Vol. 16, Issue 1, Jul-Dec 2023

Page: 44-54

Microstrategies for Minimizing Perceptual Mismatches and Developing Teacher Awareness

Nawar Alaa Abdul Hussain, Prof. Dr. Fatima Raheem

Received Date: 2024-05-29

Accepted Date: 2024-08-20

Published Date: 2024-08-23

Miscommunication or being misconstrued is considered to be among one of the common phenomena of English language classrooms. This miscommunication can increase in cases where a second or third language speaker is. In most cases, the learners do not see the classroom activities as learning activities rather. Consequently, mismatches happen between the way teachers perceive and the way students perceive the aims of the lessons. Such mismatches will cause a gap between the input of the teacher and the way learner intake. Consequently, the outcome will not be as expected. Therefore, the goal of the study is to determine the effectiveness of using Microstrategies for minimizing the perceptual mismatching and developing teacher's awareness. In order to achieve the goals of the study, a questionnaire from B. Kumaravadivelus book entitled Beyond Methods: Macro strategies for Language Teaching is used. According to this book, there are ten sources that could cause the mismatches between the teacher and learners and they include : Cognitive mismatch, Communicative mismatch, Linguistic mismatch, Pedagogic mismatch, Strategic mismatch, Cultural mismatch, Evaluative mismatch, Procedural mismatch, Instructional mismatch and Attitudinal mismatch. In this study, the survey questionnaire uses on the aims and activities of different classes. It is a common questionnaire for teachers and learners. The questionnaire concerns with the strategies suggested by Kumaravadivelu (2006) at micro level. All students at Gifted School participate in the survey. The survey consist of two parts, the first part is for teachers and the second for students. The quantitative data use in the research, it Collects by the researchers, then analyzes using the statistical software SPSS. The results of the study revealed that it is possible to apply a number of microstrategies to minimize the mismatching between students and teachers, and consequently increases the learning outcomes of students.

Back Download PDF

References

• Barkhuizhen, G. P. (1998). “Discovering learners’ perceptions of ESL classroom teaching/learning activities in a South African context”. TESOL quarterly, 32 (1), 85- 108.
• Birjandi, P. &Hashamdar, M. (2014). Micro-strategies of Post method Language Teaching Developed for Iranian EFL Context. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(9), 1875-1880.
• Kumaravadivelu, B. (1991). Language learning tasks: Teacher intention and learner interpretation. ELT Journal 45:2:98–107.
• Büyükyazi, M., & Solhi Andarab, M. (2013). Mismatches between teacher intention and learner interpretation; Significance of non-native speaker teacher of English. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(4).
• Kumaravadivelu, B. (1991). “Language learning tasks: Teacher intention and learner interpretation”. ELT Journal 45(2), 98-107.
• Kumaravadivelu, B. (1991). “Language learning tasks: Teacher intention and learner interpretation”. ELT Journal 45(2), 98-107.
• Kumaravadivelu, B. (1991). “Language learning tasks: Teacher intention and learner interpretation”. ELT Journal 45(2), 98-107.
• B. Kumaravadivelu. (1991).'Language learning task: Teacher intention and learner interpretation'. ELT Journal 45 (2),98-107.
• B. Kumaravadivelu. (1994).' The post method condition: Emerging strategies for second foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly; 29; 27-48.
• B. Kumaravadivelu. (2003).' Beyond methods: macro strategies for language teaching. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• B. Kumaravadivelu. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to post method. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Block, D. (1994). A day in the life of class: Teachers/Learner perceptions of task purpose in conflict. System, 22(4), 473-486.
• Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics 5, 161–70.
• Fenstermacher, Gary D.; Soltis, Jonas F.(1998). Approaches to Teaching Thinking About Education Series. Teachers College Press
• Haritha.(2014).An Investigate Study of Perceptual Mismatches Proposed by Kumaravadievelu in Post method Pedagogy. International Journal of Research 1(4).
• Hawkey, R. (2006). Teacher and learner perceptions of language learning activity. ELT Journal 60(3).
• Larsen-Freeman, D. (2005). A critical analysis of post-method. ILI Language Teaching Journal, (1) 24.
• Louis M. Smith and Paul F. Kleine.(1969).Teacher Awareness: Social Cognition in the Classroom. The School Review 77 (3-4 ) . 245-256 . The University of Chicago Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/108444
• Slimani, A. (1989). The role of topicalization in classroom language learning. System, 17(2), 223-234. Tragant, E. (1997). Mismatches between teachers' expectations and students’ performances.[Online]Available:http://rua.ua.es/dspace/bitstream/10045/6003 /1/RAEI_10_14.pdf