Abstract :

This study explored how students’ cognition is shaped by their cultural background and the function of semantics in classroom communication. To examine open-ended questions, the researcher employed a qualitative technique called thematic analysis.  Fifty participants from level 4, English Language Unit, Preparatory Studies Centre, the University of Technology and Applied Sciences, Salalah, the Sultanate of Oman involved in the study. Some important conclusions emerged from the analysis. Students first stressed the need for semantics in maintaining comprehension and preventing misconceptions. Second, students’ interpretations of meaning were impacted by their cultural origins, underscoring the importance of culturally sensitive instruction. Third, when it came to understanding semantic ideas, students favored interactive learning techniques like role-plays and conversations. Fourth, teaching semantics was not like teaching other language issues; to close the theory-practice gap, additional real-world examples were needed. Lastly, students thought that adding exercises to enhance semantic awareness would help them communicate more effectively.  These results imply that using participatory, culturally aware teaching strategies might enhance students’ communication and semantic awareness in heterogeneous classrooms.

---

Keywords :

classroom communication, cultural background, inclusive learning environments., interactive learning, Semantics

---

References :

1. Al-Fayed, A. A. M., Hamza, A. R. A., & Abdul Qadir, M. A. B. (2020). Role of Semantics in English Language Teaching and Learning. Al-Qurtas Journal for Human and Applied Sciences, 7, 16-37. https://alqurtas.alandalus-libya.org.ly/ojs/index.php/qjhar/article/view/153

2. Alsayed, F. K. (2019). The effects of semantics in the language development of English as a foreign language (EFL) learners. International Journal of Learning and Development, 9(4), 138-153. https://doi.org/5296/ijld.v9i4.15735
3. Anderson, M., Hinz, B., & Matus, H. (2017). The paradigm shifters: Entrepreneurial learning in schools. Mitchell Institute. https://vuir.vu.edu.au/38687/1/Paradigm-Shifters_entrepreneurial-learning-in-schools.pdf
4. Archer, D., Aijmer, K., & Wichmann, A. (2013). Pragmatics: An advanced resource book for students. Routledge.
5. Atwater, L. E., & Waldman, D. A. (2007). Leadership, feedback and the open communication gap. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203810101
6. Bagha, K. N. (2011). A Short Introduction to Semantics. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(6), https://doi.org/1411-1419. 10.4304/jltr.2.6.1411-1419
7. Baker, M. (2006). Contextualization in translator-and interpreter-mediated events. Journal of pragmatics, 38(3), 321-337.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.010
8. Barkley, E. F., Major, C. H., & Cross, K. P. (2014). Collaborative learning techniques: handbook for college faculty. John Wiley & Sons.
9. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A.T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004
10. Bruni, A. S. D. (2013). Dialogue as a tool for meaning making. The University of Southern Mississippi. https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations/632
11. Castleberry, A., & Nolen, A. (2018). Thematic analysis of qualitative research data: Is it as easy as it sounds? Currents in pharmacy teaching and learning, 10(6), 807-815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2018.03.019
12. Charlton, P., Magoulas, G., & Laurillard, D. (2012). Enabling creative learning design through semantic technologies. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 21(2), 231-253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2012.698165
13. Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguistics. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
14. Corr, L., Rowe, H., & Fisher, J. (2015). Mothers’ perceptions of primary health-care providers: thematic analysis of responses to open-ended survey questions. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 21(1), 58-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/PY12134
15. Craik, F. I., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671-684. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X
16. Cruse, D. A. (2010). Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
17. Cummins, J. (1994). The acquisition of English as a second language. In K. Spangenberg Urbschat & R. Pritchard (Eds.), Kids come in all languages: Reading instruction for ESL students (pp. 36-62). Newark. DE: International Reading Association.
18. Dakhi, O., Jama, J., & Irfan, D. (2020). Blended learning: A 21st century learning model at college. International Journal of Multi Science, 1(7), 50-65.
19. Dash, B. B. (2014). Effective Classroom Communication: A General Semantics Approach. International Journal of English: Literature, Language & Skills, 3(3), 235-240.
20. Dracup, M. (2012). Designing online role plays with a focus on story development to support engagement and critical learning for higher education students. Journal of learning design, 5,(2,Special issue : The borderless classroom), 12-24. http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30048449
21. Dudek, K. L. (2013). Semantic intervention knowledge, attitudes, and practices among school based speech-language pathologists. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders, 40(Fall), 69-84. https://doi.org/10.1044/cicsd_40_F_69
22. Eli, T. (2021). Students perspectives on the use of innovative and interactive teaching methods at the University of Nouakchott Al Aasriya, Mauritania: English department as a case study. International Journal of Technology, Innovation and Management (IJTIM), 1(1), 90-104. https://doi.org/10.54489/ijtim.v1i2.21
23. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis for social research.
24. Fujiwara, T. (2011). Language Learning Beliefs of Thai EFL University Students: Dimensional Structure and Cultural Variations. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 8(1), 87-107. https://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/v8n12011/fujiwara.pdf
25. Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. Routledge.
26. Geurts, B. (2019). Communication as commitment sharing: speech acts, implicatures, common ground. Theoretical linguistics, 45(1-2), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2019-0001
27. Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge University Press.
28. Glahn, C., Gruber, M.R. (2020). Designing for Context-Aware and Contextualized Learning. In S.Yu., M. All., & A. Tsinakos. (Eds) Emerging Technologies and Pedagogies in the Curriculum. Bridging Human and Machine: Future Education with Intelligence (pp. 21-40). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0618-5_2
29. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, 41–58. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
30. Gumperz, J. J. (1992). Contextualization and understanding. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin, (Eds), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. (229-252). Cambridge University Press. https://web.stanford.edu/~eckert/PDF/gumperz1992.pdf

31. Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Qadri, M. A., & Suman, R. (2022). Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review. Sustainable Operations and Computers, 3, 275-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004
32. Hoffman, P., Lambon Ralph, M. A., & Rogers, T. T. (2013). Semantic diversity: A measure of semantic ambiguity based on variability in the contextual usage of words. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 718-730. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0278-x
33. Holcomb, C. (2006). Anyone can be president: Figures of speech, cultural forms, and performance. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 37(1), 71-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/02773940600865305
34. Hornsby, J., & Stanley, J. (2005). Semantic knowledge and practical knowledge. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 79, 107–130. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4106937
35. Hossain, K. I. (2024). Reviewing the role of culture in English language learning: Challenges and opportunities for educators. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 9, 100781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100781
36. Jaszczolt, K.M. (2005). Default semantics: Foundations of a compositional theory of acts of communication. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199261987.001.0001
37. Jiang, N. (2004). Semantic transfer and its implications for vocabulary teaching in a second language. The Modern Language Journal, 88(3), 416-432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-2004.00238.x
38. Jung, C. D. (2021). Perceptions of collaborative video projects in the language classroom: A qualitative case study. International Journal of Instruction, 14(4), 301-320. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14418a
39. Kecskes, I. (2008). Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(3), 385-406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004
40. Kiger, M. E., & Varpio, L. (2020). Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131. Medical teacher, 42(8), 846-854. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1755030
41. Kinanti, R. A., & Hernawan, A. H. (2022). Teacher strategies for creating interesting and dynamic learning. Scaffolding: Jurnal Pendidikan Islam dan Multikulturalisme, 4(3), 679-689. https://doi.org/10.37680/scaffolding.v4i3.4141.
42. Kinyaduka, B. D. (2017). Why are we unable bridging theory-practice gap in context of plethora of literature on its causes, effects and solutions? Journal of Education and Practice, 8(6), 102-105.
43. Kroeger, P. R. (2023). Analyzing meaning: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Language Science Press. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6855854
44. Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16 25+46. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1177186?origin=JSTOR-pdf
45. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognitive Science, 4(2), 195-208. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0402_4
46. Lemke, J. L. (1998). Teaching all the languages of science: Words, symbols, images, and actions. In Conference on science education in Barcelona. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/2.1.4022.5608
47. Leech, G.N. (1981). Semantics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
48. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
49. Li, Y., & Singh, C. (2022). Inclusive learning environments can improve student learning and motivational beliefs. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 18(2), 020147. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.020147
50. Machery, E., Mallon, R., Nichols, S., & Stich, S. P. (2004). Semantics, cross-cultural style. Cognition, 92(3), B1-B12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.003
51. McKeown, M. G. (2019). Effective vocabulary instruction fosters knowing words, using words, and understanding how words work. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 50(4), 466-476. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-VOIA-18-0126
52. McRae, K., Hare, M., Elman, J. L., & Ferretti, T. (2005). A basis for generating expectancies for verbs from nouns. Memory & Cognition, 33(7), 1174-1184. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758/BF03193221.pdf
53. Mostafazadeh, E., Keshtiaray, N., & Ghulizadeh, A. (2015). Analysis of multi-cultural education concept in order to explain its components. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(1), 1-12.
54. Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(2), 233-253. https://doi.org/10.2307/747758
55. Nguyen, T. C. D. (2022). The impact of context on EFL learners’ vocabulary retention. European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 6(2), 23-60. https://doi.org/46827/ejfl.v6i2.4295
56. Pearl, J. B., & Arunfred, N. (2019). A comparative study on the concentration skill between e learning methods and traditional learning methods among higher education students. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 7(4), 67-73.
57. Rohman, A. (2017). Improving students’ reading comprehension through text structure tasks. Script Journal: Journal of Linguistic and English Teaching, 2(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.24903/sj.v2i1.74
58. Rubel, C., & Wallace, M. (2010). Instructor Tone in Written Communication: Are We Saying What We Want Them to Hear? In TCC (pp. 1-15). TCCHawaii. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/43755/.
59. Salamondra, T. (2021). Effective Communication in Schools. BU Journal of Graduate Studies in Education, 13(1), 22-26.
60. Sanger, C. S. (2020). Inclusive pedagogy and universal design approaches for diverse learning environments. In C. S. Sanger & N. W. Gleason (Eds.), Diversity and  inclusion in global higher education: Lessons from across Asia (pp. 31–71). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1628-3_2
61. Snow, C. E., & Uccelli, P. (2009). The challenge of academic language. In Olson, D. R., & N. Torrance (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Literacy (pp. 112-133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
62. Strachan, R., Liyanage, L. (2015). Active student engagement: the heart of effective learning. In P. Layne, & P. Lake, (Eds) Global innovation of teaching and learning in higher education: Transgressing boundaries. Professional Learning and Development in Schools and Higher Education, volume 11. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10482-9_16
63. Supramaniam, E., & Zainal, Z. (2014). The effects of semantic mapping on reading comprehension. LSP International Journal, 1(1), 61-74.
64. Tannen, D. (1994). Talking from 9 to 5: Women and men at work. William Morrow.
65. Textor, M. (2010). Routledge philosophy guidebook to Frege on sense and reference. Routledge.
66. Ting-Toomey, S., & Dorjee, T. (2018). Communicating across cultures. Guilford Publications Top Teaching Tasks. (2023, January 31). Teaching semantics to increase vocabulary. https://topteachingtasks.com/writing-and-literacy/
67. Wilfred, N. (2013). Semantics and communication in public primary schools in Sameta District, Kenya [Master’s thesis, Kampala International University]. https://ir.kiu.ac.ug/bitstream/20.500.12306/3370/1/Wilfred%20Nyaberi.pdf
68. Worthington, T. A. (2018). Letting students control their own learning: Using games, role-plays, and simulations in middle school US history classrooms. The Social Studies, 109(2), 136-150. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377996.2018.1460791
69. Zandvliet, D., Den Brok, P., & Mainhard, T. (Eds.). (2014). Interpersonal relationships in education: From theory to practice. Springer.
70. Zhang, X., Mao, R., Cambria, E., (2023). A survey on syntactic processing techniques. Artificial Intelligence Review 56, 5645–5728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-022-10300-7