an investigation into the relationship between ...

Modern Journal of Language teaching Methods (MJLTM)

ISSN: 2251-6204 596

AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GESTURES AND SPEAKING SKILL FOR IRANIAN EFL LEARNERS

Sayyed Esmail Mireghaffari Nouhadani (MA) Science and research branch of Rasht, Islamic Azad University, Iran [email protected]

Mohammad Abdollahi-Guilani (PhD) (Corresponding author) Buein Zahra Technical University, Buein Zahra, Qazvin, Iran [email protected]

ABSTRACT This study examined the effect of teaching english with gestures on the efl iranian school students' achievement in speaking. Forty iranian efl learners participated in this study. On an opt, they were divided into two groups: one control group and one experimental group. For two months, teaching with gestures was done on the experimental group as a treatment. Gestures were regarded as a treatment and as on of the common tools of the nonverbal communication. In the treatment, gestures were used to determine if they had an effect on the students' achievement in speaking. A speaking placement test was given to the experimental group and the control group as the pretest and the posttest, too. According to the resultsobtained by the statistical calculations, the effectiveness of the treatment was not very noticeable. This study suggests that teaching english with gestures cannot be a very effective technique in teaching english. However, they can help students develop some ways to overcome their communication problems to some extenr; moreover, they can be regarded as their natural responses to the situations. KEYWORDS: teaching English with gestures, speaking skills, nonverbal communication, speaking placement test Introduction Today, virtually every book on communication explains how you communicate and miscommunicate when you fold your arms, cross your legs, stand, walk around, move your eyes and mouth, and so on (Brown, 1992). Babies enter the world of language through their eventual use of spontaneous hand movements that are taken as pointing and are responded to by someone in their environment (Orton, 2007). Language is a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures, or marks having understood meanings (Abedian, 2013). Therefore, it can be understood that gesture is one of the main ways to convey the meanings. Gestures are typically defined as symbolic movements related to ongoing talk or to the speaker's expressive intention (Gullberg, 2008). Nonverbal and verbal communication (i. e. gestures) are normally inseparable, which, for example, is why it may seem so difficult to use the telephone in a foreign language (Darn, 2005). Gesture, as defined by Longman dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (Richards, platt & platt, 1992), is "a movement of face or body which communicates meaning, such as nodding the head to mean agreement." Many spoken utterances are accompanied by gestures which support or add to their meaning. Many of the learned items may be easily forgotten after the class. It may be mentioned that the way of teaching

Vol. 4, Issue 5, December 2015


ISSN: 2251-6204 597

may be regarded as an important tool in this area. The study of the role of gestures in communication is part of the nonverbal communication. Moreover, gesture, as defined by Webster's new world college dictionary, is "a movement or movements collectively, of the body or of part of the body to express or emphasize ideas, emotions, etc." One very obvious aspect of nonverbal behavior which helps to reflect power-solidarity is the physical distance among the concerned people, the subject matter of proxemics (Hudson, 1996). Eye contact is not only to be considered as a tool for teachers to convey messages but as a means to interpret the messages students can display nonverbally via their eyes, mimics and gestures (Zeki, 2009). Communicative style is a matter of language in the broadest sense, certainly verbal language (words), but also all other aspects of the complex bodily performance that constitutes political style (gestures, facial expressions, how people hold themselves and move, dress and hairstyle, and so forth) a successful leader’s communicative style is not simply what makes him attractive to voters in a general way, it conveys certain values which can powerfully enhance the political message (Simpson, 2011). Learning-centered pedagogists do not believe in teaching language skills-listening, speaking, reading, and writing-either in isolation or in strict sequence, as advocated by language-centered pedagogists. The teacher is expected to integrate language skills wherever possible (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). Apart from adapting their language, teachers also use physical movements and gestures (these are quite exaggerated), such as shrugging the shoulders for 'who cares?' or scratching the hand to show puzzlement (Harmer, 2007). Gee (2011) has stated that context includes the physical setting in which a communication takes place and everything in it; the bodies, eye gaze, gestures, and movements of those present; what has been said and done by those involved in the communication; any shared knowledge those have, including shared cultural knowledge. Acts of speech are physical acts which often involve the whole body, so pronunciation does not work in isolation from other factors. In addition to employing our voice, we also use eye movement, mime, and gesture (Schmitt, 2012). McNeill (2005, cited in Atkinson, 2011) showed that, along with expressing motion events through speech, speakers simultaneously gesture to co-express movement. English speakers often express manner of motion with complex manner verbs while producing a synchronized gesture. In Spanish-like languages, on the other hands, gestures used in such contexts synchronize with path verbs. There have been very little work on the effect of using gestures in teaching English to the Iranian EFL learners/students on their achievement in speaking. This paper (Author, 2015) has been aimed to see that whether using gestures in teaching English can have an effect on Iranian EFL learners/students' achievement in speaking or not. Therefore, forty Iranian school students who were trying to learn English as a foreign language have been studied and wanted to see whether using gestures in teaching English have an effect on their achievement in speaking or not. To do so, the author gave them an OPT to have them divided into two groups of the control group and the experimental group. The teachers in the experimental group were requested to use gestures as an additional tool to clarify the concepts, while in the control group, the teachers were requested not to use gestures; instead, they had their routine programs in the classes. A speaking test was given to them as the pretest and the posttest. By doing the statistical operations on the data, gathered from the pretest and the posttest, it has been found that using gestures cannot improve the students' abilities and achievement in speaking; however, it may develop the students' approaches and ways to learn new materials. Literature Review According to Petrovici (2012), when two persons discuss, it can often be noticed that they have similar attitudes, respectively the posture, mimics and gestures blend, and, in some situations, even some elements of the paraverbal (tone, volume, rhythm etc.) match. They complete mutually and when one stops the other one continues. The teacher sits next to the whiteboard and slowly reads the story to the learners. Initially, most sentences are read twice and are read slowly. All the time the teacher is watches to see that the learners understand what they hear. When words come up that the learners might not recognize or which might be unknown to the learners, the teacher quickly writes them on the board and gives a quick explanation, using a translation, a gesture, pointing, a quick drawing, or a simple second language definition (Nation & Newton, 2009). McNeil (1992, cited in Roth, 2001) believes that we have four types of gestures, named beat, deictic, iconic, and metaphoric gestures. Beats are simple and non-pictorial gestures that can include the up and down flick of a hand, or the tapping motions used to emphasize certain utterances. Deictic gestures are used in concrete or abstract pointing. Iconic gestures, also referred to as representational gestures and covered by lexical gestures, include those hand/arm movements that bear a perceptual relation with concrete entities and events.



ISSN: 2251-6204 598

Metaphoric gestures are similar to iconic gestures in that they make reference to a visual image; however, the images to which they refer pertain to abstraction. There is no separate gesture language alongside of spoken language; instead, as McNeill (1992, cited in Taleghani & Nikazm, 2008) argues, they are an integral part of language as much as are words, phrases, and sentences-gesture and language are one system. The study of Tellier (2007) aimed to examine the effect of gesture reproduction on the long-term memorization of L2 vocabulary in children. As hypothesized, the gesture group did significantly better than the picture group at least in the assessments measuring the active knowledge of the vocabulary. It appears that when gestures are re-produced and act as a motor modality, they have a stronger impact on memorization than pictures (a visual modality). Orton (2007) says that several scholars over some decades have made categories of gesture type. We can gesture with our hand, arm, head, eyes, nose, mouth, foot, and even whole body, so one first boundary to the drawn is which part of the body will be included for consideration. In keeping with most second language scholars in the field, the reference for gesture in this article will be movements of the hand. Another boundary to note in any discussion of the word 'gesture' is the level of standardization. Saitz (1969) in his study has aimed to clarify the conditions of gestures in the language classrooms and the principles. To do so, he conducted a descriptive study by observing different gestures of language teachers. As Munger (2008) has stated, gestures can be broken down into two distinct categories: deictic and representational. Deictic gestures are those that refer to something around the child; pointing, showing an object, or reaching for something. Representational gestures have meaning independent of the objects around the child: nodding yes, holding a fist to the ear to mean “telephone,” and so on. An international group led by Jana Iverson carefully observed three Italian infants and three American infants during the critical early period of language learning, from 10 months to 24 months old. The babies were videotaped for 30 minutes each month doing three activities: playing with their own toys, playing with a standard set of toys provided by the experimenter, and at mealtime. Speech and gestures were carefully categorized. In a study, Munger (2008) examined the way in which infants acquire/learn their first language by some gestures and clarified two distinct categories of gestures. Allen’s pioneering experiment (1995, cited in Tellier, 2007) seems to be the only study on the impact of gestures on memorization of L2 sentences. However, it has two limitations. First, the L2 sentences were always given to the subjects with the L1 translation, but the sentences to be memorized were French idiomatic expressions which are not always directly translatable. Second, subjects were asked during the posttest to give the L1 equivalent of the L2 sentences that were only used as stimuli. The study thus does not assess how many expressions in L2 subjects have remembered with gestures, but rather how many expressions they can translate. The experiment therefore dealt mainly with passive knowledge of the vocabulary, that is, the ability to recognize and translate but not to produce the L2 items. It is therefore not clear whether gestures affect active knowledge of L2 vocabulary. It is also not known whether gestures affect the memorization of lexical items in L2 in child learners. The current study therefore examines precisely these issues. Nyberg, Persson & Nilsson (2002, cited in Tellier, 2007) have demonstrated the positive effect of enactment encoding on memorization for different populations (including demented patients and patients with frontal-lobe dysfunction) and for different age groups ranging from 35 to 80 years of age. This paper (Author, 2015) has been aimed to examine the role of using gestures in teaching English to the Iranian EFL learners/students and the effect of it on their achievement in speaking. In some aspects, this work is different and has been worked out in general speaking. The aim of this paper has been to find a better technique in teaching English as a foreign language. It has been found out that using gestures cannot be such an influential technique, but can help students/learners to find new ways to overcome their problems in learning. Methodology Design This study followed a quasi-experimental design. The participants of the current study were Iranian EFL learners/students who were selected based on their scores on an OPT. The students were divided into two groups of twenty students: twenty in the experimental group and twenty in the control group. In the experimental group, English teaching was accompanied by some gestures; while the control group had no gestures. A speaking placement test as a pretest (face to face oral placement test, Cambridge university press, 2013) was administered to the experimental group and the control group. In the experimental group, using gestures was considered to be the treatment. The teacher in the experimental group was requested to teach English with gestures; while in the control group, the teacher was requested not to use gestures. Their classes



ISSN: 2251-6204 599

were held two sessions per week. At the end of a period of two month or fifteen fifty-minute sessions, the same speaking placement test as the posttest was administered to the experimental group. After the treatment, the data was analyzed to see whether or not using gestures was effective in teaching English. Participants The participants (aged 13-16) who took part in this study were forty intermediate level EFL students in an institute in Rasht, Iran. They were divided into two groups of twenty students in the control group and twenty in the experimental group. Most of these participants were the students in the nongovernmental schools in the Sama center, Rasht. All of them were male students. They showed the eagerness to learn and speak in English. They were all Persian natives. They had enough time to give answer to the requested questions. In this study, the teachers of the two classrooms spoke with the participants to make them prepared to answer the questions; so that these students had no problem with the procedures of the teachers. The students got familiar with the goal and the way of research during the study. The name of their book was Project (Huttchison, 2013). In the book, there are some parts to speak about their past. Results and Discussion In this study, the following findings from the control group are obtained in the pretest. They are illustrated in Table 1.

Scores 30 Frequencies 2

31 4

Table 1 The frequencies for the pretest in the control group 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 2 2 1 3 1 2 1

39 2

Table 1 shows the results of pretest in the control group in which one student got 34, 36, and 38; the score 31 was obtained by four students; the scores 30, 32, 33, 37, and 39 were achieved by two students, and the score 35 was obtained by three students. Here, the mean was 33.95 and the score of mode was 31. The same scores have been got in the control group in the posttest. In this study, the following findings from the experimental group are obtained in the pretest. They are illustrated in Table 2.


Table 2 The frequencies for the pretest in the experimental group 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 1 3 1 3 1 2 3 2

39 1

Table 2 shows the results of pretest in the experimental group in which one student got 31, 33, 35, and 39; the scores 36 and 38 were obtained by two students; the scores 30, 32, 34, and 37 were achieved by three students. Here, there was no mode, and the mean was 34.25. The results of scores and the frequency for the experimental group in the posttest are illustrated in Table 3.


Table 3 The frequencies for the experimental group in the posttest 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 0 1 2 3 3 4 2 2

39 1

Table 3 shows the results of posttest in the experimental group in which one student got 32 and 39; the score 36 was obtained by four students; the score 30, 33, 37, and 38 were achieved by two students, and the scores 34 and 35 were obtained by three students. Here, the mean score was 34.9 and the score of mode was 36. Based on the results gathered from posttest, since the analytical results show that the difference between the variance of the experimental group in the first test and in the last test is not more than 2, it can be concluded that



ISSN: 2251-6204 600

this hypothesis is rejected. Based on the statistical operation, it can be said that because the results of running the posttest on the control group and experimental group could not yield a significant difference, the hypotheses to these questions are null. Therefore, these questions and hypotheses have been mentioned: 1. Does using gestures in teaching English have an effect on Iranian school students' English achievement in speaking? In answering this question, it can be said that because the range of the students' scores have not been increased, using gestures in teaching English has no effect on Iranian school students' English achievement in speaking. 2. Is there any relationship between teaching English and using gesture regarding Iranian school students' English achievement in speaking? In answering this question, it can be said that because using gestures cannot differentiate between the scores of the experimental group (having been taught with gestures) and the control group (having been taught without gestures) and the mean of two groups were not so significant, there is no relationship between teaching English and using gesture regarding Iranian school students' English achievement in speaking. Table 4 shows the descriptive statistics for the experimental group in which the number, minimum, maximum, mean of scores, mean of the standard error, and the standard deviation are displayed:

Pretest Posttest Valid N

N Statistic 40 40 40

Minimum statistic 30.00 30.00

Table 4. The descriptive statistics Maximum Mean Std. Deviation statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic 39.00 34.1000 0.46105 2.91592 39.00 34.42500 0.43396 2.74458

Table 4 shows that the statistic numbers are 40 and 40, and the minimum scores are 30 and 30, the maximum scores are 39 and 39, the means are 34.100 and 34.425, the standard errors are 0.46105 and 0.43396, and the standard deviations are 2.91592 and 2.74458 for the control group and the experimental group in the pretest and the posttest, respectively. Table 5 shows the statistics, the numbers, the mean, the standard deviation, and the mean of the standard error for two groups.

Subject The control group The experimental group

Table 5. The group statistics of the scores in the pretest N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 20 33.9500 2.98196 0.66679 20 34.9000 2.46875 0.55203

In Table 5, the scores of the pretest and post-test are calculated for the experimental group. Because this is the comparison of two dependent samples (before and after training) and these scores are dependent on each other, a paired sample t-test can be used. Table 6 illustrates the number, correlation, and sigma of the pretest and posttest in the experimental group. Table 6 The record of paired sample test Paired sample correlation The experimental The experimental Pretest posttest The experimental pretest The Pearson Correlation 1 0.961** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 N 20 20 The experimental posttest The Pearson Correlation 0.961** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 N 20 20 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).



ISSN: 2251-6204 601

Table 6 shows that there are twenty statistical units in the experimental group in the pretest and posttest whose value regarding the Pearson correlation is equal to 0.961**, with the significance of 0.000. The mark ** shows that the correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Table 7 illustrates the mean, standard deviation, mean of standard errors, interval confidence of the difference (lower and upper), tail, difference, and significance of the paired sample test and the paired differences test in the experimental group. Table 7 The record for the paired samples test

-

Paired Samples Test Paired Differences 95% Confidence Interval of Std Devi Group Mean Ex 34.1000 34.4250

Std. Error ation 2.46875 2.46875

Difference Sig. Mean Lower Upper t df. (2-taied) 0.86565 -2.70241 0.80241 -1.097 38 0.279 0.86565 -2.70441 0.80441 -1.097 36.721 0.280

In this part, the t-test statistics is calculated. Table 7 shows that the mean differences of the pretest and post-test for the experimental group are equal to 34.1000 and 34.4250; it means that mean scores of the participants in the pretest is between -2.70241 and 0.80241 and in the posttest is between -2.70441 and 0,80441; and the standard deviation for this mean difference is 38 in the pretest and 36.721 in the posttest; and also, the standard error mean is 0.86565 in the pretest and the posttest; and assuming the 95% confidence of interval difference, because the confidence index is 0.5000 and the results indicate that it is about 0.279 and 0.280, it means that the assumption is accepted about the sameness of scores between the pretest and the post-test from the other side, the significance of the t-test is about 0.279 and 0.280; and it is lower than 0.05. So, the assumption about the sameness of mean scores of the two groups is rejected. Therefore, the results of the pretest and posttest are accepted. If the obtained score by the operations is lower than the measured meaningful level of (0.05), the assumption of zero will be rejected; that is, our treatment has its meaningful effect on the students' achievement; but here, since our assumption of zero is approved; therefore, we can conclude that our treatment (using gestures) does not have the meaningful effect on the students' achievement.

gesture score

The overall bar graph of the means of the control group (control) and the experimental group (experimental) is illustrated in Figure 1. 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30

Control

Experimantal

Figure 1. The mean scores of the control and experimental groups



ISSN: 2251-6204 602

Figure 1 illustrates the mean scores of the control group and the experimental group in the bar graph in which the horizontal axis stands for the groups and the vertical axis stands for the scores. The black bar stands for the control group and the gray bar stands for the experimental group. Conclusion The findings of this study do not completely support the claim that using gestures in teaching English has an effect on Iranian EFL school students' achievement, but in some aspects, the influences of teaching English with gestures on the Iranian EFL students are obvious and undeniable. The findings of this research showed that the experimental group which is taught with gestures outperformed in speaking and comprehending the materials and in their achievements. The findings of this study also showed that it is the same as the views of some scientists and linguists such as Marianne Gulberg, Marion Tellier, and Robert Saitz; even though the relationship between teaching English with gestures and without gestures has caught the attention of linguists and educators to minuscule. This paper examined the role of gestures on teaching English. By regarding the results obtained from the statistical operations, it can be said that although the gestures do not play a significant role in teaching English as a foreign language, they can be regarded as useful tools in improving communication. It also increases the teachers' information on the role of gestures in teaching English. Moreover, it can shed a light on teaching other subjects by using gestures. Besides these, knowing how to gesture can help learners to get information from a gesture. Hence, teaching with gestures can increase learners' awareness of these new ways of teachings. Like every other studies, this study may have its own limitations. Some of the limitations may be like these: this study deals with males in the upper intermediate level of proficiency in the age of thirteen up to sixteen years old. Studies may show different results with different conditions. For future work, it seems relevant to study more gestures in teaching English. There might be a difference in the list of gestures (common gestures in explaining the ambiguous conceptions and the required information). There might be a difference in the selected sex, range of age, etc. It has been suggested that clapping, pointing to somewhere, face motions, the kinds of the expressions, and nodding head have been more accepted and repeated by the students. Acknowledgement In this study, I faced some difficulties which needed a lot of energy and attention with high concentration. When I was writing this thesis, there were a lot of times that I felt tired and heavy responsibility in my life. Fortunately, by the passing of the time, I was benefited from kind people who actually encouraged me; and they cared, supported, and helped me in completing this thesis; now, I feel relaxed; and I am very appreciative of their kindness, support, and help; and it is better to say if they had not helped me, now, I would not be successful. So, I would like to say my warmest and heartfelt gratitude to them: First of all, I should thank my supervisor, Dr. Abdollahi. He is a very kind master who has helped me and from whom, I have learned a lot. He gave me a lot of information, suggestions, and feedback with a sense of safety when I was confused. He gave me more power and he diminished my worries and pressure by his kindness and guiding me from stage to stage. Also I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Arjmandi, Dr. Khodabandehlou, Dr. Rahimi, Dr. Vahdani, Dr. Vaezi, and Dr. Jahandar. My appreciation goes as well to the center of IELTS (International English Language Testing System) and its students in participating in the study, administrating the tests, and collecting the data. References Abedian, A. A. (2013). Second language learning and teaching in Iran. 2nd Cyprus international conference on education. Available online at www.sciencedirect.com. Atkinson, D. (2011). Alternative approaches to second language acquisition. Abingdon: Milton park; routeledge; & simultaneously in the USA & Canada. Brown, H. D. (1992). Principles of language learning and teaching. 3rd ed. the USA: California: San Francisco: Longman. Cambridge, (2013). Face to face oral placement test. Cambridge university press. Darn, S. (2005). Aspects of nonverbal communication. The internet TESL journal, Izmir university of economics school of foreign languages: Turkey.



ISSN: 2251-6204 603

Gee, O. J. (2011). An introduction to discourse analysis: theory and method. 3rd ed. simultaneously in the UK & the USA; published in the Taylor & Francis; also in e-library. Gullberg, M. (2008). Gestures and second language acquisition. In Nick C. Ellis & Peter Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 276-305). London; Routeledge. Harmer, J. (2007). How to teach English. New ed. England: and associated companies throughout the world; Pearson education limited; also available online at www.longman.com. Hudson, R. A. (1996). Sociolinguistics. 2nd ed. Cambridge textbooks in linguistics, Published in Cambridge, the USA & Australia. Cambridge university press. Huttchison, T. (2013). Project. The Cambridge University press. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching. London: Muhwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: publishers. Munger, D. (2008). Does the use of gestures slow language learning? 2005-2014 scienceblogs. Nation, I. S. P. & Newton, J. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking. USA & the UK: New York & London: Routeledge: Taylor & friends. Orton, J. (2007). Gesture: in modern language teaching and learning. Babe publication; also available online at www.thefreelibrary.com. Petrovici, M. A. (2012). Effective methods of learning and teaching: a sensory approach. 3rd world conference on learning and teaching and educational leadership. Also available online at www.sciencedirect.com. Richards, J. C., Platt, J., & Platt, H. (1992). Longman dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics. 2nd ed. Longman group UK limited: England. Roth, W. M. (2001). Gestures: their role in teaching and learning. Review of educational research. USA: University of Victoria. Also available online at www.thelinguisticsjournals.com. Saitz, R. L. (1969). Gesture in the language classroom. USA: Boston university: Department of English. Schmitt, N. (2012). An introduction to applied linguistics. 2nd ed. the UK: London: An Hachette UK company: Hodder education: Hodder & stoughton ltd. Simpson, J. (2011). The Routeledge handbook of applied linguistics. 1st ed., simultaneously published in the USA and Canada. Taleghani & Nikazm, C. (2008). Gestures in foreign language classrooms: an empirical analysis of their organization and function. USA: Ohio State University. Also available online at www.lingref.com. Tellier, M. (2007). The effect of gestures on second language memorization by young children. France: Aix-Marseille l: universite de provence: Laboratoire parole et langage; also available online at www.sciencedirect.com. Zeki, C. P. (2009). The importance of nonverbal communication in classroom management. North Cyprus: Eastern Mediterranean university: faculty of education; also available online at www.sciencedirect.com.
