Publication: Teaching spoken discourse markers explicitly: a comparison of III and PPP
Authors
Jones, Christian ; Carter, Ronald
item.page.secondaryauthor
item.page.director
Publisher
Murcia: Universidad de Murcia, Editum
publication.page.editor
publication.page.department
DOI
item.page.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
Description
Abstract
Este artículo presenta resultados obtenidos a través de una investigación en el aula en una universidad británica.
El objetivo del estudio es la comparación de la efectividad de dos modelos explícitos de enseñanza diferentes:
Ilustración – Interacción – Inducción (III) y Presentación – Práctica – Producción (PPP), empleados para
enseñar marcadores del discurso a dos grupos distintos de estudiantes chinos y comparados con un grupo de
control. Los resultados de un análisis univariado de las puntuaciones en el pre-test y el post-test indican
diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre el grupo PPP y el grupo III (el grupo de control) relativas a un
mayor uso de los marcadores del discurso durante el post-test inmediato. Los resultados cualitativos demuestran
que, en general, los participantes del grupo PPP consideran este método más útil. Dichas opiniones coinciden
con el mejor rendimiento en los tests. Otra conclusión relevante es que los dos grupos expresaron su deseo de
que se aplicase otro tipo de práctica en la clase, como, por ejemplo, actividades que sirviesen de entrenamiento
para tareas fuera de la clase, en el mundo real. Esto sugiere la necesidad de reformular el concepto de práctica
en III, PPP y otros modelos de enseñanza.
This article reports on mixed methods classroom research carried out at a British university. The study investigates the effectiveness of two different explicit teaching frameworks, Illustration – Interaction – Induction (III) and Present – Practice – Produce (PPP) used to teach the same spoken discourse markers (DMs) to two different groups of Chinese learners and compared to a control group. Univariate analysis of the pre- and post-tests indicated statistically significant differences between the PPP group and III/control groups in terms of a higher mean usage of the target DMs in the immediate post-test. Qualitative results demonstrated that the PPP group generally found this method to be more useful, which tallied with their better performances in the tests. Both groups also articulated a desire for a different kind of practice to be used in class, based on rehearsal for real world tasks. This suggests a need to re-conceptualise practice within III, PPP or other teaching frameworks.
This article reports on mixed methods classroom research carried out at a British university. The study investigates the effectiveness of two different explicit teaching frameworks, Illustration – Interaction – Induction (III) and Present – Practice – Produce (PPP) used to teach the same spoken discourse markers (DMs) to two different groups of Chinese learners and compared to a control group. Univariate analysis of the pre- and post-tests indicated statistically significant differences between the PPP group and III/control groups in terms of a higher mean usage of the target DMs in the immediate post-test. Qualitative results demonstrated that the PPP group generally found this method to be more useful, which tallied with their better performances in the tests. Both groups also articulated a desire for a different kind of practice to be used in class, based on rehearsal for real world tasks. This suggests a need to re-conceptualise practice within III, PPP or other teaching frameworks.
publication.page.subject
Citation
item.page.embargo
Collections
Ir a Estadísticas
Sin licencia Creative Commons.