Using Iconicity in Two-Tier Grammar Test for Adult Learners: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53416/electrum.v2i2.84Keywords:
iconicity, two-tier test, grammar test, adult learners, cognitive linguistics approachAbstract
Learning a foreign language is quite challenging, especially for adults (mothers) at Tambak Lorok Semarang. Their mental space about how to arrange sentences in English cannot be separated from how they arrange sentences in Bahasa Indonesia. Thus, a test is designed in order to facilitate the learners' understanding of the concept of arranging sentences in English well. The aims of this study are to investigate how the learners arrange sentences from Bahasa Indonesia to English and what their basic pattern is for the formation of the sentences. The second is to present an appropriate test for them to measure their understanding in terms of arranging sentences in the target language. Since the test has not been tested yet, the writer used 3 steps of the Research and Design Method by Borg and Gall (2003): Research and Information Collecting, Planning, and Developing a Preliminary Form of Product. There were ten questions in the two-tier grammar test. The writer used descriptive analysis to explain the result. The result shows that the learners arrange the sentences based on Bahasa Indonesia's rules. For the test, the questions on the first-tier use icons or pictures related to the optional answer. The second tier contains the reason why they chose the first tier.
References
Arikunto. (2010). Prosedur penelitian: Suatu pendekatan praktek. Rineka Cipta.
Atzori, L., Antoniolera., & Morabito, G. (2017). Understanding the internet of things: Definition, potentials, and societal role of a fast-evolving paradigm. Ad Hoc Network: 56 (1), 122-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adhoc.2016.12.004
Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., Sorensen, C., & Razafieh, A. (2010) Introduction to research in education (8th ed). Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Borg, W. R., Gall, J. P., & Gall, M. D. (2003) Educational research: An introduction. Long Man.
Brown, D. (2004) Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. Pearson Education.
Coulson, S. & Oakley, T. (2000). Blending basic. Journal Cognitive Linguistics, 11 (4), 175-196. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2001.014
Michaelis, L. A. (2006). Construction grammar. Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, 73–84.
Mutlu, A., & Sesen, B. A. (2015). Development of a two-tier diagnostic test to assess undergraduates’ understanding of some chemistry concepts. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 629–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.593
Poolsawad, K., Kanjanawasee, S., & Wudthayagorn, J. (2015) Development of an english communicative competence diagnostic approach. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 759–763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.462
Trillo, J.R., Lann, E. (2011). Do you misunderstand what I mean? Pragmatic strategies to avoid cognitive maladjustment. Journal of English Studies 9, 223-241. https://doi.org/ 10.18172/JES.173
Ungerer, F. & Schmid, H. (2006) An introduction to cognitive linguistics. Pearson Education Limited.
Yankovskaya, A., Dementyev, Y., & Yamshanov, A. (2015). Application of learning and testing intelligent system with cognitive component based on mixed diagnostics tests. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 206, 254–261. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.10.019
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Kartika Eva Rahmawati
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
