Language and Culture Instruction Models Development Based on Linguistic Landscape for Enhancing the Ability of Innovative Creation of Pre-Service Teachers
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The research article consisted of the following objectives: 1) to analyze and synthesize basic information in developing the instructional model; 3) to design and develop the instructional model; 3) to experiment instructional model; and 4) to evaluate the effectiveness of the instructional model. The sample group consisted of 30 undergraduate students from the College of Teacher Education, Phranakhon Rajabhat University who were in their fourth year, semester 1 of the academic year B.E. 2564. The extension group appeared to be a real sample group. The study was carried out using a mixed methods approach with an embedded design. The obtained data were analyzed by mean, standard deviation (S.D.), t-test, and content analysis.
From the study, the following results are found:
1) The basic information for developing students has been obtained through document analysis, interviews with lecturers and scholars, and focus group discussions with alumni and current students. This includes the development of a language and culture instructional model based on linguistic landscape to enhance the creative innovation ability of pre-service teachers; 2) The "L.L Model" instructional model has a quality that can be used in real life; 3) The following effectiveness is discovered after experimenting with the instructional model 3.1) The posttest of learning achievement in language and culture based on linguistic landscape is higher than the pretest with a statistical significance of 0.05, 3.2) The creative innovation ability of students have been much developed, and 3.3) The satisfaction level toward a language and culture instructional model based on linguistic landscape is at the highest level; and 4) The effectiveness of the extension group is discovered as follows 4.1) The posttest of learning achievement in language and culture based on linguistic landscape is higher than the pretest with a statistical significance of 0.05, 4.2) The creative innovation ability of students have been much developed, and 4.3) The satisfaction level toward a language and culture instructional model based on linguistic landscape is at the highest level. Lastly, the instructional model can be widely publicized.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Views and opinions expressed in the articles published by The Journal of MCU Peace Studies, are of responsibility by such authors but not the editors and do not necessarily reflect those of the editors.
References
Barron, F. (1987). Putting Creativity to Work. The Nature of Creativity, 76-98.
Bernie, T., & Charles, F. (2009). 21st Century Skills: Learning for Life in our Times. United States of America: Routledge.
Dechakup, P. (2015). Learning Management in the 21st Century. 2nd edition. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Printing House.
Fishman, J. A. (1991). Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hymes, D. (1974). The Foundations of Sociolinguistics: Sociolinguistic Ethnography. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2009). Model of Teaching. London: Allyn and Bacon.
Khammanee, K. (2017). Science of Teaching. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, D. T. (1983). The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Hayward, CA: Alemany Press.
Labov, W. (1972). The Transformation of Experience in Narrative syntax. In Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Nillapun, M. (2014). Educational Research Methods. Nakhon Pathom: Educational Research and Development Center Faculty of Education Silpakorn University.
Nunan, D. (1991). Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston, Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Prasitratasin, A. (1998). Social Linguistics. (2nd ed.). Bangkok: Printing House Chulalongkorn University.
Read. (2002). Leading into Literature Circles Through the Sketch-to-Stretch Strategy. The Reading Teacher, 55(5), 444-450.
Ricard, J. C. (2006). Communicative Language Teaching Today. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Scollon, S., & Scollon, J. (2012). Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. London: Blackwell.
Savignon, J. S. (2002). Interpreting Communicative Language Teaching. London: Yale University Press.
Taylor, H. (1983). “ERIC/RCS Report: Oral Language: A Neglected Language Art?”. Language Arts, 60(2), 255-258.
Wangpusit, K. (2012). Commercial Business Names in Siam Square: A Study in Linguistic Landscape. (Master’s Thesis). Chulalongkorn University. Bangkok.
