Your shopping cart is empty.
Log in

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Библиотека журнала      
"Филологические науки"

 

Все подробности в разделе
"Книжная полка"

 

 

 

Статья

M. Daszkiewicz
80,00 Р

https://doi.org/10.20339/PhS.2-19.021

 

Daszkiewicz Michał,

PhD, University of Gdańsk, Poland

e-mail: pedmd@univ.gda.pl  

 

The paper relates to a qualitative international study carried out with university students concerning their personal reflection on learning English. In the study the respondents were presented with questions on what they think of, what they can do, how they feel about and what they associate with the vocabulary they learn (the questions thus pertained to language beliefs, activity, affect and matrices of reality interpretation and encompassed four educational domains) and requested to write down their remarks on these questions in terms of facts and opinions (such as comments shown as examples reading ‘I’ve been asked this question many times’ (fact) and ‘I think it’s a very important question’ (opinion). The study clears shows that university students’ reflection on the vocabulary they learn pertains essentially to the psychomotor and cognitive domains (i.e. to what they can do with words and what they associate them with), and only marginally to the axiological and affective domains (i.e. to what they think of words and how they feel about them, respectively). Additionally, the data gathered shows that despite not having been asked by teachers questions concerning values or emotions concerning vocabulary, students themselves find these questions significant and beneficial for the language learning process. In the light of such lack of balance between the four domains and on the basis of findings proving commonsensical questions to fall outside students’ educational L2 reality, the paper advocates the concept of language personality, understood as a construct comprising four domains, the effective development of which necessitates teachers’ and students’ increased reflection on what students think of and how they feel about the vocabulary (and language as a whole) which they study.

Keywords: language personality, teaching, learning English, educational gains, L2 skills.

 

References

1. Wasilewska A. (2017). Expansion of linguistic paradigm. In: Daszkiewicz M., Wasilewska A., Filipiak E., Wenzel R. Educational Role of Language. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo “Katedra”, p. 137–150.

2. Calvert I. (2017). Teaching in a sacred language: Hebrew educational terminology and its resulting pedagogical prescriptions. A plenary talk given at the 2nd International Pedagogical and Linguistic Conference Educational Role of Language. Social and Cultural Determinants. University of Gdansk, 12–13 June 2017 (The cited thought is presented in a wider context at https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/3283948/jewish/The-Word.htm).

3. Niemierko B. (2009). Diagnostyka edukacyjna. Podręcznik akademicki. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

4. Barton D. (2007). Literacy. An introduction to the ecology of written language. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

5. Beacco J.C., Fleming M., Goullier F., Thürmann E., Vollmer H. (2016). A handbook for curriculum development and teacher training. The Language Dimension in All Subjects, Council of Europe.

6. Pienaar  F. (2017). Oracy and well-being, In: Speaking Frankly. The case for oracy in the curriculum, Voice 21/English-Speaking Union, p. 19–23.

7. OECD (2006). Schooling for tomorrow.  Personalising education. OECD Centre for Educational Research and Innovation.

8. Khatib M., Sarem S.N., Hamidi H. (2013). Humanistic education: Concerns implications and applications. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 4, No. 1, January 2013, p. 45–51.

9. Wenzel R. (2015). Language education and teaching by the learner’s text creation. In: Janczukowicz K., Rychło M. (Ed.). General Education and Language Teaching Methodology. The Gdańsk School of ELT, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, p. 113–134.

10. Cronon W. (1998–9 Winter). ‘Only Connect’: The goals of a liberal education. Phi Beta Kappa, The Key Reporter, 64, 2, p. 2–4.

11.Thomson K., Leintz P., Nevers B., Witkowski S. (2010). The integrative listening model: an approach to teaching and learning listening. In: Wolvin A.D. (Ed.) Listening and Human Communication in the 21st century, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, p. 266–286.

12. Kelly R. (2005). UK Government White Paper: higher standards, better schools for all, Department for Education and Skills (UK). URL: www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/publications/ schoolswhitepaper/

13. Suggett D. (2007). Foreword. In: Personalising Education: from research to policy and practice, Paper No. 11, September 2007, Office for Education Policy and Innovation.

14. Caldwell-Harris. (2014). Emotionality differences between a native and foreign language: theoretical implications. Frontiers in Psychology, September 2014, p. 1–4.

15. Wang G. (2005). Humanistic approach and affective factors in foreign language teaching. Sino-US English Teaching, 2(5), p. 1–5.

16. Dörnyei Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning.  In: Language Teaching, Vol. 31, Iss. 03, July 1998, p. 117–135.

17. Ottenheimer H.J. The anthropology of language. An introduction to linguistic anthropology, Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.

18. Littky D., Allen F. (1999). Whole school personalization: one school at a time. Educational Leadership, Vol. 57, No. 1, p. 2–6.