Harnessing educational psychology to enhance ESL students’ LSRW proficiency through literature: A quantitative study
Abstract
The present study aimed to ascertain the challenges encountered by English language learners in the domains of writing, reading, speaking, and listening. Through the utilization of the pre-test, students have the opportunity to engage in sentence construction as well as enhance their reading and listening skills by engaging with assigned literary materials. Additionally, they may refine their ability to effectively communicate in English with their classmates. The researcher disseminated the self-generated post-test questions. The investigation employed a quantitative methodology. This survey was done using a sample of 40 undergraduate students who are currently studying English as a second language and are affiliated with the Viscom and Catering programs. The study adopts educational psychology for teaching, testing, and assessing. The results suggest that English speaking is the most challenging of the three skills. Students are demonstrating significant improvement in their writing, reading, and listening skills when comparing their pre-test and post-test results. The speaking proficiency of the ESL students did not show substantial improvement as a result of insufficient opportunities for practice. In addition, instructors are recommended to employ a diverse range of effective teaching practices to enhance students’ proficiency in the four language skill domains.
References
[1] Cameron L. Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge University Press; 2001. doi: 10.1017/cbo9780511733109
[2] Lewis M. Teaching Collocation: Further Developments in the Lexical Approach. Language Teaching Publications; 2000.
[3] McCarthy M. Vocabulary. Oxford University Press; 1990.
[4] Chen CM, Chung CJ. Personalized mobile English vocabulary learning system based on item response theory and learning memory cycle. Journal of Computers & Education. 2008; 51(2): 624-645. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.06.011
[5] Cook V. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. Routledge; 2013. doi: 10.4324/9780203770511
[6] Nation ISP. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001. doi: /10.1017/cbo9781139524759
[7] Bisson MJ, van Heuven WJB, Conklin K, et al. Incidental Acquisition of Foreign Language Vocabulary through Brief Multi-Modal Exposure. PLoS ONE. 2013; 8(4): e60912. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060912
[8] Bulan N, Kasapoğlu K. An investigation of the effect of TPRS on vocabulary acquisition among third graders. Dil ve Dilbilimi Çalışmaları Dergisi. 2021; 17(1): 645-662. doi: 10.17263/jlls.903530
[9] Gass SM, Mackey A. Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In: VanPatten B, Williams J (editors). Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction. Erlbaum; 2007. pp. 175-199. doi: 10.4236/jss.2021.93030
[10] Gass SM, Behney J, Plonsky L, et al. Second Language Acquisition: An introductory course. Taylor & Francis; 2008. doi: 10.4324/9780203932841
[11] Shahraki SH, Kassaian Z. Effects of learner interaction, receptive and productive learning tasks on vocabulary acquisition: An Iranian case. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2011; 15: 2165-2171. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.073
[12] Kwon S. Roles of output and task design on second language vocabulary acquisition. Available online: https://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0014501/kwon_s.pdf (accessed on 17 October 2023).
[13] Soleimani H, Mahmoudabadi Z. The impact of interactive output tasks on developing vocabulary knowledge of Iranian EFL learners. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL). 2014; 17(2): 93-113.
[14] Daloğu A, Duzan KC. Cooperative learning and vocabulary retention. ORTESOL Journal. 2010; 28: 15-21.
[15] Hoa TM, Trang TTT. Effect of the Interactive Whiteboard on Vocabulary Achievement, Vocabulary Retention and Learning Attitudes. Anatolian Journal of Education. 2020; 5(2): 173-186. doi: 10.29333/aje.2020.5215a
[16] Motaei B, Ahangari S, Hadidi Tamjid N. Impact of interaction and output modality on the vocabulary learning and retention of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research. 2018; 7(25): 65-85.
[17] Gashti ZR. The Impact of Storytelling and Cooperative Learning on Iranian EFL Learners Vocabulary Achievement. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation. 2021; 4(5): 63-76. doi: 10.32996/ijllt.2021.4.5.5
[18] Shokouh A, Pishkar K. Collaborative Method and Vocabulary Retention of Teenage EFL Learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 2015; 5(11): 2395. doi: 10.17507/tpls.0511.26
[19] Benati A. The role of input and output tasks in grammar instruction: Theoretical, empirical and pedagogical considerations. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching. 2017; 7(3): 377-396. doi: 10.14746/ssllt.2017.7.3.2
[20] Kaivanpanah S, Alavi SM, Ravandpour A. The effect of input-based and output-based tasks with different and identical involvement loads on Iranian EFL learners’ incidental vocabulary learning. Cogent Psychology. 2020; 7(1). doi: 10.1080/23311908.2020.1731223
[21] Pei A, Lin Y. A Study on the Input and Output of Vocabulary Teaching Based on Noticing Theory. Studies in English Language Teaching. 2020; 8(2): 123. doi: 10.22158/selt.v8n2p123
[22] Shirzad M, Rasekh AE, Dabaghi A. The Effects of Input and Output Tasks on the Learning and Retention of EAP Vocabulary. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 2017; 7(2): 145. doi: 10.17507/tpls.0702.09
[23] Long MH. Input, Interaction, and Second‐Language Acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1981; 379(1): 259-278. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1981.tb42014.x
[24] Ellis R. The Interaction Hypothesis: A Critical Evaluation. [Paper presentation]. The Regional Language Center Seminar; 1991.