines. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), SLA research and materials development for language learning (pp. 250–267). New York: Routledge.
4. Bialystok, E. (1993). Metalinguistic awareness: The development of children’s representations of language. In C. Pratt & A. Garton (Ed.), Systems of representation in children: Development and use (pp. 211– 233). London: Wiley.
5. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation
6. Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1991). Looking in classrooms (5th ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
7. Campillo, P. S. (2008). Examining mitigation in requests: A focus on transcripts in ELT coursebooks. In Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 207-222). Springer, Dordrecht.
8. Carter, K., & Doyle, W. (1995, June). Preconceptions in learning to teach. In The Educational Forum (Vol. 59, No. 2, pp. 186-195). Taylor & Francis Group.

9. Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (2015). Pragmatics and speech acts. University of Minnesota: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition. Retrieved from www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/index.html
10. Cohen, A. D. (2016). The teaching of pragmatics by native and nonnative language teachers: What they know and what they report doing. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(4), 561-585.
11. Cohen, A. D. & Ishihara, N. (2013). Pragmatics. In Tomlinson, B. (Ed.) Applied Linguistics and Materials Development. London: Bloomsbury.
12. Cohen, L. , Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (6th edition). London: Routledge.
13. Crandall, E., & Basturkmen, H. (2004). Evaluating pragmatics-focused materials. ELT journal, 58(1), 38-49.
14. Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2011). Please answer me as soon as possible: Pragmatic failure in nonnative speakers’ e-mail requests to faculty. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(13), 3193-3215.
15. Eslami, Z. R. & Liu, C. (2013). Learning Pragmatics through Computer-Mediated Communication in Taiwan. Iranian Journal of Society, Culture, & Language, 1(1), 52-73
16. Fernández Guerra, A., & Martínez Flor, A. (2003). Requests in films and in EFL textbooks: A comparison. ELIA, 4, 17-34.
17. Ishihara, N. (2011). Co-constructing pragmatic awareness: Instructional pragmatics in EFL teacher development in Japan. TESL-EJ, 15 (2). Retrieved from http://www.teslej.org/wordpress/issues/volume15/ej58/ej58a2/.
18. Ishihara, N. (2010). Adapting textbooks for teaching pragmatics. In N. Ishihara & A. D. Cohen (Ed.), Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet (pp. 145-166). Edinburg: Pearson Education.
19. Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D. (2010). Describing speech acts: Linking research and pedagogy. In N. Ishihara & A.D. Cohen (Ed.), Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet (pp. 56-74).Edinburg: Pearson Education
20. Glaser, K. (2018). Enhancing the role of pragmatics in primary English teacher training. Glottodidactica. An International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 45(2), 119-131. Hadley, A.O. (2003). Teaching Language in Context. (3rd Ed.). Boston: Heinle&Heinle.
21. Harwood, N. (2014). Content consumption and production: three levels of textbook research. In Harwood, N. (Ed.) English Language Teaching Textbooks: Content, consumption, production. Basingstoke: Palgrave & MacMillan.
22. Hilliard, A. (2014). Spoken grammar and its role in the English language classroom. English Teaching Forum. Vol. 4: 2-13.
23. Johnson, K. E. (1994). The emerging beliefs and instructional practices of preservice English as a second language teachers. Teaching & Teacher Education, 10 (4): 439-452.
24. Johnson, R. B. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.
25. Karatepe, Ç. (1998). Teaching pragmalinguistics in teacher training programmes.
26. PhD dissertation, University of Liverpool. Liverpool, UK.
27. Karatepe, Ç. (2001). Pragmalinguistic awareness in EFL teacher training. Language Awareness, 2(3), 178-188.
28. Karatepe, Ç. (2016). Indirectness in requests in complaint letters to the higher institution by Turkish EFL students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 354-361. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.050
29. Karatepe, Ç., & Yılmaz, D. (2018). Promoting structured reflectivity in teacher education: An innovative approach. Journal of Teacher Education and Educators, 7(1), 57-74.
30. Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatics be taught. In Plenary speech presented at the Annual TESOL Convention (March, the 32nd conference, international), Orlando, Florida.
31. Lo Castro, V. (2003). An introduction to pragmatics: Social action for language teachers. Michigan, USA: The University of Michigan Press.
32. McConachy, T. (2009). Raising sociocultural awareness through contextual analysis: Some tools for teachers. ELT journal, 63(2), 116-125.
33. McConachy, T., & Hata, K. (2013). Addressing textbook representations of pragmatics and culture. ELT Journal, 67(3), 294–301.
34. Nugroho, A., & Rekha, A. (2020). Speech acts of requests: A case of Indonesian EFL learners. Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics, 5(1), 1-16.
35. Opp-Beckman, L., & Klinghammer, S. J. (2006). Shaping the way we teach English: Successful practices the world. Publication Office of English Language Programs, Department of State: Washington, DC.
36. Petraki, E., & Bayes, S. (2013). Teaching oral requests: An evaluation of five English as a second language coursebooks. Pragmatics, 23(3), 499-517.
37. Ren, W. & Han, Z. (2016). The representation of pragmatic knowledge in recent ELT textbooks. ELT Journal. 1-11.
38. Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
39. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL, X73, 209-231......................
40. Siegel, J. (2016) Pragmatic activities for the speaking classroom. English Teaching Forum, pp.12-19. Retrieved from http://www.americanenglish.state.gov/english-teaching-forum
41. Siegel, J., Broadbridge, J., & Firth, M. (2019). Saying it ‘just right’: teaching for pragmatic success in ELT. ELT Journal, 73(1), 31-40.
42. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
43. Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289-310.
44. Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching 48(1), 1–50.
45. Tatsuki, D. (2019). Instructional material development in L2 pragmatics. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp. 322–337). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351164085-21
46. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied linguistics, 4(2), 91-112.
47. Tomlinson, B. (2012). Materials development for language learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 45(2): 143-179.
48. Tran, T. M. T., & Yeh, A. (2020). Keeping it Real: Vietnamese-English Pragmatic Representations in EFL Textbook. International Journal of Language and Literary Studies, 2(1), 1-20.
49. Usó-Juan, E. (2007). The presentation and practice of the communicative act of requesting in textbooks: Focusing on modifiers. In: Alcón E, Safont MP (eds) Intercultural Language Use and Language Learning. Springer, Amsterdam, pp 223–243
50. Vellenga, H. (2004). Learning pragmatics from ESL & EFL textbooks: How likely? TESL-EJ, 8(2), 25-38.
51. Wong, J. (2002) “Applying” conversation analysis in applied linguistics: Evaluating dialogue in English as a second language textbooks. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 40: 37-60.
52. Wyner, L., & Cohen, A. D. (2015). Second language pragmatic ability: Individual differences according to environment. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 5(4), 519-556.
53. Yıldız-Ekin, M. T. & Atak-Damar, E. (2013). Pragmatic awareness of EFL teacher trainees and their reflections on pragmatic practices. ELT Research Journal, 2.4, 176–190.
54. Yılmaz, D. & Karatepe, Ç. (2013) Contextualisation in the primary classroom: A neglected issue in teacher education. In Strelova, O., Hıristov, I., Mortan, K. , Peeva, P., Sam, R., Sam, N., Galay, E. & Atasoy, E. (2013) The Science and Education at the Beginning of the 21st Century in Turkey. Vol.3, pp.57-70, Sofia: St Klimenk Ohridski University Press.