Translanguaging in Aviation ESP Blended MOOC Flipped Classrooms: ESP Teachers’ Perceptions

محورهای موضوعی : نشریه زبان و ترجمه

Farzad Akhgar ¹ (Department of English, Shahreza Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran)
Mohammad Ali Heidari Shahreza ² (Department of English, Shahreza Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran)
Mohammad Reza Talebinezhad ³ (Department of English, Shahreza Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran)

تاریخ دریافت : 1400/11/11 تاریخ پذیرش : 1400/11/26 تاریخ انتشار : 1401/10/11

کلید واژه: Aviation English, bMOOC, teacher perception, Translanguaging,

چکیده مقاله :

The aim of the present study was to investigate Aviation English (AE, hereafter) language teachers’ perceptions about translanguaging in AE classes. Translanguaging is a language practice through which language learners use their L1 linguistic knowledge for meaning-making purposes in their L2. The participants were ten subject teachers teaching EAP courses to pilot students and flight engineers at Army Aviation Training Center located in Isfahan, Iran. In order to investigate the participants’ perceptions about translanguaging, a questionnaire adopted from Yuvayapan) 2019) was employed. In order to answer the research questions, the questionnaire was administered among the teachers teaching AE materials, and the participants were taught online using Edmodo network. The results revealed that the majority of AE language teachers were not interested in encouraging students to use their mother tongue in answering their questions. It was also found that using mother tongue in AE classes is encouraged to promote help to peers during activities. The results also revealed that more than half of the AE teachers did not boost learners’ use of Persian to help peers in activities and did not explain problems irrelevant to the content. However, they acknowledged the importance of translanguaging in these particular situations. In answering their questions, the majority of AE language teachers were not interested in encouraging students to use their mother tongue. Furthermore, some participants believed that Persian can be used to explain vocabulary in AE language classes. The results have some implications for ESP language teachers and material developers.

چکیده انگلیسی:

هدف مطالعه حاضر بررسی ادراک معلمان زبان انگلیسی هوانوردی ، در مورد ترجمه زبان در کلاس های AEمی باشد . ترجمه زبان تمرین زبانی است که از طریق آن زبان آموزان از دانش زبانی L1 خود برای اهداف معناسازی در L2 خود استفاده می کنند. شرکت کنندگان ده معلم بودند که دوره های EAP را برای دانشجویان خلبان و مهندسان پرواز در مرکز آموزش هوانوردی ارتش واقع در اصفهان، ایران تدریس می کردند. به منظور بررسی ادراکات شرکت کنندگان در مورد ترجمه، از پرسشنامه اتخاذ شده ازیووایاپان (2019) استفاده شد. به منظور پاسخگویی به سؤالات پژوهش، پرسشنامه بین معلمان آموزش دهنده مطالب AE اجرا شد و به شرکت کنندگان به صورت آنلاین با استفاده از شبکه Edmodo آموزش داده شد. نتایج نشان داد که اکثر معلمان زبان AE علاقه ای به تشویق دانش آموزان به استفاده از زبان مادری خود در پاسخ به سؤالات خود ندارند. همچنین مشخص شد که استفاده از زبان مادری در کلاس‌های AE برای ترویج کمک به همسالان در طول فعالیت‌ها تشویق می‌شود. نتایج همچنین نشان داد که بیش از نیمی از معلمان AE استفاده زبان‌آموزان از زبان فارسی را برای کمک به همسالان در فعالیت‌ها تقویت نکردند و مشکلات بی‌ربط با محتوا را توضیح ندادند. با این حال، آنها به اهمیت ترجمه در این موقعیت‌های خاص اذعان داشتند. اکثر معلمان زبان AE در پاسخ به سؤالات خود علاقه ای به تشویق دانش آموزان به استفاده از زبان مادری خود نداشتند. علاوه بر این، برخی از شرکت کنندگان معتقد بودند که می توان از فارسی برای توضیح واژگان در کلاس های زبان AE استفاده کرد. نتایج برخی مفاهیم برای معلمان زبان ESP و توسعه دهندگان مواد دارد.

منابع و مأخذ:

Airbus. (2004). Flight Operating Briefing Notes, Human Performance, Effective Pilot Controller communication. Retrieved from http:// www. airbus. com/ file admin/ media_ gallery/ files/ safety _ library_ items/ Airbus Safety Lib_-FLT_OPS-HUM_PERSEQ04. Pdf

Akyol, Z., Garrison, D. R., & Ozden, M. (2009). Online and blended community of inquiry: Exploring the developmental and perceptual differences. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(6), 68-53.

Alijanian, E. (2012). An Investigation of Iranian EFL Teachers` Beliefs about Grammar. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 2(3), 335-340.

Anglin, L., & Anglin, K. (2008). Business education, teaching, and the millennials. The Academy of Business Disciplines, 3, 26-42.

Atai, M. R. (2002b). Iranian EAP programs in practice: A study of key methodological aspects. Sheikhbahaee Research Bulletin, 1, 1–15.

Atai, M. R. (2013). English for specific purposes: International trends and middle-east concerns. In R. Akbari & C. Coombe (Eds.), Middle East handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 150–184). Dubai: TESOL Arabia Publications.

Baker, A. (2014). Exploring Teachers’ Knowledge of Second Language Pronunciation Techniques: Teacher Cognitions, Observed Classroom Practices, and Student Perceptions. TESOL Quarterly, 48(1), 136-163.

Bell, F. (2011). Connectivism: Its place in theory-informed research and innovation in technology-enabled learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 98-118.

Bishop, J., &Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. In 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. Atlanta, Georgia.

Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London:

            Continuum.

Bruff, D. O., Fisher, D. H., McEwen, K. E., & Smith, B. E. (2013). Wrappinga MOOC: Student perceptions of an experiment in blended learning. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 187-199.

Chute, R. (1995) Cockpit/Cabin Communication I. A Tale of Two Cultures. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 5 (3), 257-276.

Cummins (2009). Bilingual and immersion programs. In: M.H. Long & C.J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of second language teaching. Oxford: Blackwell

Dill, E. (2012). The impact of flip teaching on student homework completion, behavior engagement and proficiency. Armidale: University of New England.

Dominguez, G.A. &Rokowski, P.E. (2002). Bridging the Gap between English for Academic and Occupational Purposes. ESP World, 1(2). 12-18.

Fabris, C. (2015). One reason to offer free online courses: Alumni engagement. In the Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved February 4, 2019, from http://chronicle.com/article/OneReas on -to-O ffer-Free/151163.

García, O. & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2, 87-105.

Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems. The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives. Local Designs, 3 (1), 3-21.

Graves, K. (2008). The language curriculum: a social contextual perspective. Language Teaching, 411(2), 147–181.

Heller, M. (2007). Bilingualism as ideology and practice. In M. Heller (Ed.), Bilingualism: A social approach (pp. 1-22). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Herreid, C. F., & Schiller, N. A. (2013). Case studies and the flipped classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 62-66.

Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2014). Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): motivations and challenges. Educational Research Review, 12, 45­58.

Higashi, R. M., Schunn, C. D., & Flot, J. B. (2017). Different underlying motivations and abilities predict student versus teacher persistence in an online course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(6), 1471­1493.

Holdway, J., & Hitchcock, C. H. (2018). Exploring ideological becoming in professional development for teachers of multilingual learners: Perspectives on translanguaging in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, 60-70.

Hsu, C. C., & Wang, T. I. (2014). Enhancing concept comprehension in a web-based course using a framework integrating the learning cycle with variation theory. Asia Pacific Education Review, 15, 211­222.

Hung, H. T. (2015). Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster active learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(1), 81-96.

Hyland K. (2002). Specificity revisited: how far should we go now? English for Specific Purposes, 21(4), 385-395.

Kim, D. (2017). Flipped interpreting classroom: flipping approaches, student perceptions, and design considerations. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 11(1), 38-55.

Kim, Y., &Petraki, E. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ use of and attitudes to L1 in the EFL classroom. Asian EFL Journal, 11(4), 58-89.

Kim, M., Kim, S., Khera, O., &Getman, J. (2014). The experience of three flipped classrooms in an urban university: An exploration of design principles. The Internet and Higher Education, 22, 37-50.

Lewis, G.; Jones, B.; Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: Developing its Conceptualisation and Con text uali sation . Educ. Res. Eval. 18, 655–670

Loviscach, J. (2013). Zwei MOOCs fürudacity. MOOCs–massive open online courses. Offene Bildungoder Geschäfts modell, 81-100.

MacSwan, J. (2017). A multilingual perspective on translanguaging. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1), 167–201

Mellati, M., &Khademi, M. (2018). MOOC-based educational program and interaction in distance education: Long life mode of teaching. Interactive Learning Environments, 4, 1-14.

Mellati, M., &Khademi, M. (2019). Technology-based education: Challenges of blended educational technology. In M. Habib (Ed.), Advanced online education and training technologies (pp. 48­62). New York, NY: IGI Global.

McMillan, B. A., & Rivers, D. J. (2011). The practice of policy: Teachers’ attitudes towards “English only”. System, 39, 251-263.

Nambisan, K. A., (2014). Teachers' attitudes towards and uses of translanguaging in English language classrooms in Iowa (Graduate Dissertations). Iowa State University, Iowa, the USA.

Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3), 281–307. //doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2015-0014

Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227-33.

Rivera, A. J., & Mazak, C. M. (2017). Analyzing student perceptions on translanguaging: A case study of a Puerto Rican university classroom. HOW, 24(1), 122-138. DOI: http://dx .doi.org/10 .19183/how.24.1.312.

Sandeen, C. (2013a). Assessment’s place in the new MOOC world. Research & Practice in Assessment Journal, 8, 5-13.

Sandeen, C. (2013b). Integrating MOOCS into traditional higher education: The emerging “MOOC 3.0” Era. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 45(6), 34-39.

Santagata, R. (2009). Designing video-based professional development for mathematics teachers in low-performing schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 38-51.

Schulmeister, R. (2014). The position of xMOOCs in educational systems. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,27(3), 151-180

Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2013). Understanding distinctions in learning in hybrid, and online environments: An empirical investigation of the community of inquiry framework. Interactive Learning Environments, 21(4), 355-370.

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved March 24, 2019, from the World Wide Web: http://www. elearnspace.org

Strayer, J. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation, and task orientations. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171-193.

Swales, J.M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. London: Cambridge University Press, pp. 33-61.

Wallace, A. (2013, September). Social learning platforms and the flipped classroom. In e-Learning and e-Technologies in Education (ICEEE), 2013 Second International Conference on (pp. 198-200), IEEE.

Wei, L. (2011). Moment Analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (2011) 1222–1231.

Widdowson, H. G. (1983). Learning purpose and language use. Oxford: OUP.

Williams, G., J. (2016). Solutions for Improving the Safety of Aviation Communication: An Investigation of Pilots’ and Air Traffic Control Officers’ Opinions on Aviation English. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, School of Education. University of Leicester, Netherland.

Wilson, S. G. (2013). The flipped class: A method to address the challenges of an undergraduate statistics course. Teaching of Psychology, 40, 193-199.

Yang, M., Shao, Z., Liu, Q., & Liu, C. (2017). Understanding the quality factors that influence the continuance intention of students toward participation in MOOCs. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(5), 1195­1214.

Yousef, A. M. F., Chatti, M. A., Wosnitza, M., & Schroeder, U. (2015). A cluster analysis of MOOC stakeholder perspectives. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education,12(1), 74-90.

Yuvayapan, F. (2019). Translanguaging in EFL classrooms: Teachers’ perceptions and practices. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies,15(2), 678-694. Doi: 10.17263/jlls.586811.

Zappe, S., Leicht, R., Messner, J., Litzinger, T., & Lee, H. W. (2009). Flipping the classroom to explore active learning in a large undergraduate course. Learning Environment Research,