Dil bilgisi öğretiminde biçim-anlam-kullanım çerçevesi: yazma becerilerindeki isim cümlecikleri üzerine araştırma

Larsen-Freeman’in (2001) üç boyutlu (biçim-anlam-kullanım) dil bilgisi öğretimi çerçevesine dayanan bu çalışma, ikinci dil öğrencileri için yazı yazmada kullanılan cümlecik türlerinden hangisinin (isim, sıfat veya zarf) diğerlerine göre daha zor olduğunu araştırmayı amaçlamıştır. Bir devlet üniversitesinin İngiliz Dili Eğitimi Anabilim Dalında okuyan öğrencilere yönelik biçim-anlam-kullanım üçlemesine uygun olarak hazırlanan tanılama testinin sonuçlarına göre isim cümlecikleri en zorlayıcı cümlecik türü olarak bulunmuştur. Daha sonra öğrencilere, isim cümlecikleriyle ilgili mevcut bilgilerini ölçmek için aynı çerçeveye dayanan bir isim cümlecikleri testi ön test olarak verilmiştir. Ön testten sonra öğrenciler, üç saatlik dilimler şeklinde ayarlanmış toplam dokuz saatlik biçimanlam-kullanım çerçevesini baz alan bir öğrenim sürecinden geçtiler. Öğrencilerin öğrenim sürecinde gösterdiği gelişimi ölçmek için ise bir son test uygulanmıştır. Elde edilen bulguların nicel analizleri öğrencilerin yazma becerileri alanında isim cümlecikleriyle ilgili bilgilerinde kayda değer bir gelişme olduğunu ortaya koymuştur; bu da biçim-anlam-kullanım çerçevesinin dil öğretiminde etkili ve verimli bir öğretim sağladığını göstermiştir.

Form-meaning-use framework in grammar teaching: Research on noun clauses in writing skills

Based on Larsen-Freeman’s (2001) three-dimensional (form-meaning-use) framework of grammar teaching, thisstudy aimed to investigate which type of clause (noun, adjective or adverbial) was the most challenging forsecond/foreign language (L2) learners in writing skills. Depending on the results of a diagnostic test prepared inaccordance with the form-meaning-use triangulation, Noun Clauses (NCs) were found to be the most challengingtype for students studying in the Department of English Language Teaching at a state university in Turkey.Determining NCs as the most challenging type, a NCs test grounded on the same framework was given to thestudents as the pretest to examine their available knowledge of NCs. After the pretest, the students went througha nine-hour intensive treatment phase consisting of three sessions to instruct NCs with regard to the form-meaninguseframework. The treatment stage was followed by the posttest to examine the progress that students had madeduring the treatment phase. The quantitative analysis of the obtained data revealed a remarkable improvement inthe students’ knowledge of NCs in writing skills. Based on this finding, it can be concluded that the form-meaninguseframework enables effective and efficient instruction in the language classroom.

PDF

___

Aarts, F., & Schils, E. (1995). Relative clauses, the accessibility hierarchy and the contrastive hypothesis. Intenational Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 47–63.
Ammar, A., & Lightbown, P. M. (2004). Teaching marked linguistic structures—More about the acquisition of relative clauses by Arab learners of English. In A. Housen & M. Pierrard (Eds.), Investigations in instructed second language learning (pp. 167–198). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Anderson, N. J. (2003). Active skills for reading: Book 4. Singapore: Thomson Heinle.
Azar, B. S. (2003). Fundamentals of English grammar. NY: Longman.
Baba, K. (2009). Aspects of lexical proficiency in writing summaries in a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 191-2008.
Berry, C., & Brizee, A. (2010, April 17). Identifying independent and dependent clauses. Purdue OWL. Retrieved from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/598/01/.
Byrnes, H., Maxim, H. H., & Norris, J. M. (2010). Realizing advanced foreign language writing development in collegiate education: Curricular design, pedagogy, assessment. Monograph of the Modern Language Journal, 94 (Suppl. 1).
Cadierno, T., & Eskildsen, S. W. (Eds.). (2015). Usage-based perspectives on second language learning. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Hilles, S. (1988). Techniques and Resources in Teaching Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Demirezen, M. (1993). From sentence to paragraph structure. Ankara, Turkey: Adım Publishing.
Donmall, B. S. (1985). Some implications of language awareness work for teacher training. In B. S. Donmall (Ed.), Language awareness (pp. 1-13). National Congress on Languages in Education, Assembly 4th ed. York, England.
Doughty, C. J. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativizatin. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431–469.
Ellis, N. (1998). Emergentism: Connectionism and language learning. Language Learning, 48, 631-664.
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A review of the research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 223–236.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL QUARTERLY, 40 (1), 83-107.
Engber, C. A. (1995). The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 139–155.
Garret, P., & James, C. (1993). What’s language awareness? BABEL-AFIAL, 2, 109-114.
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course (3rd ed). New York, NY: Routledge.
Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingual education. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Gorney, C. (2011, June). Child brides: Too young to wed. National Geographic. Retrieved from http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/06/child-brides/gorney-text.
Gregg, K. (1984). Krashen's Monitor and Occam's Razor. Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 79-100.
Hamilton, R. L. (1995). The noun phrase accessibility hierarchy in SLA: Determining the basis for its developmental effects. In F. R. Eckman, D. Highland, P. W. Lee, J. Mileham, & R. Weber (Eds.), Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy (pp. 101–113). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Han, Z. (2004). Fossilization in adult second language acquisition. Celvedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Harley, B., & Swain, M. (1984). The interlanguage of immersion students and its implications on second language teaching. In A. Davies, C. Criper, & A.P.R. Howatt (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 291-311). Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
Izumi, S. (2003). Processing difficulty in comprehension and production of relative clauses by learners of English as a second language. Language Learning, 53, 285–323.
Izumi, Y., & Izumi, S. (2004). Investigating the effects of oral output on the learning of relative clauses in English: Issues in the psycholinguistic requirements for effective output tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review, 60, 587–609.
James, C., & Garret, P. (1991). James, C., and Garrett, P. (1991). The scope of language awareness. In C. James & P. Garrett (Eds.), Language awareness in the classroom (pp. 3—20). London: Longman.
James, C., & Garret, P. (Eds.) (1992). Language awareness in the classroom. Harlow: Longman. Koda, K. (1993). Task-induced variability in FL composition: Language-specific perspectives. Foreign Language Annals, 26, 332–346.
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students' language awareness. Language Awareness, 3, 73-93.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Prentice-Hall. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2001). Teaching grammar. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.), (pp. 251-266). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). Language acquisition and language use from chaos/complexity theory perspective. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives (pp. 33-46). London: Continuum.
Levinson, S. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lightbown, P. (2000). Classroom SLA Research and Second Language Teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 431-62.
Long, M. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of the research. TESOL QUARTERLY, 17(3), 359-382.
Maurer, J. (2012). Focus on grammar 5: An integrated skills Approach (3rd Ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Mazgutova, D., & Kormos, J. (2015). Syntactic and lexical development in an intensive English for Academic Purposes programme. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 3-15.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578.
Nunan, D. (2003). Practical English language teaching. New York: McGraw Hill.
Ortega, L. (2015). Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Progress and expansion. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 82-94.
Öndeş, N. S. (2009). ELS English language inside: English grammar inside and out. Istanbul, Turkey: ELS Publishing.
Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (Eds.). (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N.C. (Eds.) (2008). Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. London: Routledge.
Römer, U. (2009). The inseparability of lexis and grammar: corpus linguistic perspectives. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 140–162.
Ryshina-Pankova, M. (2015). A meaning-based approach to the study of complexity in L2 writing: The case of grammatical metaphor. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 51-63.
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language teaching and learning (Technical Report No. 9) (pp. 1-64). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i at Manoa.
Schoonen, R., van Gelderen, A., de Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., et al. (2003). First language and second language writing: The role of linguistic knowledge, speed of processing, and metacognitive knowledge. Language Learning, 53, 165–202.
Schoonen, R., van Gelderen, A., de Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Snellings, P., Simis, A., et al. (2002). Linguistic knowledge, metacognitive knowledge and retrieval speed in L1, L2, and EFL writing. In S. Ransdell & M. L. Barbier (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing (pp. 101–122). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Shi, L. (2012). Rewriting and paraphrasing source texts in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 134-148.
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30, 73-87.
Swain, M. (1991). French immersion and its offshoots: Getting two for one. In B. Freed (Ed.) Foreign language acquisition research and the classroom (pp. 91-1003). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Tyler, A. (2010). Usage-based approaches to language and their applications to second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 270–291.
Vyatkina, N., Hirschmann, H., & Golcher, F. (2015). Syntactic modification at early stages of L2 German writing development: A longitudinal learner corpus study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 28-50.
Yabuki-Soh, N. (2007). Teaching relative clauses in Japanese: Exploring Alternative Types of Instruction and the Projection Effect. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 219-252. Retrieved from http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=1003248&jid=SLA&volumeId=2 9&issueId=02&aid=1003244&bodyId=&membershipNumber=&societyETOCSession.