volume 03 - issue 02 april 2015

[ w w w . m o j - e s . n e t ]

2015

The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational

Science Volume 3, Issue 2

April 2015

Editor-in-Chief

Professor Dr. Saedah Siraj

Editor

Dr. Zaharah Hussin

Dr. Onur İŞBULAN

Associate Editors

Professor Dr. Omar Abdull Kareem

Associate Prof. Dr. Ibrahem Narongsakhet Associate

Prof. Dr. Mohd Yahya Mohamed Ariffin, Associate

Prof. Dr. Norani Mohd Salleh Associate Prof. Dr. Wan

Hasmah Wan Mamat

Inst. Aydın Kiper

ISSN: 2289-3024

The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Science 2015 (Volume 3 - Issue 2)

www.moj-es.net

,

Copyright © 2013 - THE MALAYSIAN ONLINE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL SCIENCE All rights reserved. No part of MOJES’s articles may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means,

electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

Contact Address:


MOJES, Editor in Chief

University of Malaya, Malaysia Published in Malaysia


www.moj-es.net

Message from the editor-in-chief

The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences (MOJES) strives to provide a national and international academic forum to meet the professional interests of individuals in various educational disciplines. It is a professional refereed journal in the interdisciplinary fields sponsored by the Faculty of Education, University of Malaya. This journal serves as a platform for presenting and discussing a wide range of topics in Educational Sciences. It is committed to providing access to quality researches ranging from original research, theoretical articles and concept papers in educational sciences.

In order to produce a high quality journal, extensive effort has been put into selecting valuable researches that contributed to the journal. I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the editorial board, reviewers and researchers for their valuable contributions to make this journal a reality.


April 2015

Editor in chief

Message from the editor

The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences (MOJES) seeks to serve as an academic platform to researchers from the vast domains of Educational Sciences. The journal is published electronically four times a year.

This journal welcomes original and qualified researches on all aspects of Educational Sciences. Topics may include, but not limited to: pedagogy and educational sciences, adult education, education and curriculum, educational psychology, special education, sociology of education, Social Science Education, Art Education, Language Education, educational management, teacher education, distance education, interdisciplinary approaches, and scientific events.

Being the editor of this journal, it is a great pleasure to see the success of the journal. On behalf of the editorial team of the Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Science (MOJES), we would like to thank to all the authors and editors for their contribution to the development of this journal.

Dr. Zaharah Hussin & Dr. Onur İŞBULAN

April 2015

Editor


www.moj-es.net

Editor-in-Chief

Professor Dr. Saedah Siraj, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Editors

Dr. Zaharah Hussin, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Onur İŞBULAN, Sakarya University, Turkey

Associate Editors

Professor Dr. Omar Abdull Kareem, Sultan Idris University of Education, Malaysia

Associate Prof. Dr. Ibrahem Narongsakhet, Prince of Songkla University, Thailand

Associate Prof. Dr. Mohd Yahya Mohamed Ariffin, Islamic Science University of Malaysia

Associate Prof. Dr. Norani Mohd Salleh, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Associate Prof. Dr. Wan Hasmah Wan Mamat, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Inst. Aydın Kiper, Sakarya University, Turkey

Advisory Board

Emeritus Professor Dr. Tian Po Oei, University of Queensland, Australia

Professor Dr. Fatimah Hashim, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Professor Dr. Jinwoong Song, Seoul National University, Korea

Professor Dr. H. Mohammad Ali, M.Pd, M.A., Indonesian University of Education, Indonesia

Professor Dr. Moses Samuel, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Professor Dr. Nik Azis Nik Pa, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Professor Dr. Richard Kiely, the University College of St. Mark and St. John, United Kingdom

Professor Dr. Sufean Hussin, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Zawawi Bin Ismail, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Editorial Board

Emeritus Professor Dr. Rahim Md. Sail, University Putra of Malaysia, Malaysia

Professor Dr. Abdul Rashid Mohamed, University of Science, Malaysia

Professor Dr. Ananda Kumar Palaniappan, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Professor Dr. Bakhtiar Shabani Varaki, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran.

Professor Dr. H. Iskandar Wiryokusumo M.Sc, PGRI ADI Buana University, Surabaya, Indonesia

Professor Dr. Ramlee B. Mustapha, Sultan Idris University of Education, Malaysia

Professor Dr. Tamby Subahan Bin Mohd. Meerah, National University of Malaysia, Malaysia

Associate Professor Datin Dr. Sharifah Norul Akmar Syed Zamri, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Associate Professor Dato’ Dr. Ab Halim Bin Tamuri, National University of Malaysia, Malaysia

Associate Professor Dr. Abdul Jalil Bin Othman, University of Malaya, Malaysia


www.moj-es.net

Associate Professor Dr. Ajmain Bin Safar, University of Technology, Malaysia

Associate Professor Dr. Habib Bin Mat Som, Sultan Idris Education University, Malaysia

Associate Professor Dr. Hj. Izaham Shah Bin Ismail, Mara University of Technology, Malaysia

Associate Professor Dr. Jas Laile Suzana Binti Jaafar, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Associate Professor Dr. Juliana Othman, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Associate Professor Dr. Loh Sau Cheong, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Associate Professor Dr. Mariani Binti Md Nor, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Associate Professor Dr. Mohamad Bin Bilal Ali, University of Technology, Malaysia

Associate Professor Dr. Norazah Mohd Nordin, National University of Malaysia, Malaysia

Associate Professor Dr.Rohaida Mohd Saat, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Associate Professor Dr. Syed Farid Alatas, National University of Singapore, Singapore

Dato’ Dr. Hussein Hj Ahmad, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Datuk Dr. Abdul Rahman Idris, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Datin Dr. Rahimah Binti Hj Ahmad, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Abu Talib Bin Putih, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Abd Razak Bin Zakaria, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Adelina Binti Asmawi, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Ahmad Zabidi Abdul Razak, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Chew Fong Peng, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Diana Lea Baranovich, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Fatanah Binti Mohamed, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Ghazali Bin Darusalam, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Haslee Sharil Lim Bin Abdullah, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Husaina Banu Binti Kenayathulla, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Kazi Enamul Hoque, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Latifah Binti Ismail, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Lau Poh Li, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Leong Kwan Eu, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Madhyazhagan Ganesan, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Megat Ahmad Kamaluddin Megat Daud, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Melati Binti Sumari, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Mohammed Sani Bin Ibrahim, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Mohd Rashid Mohd Saad, University of Malaya, Malaysia


www.moj-es.net

Dr. Muhammad Azhar Bin Zailaini, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Muhammad Faizal Bin A. Ghani, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Nabeel Abdallah Adedalaziz, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Norlidah Binti Alias, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Pradip Kumar Mishra, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Rafidah Binti Aga Mohd Jaladin, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Rahmad Sukor Bin Ab Samad, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Renuka V. Sathasivam, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Rose Amnah Bt Abd Rauf, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Selva Ranee Subramaniam, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Sit Shabeshan Rengasamy, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Shahrir Bin Jamaluddin, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Suzieleez Syrene Abdul Rahim, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Syed Kamaruzaman Syed Ali, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Vishalache Balakrishnan, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Wail Muin (Al-Haj Sa’id) Ismail, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Wong Seet Leng, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Zahari Bin Ishak, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Zahra Naimie, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Dr. Zanaton Ikhsan, National University of Malaysia, Malaysia

Cik Umi Kalsum Binti Mohd Salleh, University of Malaya, Malaysia

En. Mohd Faisal Bin Mohamed, University of Malaya, Malaysia

En. Norjoharuddeen Mohd Nor, University of Malaya, Malaysia

En. Rahimi Md Saad, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Pn. Alina A. Ranee, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Pn. Azni Yati Kamaruddin, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Pn. Fatiha Senom, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Pn. Fonny Dameaty Hutagalung, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Pn. Foziah Binti Mahmood, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Pn. Hamidah Binti Sulaiman, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Pn. Huzaina Binti Abdul Halim, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Pn. Ida Hartina Ahmed Tharbe, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Pn. Norini Abas, University of Malaya, Malaysia


www.moj-es.net

Pn. Roselina Johari Binti Md Khir, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Pn. Shanina Sharatol Ahmad Shah, University of Malaya, Malaysia

Pn. Zuwati Binti Hashim, University of Malaya, Malaysia


www.moj-es.net

Table of Contents

INVESTIGATING PREDICTIVE ROLE OF CRITICALTHINKING ON METACOGNITION WITH STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING

1

Serhat Arslan

MULTIMODALITY IN MALAYSIAN SCHOOLS: THE CASE FOR THE GRAPHIC NOVEL 11

Thusha Rani Rajendra

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS ON SELF- AND PEER-ASSESSMENT IN ENHANCING LEARNINGEXPERIENCE 21

Lee‐Fong Siow

SUITABILITY OF THE LITERACY AND NUMERACY SCREENING (LINUS) 2.0 PROGRAMME IN ASSESSING CHILDREN’S EARLY LITERACY

36

Eunice Ong Luyee, Fauzan Izzati Roselan, Nor Hafizah Anwardeen, Fatin Hazirah Mohd Mustapa

THE AWARENESS OF MORPHEMIC KNOWLEDGE FOR YOUNG ADULTS’ VOCABULARY LEARNING 45

Chandrakala Varatharajoo, Adelina Binti Asmawi, Nabeel Abdallah, Mohammad Abedalaziz

The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Science 2015 (Volume 3 - Issue 2 )

www.moj-es.net

Investigating Predictive role of Critical Thinking on Metacognition with Structural Equation Modeling

Serhat Arslan [1]

[1] [email protected] Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of Education, Sakarya University,Turkey

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationships between critical thinking and metacognition. The sample of study consists of 390 university students who were enrolled in different programs at Sakarya University, in Turkey. In this study, Critical Thinking Disposition Scale and Metacognitive Thinking Scale were used. The relationships between critical thinking and metacognition were examined using correlation analysis and the hypothesis model was tested through structural equation modeling. In correlation analysis, critical thinking and metacognition were found positively. The model demonstrated fit (χ2= 1014.86,df=551, p=.00, RMSEA=.038, GFI=.99, AGFI=.99, CFI=.99, NFI=.99, IFI=.99, RFI=.99, SRMR=.008). According to results metacognition was predicted positively by critical thinking. Results were discussed in the light of literature.

Keywords: Critical thinking, Metacognition, path analysis

INTRODUCTION

Critical thinking is a thinking method that involves cognitive procedures such as reasoning, analyzing, and evaluating. That thinking process consists of critical thinking, efficient problem solving and making a decision was stated by McPeck (1983). Concrete and abstract thinking processes is covered by critical thinking in order to reach a conclusion about specific pro-visions that are in balance with same sense and scientific evidences. It was stressed by Black (2005), Kuhn and Dean (2004) and Schroyens (2005) that critical thinking happens when indivuduals practice higher order thinking skills or strategies. Ennis (1985) described that critical thinking as reflective thinking stresses on determining what to do or what to believe. Bruning et al. (2004) defined reflective thinking as a reflective action in which the purpose is to comprehend the source of a problem. Moreover, the aim of critical thinking is to critisize the information, providing us to make meaningful decisions. Individual who apply critical thinking not only practise daily life ability of defining, summarizing, retrieving, analyzing, and synthesizing information (Gomez & Gomez, 2007), but also properly decide relevance and reliability of information received from the developing world. Five stages of critical thinking were described by Lynch et al., (2002). The first stage is “confused fact-finders” and referred to elemantary pupils particulary attending the classroom. Lynch et al., (2002) defined the second stage of critical thinking as named a “biased jumper” or a student who quickly comes to decision and then searching for promoting evidence.“Perpetual analyzer” is the third stage of critical thinking .Individuals in this level are not able to prioritize knowledge or find and support the solutions. The fourth stage is labeled “pragmatic performer”.The indivuduals investigate the evidence independently and draw a conclusion. The last stage of critical thinking acquisition is labelled the “strategic revisioner” (Lynch et al., 2002). That the leading supporter of the subject-specific view lays emphasis on the information of a

1


www.moj-es.net

specific subject as the main component of critical thinking was stated by McPeck (1983). Neverthless, McPeck informs the funtions of abilities and features in the process. It is pointed out by McPeck (1983) that educating about critical thinking includes both "teaching how," which refers to methods or abilities, and "teaching to," that refers to tendecies. These abilities are dependent on a particular subject, and are not possible to be movable to other subjects. Excellent critical thinker was identified by Sternberg (2003) as a perfect problem manager; but, indivuduals sholud be instructed to shift the problem-solving skills so students learn in school to their daily real lives activities. Clever thinkers have the original skills to produce new opinions, analytical skills to decide if they are benficial ideas, and the useful skills to determine how to practise the ideas and to convince others people’s the importance of their ideas.

Metacognition Metacognition was initially introduced by John Flavell in the beginning of 1970s and he indicated

that metacognition includes both watching and organizing elements. According to the definition of Flavell (1979) metacognition is knowledge and cognition about cognitive phenomenon. After this definition many researchers (Braten, 1992) started to investigate metacognition and regarded it as a multi-dimensional concept. Generally, researchers (Brown, 1987; Flavell, 1987; Metcalfe & Shimmura, 1994; Schraw 1994) assumed metacognition as a two-dimensional concept: knowledge about cognition (metacognitive knowledge) and regulation of cognition (metacognitive regulation). Reflection on learning experiences can expand metacognitive knowledge which can be defined as the knowledge, awareness, and deeper understanding of one’s own cognitive processes and products. Encompassing a bunch of activities that enable students to control their learning can be regarded as regulation of cognition (Gourgey, 1998; Hartman, 1998). Even though several regulatory skills have been described in the literature, three basic skills are considered as important: planning, monitoring, and evaluation (Jacobs & Paris, 1987).

It is extremely important to teach metacognitive skills in educational system, because they helps students develop higher order thinking process and improve their academic success (Flavell, 2004; Larkin, 2009). Because of the impact of metacognition in higher order thinking processes, its importance has increased day to day. Therefore, learning environments and teaching strategies, that put emphasis on metacognitive knowledge and regulation considering the higher order thinking process, have been designed. According to the studies which investigated learning environments and teaching strategies, there are strong relationships between teaching metacognitive strategies and progress in students’ higher order thinking process (Kramarski, Mevarech & Arami, 2002; Schraw, 1998). Van der Stel and Veenman (2010) and Dignath and Buttner (2008) stated that metacognition has been conceptulized one of the most relevant predictors of accomplishing complex higher order thinking process. The conditions that develop higher order thinking process should be determined before creating learning environments and teaching strategies which support the development of students’ metacognitive skills. According to Jacobs, Paris (1987) and Wittrock (1983) the use of metacognition seems to be associated with academic achievement and it improved learning outcomes. Furthermore, Watkins and Hattie (1992) indicated that higher achieving students were more likely to use strategies compatible with their own motivational states than lower achieving students. In this regard, teaching methods and learning environments based on the principals, creating the proper conditions, can be easily designed (Hacker, Dunlosky and Graesser, 1998).

The Present Study

Recently studies have indicated that two of the most important internal motivational factors that correlate to higher order thinking process are critical thinking and metacognition (Arslan, 2014; Arslan & Akın, 2014 ; Arslan ,Akın, & Çitemel, 2013;Arslan & Cardak,2012; Choy and Cheah , 2009; Coutinho et al. 2005; Kogut,2005; Kuhn and Dean, 2004; Magno,2010; Orion and Kali, 2005; Schroyens, 2005). Despite these findings, there has been limited empirical research that directly examines individual differences in the use of metacognition and critical thinking. Thus, the purpose of this research is to examine the relationship between the critical thinking and metacognition. Based on the interpretation of previous research, it is expected that the critical thinking would be associated positively with metacognition.

METHOD

2


www.moj-es.net

In design of the study is predominantly quantitative in nature. The research design fully relied on self-report data acquired via psychometric instruments previously validated. The relationships between critical thinking and metacognition were examined using correlation analysis and the hypothesis model was tested through structural equation modeling. No causation was hypothesized.

Participants

Convenience sampling was used in the selection of participants. Participants voluntarily participated and were free to fill out the questionnaires without pressure. Completion of the questionnaires was anonymous and there was a guarantee of confidentiality. The instruments were administered to the students in groups in the classrooms. Participants of the study were 390 university students (209 (54%) were female and 181 (46%) were male in Sakarya University, Turkey. Their ages ranged from 18 to 25 years and the mean age of the participants was 21.6 years.

Measures

Critical Thinking Disposition Scale (Akın, et al.,2013).

Critical Thinking Disposition Scale is a 11-item self-report scale using a five-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree 5= strongly agree). This scale has two sub-scales: reflective scepticism (seven items) and critical openness (four items). Results of confirmatory factor analysis have demonstrated that the items loaded on two factors.The results of confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the model was well fit (x²=53.24, df= 40, RMSEA=.040, NNFI=.96, CFI=.97, IFI=.97, and SRMR=.048). For reliability of the Turkish version of the CTDS internal consistency coefficient was calculated. The Cronbach’s Alpha internal consistency of the scale was as .68 for reflective scepticism, .75 for critical openness sub-scale, .78 for whole scale. The corrected item-total correlations of CTDS ranged from .25 to .61.

Metacognitive Thinking Scale (Arslan & Akın, 2015).

Metacognitive Thinking Scale. Metacognitive Thinking Scale is a 12-item self-report scale using a five-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree 5= strongly agree). This scale has two sub-scales: metacognitive knowledge (five items) and metacognitive regulation (seven items). Results of confirmatory factor analysis have demonstrated that the items loaded on two factors. Results of confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that the two-dimensional model was well fit (x2= 124.39, sd= 45, RMSEA= .061, NNFI=.96, NFI= .96, CFI= .97, IFI= .97, RFI= .94, GFI= .96, SRMR= .054).

Procedure

Permission for the participation of students was obtained from related chief departments and students voluntarily participated in research. Completion of the scales was anonymous and there was a guarantee of confidentiality. The scales were administered to the students in groups in the classrooms. The measures were counterbalanced in administration. Prior to administration of measures, all participants were informed about the purposes of the study. In this research, Pearson correlation coefficient and structural equation modeling was utilized to determine the relationships between critical thinking and metacognition. These analyses were carried out via LISREL 8.54 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996) and SPSS 17.

RESULTS

Descriptive Data and Inter-correlations

Table 1 shows the means, descriptive statistics, inter-correlations, and internal consistency

3


www.moj-es.net

coefficients of the variables used.

**p < .001

Table 1 show that there are significant correlations between the critical thinking and metacognition. Subscales of the critical thinking; reflective scepticism correlated positively with metacognitive knowledge (r = .60;), metacognitive regulation (r = .64); critical openness correlated positively with metacognitive knowledge (r = .58;), metacognitive regulation (r = .71).

Before applying SEM, the assumptions of SEM were investigated. Multivariate normality tests which check a given set of data for similarity to the multivariate normal distribution were conducted via LISREL. The results of multivariate normality tests indicated that there was sufficient evidence that the data are multivariate normally distributed. Multivariate outliers were investigated using Mahalanobis distance. Influential outliers are concerning because they have potential to bias the model and to affect major assumptions. 10 cases for dimensions of burnout were a significant distance from the model. Box’s M test for equality of variance-covariance matrices was used to test for homoscedasticity. Based on a statistically significant (p<.05) Box’s M test indicates a homoscedasticity assumption violation (Stevens, 2002), it can be said that the data meets criteria of homoscedasticity.

To test the hypothesis model critical thinknig would be associated positively metacognition and structural equation modeling (SEM) was used. Using SEM, all the parameters of models can be tested simultaneously in one step. The specifications on the model were for direct paths from metacognition to critical thinknig. The results of testing whether critical thinking has a direct effect on metacognition is presented in Figure 1.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations of the variables

Variables Reflective scepticism

Critical openness Metacognitive

knowledge Metacognitive

regulation

Reflective scepticism 1 Critical openness .59** 1 Metacognitive knowledge

.60** .58** 1

Metacognitive regulation .64** .71** .57** 1 Mean 25.8 15.5 20.3 27.7 Sd 4.0 2.6 2.9 3.9

4


www.moj-es.net

Figure 1. Path analysis between critical thinking and metacognition

ED1: reflective scepticism,ED2: critical openness,BB: metacognitive knowledge, BD: metacognitive regulation

Figure 1 showed that the model is saturated (i.e., there are no unused degrees of freedom). Consequently, the fit of the model (Hu & Bentler, 1999) is necessarily perfect (χ2= 808.89,df=225, p=.00, RMSEA=.08, NFI=.91, NNFI=.93,CFI=.93,IFI=.93, RFI=.90, SRMR=.06). It can be seen that reflective scepticism and critical openness have significant effects on metacognition

DISCUSSION

The present study examined the relationship between critical thinking and metacognition. Correlation analysis and SEM confirm the hypothesis. Indeed there is a positive relationship between metacognition and dimensions of critical thinking. Moreover, according to the goodness of fit indexes the model was acceptable and the model explained correlations among measures (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Findings show that there is a significant relationship between factors of critical thinking and metacognition. These results are in line with the findings of the previous models that indicated the association between critical thinking and metacognition (Akama 2006; Arslan, 2014; Antonietti et al. 2000;Başbay, 2013; Berardi-Coletta et al. 1995; Black, 2005; Choy and Cheah, 2009; Coutinho et al. 2005;Kogut, 2005; Kuhn and Dean, 2004; Magno, 2010; Orion and Kali, 2005; Schroyens, 2005). The important relationship between metacognition and critical thinking has been investigated in the literature, such as Kuhn’s (1999) and Willingham’s (2008) studies examined the relationship between metacognition and critical thinking. Moreover, according to Lipman (1991) one’s metacognition must be “self-correcting’ in order to qualify it as critical thinking. Even though it is necessary for a person to think about his or her thinking, if he or she is not critical in his/her thinking process, his or her thinking is not considered as critical thinking. Thus, for a successful critical thinking, previous experiences and prior cognitive development are essential. There are important studies indicating the relationship between critical thinking and metacognition. Kogut (1996) claimed that specific strategies, promoting critical thinking, are metacognitive in nature. Furthermore,

5


www.moj-es.net

Orion and Kali (2005) examined the impact of science learning program on students’ scientific thinking skills and found a relationship between critical thinking and metacognition. Besides, according to Choy and Cheah (2009) critical thinking necessitates higher level of metacognition. Magno (2010) stated that to make students think critically, it is necessary to teach them how to be aware of the underlying ways of thinking. As Ku and Ho (2010) indicated that good critical thinkers engaged in more metacognitive activities, especially higher order planning and higher order evaluating strategies. For an effective metacognitive regulation, metacognitive knowledge is important as a supporting factor. The association between critical thinking and metacognition was firstly introduced by Schoen (1983) that “ a successful pedagogy that can serve as a basis for the enhancement of thinking will have to incorporate ideas about the way these representations change and resist change when new information is encountered” (p. 87). According to his explanation, the enhancement of knowledge referred to critical thinking and the process of organizing knowledge was a significant factor of metacognition (Magno, 2010). Particularly, critical thinking provides students with developing their metacognitive skills. Specifically, the use of metacognitive strategies has been asserted as a significant factor during thinking process (e.g., Facione 1990; Halpern 1998; Luckey

2003; Swartz 2003). For example, Halpern (1998) pointed out that; “When engaging in critical thinking, students need to monitor their thinking process, checking whether progress is being made toward an appropriate goal (and) ensuring accuracy…. Metacognitive monitoring skills need to be made explicit and public so that they can be examined ” (p. 454). Swartz (2003) claimed in his reflection on teaching methods, which simplify metacognition that “thinking about their thinking has dramatic effects on students’ learning and is usually not a difficult or complicated task for even primary-level children” (p.237). According to the findings of Başbay’s (2013) study, students’ critical thinking tendencies affect their epistemological beliefs and metacognition plays a partially mediating role. As Lee (2009) found that performing two metacognitive tasks strengthened the critical thinking tendencies of experimental group. According to Ku and Ho (2010) investigating individual’s on-line thinking processes was useful in order to understand factors behind thinking performance better. In a study which examined thinking process of two groups of participants that were matched in terms of their cognitive ability, thinking disposition, and academic achievement, the importance of metacognitive strategies in critical thinking was revealed. Chisholm (1999) stated that there was a significant relationship between metacognitive and critical thinking skills in terms of comparing students’ grades. One limitations of the current study is its sample size. In other words, future studies should investigate the same research question with a larger sample size. A larger sample size may clarify some correlations and thus increase the validity of the findings. Moreover, conducting this study in various rural areas of Turkey may represent whether these results could be generalized to a wider population. University environments put more emphasis on team work and interaction. There are many aspects of metacognition, especially social metacognition that affect student achievement. It may be useful to explore this association in terms of how these students interact with others and approach critical thinking situations. Another limitation of the current study is that the sample was composed of university students, which restricted the generalizability of the findings. Hence, it could be important to investigate the relationship of these variables in other sample groups. Other limitation is about statistical method used in analysis. In other words, correlational statistics used in the present study does not represent any causality about the findings. Further studies should consider this issue to obtain effective knowledge about the direction of causality. Another limitation is due to data collection method. In fact, data about critical thinking and metacognition was collected through self-report instruments. Future studies may use other tools to decrease subjectivity of the findings. All in all, current study states that critical thinking affects metacognition so that there is a relationship between critical thinking and metacognition. Therefore, according to the present study critical thinking may be an important predictor of the metacognition dimensions. Thus, the current findings increase our understanding in terms of the relationship between critical thinking and metacognition.

REFERENCES

Akama, K. (2006). Relations among self-efficacy, goal setting, and metacognitive experiences in problemsolving. Psychological Reports, 98 (3), 895–907.

6


www.moj-es.net

Akın, A., Hamedoğlu, M. A., Sariçam, H., Akin, U., İlbay, A. B., Civan, S., & Demir, T. (2013). The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Critical Thinking Disposition Scale. 2nd International Chaos, Complexity and Leadership Symposium (ICCLS 2013), 17-19 December,Ankara

Antonietti, A., Ignazi, S., & Perego, P. (2000). Metacognitive knowledge about problem solving methods. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(1), 1–16.

Arslan & Akın (2015). The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Metacognitive Thinking Scale. Sakarya University Journal of Education Faculty,in press.

Arslan, S. & Akın, A. (2014). Metacognition: As a predictor of one’s academic locusof control. Educational Sciences: Theory&Practice - 14(1), 1-8.

Arslan, S. & Çardak, M. (2012). Meta-cognition, self-efficacy and learning processes inventory-science: A study of validity and reliability. Energy Education Science and Technology Part B: Social and Educational Studies, 4(SI-1),739-742.

Arslan, S. (2014). An Investigation of the relationships between Metacognition and Self Regulation with structural equation. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 6 (3), 603-611.

Arslan, S.,Akın,A. & Çitemel, N. (2013).The predictive role of grit on metacognition in Turkish university students. Studia Psychologica, 55(4). 311-320

Başbay, M. (2013).Analysing the relationship of Critical Thinking and Metacognition with epistemological beliefs through structural equation modeling. Education and Science, 38, 169.

Berardi-Coletta, B., Buyer, L. S., Dominowski, R. L., & Rellinger, E. R. (1995). Metacognition and problemsolving: a process-oriented approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 21, 205–223.

Black, S. (2005). Teaching students to think critically. The Education Digest, 70(6), 42–47.

Braten, I. (1992). Vygotsky as precursor to meacognitive theory: III. Recent metacognitive research within a Vygotskian framework. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 36(1), 3-19.

Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other even more mysterious mechanisms. In Weinert, F.E. & Kluwe, R.H. (eds.) Metacognition, motivation and understanding (s. 64-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., Norby, M. M., & Ronning, R. R. (2004). Cognitive psychology and instruction (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Chisholm, M.J. (1999) . The Effects of Metacognition, Critical Thinking, Gender, and Gender Role Identification on Academic Achievement in the Middle Years. Mount Saint Vincent University, Masters o f Arts in School Psychology.

Choy, S. C., & Cheah, P. K. (2009). Teacher perceptions of critical thinking among students and its influence on higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(2), 198– 206.

7


www.moj-es.net

Coutinho, S., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Skowronski, J. J., & Britt, M. A. (2005). Metacognition, need for cognition and use of explanations during ongoing learning and problem solving. Learning and Individual Differences, 15(4), 321–337.

Dignath, C., & Buttner, G. (2008). Components of fostering self-regulated learning among students. A metaanalysis on intervention studies at primary and secondary school level. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 231–264.

Ennis, R. H. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational Leadership, 43(2), 44-48.

Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction—executive summary of the delphi report. Millbrae: California Academic Press.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.

Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition”, In F. E. Weinert and R. H. Kluwe (Eds). Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (s. 21-29), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Flavell, J. H. (2004). Theory of the mind development: Retrospect and prospect. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 50(3), 274-290.

Forrest-Pressley, G. E. MacKinnon, & T. G. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human performance: Vol. 2. Instructional practices, Orlando: Academic Press.

Gomez, L. M. & Gomez, K. (2007). Reading for learning: Literacy supports for 21st-century work. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(3), 224-228.

Gourgey, A. F. (1998). Metacognition in basic skills instruction. Instructional Science, 26(1- 2), 81-96.

Hacker, D., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.) (1998). Metacognition in educational theory and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hartman, H. J. (2001). Teaching metacognitively. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research and practice (pp. 149-172). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structural analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1−55.

Jacobs , J.E ., & Paris,S.G .(1987). Children's metacognition about reading: issues indefinition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22, 255-78.

Joreskog, K.G., Sorbom, D., (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.

Kogut, L. S. (1996). Critical thinking in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(3), 218.

8


www.moj-es.net

Kramarski, B., Mevarceh, Z.R., ve Arami, M. (2002).The effect of metacognitive instruction on solving mathematical authentic tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 225-250.

Ku, K. Y. L., & Ho, I. T. (2010). Dispositional factors predicting Chinese students’ critical thinking performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 54–58.

Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16-46.

Kuhn, D., & Dean, D. (2004). Metacognition: a bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practise. Theory into Practise,43 (4), 268-274.

Larkin,S. (2009). Metacognition in young children. New York, NY: Routledge.

Lee, T.S. (2009). Examining the Relationships between Metacognition, Selfregulation and Critical Thinking in Online Socratic Seminars for High School Social Studies Students. The University of Texas at Austin, Doctor of Philosophy.

Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Luckey, G. M. (2003). Critical thinking in colleges and universities: A model. In D. Fasko (Ed.), Critical thinking and reasoning (pp. 253–271). Cresskill: Hampton Press.

Lynch, C. L., Wolcott, S. K., & Huber, G. E. (2002). Steps for better thinking: A developmental problem solving process.

Magno,C. (2010). The role of metacognitive skills in developing critical thinking. Metacognition Learning, 5:137–156. DOI 10.1007/s11409-010-9054-4

McPeck, J.E (1983). Critical thinking and education. Teachers College Record, 85 (1), 154-157.

Metcalfe, J., & Shimamura, A. P. (1994). Metacognition: Knowing about knowing. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

Orion, N., & Kali, Y. (2005). The effect of an earth-science learning program on students’ scientific thinking skills. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53, 387–394.

Schoen, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schraw, G. (1994). The effect of metacognitive knowledge on local and global monitoring. Contemporary Educational Psychology 19: 143–154.

Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science,26, 113–125.

Schroyens, W. (2005). Knowledge and thought: an introduction to critical thinking. Experimental Psychology, 52(2), 163–164.

Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Four alternative futures for education in the United States: It’s our choice. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(4), 431–445.

9


www.moj-es.net

Stevens, J. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Swartz, R. (2003). Infusing critical and creative thinking into instruction in high school classrooms. In D. Fasko (Ed.), Critical thinking and reasoning (pp. 293–310). Cresskill: Hampton Press.

Van der Stel, M., & Veenman, M. V. J. (2010). Development of metacognitive skillfulness: a longitudinal study. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 220–224.

Watkins,D.,& Hattie,J.(1992).The motive-strategy congruence model revisited. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17,194-98.

Willingham, D. (2008). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach. Arts Education Policy Review, 109(4), 21-29.

Wittrock, M . (1983). Students' thought processes. In M.C . Wittrock (Ed. ),Handbook of Research on Teaching. ( 3 rd ed.) (pp. 297-314). New York : Macmillan Publishing Company.

10


www.moj‐es.net

Multimodality in Malaysian Schools: The Case for the Graphic Novel

Thusha Rani Rajendra [1]

[1] [email protected] Faculty of Languages and LinguisticsUniversity of Malaya, MALAYSIA

ABSTRACT

This paper aims at exploring the benefits of including graphic novels as a wholesome supplement in Malaysian schools. Research has indicated that the mono‐modality of traditional linear texts may impede comprehension. The emphasis on multi‐literacies clearly scaffold the need to employ multimodality in the classrooms; hence the suggestion of introducing graphic novels. Once placed at the bottom of the literary heap and viewed as a light reading material, this medium has been enjoying much popularity especially in the West. Graphic novels are able to stimulate reluctant readers’ interests besides being a challenge to students familiar with traditional literature. As part of an on‐going research which investigates how verbal and textual elements are represented in graphic novels, this paper discusses the advantages of including graphic novels especially in Malaysian schools. With the advent of multimodality through various platforms, graphic novels are interesting as an alternative mainstream multimodal medium. As an innovative and creative pedagogic supplement, graphic novels offer a multitude of learning and teaching experiences

Keywords: Graphic novels; Comics; Visual literacy; Multimodality; Multi‐literacies

INTRODUCTION

The constant evolvement of literacy is truly challenging and there is an urgent need to embrace changes that comes with this development. As progressive educators, the challenge is to face this reality and the need to implement pedagogical practices that support these dynamic changes. One important way of embracing this challenge is the use of multimodal texts.

Multimodality as an inter‐disciplinary approach shifts from the idea that a medium communicates in a certain way, to the idea that any one medium may engage a number of different modes of meaning. Baldry and Thibault (2006) describe multimodality as the diverse ways different semiotic resources interact to construe meanings through co‐deployment and co‐contextualization. Kress (2003) argued that the old media (in this case, books) needs to be reshaped to face the onslaught of new media. Thus, the importance of providing a new landscape of communication is crucial. It must be noted that multimodal texts can be based on paper, digital or even live events or performances. The advent of technology has exposed students to a whole new world of learning experience, and as educators, new methodologies must be adopted to meet the challenges of facing students of diverse backgrounds. In a visually oriented culture today, students are exposed to various types of texts on a multimodal platform. These texts include videos, advertisements, blogs, short messaging system (SMS), Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Skype. Lyga and Lyga (2004) label this type of students as ‘Generation Visual’ and further reiterate that, “static text on an immobile page isn’t just boring and laborious; it’s practically alien” (p. 8) especially to this generation. In addition, Heckman (2004) believed that traditional reading programs need to be complemented with more engaging mediums to motivate readers as “the digitalization of the young adult mind is happening at a faster pace than traditional

11


www.moj‐es.net

ways of education can keep up with” (p. 3).

Recent years have seen literacy educators realizing the importance of providing students with multimodal texts which extrapolate a range of semiotic resources in developing critical thinking (Serafini, 2010). Duncum (2004) posited that exposure to “multimodal nature of dominant and emerging cultural sites” (p. 259) cannot be avoided. In relation to this, it is pertinent to employ methodologies that encourage students to become critical, creative and innovative learners as these practices are related to students’ diversified social engagements. The combination of two or more semiotic systems in a text produces a multimodal text. Examples of multimodal texts include web pages, picture books, brochures and the focus of this paper; the graphic novel. A graphic novel is often described as a book length comic. Similar to comics and cartoons, it is a narrative novel which encapsulates both text and image in a comic strip form. Being multimodal in nature through the modes of text and images, the utilization of these novels in the classroom elicits multiple benefits. The availability of multimodal texts, for example, gives educators a chance to condition students to become such learners. And here lies the responsibility of educators to offer a selection of suitable graphic novels to support the development of various multi‐literacies.

It cannot be denied that graphic novels represent one of the most dynamic and fast growing types of literature for students, with books catering for children and young adults today. A growing number of researches clearly support the pedagogical potential of graphic novels (Connors, 2010; Evans‐Boniecki, 2013; Hammond & Danaher, 2012). Krashen (2004) in his insightful book titled The Power of Reading: Insights from the Research noted that people who are well read rarely have major problems in writing, spelling or grammar. In relation to Krashen’s argument, graphic novels definitely provide that interest and stimulus to entice students. Weiner (2010) believes that it is an understatement to say that graphic novels, sequential art, paperback comics novels and others of this medium have become “a major part of popular culture in the first part of the 21st century” (p. 5). Graphic novels complement learning through their rich illustrations and texts. The value of illustrations is clearly reflected in the colloquial notion that “a picture is worth a thousand words”. Nevertheless through interactions with teachers and librarians, it is noted that many seem reluctant to adopt these books as they consider the content of graphic novels unsuitable. The deconstructing of such mind‐sets, and convince prople on the benefits of embracing these novels, is a challenge;

Though many Malaysian educators have successfully utilized multimodal texts like magazines, newspapers, picture books, video, films and other mediums in their classrooms, graphic novels seem to elude many as they are considered as purely fluff. Also many who practice multimodality in their classrooms in Malaysia seem to be preoccupied with digital texts such as blogs, web pages and social media. Though this development is encouraging and highly commendable, it must be noted that alternatives focusing on multimodality on the more traditional paper based mediums like comics, graphic novels and manga are also available. Studies within the Malaysian context on the pedagogic implications of graphic novels and comics are very much in infancy. Existing studies on graphic novels by Sabbah, Masood and Iranmanesh, (2013); Yunus, Salehi et al. (2011) and Muniran and Yusof (2008) concentrate on the effects and advantages of using graphic novels in the Malaysian classrooms.

Graphic Novels and the Literature Component

The introduction of the policy of Upholding the Malay Language and Strengthening the Command of English (MBMBI) in 2010 is seen as a move to fortify the grasp of the EL by the Ministry of Education of Malaysia (MOE). As a fresh approach to teaching literature in Malaysian schools, classics like Black Beauty, The Boscombe Valley Mystery and Journey to the Centre of the Earth in graphic novel mediums were introduced for the first time. The second cycle which was introduced in early 2015 saw the introduction of The Swiss Family Robinson, 20000 Leagues under the Sea and King Arthur. The decision by the MOE to introduce graphic novels to Malaysian students should be seen as a green light to further strengthen the case for graphic novels to be used exhaustively in the classrooms.

12


www.moj‐es.net

What Are Graphic Novels?

The definition of comics and graphic novels are important to determine the differences between these two mediums. Abbot (1986) describes comics as “a medium that combines written and visual art to an extent unparalleled in any other art form” (p. 155). Graphic novels, on the other hand, come in a comic strip form. Cary (2004) simply refers the graphic novel as the longer cousin of the comic book. In simpler terms, graphic novels are simply stories that are told in sequential illustrations. Scott McCloud (1993) in his seminal work Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art defines comic as a “juxtaposed pictorial and other images in deliberate sequence” (p. 9). Hammond (2009) postulates that “while all graphic novels are comic books, not all comic books are graphic novels” (p. 3). It is noted that Will Eisner coined the term “graphic novel” while promoting his book, A Contract with God (1978). Sabin (1993) asserts that, “on one level, as a piece of marketing hype, the idea of an evolution from ‘comics’ to ‘graphic novels’ had a specific purpose ‐‐ to add prestige to the form and thus to sell more product” (p. 235). On the hand, Yang (2008) believes that graphic novel is just a political term in an effort to depict this medium of comics in a “new, more literary light, apart from the genres usually associated with it” (p. 186). Nevertheless, whichever definition this sophisticated medium holds, what is certain is that its elevated status these days cannot be ignored.

In order to relate a story, a series of pictures are meant to follow one another, thus embracing the convention of comics which is adhered by graphic novels. Panels, images, sequential art and a combination of text which conveys a story are evident in graphic novels. In short, these are the prerequisites of the conventional forms of graphic novels. Table 1 denotes a few primary differences between graphic novels and comics.

Table 1 Differences between Graphic Novels and Comics

Graphic Novels Comics

Relatively thicker than comics Hard bound cover Tend to cover one story wholly An entire story bound and published in a single release Has a beginning, middle and end Its shelf life is permanent because there are reprints Given an International Standard Book Number (ISBN)

Usually thin, with a soft paper cover Staple‐bound or saddle‐stitched Sequels and serials are common A short instalment of a larger story released at regular intervals Conversely might start a story, begin in the middle of things, or end a story Considered ephemeral Given International Standard Serial Number (ISSN)

Note. Adapted from Weiner (2002)

Although many will associate graphic novels with fiction, the main concentration of graphic novels has tremendously evolved. Besides fiction, non‐fiction subjects such as history, biography, social studies and science are slowly reinventing themselves as graphic novels, thus contributing to its sophistication and dynamism. With such a varied and wide selection available, this medium needs the acknowledgement and recognition it truly deserves.

Multimodality In Graphic Novels

Multimodality emphasizes the significance of the different modes of semiotics and the language in account of construing meaning within a particular social context. Representations produced and seen around like image, music and gesture are stressed upon, thus placing new emphasis on multi‐semiotic complexity. Graphic novels are multimodal in nature as they embrace the many varied modes like images, words and colours.

13


www.moj‐es.net

Morgan and Ramanathan (2005) point out that the multimodal materials are able to “engage identities and the imagination in provocative ways unmet through other textual sources” (p. 158), arguing further that fundamentally, these texts are able to rejuvenate critical literacies and multi‐literacies. In today’s highly visual world, children are exposed to a multimodal environment both in print and on screen. More importantly, texts interweaved with words, pictures and sounds are readily available all around them. As such, graphic novels offer the opportunity to promote a multitude of literacies which include progressive, critical and visual literacies. Bearne and Wolstencroft (2007) argue that as children are surrounded with multimodal texts, the teaching of multimodality is pertinent to become effective communicators in the twenty‐first century. Emery (2011) posits that students who read graphic novels are able to elicit higher level critical responses as compared to those who read only text based novels. She further reiterates that evidence of higher level thinking is also evident in the written responses and oral discussions from students who read graphic novels. Within the Malaysian context, Pillai and Vengadasamy (2010) note that the mono‐modality of traditional texts in presenting information in the literature classroom often raises problems for students in understanding texts and developing a love for reading literature texts. A large volume of published studies posit the role of multimodality in enhancing literacy.

The graphic novel is one example of an emerging multimodal medium as it embodies print and image working together in constructing meanings. Though there are criticisms that this medium is simplistic, a substantial body of research argue for the literary and pedagogic value of graphics (Gillenwater; 2012; Serafini, 2010). Similar to traditional forms of literature, graphic novels can be useful tools in assisting students critically evaluate and examine fields like history, literature, science, social studies and art.

The Benefits of Graphic Novels

The educational values of graphic novels are well documented as they offer variety as a new medium of literacy. The popularity of graphic novels and comics among students supports this medium to be used as pedagogical materials as they generate interest. An emphasis on content over form suggests that authentic materials as a whole are meaningful and more likely to engage students. It must also be noted that graphic novels display spoken language realistically; thus slang, hesitations and gaps are common and these features make them relevant to second language learners (Derrick, 2008). As graphic novels also employ literary elements such as satire, parody and irony, students have a chance to comprehend both visual and verbal elements in construing meaning. The interplay of text and images encourages critical literary analysis within the realms of metaphor and imagery. In addition, the old tradition of linearity is now combined with the newer literacy of amalgamating the various modes that encompass multimodality. Nevertheless, it is pertinent for the students to be introduced with the various conventions of comics such as balloons, captions, panels, gutters, bleeds and others before reading. This would encourage the exhaustion of the novels more extensively rather than just reading them without taking these elements into consideration. The benefits of incorporating graphic novels extensively especially in the Malaysian schools are discussed hereafter.

Graphic Novels Promote Multiple Intelligences

In schooling Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligences (MI), graphic novels are able to support students with varied strengths. MI is a theoretical framework that describes people’s different intelligence factors. According to Laycock (2004), their rich textual components are an advantage for students with linguistic intelligence. The images in these books evoke vibrancy, thus assisting those with spatial intelligence. Those who are strong in interpersonal intelligence will be able to relate to the many non‐verbal gestures which are prominent in graphic novels. These novels are also beneficial for those with intrapersonal intelligence in deciphering the many embedded themes, ideologies and issues.

As graphic novels are often quicker and shorter to read as compared to traditional texts, students can also participate in engaging discussions that encourage critical thinking. In an increasingly visual culture built on a multimodal platform, educators could maximize the full potential of graphic novels in drawing out deeper responses from the many different types of students.

14


www.moj‐es.net

Graphic Novels Support Visual Literacy

Visual literacy buttresses the notion of the ability to recognize and understand ideas and concepts through images. Using graphic novels in the classroom encourages students to decode the meanings of images and symbols. Versaci (2007) posits that the visual design of these novels encourages “teachers to pose questions that help students do two things: understand how images produce meaning and become engaged in the search for this meaning” (p. 96). Gillenwater (2012) observes that while traditional literacy skills are pertinent in comprehending and construing images, visual literacy is able to boost this further. He further asserts that “developing skills in visual literacy considerably augments a person's ability to interpret his or her world by providing additional modes of making meaning” (p. 33).

Graphic Novels Support Different Learning Styles

Learning Styles (LS) relate to how people prefer to concentrate, store and remember information. The Felder‐Silverman (1988) model for one, classifies students’ learning preferences into four learning style groups: sensing or intuitive, visual or verbal, active or reflective; or, sequential or global. Felder and Silverman also assert that teaching styles vary based on the educators’ preferences. In relation to this model, the utilization of graphic novels supports the different types of learning styles.

For example, the visual or verbal learners will be able to enjoy the interplay of words and images in graphic novels. Active learners preferring group activities would be able to dissect these novels together while reflective learners can think through these texts independently. For sequential learners, graphic novels would be appealing as they scaffold sequential art and global learners would be able to comprehend the wholesome narrative of graphic novels. In short, the very layout and structure of graphic novels support various learning styles through proper instructional strategies.

Graphic Novels Scaffold Theories of Cognition

The many popular theories of cognition support the deployment of graphic novels in the classroom. Among the few that will be discussed are those advocated by Alan Paivio, Frederic Bartlett, David Everett Rumelhart and Louise Rosenblatt.

Dual coding theory (Allan Paivio)

A theory of cognition established by Allan Paivio, the dual coding theory (DCT) embraces the idea that the formation of mental images assists the learning process. The dual channel assumption of Paivio’s theory establishes a verbal channel for processing verbal representations and the visual channel for processing visual and pictorial representations. As such, both visual and verbal elements represent information, working on the principle that recognition is enhanced by presenting information in both verbal and visual forms. Paivio (1986) asserts that “human cognition is unique in that it has become specialized for dealing simultaneously with language and with nonverbal objects and events” (p. 53). Using graphic novels clearly supports the notion of Paivio’s DCT as the text embraces interplay between words and images.

Schema theory (Frederic Bartlett and David Everett Rumelhart)

The schema theory (ST) posited by Bartlett (1932) and later developed by contemporary schema‐theorist Rumelhart (1980) explains that understanding something only happens when a person can relate it to an existing knowledge structure. In understanding narratives, the theory explains that people rely on their own knowledge and experience to make sense while reading. As schemata facilitate both encoding and retrieval, it is pertinent when a student decodes and makes meanings from a graphic novel. Importantly, reading graphic novels involves the recalling of prior knowledge as meaningful encoding is facilitated. Marcus, Cooper, and Sweller’s (1996) study on cognitive load theory concludes that cognitive load is reduced and lightened when schema is available through instructions in the form of diagrams. In the context of

15


www.moj‐es.net

graphic novels, it is clear that the images here will reduce cognitive load. This also enables the making of connections to construe meanings from graphic novels.

Transactional theory (Louise Rosenblatt)

The transactional theory (TT) propounded by Rosenblatt emphasizes the role of the readers in deciphering texts based on prior experiences and to reflect upon them. TT also propagates that readers actively make the meaning they read, thus concentrating on the notion that the role of the reader is pertinent in the understanding of a text. The act of reading acts as a stimulus to enable readers to respond to the text in their own personal way which results a subjective interpretation. It must be noted that for transaction to occur, the reading must be aesthetic rather than efferent. As such, graphic novels offer the opportunity for readers to interact with the text through their visual and verbal components. The richness of visuals interweaved with texts offer opportunities for readers to decipher them accordingly.

Graphic Novels Help Reluctant and Struggling Readers

As schools are pacing towards the task of increasing literacy among reluctant and struggling readers, reading materials like graphic novels can be used to entice this category of students and stimulate their interest in reading. Though these students might be inhibited with their linguistic literacy skills, the images in these books can assist them to comprehend the novel. This can also be a motivating factor for these students to improve their linguistic abilities in a non‐threatening way, hence increasing their confidence. This is clearly supported by Heckman (2004) who asserts:

Graphic novels have a gift for attracting reluctant readers. They are powerful motivational instruments that can capture and hold a reader’s interest. Their eye‐catching illustrations give contextual connections to the written text, making them perfect for remedial readers (pp. 3‐4).

Graphic Novels Promote the Reading of Other Genres

It is a known fact that many canonical literature works have been given the graphic novel treatment. For one, teachers can introduce the graphic novel versions of these stories before encouraging the students to read the original versions. Derrick (2008) asserts that graphic novels are able to absorb the students thus encouraging them to explore more graphic novels or books, magazines, newspapers, and any other reading materials. Adaptations such as Nancy Butler’s Pride and Prejudice (2009) originally written by Jane Austen and Peter’s Kuper’s interpretation of Kafka’s Metamorphosis (2003) are able to introduce the simpler form of these classics to intrigue the reader who might find the original versions rather intimidating and difficult.

In addition, non‐fictional graphic novels can be used to introduce topics from the syllabus. For example graphic novels like Clan Apis (2000) by neurobiologist Jay Hosler which touches on the biology of honey bees and Jim Ottaviani’s Dignifying Science: Stories about Women Scientists (2003) which tells the stories of Rosalind Franklin and Marie Curie, among others, will be able to give an excellent account of scientific facts before students read other related texts.

A study conducted by Hammond and Danaher (2012) concluded that students enjoy reading comic books through autonomous learning. With programs like ‘Drop Everything and Read’ (DEAR) implemented in some schools in Malaysia, the diversity of reading materials can be a motivation for students to embrace lifelong reading habits. In addition, graphic novels offer an alternative to traditional texts. On light reading, Krashen (2004) asserts that:

Perhaps the most powerful way of encouraging children to read is by exposing them to light reading, a kind of reading that schools pretend does not exist and a kind of reading that many children, for economic or ideological reasons are deprived of (pp. 47‐48).

16


www.moj‐es.net

Graphic Novels Allow an Easier Comprehension of Style Elements

The common emphasis of verbal elements by graphic novel authors encourages readers to be exposed to a variety of elements such as diction, imagery, syntax and structure. Comic conventions such as italics, speech balloons, panels, boldface and special effect words provide opportunities for readers to construe meanings and understand the text better as compared to traditional texts. Furthermore, the interplay of text and image encourages a deeper and better understanding of figurative imagery such as pun, metaphor and paradox. In addition, the conventions of graphic novels can also be used to identify the tone and mood of the characters depicted. These elements are usually liberally peppered in graphic novels to add realism and aestheticism.

Graphic Novels Address Significant and Current Issues

It is important to note that many graphic novels are rich with themes related to social, economic and political issues. Chang (2011) for instance, shows that both English and non‐English learners are able to connect to social justice issues in graphic novels by utilizing personal journals, literature circles and online blogging. She further postulates that these students become more socially conscious and critical thinkers embracing the 21st century literacy practices. In addition, common themes such as prejudice, bullying, personal growth, sense of belonging, teamwork and others are also prevalent in graphic novels. With graphic novels such as Marjane Satrapi’s Persepolis (2003) and Lesley Fairfield’s Tyranny (2011), various current and relevant issues can be exposed to students, thus engaging in a lively and significant discussion in addressing “serious” and difficult topics such as oppression, inequality and poverty. Fairfield’s Tyranny for example touches on anorexia, a common eating disorder among teenagers today.

Other Considerations

In considering the choice of books, it is important to note that selection must be skirted by predetermined criteria, in line with the education philosophy of a country. Though it is true that many graphic novels contain elements of violence and sexual connotations, the final choice lies with the educators. Selection of books is crucial as in choosing books from other genres. Gorman (2003) opines that some of the elements taken into consideration include culture, religion and readers’ sensitivities. In addition, the content and age appropriateness of these novels must also be looked into and stringently vetted. Equality of race, gender and social class should be positively portrayed as many graphic novels which deal with controversial and sensational themes.

CONCLUSION

The variety, numbers and availability of graphic novels are increasing and gaining momentum especially in Malaysia these days. With careful planning, the acquisition of vocabulary, grammatical and communicative competences can be increased by using graphic novels in the classroom. With major bookshops (Kinokuniya and Borders, for example) stocking up excellent graphic novels, educators are able to offer a different a kind of text which certainly encourages healthy reading habits. The adaptations of this medium into popular movies such as The Dark Knight, Road to Perdition and Ghost World for example, have boosted the popularity of these books among many.

Researchers have clearly postulated that visual clues assist and increase the amount of comprehensible input and boosts comprehension among all levels of students. Graphic novels are certainly valuable and pleasurable assets as they come with great benefits. The marginalization of graphic novels will be a thing of the past if the Malaysian education fraternity starts focusing on this medium. As a powerful blend of text and image, these books offer a variety of reading experiences imbued with fun and entertainment. With the growing popularity of graphic novels, their incorporation will be highly beneficial for all levels of readers; from the proficient reader to the reluctant reader. Works like Datuk Lat’s graphic

17


www.moj‐es.net

novels The Kampong Boy (1979) and Town Boy (1981) will expose the nuances of multiculturalism to students. As Schwarz (2002) posits, “graphic novels can bring new life beyond bland textbooks” (p.2). Regardless of literary format, graphic novels inspire children and teenagers a love for reading as the interplay of text and visuals are highly stimulating, beneficial and thought provoking.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would also like to extend our gratitude to the anonymous reviewers of MOJES for their valuable comments and suggestions.

REFERENCES

Abbot, L. L. (1986). Comic art: Characteristics and potentialities of a narrative medium. Journal of Popular Culture, 19(4), 155‐176.

Baldry, A., & Thibault, P. (2006). Multimodal transcription and text analysis: A multimodal toolkit and coursebook. London, UK: Equinox.

Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bearne, E., & Wolstencroft, H. (2007). Visual approaches to teaching writing. London, UK: Paul Chapman.

Bucher, K. T., & Manning, L. M. (2004). Bringing Graphic Novels into a school's curriculum. Clearing House, 78(2), 67‐67.

Cary, S. (2004). Going Graphic: Comics at work in the multilingual classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Chang, J. C. (2011). Reading between the "frames": English language learners' and non‐English language learners' responses to graphic novels. University of Toronto, Toronto.

Connors, S. P. (2010). Multimodal reading: A case study of high school students in an after‐school graphic novel reading group. Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London, UK: Routledge.

Derrick, J. (2008). Using comics with ESL/EFL students. The Internet TESL Journal, 14(7). Retrieved from iteslj.org/Techniques/Derrick‐Using Comics.html

Drucker, J. (2008). What is graphic about graphic novels? English Language Notes, 46(2), 39‐55.

Duncum, P. (2004). Visual culture isn't just visual: Multiliteracy, multimodality and meaning. Studies in Art Education, 45(3), 252‐264.

18


www.moj‐es.net

Eisner, W. (1978). A contract with God. New York, NY: Norton.

Emery, J. H. (2011). Graphic novels in ESL: A case study of a secondary literature based classroom. Unpublished Ph.D, Hamline University.

Evans‐Boniecki, J. (2013). Graphic novels as great books: A grounded theory study of faculty teaching graphic novels. Unpublished Ph.D, Capella University, Ann Arbor.

Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674‐681. Retrieved from http://www4.ncsu.edu./unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/LS‐ 1988.pdf

Gillenwater, C. (2012). Graphic novels in advanced English/language arts classrooms: A phenomenological case study. Unpublished Ph.D, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Gorman, M. (2003). Getting graphic: Uisng graphic novels to promote litearcy with preteens and teens. Worthington, OH: Linworth Publishing.

Hammond, H. K. (2009). Graphic novels and multimodal literacy: A reader response theory. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, University of Minnesota.

Hammond, H. K., & Danaher, K. (2012). The value of targeted comic book readers. ELT Journal, 66(2), 193‐204.

Heckman, W. (2004). Reading heroes for a new generation. Florida Media Quarterly, 29(3), 3‐4. Retrieved from http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.floridamedia.org/resource/resmgr/fmq/fmq_spring2004_v29_n3.pdf

Krashen, S. D. (2004). The power of reading: Insights from the research (2nd. ed.). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. New York, NY: Routledge.

Laycock, D. (2004). Developing a graphic novel collection. Synergy, 3, 50‐54. Retrieved from http://www.slav.schools.net.au/synergy/vol3num2/laycock.pdf

Lyga, A. A. W., & Lyga, B. (2004). Graphic novels in your media centre: A definite guide. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.

Marcus, N., Cooper, M., & Sweller, J. (1996). Understanding instructions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 49‐63. Retrieved from http://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/images/e/e9/1996_Marcus.pdf

McCloud, S. (1993). Understanding comics: The invisible art. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.

Miller, D. W., & Brevard, K. M. (2010). Journey to the centre of the earth. Johor Bahru, Malaysia: Perniagaan Buku Kejayaan.

19


www.moj‐es.net

Morgan, B., & Ramanathan, V. (2005). Critical literacies and language education: Global and local perspectives. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 151‐69.

Muniran, F., & Yusof, M. R. M. (2008). Using comics and graphic novels in school and libraries to promote literacies. Paper presented at the International Conference on Libraries, Information and Society (ICoLIS 2008), Kuala Lumpur.

Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Pillai, S., & Vengadasamy, R. (2010). Developing Understanding and Appreciation of Literature and Critical Reading Concepts Through Multimodal Approaches. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 6, 133‐165. Retrieved from http://www.melta.org.my/modules/tinycontent/Dos/Shanthini_Ravichandran_2010a.pdf

Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 33‐58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sabbah, M., Masood, M., & Iranmanesh, M. (2013). Effects of graphic novels on reading comprehension in Malaysian year 5 students. Journal of Graphic Novels and Comics, 4(1), 146‐160.

Sabin, R. (1993). Adult comics: An introduction. London, UK: Routledge.

Serafini, F. (2010). Reading multimodal texts: Perceptual, structural and ideological perspectives. Children's Literature in Education, 41(2), 85‐104.

Versaci, R. (2007). This book contains graphic language: Comics as literature. New York, NY: Continuum.

Weiner, R. G. (Ed.). (2010). Graphic novels and comics in libraries and archives: Essays on readers, research, history and cataloguing. Jefferson, N C: McFarland.

Weiner, S. (2002). Beyond superheroes: Comics get serious. Library Journal, 127(2), 262‐266.

Yang, G. (2008). Graphic novels in the classroom. Language Arts, 85(3), 185‐191.

Yunus, M. M., Salehi, H., Tarmizi, A., Idrus, S. F. S., & Balaraman, S. (2011). Using digital comics in teaching writing. Retrieved from: http://www.wseas.us/e‐library/conferences/2011/Montreux/COMICICBIO/COMICICBIO‐07.pdf

20

Students’ Perceptions on Self- and Peer-Assessment in Enhancing Learning Experience

Lee‐Fong Siow [1]

[1] [email protected] School of Science, Monash University Malaysia, Malaysia.

ABSTRACT

This study reports the effectiveness of self‐ and peer‐assessment in improving students’ learning experience. Students in a group of four were required to submit two self‐assessments, one after the first submission and the other during the final submission of the assignment. An anonymous assignment was then given to each group for a peer‐based assessment. Students were asked to respond to the comments given in the peer‐assessment and were given the chance to revise their assignment before the final submission. The results show that both self‐and peer‐assessments were perceived as enabling students to become more critical, work in a more structured way and think more deeply. Peer‐assessment was especially highly regarded, as students felt they learned more from the given feedback and became analytical after the peer‐assessment. Although most of the students felt that both the self‐ and peer‐assessments were time consuming, they would love to have peer‐assessment in their future assignment.

Keywords: self‐assessment, peer‐assessment, feedback, perception, critical

INTRODUCTION

Assessment is closely associated with student learning (Arter, 1997; Dochy & McDowell, 1997; Dochy, Segers, & Sluijsmans, 1999). Assessments were traditionally used as tools to evaluate or grade students. Traditional assessment methods are usually controlled by an instructor who sets the assessment scheme, evaluates learners’ performance and learning outcomes, and provides feedback to learners to remediate their learning and improve their skills. Traditional assessment methods do not fit into the paradigm shift from teacher‐centered to student‐centered approach, in which the latter focuses on students’ learning and “what students do to achieve learning, rather than what the teacher does” (O’Neil & McMahon, 2005). Since the main goal of higher education is to promote independent and lifelong learning, both of which help students to develop into “reflective practitioners” who are able to critically reflect upon their professional practice (Falchikov & Bound, 1989), the traditional assessment practices that provide a grade at the end of the learning process are no longer practical to help students learn. In fact, there is a strong support for representing assessment as a tool for learning (Arter, 1997).

Alternatives in assessment have received much attention in the last decade, in line with the promotion of student‐centered learning in the university. Self‐ and peer‐assessment have been introduced in higher education as alternatives in assessment as a result of the increasing demand for

21

lifelong and reflective learners in higher education. Self‐assessment involves students in making judgments and reflection on their learning (Boud & Falchikov, 1989). It encourages active learning among students. Peer‐assessment involves learners judging and evaluating the work or performance of their peers (Sitthiworachart & Joy, 2004). It may involve the use of rating instruments or checklists to meet the particular task list. A previous study shows that feedback and suggestions given by student assessors is a significant predictor of the performance of the assessors themselves and the feedback is also related to the performance of those assessed (Lu & Law, 2012). Peer grading, however, is not a significant predictor of project performance (Lu & Law, 2012).

Contemporary educational theory indicates that self‐ and peer‐assessment allow learners to (a) actively participate in the assessment process, (b) think more deeply, (c) develop important cognitive skills such as critical thinking, teamwork, decision‐making, self‐monitoring and regulation, (d) problem solving, (e) get inspiration from their peers’ work (f) collaborate, criticize constructively and suggest improvements (g) reflect and make sensible judgments (Sluijsmans, Dochy & Moerkerke, 1998; Sung et al., 2005). Self‐ and peer‐assessment are examples of student‐centered assessments in which some control and responsibility are given back to the learner. Self‐assessment is a valid and reliable measure of communicative language ability (Bachman & Palmer, 1989; Butler & Lee, 2010; Shahrakipour, 2012). While teacher‐ and peer‐assessments are in a high agreement (Freeman, 1995; Miller & Ng, 1994), some studies have observed otherwise (Kwan & Leung, 1996; Orsmond, Merry & Reiling, 1997). Other studies reported a low agreement between self‐ratings and teacher ratings (Jafapur, 1991; Orsmond, Merry & Reiling, 1997). It has been recognized that self‐assessment incurs extra time (Schunk, 1996). It requires comprehensive self‐questioning and therefore less able students find it more difficult to self‐ or peer‐assess compared to more able students (Orsmond, Merry, & Reiling, 1997; Sullivan & Hall, 1997). While peer assessment provides benefits in improving the students’ understanding of the assessment process and has also been shown to play a useful role in writing classes (Matsuno, 2009), there were limited benefits in its use in relation to improving the overall student experience (Chambers, Whannell, & Whannell, 2014). Low‐ and high‐achieving students tended to over‐ and underestimate the quality of their work in self‐assessment, respectively (Sung et al., 2010).

A review of the literature suggests that there are no studies of the assessments in the food science settings specifically targeting written assignments. Since the basis of higher education is directed toward lifelong learning, which is difficult to achieve via traditional assessment methods, this study is aimed at determining students’ perception on the use of self‐ and peer‐assessment in enhancing students’ learning experience of Fundamentals of Food Science (FST 1800).

METHODS

Subjects

Sixty two students (n = 62) who enrolled in FST 1800 participated in this study. There were 13 groups with four students a group and two groups with five students a group.

Task and Procedures

Students were asked to group themselves into four per group to work on an essay of a specific topic of their choice. The duration from preparation up to final submission of the assignment took approximately 5 weeks. Table 1 shows the duration for each task.

22

Table 1 Duration for Each Task in Assignment

Task Duration (week(s))

Release of assignment topic and assignment requirement

1st submission + self‐assessment 3

Peer‐assessment 1

Revision 1 Resubmission + self‐ assessment

Students were given three weeks to work on their 2000 words group assignment, focused on a specific topic. Students submitted their individual self‐assessment based on a provided rubric (Appendix 1) after the first submission of assignment. They were then given an anonymous assignment for peer‐assessment, to be completed over another week. An evaluation rubric was provided for peer‐assessment (Appendix 2). The original assignment was returned to the designated peer and the peer was allowed to make changes to the assignment. One week was then given to provide justification and make necessary changes to the assignment before the final submission, together with another self‐assessment for the final submission. Table 2 shows mark allocation in percentage for each given task. The total value of this assignment was 12% from the total assessments for this unit. The instructor provided a final assessment based on the provided rubric as shown in Appendix 3.

Table 2 Mark Allocation in Percentage for Tasks Involved in Assignment

Task Value (%)

Self‐assessment 2 Peer‐assessment Evaluation 2 Response to comments 2 Instructor‐ assessment 6 Total 12

Questionnaire and Students’ Feedback

Sixty two students had volunteered themselves to participate in the questionnaire. Students were asked to put a tick in the questionnaire to assess the effectiveness of self‐ and peer‐assessment in their learning. Results of the questionnaire are shown in Table 3, 4 and 5.

Statistical Analysis

One sample t‐test was used to analyze the data using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 20 software (IBM, Chicago, Illinois, USA).

Human Ethics Approval

A human ethics application was submitted to Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (MUHREC). Approval was granted by the committee and a project number of CF13/1270 ‐ 2013000655 was given.

23

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The majority (more than 50%) of students felt that incorporating self‐assessment in their assignment makes them independent, think more, learn more, become critical, work in a structured way, and become analytical (Table 3). In fact, 92% and 82% of students felt that the self‐ assessment was extremely useful in helping them to think more and become analytical, respectively. A substantial percentage of students expressed no strong opinion about the self‐ assessment process (Table 3). Overall, self‐assessment was perceived as an activity that could build on students’ competency because the percentage of students who viewed self‐assessment as an activity that did not enhance their learning experience was less than 10% (Table 3). The current finding was in accordance with previous findings in which students felt they were more critical, worked in a more structured way and were encouraged to think more after the self‐ and peer‐assessment exercises (Falchikov, 1986; Orsmond, Merry, & Reiling, 2000; Shahrakipour, 2012; Stefani, 1994).

Table 3 Students’ Response to Self‐evaluation Questionnaire After Submission of Assignment

Note. Figures indicate percentage of student responses (n = 62).

There were 58% of students who felt that having to submit two self‐ assessments for the assignment was time consuming (Table 3) and this was in concordance with Schunk (1996). Although self‐evaluation was useful to help them to think more and became analytical, close to 50% of students felt the process was not enjoyable (Table 3). This might be due to two self‐ assessments designed in the current study that was time‐consuming. In future, one self‐assessment at the end of the final submission might be sufficient and helpful. It has been recognized that time is an important factor in implementing the self‐ or peer‐assessment exercise (Orsmond, Merry, & Reiling, 2000). More than 50% of students felt that self‐evaluation was helpful and beneficial while 45% of them felt that self‐evaluation was challenging (Table 3). Orsmond, Merry, and Reiling (2000) have reported that students found the work was more challenging after the incorporation of self‐ and peer‐assessment.

Peer‐assessment was well accepted among the students as 92% of them felt that this form of interaction made them think more and learn more (89%) and become analytical (87%) (Table 4). The anonymous comments suggest that peer‐assessment was more helpful in students’ learning compared to self‐assessment (results not shown). Peer assessment has been shown to enhance the constructive feedback giving skill (Cushing et al., 2011).

The self-assessment makes you:Dependent 8 Independent 60 Neither 32Do not think more 2 Think more 92 Neither 6

Did not learn anything 8 Learn more 61 Neither 31Lack of confidence 7 Gain confidence 37 Neither 56Uncritical 5 Critical 67 Neither 28

Work in an unstructured way 3 Work in a structured way 77 Neither 20

Not analytical 3 Analytical 82 Neither 15

The self-assessment is:Time consuming 58 Time saving 11 Neither 31Not enjoyable 47 Enjoyable 19 Neither 34Hard 26 Easy 32 Neither 42Not challenging 24 Challenging 45 Neither 31Not helpful 11 Helpful 58 Neither 31Not beneficial 13 Beneficial 52 Neither 35

24

Generally, self‐assessment was perceived as “biased” and students would not be able to be aware of their own mistakes in the assignment. Most importantly, 79% of the students felt that they learnt from the feedback given in peer‐assessment (Table 4).

Table 4 Students’ Responses to Peer‐evaluation Questionnaire After Submission of Assignment

Note. Figures indicate percentage of student responses (n = 62)

Similar to self‐assessment, a substantial percentage of students were neutral toward Peer‐evaluation. Twenty six percent of students actually felt that peer‐assessment made them become dependent. This was probably because students had been relying on the peer‐assessment to improve on their assignment, therefore making them “dependent”. Eleven percent of students actually felt that peer‐assessment resulted in loss of confidence. This might be because some students gave a penetrating criticism and non‐constructive comments in the peer‐assessment, thereby demolishing the confidence level of the recipients.

The majority of students (82% and 79%, respectively) perceived peer‐assessment was beneficial and helpful, similar to that of self‐assessment. The percentage of student, however, was higher (p < .05) than that of the percentage for self‐assessment (Table 3 & 4). Some 62% of students found peer‐assessment challenging while 46% and 44% felt that peer‐assessment was easy and enjoyable, respectively. However, 43% of students found peer‐assessment rather time consuming. This percentage of students who found peer‐assessment time consuming was slightly lower compared to the percentage for self‐assessment (p < .05) (Table 3 & 4). A recent study shows that assessment training is helpful in developing student assessment skills for peer‐assessment (Liu & Li, 2014), suggesting that training is essential to prepare students with critical assessment skills and to assist them in switching roles from learners to assessors.

Overall, peer‐assessment was well‐accepted and was deemed to be more helpful in students’ learning compared to self‐assessment (p < .05) (Table 5).

The group-assessment makes you:Dependent 26 Independent 34 Neither 40Not think more 0 Think more 92 Neither 8Did not learn anything 2 Learn more 89 Neither 9Lack of confidence 11 Gain confidence 55 Neither 34Uncritical 3 Critical 68 Neither 29Work in an unstructured way 2 Work in a structured way 82 Neither 16Not analytical 3 Analytical 87 Neither 10Did not learn from my peers' evaluation 4 Learn from my peers' evaluation 79 Neither 17

The group-assessment is:

Time consuming 43 Time saving 31 Neither 26Not enjoyable 23 Enjoyable 44 Neither 33Hard 21 Easy 46 Neither 33Not challenging 18 Challenging 62 Neither 20Not helpful 8 Helpful 79 Neither 13Not beneficial 7 Beneficial 82 Neither 11

25

Table 5 Students’ Responses to Overall Evaluation Questionnaire after Submission of Assignment

Note. Figures indicate percentage of student responses (n = 62).

Students were hoping to have either self‐ or peer‐assessment in their future written assignment (Table 5), indirectly indicating that both assessments facilitated student learning although they might be time consuming. These findings show the positive perception of students to using self‐ and peer‐assessment in their assignment. As suggested by Nulty (2010), self‐ and peer‐assessment should be used in first year university life. The current result is in accordance with a recent study that shows both self‐ and peer‐assessment of oral presentation are helpful in providing formative feedback (De Grez, Valcke, & Roozen, 2012) and improve oral presentation skills (Dollisso & Koundinya, 2011). In the current study, the marking rubric was perceived as essential to support both self‐ or Peer‐assessment (Table 5).

CONCLUSIONS

Students felt they were more critical, worked in a more structured way and were encouraged to think more after the self‐ and peer‐assessment exercises. Peer‐assessment was overall well accepted among students as they felt that peer‐assessment in their assignment made them think more. Students learnt more from the given feedback and became analytical after the peer‐assessment. Time consuming is the main concern for students but this had not discouraged their need for self‐ or peer‐assessment in students’ assignment. Through self‐ and peer‐assessment, students think more and become analytical, both of which are important graduate attributes.

Which is helpful for your assignment?

Self- evaluation 2 Group- evaluation 53 Self- and group- evaluation

45

In future, you would like your assignment

To have both self- and group evaluations 17 Self- OR group- evaluation 67 Neither self- nor group-evaluation but direct submission

16

The marking rubric for both self- or group- evaluation is

Not helpful 8 Helpful 81 Neither 11

The quality of assignment has been improved after going through self-evaluationAgree 66 Disagree 8 Neutral 26

The quality of assignment has been improved after going through group-evaluation

Agree 92 Disagree 5 Neutral 3

26

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would like to thank Dr Gerry Rayner, Associate Professor David Paganin and Professor Chris Messom and for proofreading this manuscript.

REFERENCES

Artwe, J. (1997). Using assessment as a tool for learning, In R. Blum & J. Arter (Eds.), Student performance assessment in an era of restructuring (pp. 1‐6). Alexandria, VA; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Bachman, A, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1989). The construct validation of self ratings of communicative language ability. Language Testing, 6, 14–29.

Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (1989). Quantitative studies of self‐assessment in higher education: A critical analysis of findings. Higher Education, 18, 529‐549.

Butler, Y. G. & Lee, J. (2010). The effects of self‐assessment among young learners of English. Language Testing, 27, 5‐31.

Chambers, K., Whannell, R., & Whannell, P. (2014). The use of peer assessment in a regional Australian university tertiary bridging course. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 54, 69‐88.

Cushing, A., Abbott, S., Lothian, D., Hall, A., & Westwood, O. M. R. (2011). Peer feedback as an aid to learning: What do we want? Feedback. When do we want it? Now! Medical Teacher, 33, E105‐E112.

De Grez, L., Valcke, M., & Roozen, I. (2012). How effective are self‐ and peer assessment of oral presentation skills compared with teachers’ assessments? Active Learning in Higher Education, 13, 129‐142.

Dochy, Y, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self‐, peer and co‐assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24, 331‐350.

Dochy, F. J. R. C. & Mcdowell, L. (1997) Assessment as a tool for learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23, 279‐298.

Dollisso, A., & Koundinya, V. (2011). An integrated framework for assessing oral presentations using peer, self, and instructor assessment strategies. NACTA Journal, 55, 39‐44.

Falchikov, N. (1986). Product comparison and process benefits of collaborative peer group and self assessments. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 11, 146‐166.

Falchikov, N., & Boud, D. (1989). Student self‐assessment in higher education: A metaanalysis. Review of Educational Research, 59, 395–430.

27

Freeman, M. (1995). Peer assessment by Peers of Peer work. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 20, 289–99.

Jafapur, A. (1991). Can naive EFL learners estimate their own proficiency? Evaluation and Research in Education, 5, 145‐57.

Kwan, K., & Leung, R. (1996). Tutor versus peer Peer assessment of student performance in a stimulation training exercise. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 21, 239–49.

Liu, X. & Li, L. (2014). Assessment training effects on student assessment skills and task performance in a technology‐facilitated peer assessment, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 39, 275‐292.

Lu, J. Y. & Law, N. (2012). Online peer assessment: effects of cognitive and affective feedback. Instructional Science, 40, 257–275.

Matsuno, S. (2009). Self‐, peer‐, and teacher‐assessments in Japanese university EFL writing classrooms. Language Testing, 26, 75‐100.

Miller, L. & Ng, R. (1994). Peer assessment in oral language proficiency skills. Perspectives: working papers in the Department of English. City University of Hong Kong.

Nulty, D. D. (2011). Peer and self‐assessment in the first year of university. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, 493‐507.

O’Neil, G., & Mcmahon, T. (2005). Student‐centered learning: What does it mean for students and lecturers? In G. O’Neil, S. Moore & B. McMullin (Eds.), Emerging issues in the practice of university learning and teaching (pp. 27‐36). Dublin: AISHE.

Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (1997). A study in self assessment: Tutor and students’ perceptions of performance criteria. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 22, 357–67.

Orsmond, P., Merry, S. & Reiling, K. (2000). The use of student derived marking criteria in peer and self‐assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25, 23‐38.

Schunk, D. H. (1996) Learning theories: An educational perspective (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Shahrakipour, H. (2012). On the impact of self assessment on EFL learners’ receptive skills performance. International Research Journal of Arts and Humanities, 40, 143‐164.

Sitthiworachart, J., & Joy, M. (2004). The evaluation of students’ marking in web‐based peer assessment of learning computer programming. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE 2004) (pp. 1153‐1163). Melbourne, Australia.

28

Sluijsmans, D., Dochy, F. & Moerkerke, G. (1998). Creating a learning environment by using self‐ peer‐ and co‐assessment. Learning Environments Research, 1, 293‐319.

Stefani, L. A. J. (1994) Peer, self and tutor assessment: Relative reliabilities. Studies in Higher Education, 19, 69‐75.

Sullivan, K., & Hall, C. (1997). Introducing students to self‐assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 19, 69‐75.

Sung, Y‐T., Chang, K‐E., Chang, T.‐H., Yu, W.‐C. (2010). How many heads are better than one? The reliability and validity of teenagers’ self‐ and peer assessments. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 135‐145.

Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., Chiou, S. K. & Hou, H. T. (2005). The design and application of a web‐based self‐ and peer‐assessment system. Computers & Education, 45, 187‐202.

29


www.moj‐es.net

APPENDIX 1

Rubric for self‐assessment

Self evaluation (5 Marks)

Comments Agree Disagree Neutral Comments Suggestions

The provided title matched with the content of the assignment (0.25 M)

Composition of the food product/Peer has been clearly described with great detail (0.5M)

Fundamental science of the food composition is well‐related to the quality and variety of food product (0.5M)

Changes of food /product upon storage conditions have been clealy described and alternative(s) to control the changes are discussed (0.5M)

A conclusion/summary that gives an overall “conclusive remark” is provided (0.25M)

30


www.moj‐es.net

Comments Agree Disagree Neutral Comments Suggestions

The assignment is well‐presented & organized (0.25M)

The grammar and spelling of this assignment is of a high standard (0.25M)

The assignment has met the word count of 2000 words ± 10% (0.25M)

The in‐text citation and reference list of this assignment follow a consistent reference format (0.25M)

1. Comment on the overall strength(s) of this assignment. Give example(s). (1 M)

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

2. Comment on the overall weakness(es) of this assignment. Give example(s). (1 M)

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

31


www.moj‐es.net

APPENDIX 2

Rubric for peer‐assessment

Peer evaluation (10 Marks)

Please provide justification for each of your responses.

Comments Agree Disagree Neutral Allocated mark (by Peer)

Justification/Suggestion Response to justification/suggestion

Allocated mark (by instructor)

The provided title matched with the content of the assignment (0.5 M)

Composition of the food product has been clearly described with great detail (1M)

Fundamental science of the food composition is well‐related to the quality and variety of food product (1M)

Changes of food product upon storage conditions have been clearly described and alternative(s) to control the changes are discussed (1M)

A conclusion/summary that gives an overall “conclusive remark” is provided (0.5M)

32


www.moj‐es.net

Comments Agree Disagree Neutral Allocated mark (by Peer)

Justification/Suggestion Response to justification/suggestion

Allocated mark (by instructor)

The assignment is well‐presented & organized (0.5M)

The grammar and spelling of this assignment is of a high standard (0.5M)

The assignment has met the word count of 2000 words ± 10% (0.5M)

The in‐text citation and reference list of this assignment follow a consistent reference format (0.5M)

1. Comment on the overall strength(s) of this assignment. Give example(s). (1 M)

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Response to the comment:

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

2. Comment on the overall weakness(es) of this assignment. Give example(s). (1 M)

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Response to the comment:

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

33


www.moj‐es.net

APPENDIX 3

Rubric for instructor‐assessment

Instructor evaluation & feedback (20 Marks)

Comments Agree Disagree Neutral Justification/Suggestion Allocated mark

The provided title matched with the content of the assignment (2 M)

Composition of the food product has been clearly described with great detail (4M)

Fundamental science of the food composition is well‐related to the quality and variety of food product (4M)

Changes of food product upon storage conditions have been clealy described and alternative(s) to control the changes are discussed (4M)

A conclusion/summary that gives an overall “conclusive remark” is provided (2M)

Total (??/16)

34


www.moj‐es.net

Overall mark

Self–assessment 1 (5 marks) (1%)

Self‐assessment 2 (5 marks) (1%)

Peer‐assessment (review) (8 marks) (2%)

Peer‐assessment (response) (8 marks) (2%)

Instructor‐assessment (20 marks) (6%) Total mark (12%)

Overall strength(s) of this assignment.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Overall weakness(es) of this assignment.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Comments Agree Disagree Neutral Justification/Suggestion Allocated mark

The assignment is well‐presented & organized (1M)

The grammar and spelling of this assignment is of a high standard (1M)

The assignment has met the word count of 2000 words ± 10% (1M)

The in‐text citation and reference list of this assignment follow a consistent reference format (1M)

Total (???/4)

Grand total (??/20)

35


www.moj‐es.net

Suitability of the Literacy and Numeracy Screening (Linus) 2.0 Programme in Assessing Children’s Early Literacy

Eunice Ong Luyee [1], Fauzan Izzati Roselan [2], Nor Hafizah Anwardeen [3], Fatin Hazirah Mohd Mustapa [4]

[1] [email protected] Faculty of Educational Studies University Putra Malaysia, MALAYSIA

ABSTRACT

Early literacy skills are crucial in a child’s learning process and awareness should be raised in order to ensure the quality of early literacy assessments. In this paper, the writers discuss the quality of early literacy assessment in Malaysia, LINUS 2.0 by looking at its validity and reliability. An established early literacy program is compared with LINUS 2.0 in order to opt for the strengths to be implied into LINUS 2.0. By using all these information, a suggestion of improving LINUS 2.0 is given, which is by integrating the program assessment with the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) for assessing English language literacy. It was concluded that more studies and research should be done on early literacy assessment in Malaysia so that more suggestions and ideas could be gathered in order to refine the quality of early literacy skills assessment.

Keywords: Early Literacy, Early Literacy Skills, Early Literacy Assessments, LINUS, LINUS 2.0, ELP, CEFR

INTRODUCTION

Early literacy skills are crucial for children as these skills can help the learning progress of children in future. Children who are left behind in acquiring early literacy skills tend to struggle with reading and writing. As a result, these children tend to receive less practice in reading and less exposure to content knowledge, vocabulary and other language skills than do children who learn to read early and well (Echols, West, Stanovich, & Zehr, 1996; Cunningham & Stanovich, 1998; Lonigan, Allan, & Lerner, 2012; Morrisin, Smith, & Dow‐Ehrensberger, 1995). In Malaysia, the mastery of early literacy skills has been a focus since the early years of the Malaysian education system and this issue was especially critical in the 1960s (Nazariyah & Abdul Rahman, 2013). Many programs have been implemented yet illiteracy among youngsters is still a real problem. In 2011, the Defence Minister of Malaysia, Abdul Latiff Ahmad, revealed that nearly 1,000 out of the 11,000 youths chosen for national service training (PLKN) were illiterate (Special Module for National Service Trainees: Malaysia, 2011). Besides, it was reported in The Star newspaper that 3 students were barred from taking their Primary School Assessment Test (UPSR), due to their weak academic performance (Action to be taken against school for barring trio from exam, 2011). All these issues have led to the conclusion that a better program needs to be executed so that all the children in Malaysia have a stable foundation in early literacy skills. Hence, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has introduced the Literacy and Numeracy Screening 2.0 (LINUS 2.0) program. According to this program, pupils should master the basic skills after three years

36


www.moj‐es.net

of their primary education (Nazariyah & Abdul Rahman, 2013; Zinitulniza, 2011).

As the LINUS 2.0 program is designed to ensure the groundwork of children’s literacy skills, it is important for us to examine whether the materials used in this program are valid and reliable; particularly the assessing instrument. If an assessing instrument is not evaluating the main purpose of a course or program, the whole program or course is useless and not valid. This is what led to the writing of this paper where we would examine the validity and reliability in the program of LINUS 2.0. The results that we attained from examining the process would guide us in improving the LINUS 2.0 program, by looking for ways to eliminate its shortcomings. To make it more specific, readers are expected to get the following information in this writing:

1. An analysis of LINUS 2.0 program from the qualities of early literacy assessment by Johnston and Rogers1 (2003).

2. A brief comparison between the LINUS 2.0 program with the Early Literacy Project (ELP) in India.

3. An integration of CEFR and LINUS 2.0 program, focusing on English language literacy.

Early Literacy Project is an established early literacy program conducted by numerous recognized organizations in India. We are not aiming to find the weaknesses of LINUS 2.0 by comparing the program with ELP, but to pick out the strengths in ELP to be applied into the LINUS 2.0 program. We hope that the strength points from ELP could help the Malaysian Education Ministry in improving the LINUS 2.0 program (henceforth LINUS 2.0).

We propose a suggestion in order to heighten the quality of the LINUS 2.0 program where we are integrating and adapting CEFR into the LINUS 2.0 English language literacy program. However, this is just a proposal; no pilot test or project has been done to prove its effectiveness. The proposal is made based on our readings in early literacy assessment and it is aimed at enhancing the validity and reliability of LINUS 2.0.

We hope that the information gained from our readings could help the Malaysian Ministry of Education, Malaysian primary school teachers as well as administrators to have a clearer view of the program. In addition, we also aimed at providing ideas and suggestions to the Ministry in order to enhance LINUS 2.0.

1 Johnston & Rogers’ qualities of early literacy assessment are chosen by us in analyzing the validity and reliability of LINUS 2.0 program. Peter H. Johnston and Rebecca Rogers are experienced writers in the field of early literacy studies. Johnston is a professor at the State University of New York in Albany and his field of specialization is reading; whereas Rogers who is currently an educational researcher in the University of Missouri‐St. Louis, specializes in literacy studies, teacher training and critical discourse studies. In this paper, we adopt the qualities of early literacy assessment from their writing titled “Early Literacy Development: The Case for ‘Informed Assessment’”.

Qualities of Early Literacy Assessments and Linus 2.0

The most traditional and accurate way to assess an Early Literacy Program is by looking at its validity and reliability, as these are the two primary dimensions of quality in conducting an evaluation. In general, validity refers to whether the test is actually measuring what it claims to measure; whereas reliability refers to the consistency and accuracy of the measurement (Samad, 2010). However, in early literacy assessment, the criteria of validity and reliability are different from the normal assessment. These criteria will be discussed in the following sections and we will also review the validity and reliability of LINUS 2.0 English literacy assessment according to the criteria. The criteria of validity and reliability being discussed in this paper are given by Peter H. Johnston and Rebecca Rogers (2003).

37


www.moj‐es.net

Validity & LINUS 2.0

In the case of assessing early literacy, the criteria of validity have undergone some alterations. An upright early literacy assessment must fulfil two criteria in order to be valid in evaluating a child’s performance. Messick (1995) mentioned in his research, respectively, that the consequences of the use and interpretation of an early literacy assessment has come to be integral to judgments of validity; which means the usage and the outcome of the assessment results are the ones that adjudicate the validity of an early literacy assessment. The results of the assessment must not bring any negative impact on the child as the core of an early literacy program is to build up a child’s ability in learning. If the results are negative, it will affect the child’s confidence and motivation in learning and the child might end up struggling with reading and writing skills. Hence, the dictum “first do not harm” has been centralized in the construct meaning that unless the assessment practice improves the quality of the child’s literacy learning, it should not occur (Johnston & Rogers, 2003). In other words, the first criterion of validity in early literacy assessment is that the assessment practise and result must improve the quality of the child’s literacy learning; if it does not fulfil this, the assessment and practise should not be created.

As mentioned, we will now examine the objectives of LINUS 2.0 with the first criterion of validity in early literacy assessment – the assessment practice must improve the child’s literacy learning. The main focus of LINUS 2.0, like other early literacy programs, is to ensure the students master the literacy and numeracy skills (Education NKRA, 2010). The Curriculum Development Division Deputy Director (Humanities) of the Ministry of Education, Shamsuri Sujak said the aim of LINUS 2.0 was to ensure all pupils, except special needs students, master Bahasa Malaysia (the official language in Malaysia) literacy, English literacy and numeracy at the end of primary year three (eight to nine years old).

Please note that LINUS 2.0 supports the previous early literacy program, LINUS, implemented by the Ministry of Education in 2012. The difference between these two programs is that the Ministry included mastery of English literacy in LINUS 2.0. Pupils will be screened twice a year (March and September) to identify their progress in literacy learning. If a pupil is identified as lagging behind the targeted level, the pupil will have to undergo remedial classes where teachers will focus more on the literacy acquisition skills. The remedial class pupils will be placed in the mainstream curriculum once they are qualified and have achieved the suitable level of proficiency. The remedial classes are aimed at improving a child’s literacy learning; in other words, LINUS 2.0 has fulfilled the first criteria of validity. We came out with this conclusion as the results from the LINUS 2.0 instrument are used to determine and to interpret the level of literacy learning progress of a child and most importantly a supplementary course will be provided to those who fall behind to improve their literacy learning.

The second criterion of a valid early literacy assessment is the alignment between pedagogical and assessment intentions and practice (Johnston & Rogers, 2003). The second criterion is actually inter‐related with the first. Pedagogy means the instructions used by teachers involved in the early literacy program. The first criterion of validity in early literacy assessment states the importance of improving a child’s literacy learning, which is rather problematic if traditional assessments are implemented in the setting of early literacy learning (Johnston, 1992; Stallman & Pearson, 1990). Thus, a documentary form of assessment should be used in the early literacy classroom. One example of documentary form of assessment is portfolio where it demonstrates students’ progress, achievement and self‐reflection in one or more areas (Paulson & Paulson, 1991; Swaran Singh & Abdul Samad, 2013). This on‐going process of assessment involves a procedure which teachers use to plan, collect and analyze a collection of students’ work (Swaran Singh & Abdul Samad, 2013).

This procedure of planning, collecting and analyzing helps teachers to determine children’s achievement levels in literacy learning and at the same time it portrays the progress of the child’s literacy learning. Therefore, the pedagogy used by teachers in the early literacy classroom should allow

38


www.moj‐es.net

them to analyze children’s progress in literacy learning. With this, teachers involved in an early literacy program could monitor the teaching and learning process in a way aligned with the assessment intentions such that the practices used conform to the expected outcome (i.e., to develop a child’s ability in learning). Besides teachers, the organizations or schools involved in early literacy programs need to have a clear view regarding the objectives of the assessment. It is vital for people in the organizations to know what they have to do and what they need to supply to teachers to achieve the early literacy program objectives. With co‐operation between the teachers and organizations, it can be assured that the pedagogy used in the early literacy classroom is aligned with the program intentions and practices. In short, the second criterion of validity in early literacy assessment is focusing on the alliance between the implementation of the early literacy program with its expected outcomes and objectives.

Looking at the implementation of LINUS 2.0, a study has been done by Sani and Idris (2013) on the LINUS program implementation in the Malaysian education system. In the study, the researchers collected their data by using interviews, document analysis and observations from the subjects who were headmasters in Malaysian primary schools. Some headmasters stated that they understood the purpose of conducting LINUS in school, yet no additional courses or training was provided to them before the LINUS program started (Sani & Idris, 2013). Training is needed to enhance their understanding on the implementation of the LINUS program in schools. Without the required training, the headmasters carried out the LINUS program based on their discretion and creativity and this has influenced the achievement of LINUS program goals. The researchers are not focusing on the responsibility of weak achievement of LINUS in 2010, but rather, they are trying to emphasize program execution. Pedagogical knowledge should be given prior to LINUS program implementation. Fortunately, the ministry realized this shortcoming and has conducted courses and training for headmasters in 2011, which was quite effective.

Besides the authorities in school, teachers also play an important role in implementing the LINUS program in schools. The same researchers, Sani and Idris, conducted another study in the same year (2013) on the challenges encountered by teachers in executing the LINUS program in schools. Their findings show that lack of understanding of LINUS program among teachers is one of the major issues contributing to the program’s lack of success. This displays another hindrance to the LINUS program where teachers in the early literacy classrooms have limited understanding of how to implement it, which led to the non‐alignment between the pedagogical and assessment intentions and practice. The reason is that teachers have no way to decide what instruction to use in the early literacy classroom if they have limited understanding of the program objectives and purposes. Henceforth, the Ministry needs to put more effort into determining how LINUS 2.0 is implemented in schools. Once the teachers and schools have a clearer view on the ways to implement LINUS 2.0 in practice, the second criterion of validity in early literacy assessment might be fulfilled.

Reliability and LINUS 2.0

Reliability is also called generalizability across time, observers and so forth (Shavelson & Webb, 1991). In early literacy assessment, what is being generalized here is not the achievement of results by children but the interpretation that can be made from the results. Reliability in this sense is associated with generalizing a judgement over different judges, or over time or different circumstances (Johnston & Rogers, 2003). The idea of reliability is also about eliminating variables in an assessment in order to make interpretation of the assessment more consistent. However, this idea can only be applied to traditional assessment but not early literacy assessment which is a documentary assessment. In contrast, those variables that are said to influence the reliability in traditional assessment are considered useful in improving children’s literacy learning. Johnston and Rogers (2003) in their paper mentioned that “literacy is seen more contextualized than it is portrayed in traditional tests, some variability in performance is expected across contexts, and such variability is viewed not simply as an

39


www.moj‐es.net

indicator of assessment errors but as an expected source of legitimate variability in performance”. In other words, the variability occurring in early literacy assessment is not considered as “errors” but as “surprises” that will help children in their literacy learning. To explain further, the “surprises” found in interpreting the data from early literacy assessment will be used as tools in figuring out another better instruction to be used in teaching children. Reliability in early literacy assessment is not about whether or not an assessment will provide a consistent result, but whether the assessment can productively focus on our instruction (Johnston & Rogers, 2003).

LINUS was implemented in 2012 in Malaysia with a close to 100% performance for literacy and it did help the Ministry of Education to identify the problems faced by some weak students in their literacy learning. This was stated by Shamsuri Sujak, The Curriculum Development Division Deputy Director (Humanities) of the Ministry of Education in his interview with a local newspaper, Berita Harian (LINUS bantu kuasai asas literasi, numerasi, 2014). However, this does not mean that the program is reliable as in the same year (2014), the ministry amended the program to LINUS 2.0 and the result is yet to be known. LINUS 2.0 is a new literacy program introduced by the Ministry of Education Malaysia; hence its reliability still remains to be evaluated. Thus, it would be unfair for the writers to decide the reliability of LINUS 2.0 at the moment as it needs more time to show its efficacy, in order to be pronounced reliable.

To sum up, there is still some space for upgrading LINUS 2.0 implementation. In order to make this program valid in assessing early literacy, the Ministry of Education needs to do more research and obtain feedback from schools about the program execution. Knowing the ups and downs of the program would help to improve it and most importantly, to produce a new generation having learning ability in future. More time should be given to the program administration so that the Ministry will be able to gain more data or “surprises” that would help in discovering better instruction to be used in teaching literacy to Malaysian children. Consequently, in the following section, we compare the implementation approaches of LINUS 2.0 with a recognized early literacy program developed by UNESCO and its cooperative partners.

Early Literacy Project (ELP) and LINUS 2.0

In the previous section, we discussed some shortcomings in implementing LINUS 2.0 in Malaysia. In this section we recommend strategies to the Malaysian Ministry of Education in improving the LINUS 2.0 program; first we focus on the implementation approach used by ELP in conducting an established early literacy program. In India, the Organization for Early Literacy Promotion (OELP) has devised various strategies and methodologies in order to ensure the effective and sustainable implementation of the ELP. These include some key strategies:

(1) The establishment of functional partnerships with other developmental institutions and local communities.

(2) Production of culturally and contextually relevant teaching‐learning materials.

(3) Recruitment and training a cohort of community‐based master trainers or facilitators.

(4) Various teaching‐learning approaches being utilized in the teaching and learning process.

(5) Monitoring and Evaluation.

(UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning, Early Literacy Project, ©2009‐2014)

For the first strategy, LINUS 2.0 program was implemented after the Malaysian Education system had done numerous studies on early literacy programs. We believe that the Ministry has consulted experts in early literacy before implementing the program. As for the second strategy, the

40


www.moj‐es.net

teaching‐learning materials in LINUS 2.0 are constructed with relevance to students’ culture and context. The first two strategies are the basic strategies in implementing a program and the Malaysian Education Ministry have done these before LINUS was run in schools.

Our focus is actually on the third strategy applied by OELP, where they distribute a resource pack for teachers involved in ELP. The pack includes (i) a teacher’s teaching guide book; (ii) activity book; (iii) an evaluation book; (iv) CDs explaining teaching methods and giving suggestions for learning activities. This resource pack is very useful for teachers in order to help them to teach the students effectively and to ensure the teaching is aligned with the program purpose. The Malaysian Ministry of Education (MOE) can consider providing a resource pack to teachers in order to clear their current doubts in implementing LINUS 2.0. If providing resource pack to all LINUS teachers in Malaysia is too costly and demanding, the ministry can just provide a resource pack to the school and let the teachers share it. The OELP, as well, provides all the trainers who wanted to be involved in ELP teaching with induction and on‐going in‐service training and mentoring. This is one of the ways to ensure that teachers involved in the early literacy program are up to the requirements of being early literacy trainers or teachers. To apply this in Malaysia, instead of providing only one course or training to the LINUS 2.0 program teachers, the MOE might need to consider a yearly course or training in order to ensure the teachers are on the right track in the program. Besides, through the meeting of teachers and administrators in the training or course, the ministry will gain a lot of feedback on program successes and failures from those practically involved in it.

The main teaching approach being practiced in ELP is the Varna Samooha Approach, which is a structured, participatory and interactive child‐centered teaching‐learning methodology. Besides the traditional method of teaching‐learning approach being used in the LINUS classroom, teachers might consider using group discussions, games and role‐playing or simulations as well as question and answer sessions in the teaching‐learning process.

As the final step, a crucial approach implemented in ELP is the monitoring and evaluation process. It is important to evaluate a program in order to figure out its effectiveness. The OELP will meet the ELP facilitators or trainers monthly to monitor their progress. As for the LINUS 2.0 program, the ministry can assign a representative to each District Education Office whose responsibility is to monitor the teaching progress of the LINUS 2.0 program teachers. Moreover, the OELP has designed a standardized questionnaire (checklist) to ensure the effective assessment of the learning outcomes and thus the learners’ literacy skills. To apply this approach in the LINUS 2.0 program, the Ministry can ponder integration of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) into the LINUS 2.0 program.

Integrating Cefr Into LINUS 2.0

The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) plays the most fundamental role in language education and policy worldwide. It details in a comprehensive way what language learners have to learn to do in order to apply a language for communication. Moreover, it has a budding significance for language testers and examination boards in order to help define language proficiency levels and construe language qualifications. For many language testers, it has become crucial to ensure that their examinations are aligned with the CEFR and with that, the Council of Europe has made effort to assist this by providing a toolkit of resources.

CEFR assesses learners by using the CEF Global Scale, whereby a learner is classified according to six levels of mastery from A1 to C2 and consists of “can do” proclamations that are stated in terms of listening, speaking, reading and writing. According to the research report done by Duibhir and Cummins (2012), adapting CEFR in an early literacy program provides a suitable structure upon which a language learning pathway could be mapped. Learners could see how they build up their language skills and this “structure map” establishes a solid foundation for them in learning third or fourth

41


www.moj‐es.net

languages later on (Duibhir & Cummins, 2012). Similarly, the main objective of LINUS is to ensure that after pupils completed lower primary they are able to achieve the basic literacy and numeracy skills, which at the same time safeguards their learning progress in future. Besides, LINUS 2.0 has an addition of training English language literacy skill, which is a skill both LINUS 2.0 assessment and CEFR assessment share. Hence, integrating both assessments will allow test setters to assess students’ English language usage and literacy more effectively. Not only could the test setters assess the literacy among students, but the students could also be involved in the assessing process by doing self‐assessment using the CEF Global Scale.

However, in integrating CEFR into LINUS 2.0, we are going to use the first three levels only, which are A1, A2 and B1. This is because the learners in LINUS 2.0 are developing literacy skills in using English language and they might progress at quite a slow pace. The DIALANG scales will be used when deciding the learners’ levels where they provide learners with diagnostic information about their proficiency. DIALANG scales not only provide learners with their level of language of proficiency but also provide feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of their proficiency. With this feedback, learners will know how to improve their language skills; in other words, this scale is not about the ranking of level but it is about giving awareness to learners in improving their language proficiency. From another point of view, this characteristic of DIALANG scales has fulfilled one of the validity criteria in an early literacy assessment – where it should provide improvement in learners’ literacy learning. Readers can look up the CEF Global Scales and DIALANG Scales on the internet for a more detailed view on the levels classifications and feedback.

Now, the question is: when to use CEF Global Scales and DIALANG Scales in the LINUS 2.0 English literacy program? In the third section, we have proposed an evaluation questionnaire as what OELP has applied in their early literacy program. Henceforth, the CEF Global Scales, focusing on three beginning levels (A1, A2 and B1) is used as a questionnaire before the learners attempt the English language literacy instrument provided by the Malaysian Ministry of Education. Do bear in mind that this scale is done by learners themselves but with the facilitation by teachers. Learners will do self‐assessment using CEF Global Scales (the first three levels only) before attempting the LINUS 2.0 English instrument to determine their level. Once the learners’ proficiency levels are confirmed, teachers can diagnose the learners’ strengths and weaknesses by referring to the feedback given in the DIALANG Scales according to levels and skills. With the information gained from the CEF and DIALANG Scales, teachers could provide a better instruction to be used in improving learners’ literacy learning; at the same time, this will enhance the reliability of the LINUS 2.0 program. Adapting both CEF and DIALANG scales into LINUS 2.0 program will help teachers as well as the Ministry of Education to improve the classroom instruction in English language literacy for Malaysian children.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

The development of early reading skills is extremely important in the area of literacy. Early literacy skills have a clear and consistently strong relationship with later conventional literacy skills, such as decoding, oral reading, fluency, reading comprehension, writing and spelling (National Institute for Literacy, n.d.). Having a good foundation in literacy skills will benefit children’s learning progress and will provide them with a better future. More and more studies and programs are being conducted worldwide to raise awareness of early literacy skills development. Henceforth, sound planning and strategies need to be considered while implementing early literacy assessment as the results of assessment are useful to be adopted in helping children’s early literacy learning and providing vital information for educators in using the most effective instruction in the early literacy classroom. LINUS 2.0 is a vigorous program and it would bring significant results if executed as expected. More research should be conducted to provide valuable suggestions to improve the quality of the LINUS 2.0 early literacy program in Malaysia.

42


www.moj‐es.net

REFERENCES

Action to be taken against school for barring trio from exam. (2014, October 30). Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com.my/story/?sec=nation&file=%2F2011%2F9%2F21%2Fnation%2F9538733

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR). (2014, October 14). Council of Europe. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/cadre1_en.asp

Duibhir, P. O., & Cummins, J. (2012). Towards and integrated language curriculum in early childhood and primary education (3‐12 years): Commissioned research report. Dublin: NCCA 2012

Johnston, P. H. (1992). Constructive evaluation of literate activity. New York, NY: Longman.

Johnston, P. H., & Rogers, R. (2003). Early literacy development: The case for “informed assessment’. In Susan B. Neuman & David K. Dickinson, Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 1, pp. 377‐389). New York, NY: 2002 The Guilford Press.

LINUS bantu kuasai asas literasi, numerasi (2014). Retrieved from http://www2.bharian.com.my/bharian/articles/LINUSbantukuasaiasasliterasi_numerasi/Article/index_html

Lonigan C. J., Allan N. P., & Lerner M. D. (2011, May 1). Assessment of preschool early literacy skills: Linking children’s educational needs with empirically supported instructional activities. Psychology in the Schools, 48(5), 488‐501.

Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validity of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741‐749.

National Institute for Literacy. (n.d.). Early beginnings: Early literacy knowledge and instruction. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPEarlyBeginnings09.pdf

Samad, A. A. (2010). Essentials of language testing for Malaysian teachers (Revised Ed.).Serdang: Universiti Putra Malaysia Press.

Sani, N., & Idris, A. R. (2013). Implementation of Linus programme based on the model of Van Meter and Van Horn. The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Science, 1(2), 25‐35.

Swaran Singh, C. K., & Abdul Samad, A. (2013). The use of portfolio as an assessment tool in the Malaysia L2 classroom. International Journal of English Language Education, 1(1), 94‐108. Retrieved from http://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/ijele/article/view/2851/2367

Shavelson, R. J., & Webb, N. M. (1991). Generalizability theory: A primer. London, UK: Sage.

43


www.moj‐es.net

Special Module for National Service Trainees: Malaysia. (2014, October 30). Retrieved from http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne+News/Malaysia/Story/A1Story20110912‐299006.html

UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (2009‐2014). (2014, Nov 6) Early Literacy Project. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/uil/litbase/?menu=4&letter=E&programme=139

44


www.moj‐es.net

The Awareness of Morphemic Knowledge for Young Adults’ Vocabulary Learning

Chandrakala Varatharajoo [1], Adelina Binti Asmawi, [2], Nabeel Abdallah Mohammad Abedalaziz [3]

[1] [email protected] Faculty of Education, University of Malaya, MALAYSIA

ABSTRACT

The study explored the awareness of morphemic knowledge among young adult learners in the ESL context. Morphological Relatedness Test and Morphological Structure Test (adapted from Curinga, 2014) were two important tools used to assess the students’ morphemic knowledge in this study. The tests measured the students’ ability to reflect and manipulate morphologically complex derived words in English. Paired sample t‐test was utilized to report the results of this quantitative study. The results demonstrated that young adult learners have modest ability in both tasks i.e. to reflect and manipulate morphologically complex derived words. In fact, students’ performance was poorer in manipulation task compared to the reflective task. The study suggests that explicit instruction on morphology units can be introduced as a strategy to develop morphemic knowledge among Malaysian young adult learners. The study further proposes that young adult learners can expand their vocabulary by analyzing the meaningful parts within words through morphological knowledge.

Keywords: Morphology, knowledge, awareness, secondary school students, vocabulary

INTRODUCTION

Vocabulary acquisition plays a crucial role in language learning, whether in the second or foreign language context. According to Koosha and Salimian (2010), there is a consensus among vocabulary experts that lexical competence is at the center of communicative competence. Asgari and Mustapha (2011), Gu (2003), Letchumanan and Tan (2011) as well as Kitchakarn and Choocheepwattana (2012) demonstrate that vocabulary plays a key role in learning a language especially English language. Kitchakarn and Choocheepwattana (2012) and Letchumanan and Tan (2011) explain that when learners are lack of vocabulary, not only their language development but also their communication will be affected.

Their research shows that strong relationship exists between vocabulary and students’ ability to construct meaning because without vocabulary students cannot string words together to form sentences. Xu (2010) argues that students with inadequate vocabulary need a vocabulary learning strategy in order to read and write successfully because they face a lot of difficulties to understand complex words and concepts as they progress from primary to secondary; and secondary to tertiary education. This finding is further supported by Asgari and Mustapha (2011) that students in the ESL context should be educated with explicit word learning strategies which are necessary for their vocabulary development.

45


www.moj‐es.net

Jalaludin et al. (2008), Kaweera (2013) and Chen et al. (2008) argue that one of the reasons for the lack of vocabulary among ESL learners is because they have poor understanding in the linguistic aspect especially in morphology. Jalaludin et al. (2008) and Akande (2005) and found that ESL learners make word‐level errors because they misused and overgeneralized affixes when adding to the root words in the English language. These errors indicate ESL learners have yet to comprehend the meaning of a complex word and /or form a complex word due to their incompetence in morphology knowledge.

Previous research show that for learners to be adept in the language they must acquire three main linguistic aspects: the morphological level (morpheme), the lexical level (word order) and the syntactic level (sentence structure) (Kaweera, 2013). However, this study has focused on the morphological level because it is the basic but important element to build words (Akande, 2005). Koosha and Salimian (2010) further stress that learners rely more on vocabulary meaning than on knowledge of the syntax to understand a text.

Rationale of the Study

According to Koosha and Salimian (2010), learners become disappointed when a text they attempt to read has many new and complex words, but if the vocabulary of the text is more familiar, they are more likely to continue with the reading task. This means vocabulary size is important to learners before they can approach a text comfortably.

Students can understand a large number of complex words if they are able to decode them into smaller morphemic units (Ferguson, 2006). Kieffer and Lesaux (2007) suggest that if learners have morphological knowledge that is the knowledge of root words and affixes they can make predictions about word meanings. They recommend morphemic knowledge as a powerful word‐learning tool for learners’ vocabulary development because they can decode meaning from part of words.

As Fox (2010) notes, complex words are widely used at secondary and tertiary level; and when words become lengthy students need to look beyond letter‐sound awareness to identify the meaningful units in complex words. Carlisle and Stone (2005) mention that when learners know about the parts of words they are able to derive the meanings or build new words. They are able to examine and analyze morphemes when they encounter complex words to come up with the meaning of the word. Similarly, Wang et al. (2009) claim that when learners know morphemes (prefixes, suffixes and base words); it is possible for learners to infer word meaning.

Research Problem

Ferguson (2006) shows that comprehension of complex words is a main problem among struggling young adult learners in secondary schools because these students lack the ability to analyze morphology or word parts to decode the word meanings.

Morphology is the study of the smallest meaningful units of language and of their formation into words. It includes inflected, derived, and compound words (Lam, 2011). However, this study solely focused on morphologically complex derived words. Feldman (1993) argues that learners are less competent in derivatives than inflections and compound words because of the large number of derivational affixes.

46


www.moj‐es.net

Carlisle and Fleming (2003) mention that there are a large number of derivational affixes in English:

adjective‐to‐noun: ‐ness (slow → slowness);

adjective‐to‐verb: ‐ise (modern → modernise);

adjective‐to‐adjective: ‐ish (red → reddish);

adjective‐to‐adverb: ‐ly (personal → personally);

noun‐to‐adjective: ‐al (recreation → recreational)

noun‐to‐verb: ‐fy (glory → glorify);

verb‐to‐adjective: ‐able (drink → drinkable);

verb‐to‐noun (abstract): ‐ance (deliver → deliverance);

verb‐to‐noun (agent): ‐er (write → writer)

Carlisle and Fleming (2003) also assert that the understanding of derivational morphemes emerges later and continues to develop over a longer period of time, with the more advanced derivational awareness possibly not fully developed until early adulthood It is because of the large number of derivational affixes in English and the nature of derivational process as well (Zhang & Koda, 2013). Specifically, derived forms often involve phonological or/and orthographic changes (e.g., decide and decision), and adding a derivational affix to a base word usually leads to change of the meaning, and sometimes the grammatical category, of the base form. In addition, derivation is also constrained by the grammatical category of a base word (Zhang & Koda, 2013).

Carlisle and Fleming (2003) showed, young adult learners’ knowledge derivational morpheme is largely limited to phonetically transparent and common forms (e.g., teach – teacher, quiet ‐ quietly). However, learners take time to understand derived words that are less transparent or that contain less familiar suffixes (e.g., long ‐ length). Additionally, Lam (2011) stressed that the acquisition of derivational morphemes are not fully mastered even tertiary students in the ESL context.

Jalaludin et al. (2008), Muhamad et al. (2013) as well as Rizan et al. (2012) agree that Malaysian students generally make morphology‐related errors (affixes) especially in derivations: noun and adjective. According to them, prefixes and suffixes represent more than half of the total grammar mistakes in vocabulary committed by the students. Their findings also demonstrated that low and high proficiency learners make errors in derivatives; and low proficiency learners make more errors than the high proficiency learners.

Akande (2005) and Hamdi (2012) realized that such errors are a result of their under‐developed linguistic awareness and their limited knowledge of derivational morphemic rules. Kaweera (2013) on the other hand, argues that it would be an ongoing concern among researchers if this problem is not dealt with care.

This paper therefore investigated the young adult learners in ESL context on morphologically complex derived words to further confirm the previous findings; and also to seek remedy for the problem by suggesting an explicit morphemic analysis instructional strategy to develop learners’ vocabulary. As Edwards, Font, Baumann and Boland (2004) assert, morphological knowledge is important because students are able to decode morphologically complex words and also form new words.

47


www.moj‐es.net

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to investigate young adult learners’ knowledge in morphologically complex derived words. The students’ performance is assessed based on their morphology knowledge to reflect and manipulate morphologically complex derived words in English in two tests namely, Morphological Relatedness Test and Morphological Structure Test.

Two research questions are formed in order to achieve the objective of the study:

1. Is there any significant difference between the young adult learners’ performance on Morphological Relatedness Test and Morphological Structure Test?

2. Is there a significant performance of the young adult learners on the reflective aspect than the manipulation aspect?

Based on the research questions two hypotheses are formed:

H1: There is a significant difference between the young adult learners’ performance on Morphological Relatedness Test and Morphological Structure Test.

H1: ESL young adult learners’ performance on reflective aspect is significantly higher than the manipulation aspect.

Significance of the Study

The study contributes to the existing literature that morphological knowledge particularly derivational morphology can be a tool to increase learners’ vocabulary size. The study can be of great importance for English teachers, scholars, syllabus designers and textbooks developers so that they are convinced to pay more attention to the use of morphological knowledge in language teaching to help learners to learn as many words as possible.

Literature Review

Morphological knowledge

Carlisle and Stone (2003) assert that morphological knowledge is important for students to understand the meaning from words. Carlisle (1995) defines morphological knowledge as learners’ understanding of the structure of words morphologically and their ability to reflect on and manipulate that structure. Baumann, Edwards, Font, Tereshinski, Kame’enui, and Olejnik (2002) refer it as unlocking a word’s meaning by examining its morphemes.

Mountain (2011) and Antonacci and O’Callaghan (2011) claim that morphological knowledge help students to examine the morphologically complex word for its meaningful parts to discover the word’s meaning. With this knowledge, students are able to deconstruct and construct meaning from the morphemes within the word itself apart from depending from contextual clues and dictionary for meanings.

Morphemic units

A morpheme is the smallest unit of meaning. Derivational morphemes change a word’s part of speech. Derivational processes depend on affixation and affixes are grammatical. They have complementary functions and are interdependent (Saif, 2011).

48


www.moj‐es.net

Derivatives

Derivative is a process where new words are formed through the mechanics of affixation to an existing root word. It is one of the methods in word formation, for example, the root person is exploited to produce personal, personalization, etc (Saif, 2011). There are a large numbers of derivatives in English (im‐,un‐, ‐able, ‐er, etc) as they are inclusive of prefixes and suffixes.

Carlisle and Fleming (2003) mention that derivational knowledge emerges later and continues to develop over a longer period of time, with the more advanced derivational awareness not fully developed until adulthood. This is because of the large number of derivational affixes in English and the nature of derivational process (Zhang & Koda, 2013). They argue that derived forms involve phonological or/and orthographic changes (e.g., decide and decision), and when a derivational affix is added to a base word it leads to a change in the word‐meaning. In addition, derivation is also constrained by the grammatical category of a base word.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework of this study is based on morphemic analysis strategy. According to Wang et al. (2009), affixes and base words carry meaning, which in turn supports the understanding of a morphologically complex word. Therefore, knowing the meaning of these morphemes makes it possible for learners to infer a complex word meaning. Likewise, McBride‐Chang (2005) defined morphological knowledge as the “knowledge of and access to the meaning and structure of morphemes in relation to word” (p. 417). As Anglin (1993) mention, words are made of morphemes and morphemes are the minimal meaningful linguistic units. They would be also able to learn morphemes by disassembling complex words into meaningful parts. In addition, morphological knowledge can also enable them to learn the meanings of affixes, and base words or to reassemble the meaningful parts to form new meanings. The practice of this reflecting and manipulating is called morphological analysis or knowledge. And according to Baumann et al. (2002), morphemic analysis strategy is a tool that can develop students’ vocabulary.

Morphological knowledge and vocabulary development

Various studies have demonstrated the relationship between vocabulary and morphological knowledge. Biemiller and Boote (2006) consider it as important to promote vocabulary among learners. Kieffer and Lesaux (2007) advocate that as students in secondary and tertiary education read more complex texts; thus it is necessary to provide students with a cognitive strategy to learn new and complex words from the texts. Baumann et al. in 2002 and 2003 showed that the teaching of affixes and base words as word‐part clues increased students’ vocabulary and text comprehension. This view is further supported by Gomez (2009) who found that morphemic awareness contributed to word reading, reading comprehension and vocabulary; and she strongly suggests that the ability to perform morphemic analysis is important for students learning English.

METHODOLOGY

Participants

75 Malaysian mixed‐ability young adult learners from a secondary school, from two intact groups participated in this quasi‐experimental study. As Fraenkel and Wallen (2009) recommend a minimum of 30 individuals for experimental studies, the number of samples was deemed appropriate for the current study.

The researcher selected an intact group that was homogeneous in terms of age (17 years old), and gender (female) so that the effect of confounding variables could be minimized. The participants

49


www.moj‐es.net

were also particularly chosen because they have acquired basic reading skills; their secondary school texts are dense with morphologically complex words (Ebbers, 2008); low and high proficiency learners can use morphological knowledge to decode word meanings (Carlisle & Stone, 2005); Ferguson, 2006 and Singson et al., 2000).

Instrumentation

Morphological Relatedness Test and Morphological Structure Test adapted from Curinga (2014) were employed to measure the students’ ability to reflect and manipulate morphologically complex derived words in English. The test was used as it is consistent and reliable and also the results are easy to score and interpret (Alsalamah, 2011). However, the researcher adapted the test items to make it more suitable for the participants’ age and proficiency level in this study.

Time limit was not set for the tests and the participants answered the questions on their own pace. According to Alsalamah (2011), this is important to minimize participants’ fatigue and anxiety.

Morphological Relatedness Test

The Morphological Relatedness Test was administered to determine participants’ ability to reflect on similar meaning of the given words (e.g. A: happy happiness YES NO; B: bus business YES NO). According to Curinga (2014), the test is important because it can measure their reflective ability. There twenty items of derivational suffixes. Participants were asked circle YES if the second word means the same thing or almost the same thing as the first word; NO if you the second word does not have a similar meaning to the first word.

Morphological Structure Test

The Morphological Structure Test was used to measure the participants’ ability to manipulate derivational morpheme to create new meanings. The test is important because it can measure their manipulation ability (Curinga, 2014). Participants were asked to change the word that best matches the sentence (e.g., Help. My sister is very helpful.). The 20 items tested were derivational suffixes.

Reliability

To ascertain the reliability of the test, the Cronbach alpha (SPSS version 21) reliability indices were calculated for the Morphological Relatedness Test and Morphological Structure Test used in this study. The alpha indices for the tests ranged from 0.71 to 0.79, indicating high reliability (Table 1).

Table 1 Cronbach’s Alpha of Morphemic Sensitivity Test (n=75)

Instrument No of Items Alpha

Morphological Relatedness Test 20 0.71

Morphological Structure Test 20 0.79

The instruments were considered to have a high reliability standard and are good for classroom tests because the coefficient alpha is above 0.70 (Sekaran & Bougie, 2010).

50


www.moj‐es.net

Procedure

To achieve the objective of the study, a few procedures were followed. Firstly, two intact groups that suited the purpose of the study were chosen as to control the possibilities of confounding variables. The participants were informed about the purpose of the study; and they were assured of the confidentiality of their identity and findings prior to the commencing of the tests. They were assured that their involvement in the study would not affect their school grades. After the participants’ consent was obtained, both tests were administered. It was a paper and pencil test and held in a predetermined location.

Data Analysis

Statistical analysis Paired sample t‐test (SPSS version 21) was employed to find any significant performance of the participants in Morphological Relatedness Test and Morphological Structure Test.

RESULTS

The results revealed that there was no significant performance of the participants in both tests (t (17) = 0.3566, p<.05) as shown in Table 2.

Table 2

Descriptive statistics and paired sample t‐test results

Variable N Mean SD T Df Sig

Morphological Relatedness Test 75 19.57 1.28

0.356 17 p<.05

Morphological Structure Test 75 17.91 1.63

p<.05

It was also found that ESL young adult learners’ performance on reflective aspect (19.57) was not significantly higher than manipulative aspect (17.91).

DISCUSSION

The current study demonstrated that the young adult learners’ morphological knowledge was at modest level and was at a minimal significant. The participants were not able to reflect and manipulate proficiently. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis claiming a significant difference between the performances of the participants in Morphological Relatedness Test and Morphological Structure Test was rejected. The second hypothesis was also rejected as proficiency students’ performance on reflective aspect was not significantly higher than the manipulative aspect. In addition, the students performed poorly on the Morphological Structure Test than Morphological Relatedness Test. This implies that they are not familiar with most of the common suffixes used in the English lexicon. In fact, the findings of the present study showed that Malaysian young adult learners at secondary level have severe problems with this aspect of morphological knowledge namely knowledge of derivational suffixes and it poses the greatest challenge to them.

These findings were in line with Curinga (2014) claim that learners were not able to discriminate reflective ability from manipulative ability because of the lack of knowledge on transparent and opaque derivations; and this became as a hindrance in recognizing word parts. These findings were also concurrent with other studies which found that derivational morphology generally presents the

51


www.moj‐es.net

biggest challenge in contrast to inflectional morphology (Koosha & Salimian, 2010). This illuminates the importance of teaching, and learning morphology in Malaysian classrooms. Also, they should be taught how to apply the meaning of the affix to a root or base in order to help them to become explicitly aware of the structure of words. This can aid them understand the internal structure of the new words that they are required to read and write (Koosha & Salimian, 2010).

The finding of this study can be seen from many sides. First and foremost, it was carried out without any morphemic analysis strategy instruction prior to the assessment. Second, the tests may not be well modified to suit the participants of this study. Third, confounding variables might have affected the results of this study. However, the findings of this current study should be claimed as conclusive as it was only a small scale study. Thus, the results of this study cannot be generalized.

The finding implies that it would be more difficult to apply morphemic structure of the words to construct new words because of students’ poor understanding in derivational knowledge. Hence, according to the findings of the present study the morphological knowledge of Malaysian young adult learners is relatively low and the researcher thinks that something should be done to fill this gap.

Recommendations For Further Study

The researcher recommends this study to be executed or replicated after a morphemic analysis strategy instructional programme is established. As Al Farsi (2008) advocates, it can emphasize the importance of morphemic analysis awareness as a linguistic tool for English language success.

Additionally, according to Tatabei (2011), test items should be well developed to make them more appropriate for ESL young adults learners so that a constructive result can be achieved in future.

CONCLUSION

The present study aimed to investigate the awareness of morphemic knowledge among Malaysian young adult learners in the ESL context. To answer this, Morphological Relatedness Test and Morphological Structure Test were employed to assess their knowledge on morphologically complex derived words. After comparing the results of the Morphological Relatedness Test and Morphological Structure Test, the researcher came to a conclusion that young adult learners in this study were not able to reflect and manipulate morphologically complex derived words.

Thus, the final suggestion for future research would be to test morphologically complex derived words with participants from different age groups, proficiencies and language backgrounds. Results from this study will help us better understand the complexities of morphology especially derivatives and how they contribute to vocabulary development in ESL context.

REFERENCE

Al Farsi, B. (2008). Morphological awareness and its relationship to vocabulary knowledge and morphological complexity among Omani EFL University students. Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia

Akande, A.T. (2005). Morphological errors in the English usage of some Nigerian learners: Causes and remedies. http://morphonbankofpapers.w.interia.pl/Akande3Aug05.pdf

52


www.moj‐es.net

Alsalamah, N.S (2011). The Relationship between Morphological Awareness and English Vocabulary Acquisition of Saudi Female Students at King Saud University. Unpublished masters thesis in The University of Winconsin‐Whitewater. Retrieved from: http://minds.wisconsin.edu/handle/1793/61500

Anglin, J. M. (1993). Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis. Monographs of the Society of Research in Child Development, 58 (10; 238).

Antonacci, P.A. & O’Callaghan, C.M. (2011). Promoting Literacy Development: 50 Research‐Based Strategies for K‐8 Learners. http://books.google.com.my/books?id=T6_1b4mFcsC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=When+teachers+employ+morphemic+analysis,+they+help+students+see+more+than+just+the+parts+of+words

Arnoff, M., & Fudeman, K. (2005). What is morphology? (3‐ 21). Malden: Blackwell.

Asgari, A & Mustapha, G. (2011). The type of vocabulary learning strategies Used by ESL students in University Putra Malaysia. English Language Teaching 4 (2). ISSN 1916‐4742 E‐ISSN 1916‐4750. www.ccsenet.org/elt

Baumann, J. F., & Kame’enui, E. J. (Eds.). (2004). Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice. New York: Guilford.

Baumann, J.F., Edwards, E.C., Boland, E., Olejnik, S., & Kame'enui, E.J. (2003). Vocabulary tricks: Effects of instruction in morphology and context on fifth‐grade students’ ability to derive and infer word meaning. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 447‐494.

Baumann, J.F., Edwards, E.C., Boland, E.M., Olejnik, S.F. & Kame’enui, E.J. (2002). Vocabulary tricks: Effects of instruction in morphology and context on fifth‐grade students’ ability to derive and infer word meanings. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3699395

Carlisle, J. F. (1995). Morphological awareness and early reading achievement. In L. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp.131‐154). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Carlisle, J. F., & Fleming, J. (2003). Lexical processing of morphologically complex words in the elementary years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7(3), 239‐253.

Carlisle, J. F., & Stone, C.A. (2005). Exploring the role of morphemes in word reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(4), 428‐449.

Chen, X., Hao, M., Geva, E., Zhu, J., & Shu, H. (2008). The role of compound awareness in Chinese children’s vocabulary acquisition and character reading. Springer Science+Business.doi:10.1007/s11145‐008‐9127‐9. http://psychbrain.bnu.edu.cn/teachcms/res_base/teachcms/upload/channel/file/2010_4/12_23/pi4ugi1jput3.pdf

53


www.moj‐es.net

Curinga, R. (2014). The Effect Of Morphological Awareness On Reading Comprehension: A Study With Adolescent Spanish‐English Emergent Bilinguals. http://works.gc.cuny.edu/etd/30/

Ebbers, S.M. (2008). Morphological word families in narrative and informational text. In Y. Kim, V.J. Risko, D. L. Compton, D.K. Dickinson, M. K. Hundley, R. T. Jimenez, et al. (Eds.), 57th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, 203‐2. Oak Creek, WI: NRC. Feldman, L.B. (1993). Beyond Orthography and Phonology: Differences between Inflections and Derivations. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research, 69‐97. http://www.haskins.yale.edu/sr/sr115/sr115_06.pdf

Ferguson, L. (2006). The effects of explicit teaching of morphemic analysis on vocabulary learning and comprehension and its transfer effects to novel words. http://soar.wichita.edu/bitstream/handle/10057/277/t06054.pdf?sequence=3

Fraenkel, J.R & Wallen, N (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw. Hill International Ed. 7th ed.

Gómez, R. E. (2009). The role of morphological awareness in bilingual children’s First and Second Language Vocabulary and Reading. Unpublished PHD Thesis, The UniversityofToronto,Canada.Retrievedfrom: https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/180/19160/6/Ramirez_Gomez_Gloria_E_200911_PhD_thesis.pdf

Gu, P. Y. (2003). Vocabulary learning in a second language: Person, task, context and strategies. TESL‐EJ. 7 (2). http://tesl‐ej.org/ej26/a4.html

Jalaluddin, N.H, Mat Awal, N. & Abu Bakar, K. (2008). The mastery of English language among lower secondary school students in Malaysia: A Linguistic analysis. European Journal of Social Sciences. 7(2).

Kaweera, C. (2013). Writing error: A Review of interlingual and intralingual interference in EFL context. English Language Teaching, 6 (7). ISSN 1916‐4742 E‐ISSN 1916‐4750.CanadianCenterofScienceandEducation. http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/viewFile/27999/16887

Khodadoust, E., Aliasin, S.H., & Khosravi, R. (2013). The Relationship between Morphological Awareness and Receptive Vocabulary Knowledge of Iranian EFL Learners. IJERT: 4 (1). 60 – 67. http://www.soeagra.com/ijert/ijertmarch2013/10.pdf

Kieffer, M.J. & Lesaux, N.K. (2007). Breaking words down to build meaning: Vocabulary, morphology, and reading comprehension in the urban classroom. The Reading Teacher, 61, 134‐144.

Kitchakarn, O., & Choocheepwattana, M. (2012). Explicit teaching of vocabulary: It’s still needed. http://www.bu.ac.th/knowledgecenter/executive_journal/april_june_12/pdf/aw021.pdf

54


www.moj‐es.net

Koosha,M. & Salimian, M. (2010). The possible relationship between English morphological knowledge as a powerful vocabulary learning strategy and English vocabulary knowledge of Iranian pre‐university students. http://journals.khuisf.ac.ir/jsr‐e/files/site1/user_files_526e15/badrishahtalebi‐A‐10‐5‐15‐d207d08.pdf

Letchumanan, K. & Tan Bee Hoon. (2011). Using Computer Games to Improve Secondary School Students’ Vocabulary Acquisition in English. Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 20 (4): 1005 ‐ 1018 (2012) ISSN: 0128‐7702 © Universiti Putra Malaysia Press. http://www.pertanika.upm.edu.my/

McBride–Chang, C., Wagner, R. K., Muse, A., W. Y. B., & Chow, H. S. (2005). The role of morphological awareness in children's vocabulary acquisition in England. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 415‐435.

Muhamad, A.J., Ahamad Shah, M.I., Engku Ibrahim, E.H., Sarudin, S., Abdul Malik, F. & Abdul Ghani, R. (2013). World Applied Oral Presentation Errors of Malaysian Students in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) Course. Sciences Journal: 19‐27. http://idosi.org/wasj/wasj21(SLTL)13/3.pdf

Rizan, T.N., Mohd Maasum, T.M., Stapa, S.H., Omar, N., Ab Aziz, M.J., & Darus, S. (2012). Development Of an automated tool for detecting errors in tenses. GEMA Online™ Journal of Language Studies, 427, 12(2), http://www.ukm.my/ppbl/Gema/GEMA%20vol%2012%20(2)%20Special%20section%20%202012/pp%20427_441.pdf

Saif, A.G.A. (2011). The importance of the processes of word‐formation in the acquisition of English as a foreign language: a case study of Yemeni tertiary students of English. http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/3271/7/07_abstract.pdf

Sekaran, U. & Bougie, R. (2010). Research methods for business: A skill building approach (5th ed.). Chichester: John Willey & Sons Ltd.

Singson, M., Mahony, D., & Mann, V. (2000). The relation between reading ability and morphological skills: evidence from derivational suffixes. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 219‐ 252.

Tatabei, O. (2011).The Relationship between Morphological Awareness and Vocabulary Size of EFL Learners. V. 4 (4). http://www.ccsenet.org/elt

Wang, M., Ko, I.Y., & Choi, J. (2009).The importance of morphological awareness in Korean–English biliteracy acquisition. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 34, 132–142. http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~ehussey/WangKoChoi2009.pdf

White, T. G., Power, M. A., & White, S. (1989). Morphological analysis: Implications for teaching and understanding vocabulary growth. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(3), 283–304.

White, T.G., Sowell, J., & Yanagihara, A. (1989). Teaching elementary students to use word part clues. The Reading Teacher, 42, 302‐308

55


www.moj‐es.net

Windsor, J., Scott, C.M., & Street, C.K. (2000). Verb and noun morphology in the spoken and written language of children with language learning disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43(6), 1322‐1336.

Wysocki, K., & Jenkins, J. R. (1987). Deriving word meanings through morphological generalization. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(1), 66‐81.

Xu, S.H. (2010). Teaching English Language Learners: Literacy Strategies and Resources for K‐6. Guilford Press, NY.

Zhang, D., & Koda, K. (2013). Morphological awareness and reading comprehension in a foreign language: A study of young Chinese EFL learners. Science Direct System,41,901‐913. https://www.academia.edu/4705477/Morphological_awareness_and_reading_comprehension_in_a_second_language_A_study_of_Chinese_learners_of_English_as_a_Foreign_Language

56

volume 03 - issue 02 april 2015

Documents