Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods ISSN: 2251-
3 Methodology 1 introduction
4.4 Conclusion
As it was discussed, there were differences between novice and experienced teachers in mechanisms of performing complex speaking tasks. There are two justification that can be acceptable about the priority of experienced teacher in comparison with novice teacher and that’s a kind of efficacy that experienced teachers in light of jumping over the obstacles have acquired. The second one refers to professional training which includes knowledge base, pedagogical action and fundamental influences (Angell, Ryder, & Scott, 2005).
Accordingly experienced teachers must be helpful for novices in some items that have been extracted from those professional training. Novice teachers’ way should be equipped with what experienced do in classes to avoid wasting time, energy like:
Assigning long term syllabus
Arranging useful strategies
Changing viewpoints about class (watching members as unique individuals not a whole)
Knowing students accomplishment and improvement as an priority
In sum, experienced teachers must be model in action, change the novices’ stage and upgrade them to advance novices and then try to add new members to community of experienced. In this stage experienced teacher is dominant over learners’ need and interest and also whatever which is important in performing speaking tasks. There’s a way between novice’s caution and experienced teacher’s development which must be paved for novices to accelerate the quality of teaching and learning. According to Berliner (2004), the novice is cautious, while the advanced beginner is intuitive. In addition, the competent performer is rational, while the proficient performer is spontaneous, and the expert is a sensible. Experienced teachers have a spontaneous understanding about the situation and seem to be intuitive in non-systematic and non-planned ways in terms of the suitable response to be provided. The calculation or thoughtful ideas is not involved for experienced teachers and they do not intentionally choose what to attend to and what to do.
4.5 Suggestion for Further Research
There are a number of areas which were not touched in this study. In addition there were limitations which can be overcome in future studies. Accordingly, a limited number of recommendations are presented here, hoping that other researchers would find them interesting enough to pursue in the future.
This study can be replicated with a larger group of participants to find out whether the same results would be obtained or not.
More complex speaking tasks like story telling in different levels and stages of learning can be performed to know how will it be the differences between these two groups of teachers
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods ISSN: 2251-6204
Vol. 7, Issue 8 , August 2017
Page 63
because there are some points in mechanisms of performing story telling as a task that need to be considered saliently. As Gilabert (2004) discussed storytelling is along with “several changes of scene, or flashbacks to earlier events in time” and there is also variety of male and female characters. Referring each of these obstacle confront learners with complexity and it is the teachers’ responsibility to make the conditions ideal and there shouldn’t be any differences between novice and experienced teachers in removing this complexity.
As another instrument arranging an interview with both groups of teachers can be done and ask them to explain more about their reaction while performing those complex speaking tasks.
Reference
Allen, R. M. (1998). Impact of teachers’ recall on the effectiveness of their reflection: Implications for teacher educators. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, C A. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 418 969).
Angell, C., Ryder, J., & Scott, P. (2005). Becoming an expert teacher: Novice physics teachers’ development of conceptual and pedagogical knowledge. Working Document. Retrieved June 16, 2005. Askew, S. & Lodge, C. (2000). Gifts, ping-pong and loops-linking feedback and learning. In Askew, S. (Ed.). Feedback for Learning (pp.1-17). London: Routledge.
Baker, J., & Westrup, H. (2003). Essential speaking skills: A handbook for English language teachers, Continuum, London.
Berliner, D. C. (1987). Ways of thinking about students and classrooms by more and less experienced teachers. In J. Calder head (Ed.), Exploring teachers' thinking (pp.60- 82). London: Great Britain: Cassel Educational Limited.
Berliner, D. C. (1988). The development of expertise in pedagogy (Report No. ISBN-0-89333-053-1). New Orleans, LA: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 298 122).
Berliner, D. C. (2004). Expert teachers: Their characteristics, development and Accomplishments. De la teoria? al’aula: Form aciodel professor atensenyament de lasciencies socials. Barcelona: Departament de Didactica de la Llengua de la Literatura I de les Ciencies Socials. UniversitatAutonoma de Barcelona. Borko, H. & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisation: Differences in mathematics instruction by expert and novice teachers. American EducationalResearch Journal. 2 6 .473-498.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th Ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Brown, H.D. (2007). Teaching by Principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (3rd Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Burns, A.(1998). Teaching Speaking. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, V.18, n.3, Pp: 102-123. Bygate, M. (1987) Speaking, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Bygate, M. (1998). Theoretical Perspectives on Speaking. Annual Review of AppliedLinguistics. V.18. n.1, Pp: 20-42.
Carter, EC., Cushing, K., Sabers, D., Stein, P., and Berliner, D. (1988). Expert-novice differences in perceiving and processing visual classroom information. Journal of Teacher Education. 39(31).25-31. Clandinin, D. J. (1992). Narrative and story in teacher education. London: Falmer Press
Colton, A. B., and Sparks-Langer, G. M. (1993). A conceptual framework to guide the development of teacher reflection and decision making. Journal of TeacherEducation. 44(11).45-54.
Cornbleet, S. and Carter, R. (2001). The Language of Speech and Writing. London: Routledge.
Eckard, R. and Kearny, M. (1981). Teaching Conversational Skills in ESL. Washington: Center of Applied Linguistics.
Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research. 4, 193-220. Ellis, N.C. (2005). ‘At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27, 305–352.
Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 91–113.
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods ISSN: 2251-6204
Vol. 7, Issue 8 , August 2017
Page 64
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (1995). Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 87 – 103. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575-600.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., &Loewen, S. (2001). Leaner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281-318.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., &Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339-368.
Fakhri R., Kh. (2012). Teachers’ Pedagogical Beliefs and Actual Classroom Practices in Social Studies Instruction. American International Journal of Contemporary Research Vol. 2.1.73-92.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2011). Keeping SCORE‟: Reflective Practice through Classroom Observations. RELC Journal, 42(3), 265-272.
Foster, P., and Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299-323.
Foster, P., Tonkeyn, A. and Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring Spoken Language: A Unit for all Reasons. Applied Linguistics, V.21, n. 3, Pp: 354-375.
Gatbonton, E. (2008). Looking beyond teachers' classroom behavior: Novice and experienced ESL teachers' pedagogical knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 12 (2) 161-182.
Gilabert Guerrero, R. (2004). Task complexity and L2 narrative oral production. University of Barcelona. Gilabert, R. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 Oral production. IRAL, 45, 215-240.
Gower, R., Phillips, D. & Walters, S. (2005) Teaching practice: A handbook for teachers in training, Macmillan Education, Oxford.
Harmer, J. (1983). The practice of English language teaching, Longman, London.
Howarth, P. (2001). Process Speaking. Preparing to Repeat Yourself. MET. V, 10, n.1, Pp: 39-44.
Hunsaker, L., andJohnston, M. (1992). Teacher under construction: A collaborative case study of teacher change. American Educational Research Journal. 2 9 .350-372.
Lee, J. (2000). Tasks and Communicating in Language Classroom. New York: McGraw- Hill Higher Education.
Long, M. (1996). The Role of Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition. In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (Eds.). Handbook of Second LanguageAcquisition, (Pp: 413-468), Sand Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Long, M. H. & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design, TESOL Quarterly, 26(1), 27-56.
Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: task-based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam and M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modeling andassessing second language acquisition (pp.77- 99). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Long, M. H. (2007). Recasts: The story so far. In M. H. Long (Ed.), Problems in SLA (pp. 75 – 116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Long, M., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern LanguageJournary, 82, 358-371.
Long, M.H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.C. Ritchie & T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of secondlanguage acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
McDonough, J. & Shaw, C. (2003) Materialsand methods in ELT: A teacher’s guide, Blackwell, Oxford. McDonough, K. & Mackey, A. (2000). Communicative Tasks, Conversational Interaction and Linguistic Form: An Empirical study of Thai. Foreign LanguageAnnals. V. 33, n. 1, Pp: 82-91.
Miller, L. (2001). A Speaking Lesson. How to Make the Course Book More Interesting. MET. V.10, n.2, Pp: 25-29.
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods ISSN: 2251-6204
Vol. 7, Issue 8 , August 2017
Page 65
Nation, I. S. P. & Newton, J. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking, Routledge, London. Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for communicative class. Cambridge university press.
Nunan, D. (2006). Task-based language teaching in the Asia context: Defining 'task'. Asian EFL Journal, 8 (3), 12-18. Nunan, D. (1989). Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press
Nunan, D.(1989). Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 108-48.
Robinson, P. (2001). The cognitive hypothesis, task design, and adult task basedlanguage learning. Aoyama Gakuin University.
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27-57.
Robinson, J. (2000). The missing link: Essential concepts for middle school math teachers. Burlington, VT: Annenberg/CPB.
Robinson, P., &Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language learning and performance. RAL 45, 161-176.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38-62.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skehan, P. (1998a). Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 268-286.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In ' Cognition and secondlanguage instruction'.144- 155.
Skehan, P., and Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93-120.
Sparks-Langer, G. M. (1992). In the eye of the beholden cognitive, critical, and narrative approaches to teacher reflection. In L. Valli (ed). Reflective teachereducation cases and critiques (pp. 147-160). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Tam, M. (1997). Building fluency: a course for non-native speakers of English. English Teaching Forum, 35(1), 26.
Thornbury, S. (2005). How to teach speaking, Longman, Harlow.
Van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N. & De Vos,W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 35(6): 673–695.
Willis, J. (1996) A Flexible Framework for Task-Based Learning. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.) Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. (Pp: 52-62). Oxford: Heinemann ELT.
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods ISSN: 2251-6204
Vol. 7, Issue 8 , August 2017
Page 66
Appendix A
Questionnaire on Teachers’ mechanisms in Performing Complex Speaking Tasks
Please give your opinion about the statements below by ticking ONE answer for each. The statements are not just about your current job, and in answering you should consider your experience as a language teacher in general.
Gender: male □female □Age…… Teaching experience………… College degree: AD□BA □MA□PhD□
Organization (7 items)
No
Organization domain
Strongly
disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly agree 1 I explain the content and the objectives of the
tasks clearly before carrying out the task.
2 I cover all the vocabulary items needed to carry out the task.
3 I manage the time efficiently when dealing with complex speaking tasks.
4 I consistently provide well-planned sequences of appropriate steps to take when carrying out such tasks.
5 I make connections between vocabulary and grammar taught, and students’ prior knowledge and experiences when administering complex tasks.
6 I make sure that all students understand how to perform the task.
7 I try to be well prepared before starting the lesson when there are complex speaking tasks.
Lesson Presentation (7 items)
No Strongly disagree
Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly agree
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods ISSN: 2251-6204
Vol. 7, Issue 8 , August 2017
Page 67
Lesson presentation domain 1 I always begin presenting
complex tasks with a review of the previous materials related to hat.
2 I make the students interested in the complex task.
3 I use a variety of technological applications and learning tools in the class whenever there are complex tasks.
4 I effectively communicate the task objectives to the students.
5 I encourage the students to familiarize themselves with the materials relevant to the complex task.
6 I always utilize the cooperative learning strategy when dealing with complex tasks.
7 I engage students in problem-solving and critical thinking techniques in complex tasks whenever plausible.
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods ISSN: 2251-6204
Vol. 7, Issue 8 , August 2017
Page 68
Control and Discipline (5 items) No
control and discipline domain
Strongly disagree
Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly agree
1 I maintain consistent order and discipline in the classroom since it is important in carrying out complex tasks.
2 I monitor the students effectively while they arecarrying out such tasks. 3 I use my strengths to
compensate for my weaknesses when dealing with complex tasks.
4 I truly respect differences in opinions among students when it comes to complex speaking tasks in particular. 5 Iconsistently treat all
students with respect and concern especially in the challenge raised by complex speaking tasks.
Dealing with Students (8 items) No Dealing with students
domain
Strongly disagree
Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly agree
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods ISSN: 2251-6204
Vol. 7, Issue 8 , August 2017
Page 69
1 I try to encourage the students to consult with me especially when there are ambiguities involved the complex speaking tasks.
2 I encourage discussions in the classroom in particular when dealing with complex tasks.
3 I assign enough projects and homework related to the complex speaking tasks.
4 I try to control my emotions in the class when it comes to performing complex speaking tasks. 5 I sympathize with the
students and address their needs especially when complex speaking tasks are involved.
6 I display an appropriate sense of humor in the class since it helps ease the tense when carrying out complex speaking tasks.
7 I accommodate individual learning differences when dealing with complex speaking tasks.
8 I make students partners in setting the classroom rules and regulations. Evaluation (3 items) No evaluation domain Strongly disagree
Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly agree
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods ISSN: 2251-6204
Vol. 7, Issue 8 , August 2017
Page 70
1 I develop well-designed assessment procedures to evaluate the outcomes of complex speaking tasks. 2 I ensure that the evaluation
of students in complex tasks reflects each student’s abilities.
3 I make sure that speaking exams are always comprehensive to include elements of complex speaking tasks.
Observation Sheet for Evaluating Teachers’ Mechanism of Performing Complex Speaking Tasks
Scores for the Teacher’s Mechanism of Performing Complex Speaking Tasks
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods ISSN: 2251-6204
Vol. 7, Issue 8 , August 2017
Page 71
No Criteria 1 2 3 4 5
1 The teacher uses pair work and group work activities more when carrying out complex speaking tasks.
2 The teacher accommodates individual learning differences when dealing with complex speaking tasks.
3 The teacher tries to encourage the students to consult with him/her especially when there are ambiguities involved the complex speaking tasks.
4 The teacher consistently treats all students with respect and concern especially in the challenge raised by complex speaking tasks. 5 The teacher monitors the students effectively
while they are carrying out such tasks.
6 The teacher assigns enough projects and homework related to the complex speaking tasks.
7 The teacher develops well-designed assessment procedures to evaluate the outcomes of complex speaking tasks i.e. the teacher’s error correction procedures do not interfere with the flow of information.
8 The teacher truly respects differences in opinions among students when it comes to complex speaking tasks in particular.
9 The teacher tries to control his/her emotions in the class when it comes to performing complex speaking tasks.
10 The teacher sympathizes with the students and address their needs especially when complex speaking tasks are involved.
11 The teacher engages students in problem- solving and critical thinking techniques in complex tasks whenever plausible.
12 The teacher displays an appropriate sense of humor in the class since it helps ease the tense when carrying out complex speaking tasks.
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods ISSN: 2251-6204
Vol. 7, Issue 8 , August 2017
Page 72
13 The teacher always utilizes the cooperative learning strategy when dealing with complex tasks.
14 The teacher ensures that the evaluation of students in complex tasks reflects each student’s abilities.
15 The teacher encourages discussions in the classroom in particular when dealing with complex tasks.
16 The teacher uses a variety of technological applications and learning tools in the class whenever there are complex tasks.
17 The teacher explains the content and the objectives of the complex tasks clearly before carrying out the task.
18 The teacher effectively communicates the task objectives to the students.
19 The teacher maintains consistent order and discipline in the classroom since it is important in carrying out complex tasks. 20 The teacher encourages the students to
familiarize themselves with the materials relevant to the complex task.
21 The teacher covers all the vocabulary items needed to carry out the complex task.
22 The teacher makes the students interested in the complex task.
23 The teacher manages the time efficiently when dealing with complex speaking tasks.
24 The teacher consistently provides well- planned sequences of appropriate steps to take when carrying out such tasks.
25 The teacher makes connections between vocabulary and grammar taught, and students’ prior knowledge and experiences when administering complex tasks.
26 The teacher makes sure that all students understand how to perform the task.
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods ISSN: 2251-6204
Vol. 7, Issue 8 , August 2017
Page 73
27 The teacher always begins presenting complex tasks with a review of the previous materials related to that.
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods ISSN: 2251-6204
Vol. 7, Issue 8 , August 2017
Page 74
A Cognitive Study of Polysemy in Adverbs of Azarbaijani Turkish
Mohammad Reza Oroji1, Naser Abbasi
Department of Humanities, Faculty of Linguistics, University of IAU,Zanjan, Iran Department of Humanities, Faculty of Linguistics, University of IAU,Zanjan, Iran
Abstract
In cognitive linguistics, which has based its foundations on meaning, polysemy is particularly given a new weight. Polysemy is a linguistic process in which a single lexeme takes on multiple meanings which