Instructional Activities and Study Strategies in Learning Less Commonly Taught Languages
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.106.14727Keywords:
Instructional activities, study strategies, Japanese language, less commonly taught language, Independent t tests, academic performanceAbstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effective instructional activities as well as the effective study strategies for students to use related to their academic performance in less commonly taught language, in the case of learning Japanese. The sample was college students who studied Japanese from 2017 to 2018 at the beginning level. Factor analysis was used to group items into meaningful factors. Independent t tests were used to investigate correlations with Test Scores. The test scores were gathered from the classroom tests (listening and written). Instructions showed that Cooperative and Challenging Instructions revealed statistically positive relation with Test Scores. Communicative Instruction did not show a statistically positive relation with Test Scores. Learning strategies revealed statistically positive relation with Cognitive Strategy, Memory Practice, Study Skills, and Resource Management. Romaji (romanization of the Japanese written language) Use showed negative correlation. The pedagogical implications were presented. Further investigation was suggested using both quantitative and qualitative approaches to together to investigate more in depth.
References
Ramsden, P. (1932). Learning to teach in higher education. Society for Research into Higher Education, 18(1), 105-111. https://srhe.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03075079312331382498?journalCode=cshe20.
Protheroe, N., & Clarke, S. (2008). Learning Strategies as a Key to Student Success. Principal, 88(2), 33-37. Retrieved [May 12, 2023] from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ823093.
The Foreign Service Institute, Language difficulty ranking, Effective Learning Leaning, 2021. Retrieved [May 12, 2023], from, https://effectivelanguagelearning.com/language-guide/languagedifficulty/
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
Ahmad, S. & Rao, C. (2013). Applying communicative approach in teaching English as a foreign language: A case study of Pakistan. Porta Linguarum, 22.
Samira, L. (2017). Investigating the Effectiveness of the Communicative Language Teaching Approach in Enhancing EFL Learners’ Oral Proficiency The case of third year students of English at Biskra University. Semantic Scholar. Retrieved [May 12, 2023] from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Investigatingthe-Effectiveness-of-the-Language-in-Lalaibia/e47db6ce3173f200588842d21d0a34103f0288c2.
Chang, S. C. (2011). A Contrastive Study of Grammar Translation Method and Communicative Approach in Teaching English Grammar. English Language Teaching. https://doi:10.5539/elt.v4n2p13.
Hu, G. W. (2005). CLT is best for China – an untenable absolutist claim. ELT Journal, 59(1), 65-68.
Song, B. (2019). The research on effectiveness of communicative language teaching in China, Asian Culture and History, 11(1). doi:10.5539/ach. v11n1p1
Wei, D. D. (2001). Communicative language teaching and Confucianism in China and Taiwan. In AARE 2002 Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, 1-11. Melbourne, Australia.
Wei, L, Lin, H.H., & Litton, F. (2018). Communicative language 6eaching (CLT) in EFL content in Asia. Asian Culture and History, 10(1). 1-9.
Zhou, X. C., & Yin, H. L. (2005). On roles and features of context in CLT. Canadian Social Science, 1(1), 108-111.
Goersev, I., & Volkan, I. (2009). Turkish university students’ perceptions of communicative and noncommunicative activities in EFL classroom, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 618-622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.110
Oxford, R. (2011). Cooperative learning, collaborative learning and interaction: Three communicative strands in the language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 20. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05510.x.
Altamini, N. O. M., & Attamini, R. (2014). Effectiveness of cooperative learning in enhancing speaking skills and attitudes towards learning English. International Journal of Linguistics, 6(4).
Krashen, S. (1982): Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Pergamon Press Inc. Retrieved [May 12, 2023], from http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/books/principles_and_practice.pdf.
Xie, Q. (2017). Investigating the target language usage in and outside business English classroom for non-English major undergraduates at a Chinese university. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1415629 401
Arnore, M.P., Small, R.V., Chauncey, S.A., & Mckenna, P. (2011). Curiosity, interest, and engagement in technology-pervasive learning environments: A new research agenda. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(2), 181-198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9190-9.
Ayşegül, Ö. Ü., &Tulgar A. (2018). The Effects of Curiosity on Second Language Learning in terms of Linguistic, Social-cultural and Pragmatic Development. ResearchGate. Retrieved [May 12, 2023]. From https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330040041_The_Effects_of_Curiosity_on_Second_Language_Learning_in_terms_of_Linguistic_Social-cultural_and_Pragmatic_Development
Dörnyei, Z., & Csizér, K. (1998). Ten commandments for motivating language learners: results of an empirical study. Language Teaching Research 2(3), 203 – 229. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216889800200303.
Stenger, M. (2014). Brain-based learning: Why curiosity enhances learning. George Lucas Educational Foundation eutopia. Retrieved [May 12, 2023] from https://www.edutopia.org/blog/why-curiosityenhances-learning-marianne-stenger
Belyaeva, I. G., 1, Ekaterina A. Samorodova, E. A., Olga V. Voron, O. V., & Zakirova, E. S. (2019). Analysis of Innovative Methods’ Effectiveness in Teaching Foreign Languages for Special Purposes Used for the Formation of Future Specialists’ Professional Competencies. education sciences. https://doi:10.3390/educsci9030171.
O'Malley, M J., & Chamot, A, U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language. Cambridge University press.
Salahshoura, F., Sharifib, M., & Neda Salahshourc, N. (2013). The relationship between language learning strategy use, language proficiency level and learner gender. Science Direct, 70(25), 634-643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.103.
Pintrich, P. R. (1999). Chapter 2 The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 3(6), 459-470. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(99)00015-4.
Rasekh, Z. E., & Ranjbary, R. (2003). Metacognitive strategy training for vocabulary learning. TESL-EJ, 7(2). Retrieved [May 12, 2023], from https://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume7/ej26/ej26a5/.
Yu, B & B. (2015) Incorporating Automated Writing Evaluation Software in Language Education: A Case of Evening University Students‟ Self-Regulated Learning in Taiwan. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 5(11), Retrieved [May 12, 2023] from http://www.ijiet.org/papers/616-ET020.pdf
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R., Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of
Anderson, N., The role of metacognition in second language teaching and learning, ERIC 463659, 2002.
Liu, O. L. (2014). Investigating the Relationship Between Test Preparation and TOEFL iBT® Performance. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12016.
Becton, L. (2020). Using study groups. Education corner: Education that Matters. Retrieved [May 12], from, https://www.educationcorner.com/study-groups.html
Light, R. J. (2001). Making the Most of College: Students Speak Their Minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Petress, K. C. (2004). The benefits of group study. Education, 124, 587–589. Nunn, M. M. (2023). Instructional Activities and Study Strategies in Learning Less Commonly Taught Languages. Advances in Social Sciences
Amamura, Y. (1995). Rōmaji no tsuzurikata [The way of romaji spelling]. Nihongo to nihongokyōiku 8: Nihongo no mojihyōki (hō) [Japanese and Japanese education, Vol.8: Japanese letters and script, Vol. 1, ed. By Y. Takebe. Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.
Kimura, M. (1974). Nihongo kyōiku no kihonmondai: Moji kyōiku [Fundamental problems for teaching methodology of the Japanese language: Script education]. Kōzanihongokyōiku: Wasedadigakugogakukyōikukenkyūjo [Lecture series of Japanese language education: Bulletin of the institute of language teaching, Waseda university ]10:82-93.
Takebe, Y. (1991). Moji kyōiku to nihongokyōiku [Script description and Japanese language education. Tokyo, Bonjinsha.
Takebe, Y. (1992). Moji hyōki no shidō [Teaching letters and scripts]. Nihongo to nihongokyōiku13: Nihongo kyōikukyōjuho [Japanese and Japanese education, 13. Japanese education and teaching methodology (early-part)]. Tokyo, Meiji shoin.
Tamaoka, K. (2014). The Japanese Writing System and Lexical Understanding. Japanese Language and Literature (The American Association of Teachers of Japanese, AATJ), 48, 431-471. Retrieved [May 12, 2023] from http://tamaoka.org/scholarly/sadokuari/2014/130.pdf.
Schmidt, R. & Watanabe, Y. (2001). Motivation, strategies, and pedagogical preferences in foreign language learning. In Z. Dörnyei& R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (Technical Report #23, pp. 313-359). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Masako M. Nunn
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
