EMERGED LANGUAGE TEACHING METHODOLOGIES IN POLYTECHNIC: CORPUS LINGUISTICS AND DIALOGIC PEDAGOGY IN POLYTECHNIC: CORPUS LINGUISTICS AND DIALOGIC PEDAGOGY

Ilham Jaya, Hasyimi Abdullah, Amru Muhammad, Wahdaniah Wahyudi, Emilda Emilda

Abstract


This study discusses the emerged language teaching methodologies practiced in Engineering Fields. There are many methods applied in teaching language. However, the needs of technical fields in English learning, especially for workforce, academic and social demand, seemed to have appropriate treatment. Career choice has given a great impact influencing the study of English language. In addition, there are specific needs in the engineering workplace that are inevitably used by engineers to correspond with their colleagues or customers. This situation leads to some thought in English for specific purpose practices. Recently, there are two teaching methodologies adjusted for the needs of technical school students that are being studied. First, Corpus linguistics: the lexical approach has been mostly practiced before. Innovated by data-driven corpus, this methodology arises as to the new common method applied in the engineering area. Second, Dialogic Pedagogy: the thought of dialogism is grounded by the sociocultural theory that considers learning as a social act. Social engagement is believed in improving one’s ability to be a decider and problem solver. Through dialogic pedagogies, students learn to eliminate some problems related to language barriers, such as the anxiety to speak English and apprehensiveness in making mistakes.


Keywords


Language teaching methodology; polytechnic; corpus linguistics; dialogic pedagogy

Full Text:

PDF

References


Alexander, R. J. (2008). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. Dialogos York.

Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Texas: University of Texas Press.

Beers, S. (2011). 21st century skills: Preparing students for their future. Retrieved from Http://www. Yinghuaacademy. Org/wp Content/uploads/2014/10/21st_century_skills. Pdf.

Bennett, G. R. (2010). Using corpora in the language learning classroom: Corpus linguistics for teachers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Bobyreva, N. N. (2015). Peculiarities of teaching English as a foreign language to technical students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 182, 104–109.

Greculescu, A., Todorescu, L.-L., & Popescu-Mitroi, M.-M. (2014). The career choice and the study of English in higher technical education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 128, 140–145.

Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jantassova, D. (2015). The solution of teaching English as a foreign language integrating with Kazakh and Russian languages to students of Kazakhstan technical universities. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 177, 136–141.

Karimi, P., & Sanavi, R. V. (2014). Analyzing English language learning needs among students in aviation training program. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 852–858.

Kassim, H., & Ali, F. (2010). English communicative events and skills needed at the workplace: Feedback from the industry. English for Specific Purposes, 29(3), 168–182.

Klarin, M. V. (2016). Twenty-first century educational theory and the challenges of modern education: Appealing to the heritage of the general teaching theory of the secondary educational curriculum and the learning process. Russian Education & Society, 58(4), 299–312.

Lin, A. M. Y. (2010). Curriculum: Foreign language learning. Language, 3, 131–146.

Liu, J.-Y., Chang, Y.-J., Yang, F.-Y., & Sun, Y.-C. (2011). Is what I need what I want? Reconceptualising college students’ needs in English courses for general and specific/academic purposes. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(4), 271–280.

Millrood, R. (2014). Teaching English to engineers at a tertiary level in Russia. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 154, 199–203.

Moylan, W. A. (2008). Learning by project: Developing essential 21st century skills using student team projects. International Journal of Learning, 15(9).

Mudraya, O. (2006). Engineering English: A lexical frequency instructional model. English for Specific Purposes, 25(2), 235–256.

Nekrasova-Beker, T. M. (2019). Discipline-specific use of language patterns in engineering: A comparison of published pedagogical materials. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 41, 100774.

Partington, A. (2011). Corpus Linguistics: What it is and what it can do. Cultus: The Journal of Intercultural Mediation and Communication, 4, 35–58.

Prabhu, N. S. (1990). There is no best method—Why? Tesol Quarterly, 24(2), 161–176.

Simeon, J. (2016). Learner writing strategies of Seychellois ESL (English as a second language) secondary school students: A sociocultural theory perspective. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 8, 1–11.

Simona, C. E. (2015). Developing presentation skills in the English language courses for the engineering students of the 21st century knowledge society: A methodological approach. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 203, 69–74.

Spence, P., & Liu, G.-Z. (2013). Engineering English and the high-tech industry: A case study of an English needs analysis of process integration engineers at a semiconductor manufacturing company in Taiwan. English for Specific Purposes, 32(2), 97–109.

Teo, P. (2019). Teaching for the 21st century: A case for dialogic pedagogy. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 21, 170–178.

Vygotsky, L. S., Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S., & Souberman, E. (1978). The development of higher psychological processes. Mind in Society, 1–91.

Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

E-ISSN: 2085-3750 

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.