Journals / Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2013 / Cilt: 2013 - Sayı: 44

İşitsel edimsel anlama: Boylamsal bir çalışma

Aural pragma-linguistic comprehension: A longitudinal study

Pages
1–14
Publication Date
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Using One Group Pretest-Posttest Research Design and considering the first measurement as a pretest, in the second phase of the study conducted in 2010-2011 academic year, pragmatic comprehension levels of the Turkish learners of English are tested once more after three and a half years of formal instruction with a paired t-test of pre and post-scores of the same learners, which did not indicate a statistically significant difference between the scores (p>0,05), therefore, an improvement between the scores of two measurements of pragmatic comprehension of speech acts and conversational implicatures in aural discourse.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This longitudinal study has two phases: The first phase completed in 2007-2008 academic term was an attempt to probe into pragmatic comprehension levels of second language (L2) learners as measured by the recognition of speech acts and conversational implicatures (Alagözlü & Büyüköztürk, 2009).
📊
Key Findings & Data:This longitudinal study has two phases: The first phase completed in 2007-2008 academic term was an attempt to probe into pragmatic comprehension levels of second language (L2) learners as measured by the recognition of speech acts and conversational implicatures (Alagözlü & Büyüköztürk, 2009).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Using One Group Pretest-Posttest Research Design and considering the first measurement as a pretest, in the second phase of the study conducted in 2010-2011 academic year, pragmatic comprehension levels of the Turkish learners of English are tested once more after three and a half years of formal instruction with a paired t-test of pre and post-scores of the same learners, which did not indicate a statistically significant difference between the scores (p>0,05), therefore, an improvement between the scores of two measurements of pragmatic comprehension of speech acts and conversational implicatures in aural discourse.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2007-2008 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This longitudinal study has two phases: The first phase completed in 2007-2008 academic term was an attempt to probe into pragmatic comprehension levels of second language (L2) learners as measured by the recognition of speech acts and conversational implicatures (Alagözlü & Büyüköztürk, 2009). Using One Group Pretest-Posttest Research Design and considering the first measurement as a pretest, in the second phase of the study conducted in 2010-2011 academic year, pragmatic comprehension levels of the Turkish learners of English are tested once more after three and a half years of formal instruction with a paired t-test of pre and post-scores of the same learners, which did not indicate a statistically significant difference between the scores (p>0,05), therefore, an improvement between the scores of two measurements of pragmatic comprehension of speech acts and conversational implicatures in aural discourse.

Özet

Bu boylamsal çalışma iki aşamalıdır: 2007-2008 öğretim yılında tamamlanan ilk aşamada ikinci dil öğreniminde edimsel anlama seviyelerini araştırılmıştır (Alagözlü ve Büyüköztürk, 2009). 2010-2011 akademik yılının ikinci döneminde gerçekleştirilen ikinci aşamada ise iletişimsel yetinin edimsel boyutuna sınırlı kalarak, aynı öğrencilerin edimsel anlama seviyeleri, Tek Grup Öntest-Sontest Araştırma Modeli kullanarak üç buçuk yıllık yapılandırılmış öğretim süresi sonucunda bir kez daha ölçülmüştür. Bu ikinci ölçümün amacı, yapılandırılmış öğrenimin öğrencilerin işitsel edimsel anlamalarında, yani ikinci dilde sözeylemleri ve konuşma sezdirilerini anlamada herhangi bir gelişme veya değişme gösterip göstermediklerini araştırmaktır. Her iki ölçüm tek örneklem t-test ile karşılaştırılmış ve sonuçlar, sözeylemleri ve konuşma sezdirilerini içeren dinleme edimsel anlama seviyelerinde ön test ve son test sonuçları arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılık (p>0,05) bulunmadığını göstermiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ALAGÖZLÜ, N. (2022). İşitsel edimsel anlama: Boylamsal bir çalışma. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 2013 - Sayı: 44, 1–14. https://ajindex.com/articles/532013

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Alagözlü, N. &Ş.Büyüköztürk. (2009). Aural Pragmatic Comprehension. Novitas Royal Youth Journal pp. 83-92
  2. Alagözlü, N. (2012). English as a Foreign Language Cul-De-Sac in Turkey Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 47, 2012, Pages 1757-1761
  3. Andersen, A. and Lynch, T. (2000). Listening. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  4. Austin, J.L. (1976). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press Blum-Kulka, S. (1989). Playing it safe: The role of Conventionality in Indirectness. In Shosana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House, Gabriele Kasper. (Eds) Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Volume XXXI pp. 37-71
  5. Ablex, Norwood New Jersey. Bouton,L. (1988). A crosscultral study of ability to interpret implictures in English. World Englishes. 7: 183-196
  6. Bouton, L. (1994). Conversational implicature in a second language: Learned slowly when not deliberately taught. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 157-167.
  7. Buck, G. (2001). Assessing Listening. New York: Cambridge University Press Canale and Swain (1983). From Communicative competence to language pedagogy. In J. Richards &R. Schmidt (Eds.) Language and communication (pp 2-27) London: Longman Geis, M.L. (2006). Speech acts and conversational interaction. New York Demirel, Ö. (1991). Türkiye'de yabancı dil ögretmeni yetiştirmede karşılaşılan güçlükler. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.6 pp. 25-39
  8. Demi r e l, Ö. (1999). Kuramdan Uygulamaya Eğitimde Program Geliştirme. PegemA. Ankara Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., N. Hyams (2003). An Introducion to Language. 7th Edition. Boston: Thomson&Heinle Garcia, P. (2004a). Developmental Differences in Speech Act Recognition: A Pragmatic Awareness Study Language Awareness Vol. 13 No.2 96–115 Garcia, P. (2004b). Pragmatic Comprehension of High and Low Level Language Learners TESL-EJ Vol. 8. No.2 Retrieved on 12 March, 2012 http://tesl-ej.org/ej30/a1.html
  9. Gebhard, J. 2000. Teaching English as a Foreign or Second Language: A Teacher Self –development and methodology Guide. USA: The University of Michigan Press.
  10. Gilakjani, A., & Ahmadi, M. (2011). A Study of Factors Affecting EFL Learners' English Listening Comprehension and the Strategies for Improvement. Journal Of Language Teaching And Research, 2(5), 977-988. doi:10.4304/jltr.2.5.977-988
  11. Grice, H.P. ( 1975 ). Grice, H.P. (1975). ‘Logic and conversation’ In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3. New York: Academic Press. pp. 41-58.
  12. Işık, A. 2008 Yabancı Dil Eğitimimizdeki Yanlışla