Journal of Engineering Education Transformations

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Developing Speaking Competence of Professional Undergraduate Students Through Socratic Questing Approach


Affiliations
1 K L E F (Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation) ,Deemed to be University, Vaddeswaram,Guntur,AP., India
2 B V Raju Institute of Technology, Narsapur, Telangana., India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


This research article primarily focuses on how speaking competence can be enhanced by Socratic Questioning Approach. There are several methods and approaches formulated and applied at different levels to enhance speaking skills, but critical thinking and questioning attitude is still lacking at undergraduate levels. 32 heterogeneous professional undergraduate students (Creswell, 2018, p.157) have participated in a five months twenty-one days intervention study (Yin,2009 & Stake,1995, p.123) to know the desired outcomes. The pre and post-tests results have considerably and possibly been recorded during the study. CEFR (Common European Framework of References) CAN DO descriptors (Council of Europe, 2018 p.171), are adopted to assess the speaking competence. The pre and post-tests have been assessed based on CAN DO Descriptors. After employing Qualitative Research Methodology (Creswell, 2018) to analyze the data obtained through both succeeding and preceding tests, significant results have possibly been founded and observed that professional undergraduate students have considerably enhanced their speaking abilities and competences. CEFR levels of individual performance and variations have scrupulously been observed. This research article ontologically asserts that professional undergraduate engineering students can enhance speaking skills by thinking critically and applying Socratics Questioning Approach (Paul,2006) implicitly and explicitly.

Keywords

CEFR, Critical Thinking, Intervention Programme, Socratic Question Approach, Speaking Skills.
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Alderson, J C (2007) The CEFR and the Need for More Research, Modern Language Journal 91 (4), 659–663.

  • Cambridge Global Teaching Speaking Survey (2017), Cambridge University Press.

  • Carey, T. A., & Mullan, R. J. (2004). What is Socratic questioning? Psychotherapy: theory, research, practice, training, 41(3), 217.

  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). (6th ed.). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

  • Council of Europe (2001a) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Council of Europe (2001b) European Language Portfolio(ELP),available online: www.coe.int/portfolio

  • Council of Europe (2002) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Language examining and test development, Milanovic, M (Dir.), Strasbourg: Language Policy Division, available online:

  • Council of Europe (2003a) Relating language examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment: Manual, Preliminary Pilot Version, Strasbourg: Language Policy Division, available online:

  • Council of Europe (2003b) Relating Language Examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment: Manual, Overview of Preliminary Pilot Version, Strasbourg: Language Policy Division, available online:

  • Council of Europe (2003c) Samples of oral production illustrating, for English, the levels of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, Strasbourg: Language Policy Division,available online: www.coe.int/T/DG4/Portfolio/?L=E&M=/main _pages/illustrationse.html

  • Council of Europe (2005) Guide for the production of RLD, Strasbourg: Language policy division.Available online: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/DN R_Guide_EN.pdf

  • Council of Europe (2008) Explanatory Memorandum to Recommendation CM/Rec (2008)7 of the Committee of Ministers to member states concerning the use of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and the promotion of plurilingualism, available online:

  • Council of Europe (2009a) Relating Language Examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR), A Manual, Strasbourg: Language Policy Division, available online: www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/manuel1_en.asp

  • Council of Europe (2009b) Reference Supplement to the Manual for Relating Examinations to the CEFR, Strasbourg: Language Policy Division, available online:

  • Council of Europe, Committee for Out-of-school Education and Cultural Development (1971)

  • Council of Europe, Committee for Out-of-school Education and Cultural Development (1974)

  • Council of Europe, Council for Cultural Co-operation (1979) A European unit/credit system for modern language learning by adults, report of a symposium held at Ludwigshafen-am-Rhein, Germany,

  • Council of Europe, Council for Cultural Co-operation(1981) Modern languages 1971–1981, report presented by CDCC Project Group 4, with a resumé by J L M Trim, Project Adviser.

  • Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, U.K: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

  • Council of Europe. (2004). Reference supplement to the preliminary pilot version of the Manual for Relating Language Examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division.

  • Council of Europe. (2018). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/lang-cefr

  • Council of Europe/ALTE (2011) Manual for language test development and examining. For use with the CEFR, Strasbourg: Language Policy Division, available online:

  • Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.

  • Crystal, D. (1985). 41997, A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

  • Crystal, D. (2003). English as a Global Language. Cambridge: CUP.

  • Crystal, D. (2008). Two thousand million? English today, 24(1), 3-6.

  • Deuter, M., Bradbery, J., & Turnbull, J. (2015). Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary.

  • Doff, A. (1988). Teach English trainer's handbook: A training course for teachers (Vol.1). Cambridge University Press.

  • Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT journal, 63(2), 97-107.

  • Ellis, R. (2009). Task based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221- 246.

  • Ellis, R., & Ellis, R. R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University.

  • Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353-371.

  • Forehand, M. (2005). Bloom's taxonomy: Original and revised. Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects coe. uga. edu/epltt.

  • Fulcher, G. (2003). Testing Second Language Speaking. Pearson Education.

  • Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. The handbook of second language acquisition, 27.

  • Gass, S. M. (2013). Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Routledge.

  • Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction, 175199.

  • Ghahari, S., & Farokhnia, F. (2017). Triangulation of language assessment modes: Learning benefits and socio-cognitive prospects. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 12(3), 275-294.

  • Harmer, J. (1991). The practice of English language teaching. Longman handbooks for language teachers.

  • Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. Second language acquisition: A book of readings, 2, 383-400.

  • Heaton, J. B. (1975). Writing English language tests: A practical guide for teachers of English as a second or foreign language. London: Longman.

  • Kayi-Aydar, H. (2013). Scaffolding language learning in an academic ESL classroom. ELT journal, 67(3), 324-335.

  • Kothari, D. S. (1966). Report of the Education Commission 1964-66. Ministry of Education. Government of India.

  • Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford University Press.

  • Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford University Press.

  • Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition.

  • Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Addison-Wesley Longman Ltd.

  • Kumar, R. (1999). Selecting a Method of Data Collection'. Research Methodology: a step by step guide for beginners.

  • Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to post method. Routledge Linguistic content, means of evaluation and their interaction in the teaching and learning of modern languages in adult education, report of a symposium organized at Rüschlikon, Switzerland,

  • Mayfield, M. (2001). ‘Thinking for Yourself’, Developing Critical Thinking Skills Through Reading and Writing. United States, Thomas Learning.

  • Modern languages in adult education: a unit/credit system for modern languages in adult education, report of a symposium organized at St. Wolfgang, Austria, 17–28 June 1973.

  • Paikeday, T. M., & Chomsky, N. (1985). The native speaker is dead! An informal discussion of a linguistic myth with Noam Chomsky and other linguists, philosophers, psychologists, and lexicographers.

  • Paul, R. (1992), “Critical Thinking in the Context of Perfections of thought” (p.9) Standardize thought is more important in any form to develop it.

  • Paul, R. (1992). Critical Thinking: What, why, and how? New Directions for Community Collages, 1992 (77) , 3-24.

  • Paul, R. (2004). The State of Critical Thinking Today: The need for Substantive Concepts of Critical Thinking. Retrieved 6 17, 2013, from Critical Thinking: www. Critical thinking .org.

  • Paul, R., & Elder, L. (1997), Paul and Elder Critical Model, Foundation Critical Thinking Press.

  • Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2001), Paul and Elder Critical Thinking Framework, Foundation Critical Thinking Press.

  • Paul, R., (2006), The Miniature Guide to The Art of Asking Essential Questions, Critical Thinking Concepts and Socratic Principles, The Foundation for Critical Thinking Press.

  • Paul. R., & Elder, L. (2008), The Miniature Guide to Critical thinking Concepts and Tools. Foundation for Critical Thinking Press.

  • Schonfeld, D. J., & Dreyer, B. P. (2008). Research foundations, methods, and issues in Developmental-Behavioural Paediatrics. In Developmental-Behavioural Paediatrics (pp. 47- 56). Mosby.

  • Skehan, P. (2001). Tasks and language performance assessment. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks. (pp. 167-185). London: Longman.

  • Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. sage.

  • Tang, G. M. (1991). The Role and Value of Graphic Representation of Knowledge Structures in ESL Student Learning: An Ethnographic Study. TESL Canada Journal, 9(1), 29-41.

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (2012) Thought and Language. MIT Press

  • Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). sage.

  • Web-sources:

  • http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/ManualF orewordContSectA_2009_en.pdf

  • http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/SourceFo rum07/Rec%20CM%202008-7_EN.doc

  • http://www.coe.int/t/DG4/Portfolio/documents/

  • http://www.coe.int/t/DG4/Portfolio/documents/Guid e%20

  • http://www.coe.int/t/DG4/Portfolio/documents/Over view.doc


Abstract Views: 70

PDF Views: 0




  • Developing Speaking Competence of Professional Undergraduate Students Through Socratic Questing Approach

Abstract Views: 70  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

M Raju
K L E F (Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation) ,Deemed to be University, Vaddeswaram,Guntur,AP., India
Lavanya Sivapurapu
K L E F (Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation) ,Deemed to be University, Vaddeswaram,Guntur,AP., India
Mrunalini Sasanka
B V Raju Institute of Technology, Narsapur, Telangana., India
Thirupathi Thumma
B V Raju Institute of Technology, Narsapur, Telangana., India

Abstract


This research article primarily focuses on how speaking competence can be enhanced by Socratic Questioning Approach. There are several methods and approaches formulated and applied at different levels to enhance speaking skills, but critical thinking and questioning attitude is still lacking at undergraduate levels. 32 heterogeneous professional undergraduate students (Creswell, 2018, p.157) have participated in a five months twenty-one days intervention study (Yin,2009 & Stake,1995, p.123) to know the desired outcomes. The pre and post-tests results have considerably and possibly been recorded during the study. CEFR (Common European Framework of References) CAN DO descriptors (Council of Europe, 2018 p.171), are adopted to assess the speaking competence. The pre and post-tests have been assessed based on CAN DO Descriptors. After employing Qualitative Research Methodology (Creswell, 2018) to analyze the data obtained through both succeeding and preceding tests, significant results have possibly been founded and observed that professional undergraduate students have considerably enhanced their speaking abilities and competences. CEFR levels of individual performance and variations have scrupulously been observed. This research article ontologically asserts that professional undergraduate engineering students can enhance speaking skills by thinking critically and applying Socratics Questioning Approach (Paul,2006) implicitly and explicitly.

Keywords


CEFR, Critical Thinking, Intervention Programme, Socratic Question Approach, Speaking Skills.

References