Using Brain Science Theory to Analyze the Unity between Language Input and Output: Methodology Improvement Substantiation

Keywords: psycholinguistics, brain theory, teaching, performance assessment, 4MAT, Kirkpatrick, language constructs, input / output

Abstract

Introduction. Based on the brain science theory of “how people learn” and in order to modernize the methodology of psycholinguistic research, this research used documentary analysis and addressed the standpoint that the 4MAT Teaching and Learning Model can be subsumed into or superimposed on the Kirkpatrick Four-Level Evaluation Model, and vice versa. Meanwhile, the phase of language input and output is analyzed on the basis of the two Models above. In the end, some implications arise so as to provide reference for prospective researchers and practitioners in psycholinguistics.

The aim of the study. The 4MAT Teaching and Learning Model and the Kirkpatrick Four-Level Evaluation Model are both widely applied, so a deliberate literature review to clarify the integration and the unity between them is conducted that expects to make some theoretical references inspired by the unity available to a wide range of linguistic teaching design and learning performance evaluation.

The authors argue that the references interconnect teaching design and learning performance evaluation in light of language input and output and therefore help linguistic teachers/trainers with a whole and valid scheme at the very beginning of student learning, and this is the unity that also corresponds to Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick’s standpoint: “The end is the beginning”.

Research methods. The study was conducted using the semantic differential scaling and the method of documentary analysis.

Results. A combination of brain science theory and Fractal Information Theory has verified initially how the 4MAT Teaching and Learning Model and the Kirkpatrick Four-Level Evaluation Model subsume and superimpose in terms of the theoretical framework, i.e., the unity between a teaching theory and a learning performance evaluation theory. Such integration not only originates from the inherent unity verified by a thoughtful literature review but also receives theoretical support from interdisciplinary studies. Meanwhile, this integration is intertwined with language input and output in a psycholinguistic/neurolinguistic manner.

Conclusions. A primary investigation using brain science theory and other theories to analyze the integration between the 4MAT Teaching and Learning Model and the Kirkpatrick Four-Level Evaluation Model shows the unity between both models. This investigation led to achieving the purpose of the study: modernizing the methodology of psycholinguistic research. With implementing the components/stages of language input and output as this article proposed, it is expected to be promising in extending and applying both models theoretically and practically in linguistics and other relevant areas in the future. As it comes to studies, it is recommended that the two Models be connected to analyze more teaching models and/or learning performance evaluation models for unity, inquire performance evaluation in collaborations with scenarios in practice, or even associate other disciplines under the implementation of Fractal Information Theory. A possible suggestion for psycholinguistic researchers is to design curricular and lessons based on the Unified Models (Figure 1 & 2) proposed in this study and evaluate instructional efficacy and student learning performance. Another potential research direction is to use each quadrant of the Unified Models and analyze related components in more specific language input and output phases: listening, reading, speaking, writing, and even smaller components in the four types of language skills. As it comes to practice, especially in psycholinguistics and/or other relevant disciplines, the key to apply the two target Models simultaneously depends on how to regulate respective quadrants/levels pro rata as well as the wholeness between them to simultaneously achieve “dynamic equilibrium” in the 4MAT Teaching and Learning Model and “The end is the beginning” in the Kirkpatrick Four-Level Evaluation Model.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Agrawal, L., Chhajed, R., Ghosh, S., Ghosh, B., Ray, K., Sahu, S., & Fujita, D. (2018). Fractal Information Theory (FIT)-Derived Geometric Musical Language (GML) for Brain-Inspired Hypercomputing. In Pant M., Ray K., Sharma T., Rawat S., & Bandyopadhyay A. (Eds), Proceedings of SoCTA’ 18 “Soft Computing: Theories and Applications”. Part of Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (Vol. 584, pp. 343–372). Springer. Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5699-4_33

Aish, R., & Hanna, S. (2017). Comparative evaluation of parametric design systems for teaching design computation. Design Studies, 52, 144–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.05.002

Arnone, M.P., Small, R.V., Chauncey, S.A., & McKenna, H.P. (2011). Curiosity, interest and engagement in technology-pervasive learning environments: A new research agenda. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(2), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9190-9

Baum, W. (2016). Understanding Behaviorism: Behavior, Culture, and Evolution. Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119143673

Bazaluk, O., & Blazhevych, T. (2015). Modern Basics of the Philosophy of Education. Future Human Image, 2(5), 93–100.

Caviness, L.B. (2001). Educational brain research as compared to E. G. White’s counsels to educators. Doctor’s thesis. Available from ProQuest Dissertation and theses database (UMI No. 3019334).

Caviness, L.B. (2007). A qualitative analysis of whole-child nurture from brain science perspective. In A. Nava (Ed.), Critical issues in brain science and pedagogy (pp. 5–31). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Chen, T.L., Jeang, S.G., & Liu, Y.L. (2012). A training evaluation study based on Kirkpatrick’s four-level evaluation model in public sector training. Review of Agricultural Extension Science, 29, 22–44 [in Chinese].

Czyż, A., & Svyrydenko, D. (2019). Science Education as a Response to the Needs of the Modern Open “Education for Everyone” System. Future Human Image, 11, 14–21. https://doi.org/10.29202/fhi/11/2

Derry, J. (2013). Vygotsky: Philosophy and Education. Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118368732

Driskill, G.W. (2019). Organizational Culture in Action. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429427473

Fatkhutdinov, V., & Bazaluk, O. (2018). The Importance of the Brain Neuro-Programming Technologies in National and Regional Security Strategies. Philosophy and Cosmology, 20, 74–82. https://doi.org/10.29202/phil-cosm/20/6

Gazzaniga, M.S., Ivry, R.B., & Mangun, G.R. (2002). Cognitive neuroscience: The biology of the mind (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.

Glasser, W. (1986). Control theory in the classroom. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Hanfstingl, B., Benke, G., & Zhang, Y. (2019) Comparing variation theory with Piaget’s theory of cognitive development: more similarities than differences? Educational Action Research, 27(4), 511–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2018.1564687

Hsiao, Y.C. (2010). The implication of public sector training evaluated by Kirkpatrick levels. T&D Fashion, 90, 1–17. [in Chinese].

Huang, J.T., & Hsieh, H.H. (2011). Training evaluation of management development training program: A case study of public sector training institution. Journal of Human Resource Management, 11, 1–26. [in Chinese].

Kalat, J.N. (2013). Biological psychology (11th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth CENGAGE Learning.

Kirkpatrick, D.L., & Kirkpatrick, J.D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Kirkpatrick, J.D., & Kirkpatrick, W. (2011). Creating ROE: The end is the beginning, T+D, 65(11), 60–64.

Kirkpatrick, J.D, & Kirkpatrick, W. (2019). An introduction to the New World Kirkpatrick Model. Newnan, GA: Kirkpatrick Partners: The One and Only Kirkpatrick.

Lin, Y.W. (2013). The effects of cognitive flexibility and openness to change on college students’ academic performance. Doctor’s thesis.

Lin, Y.W. (2016a). Analysis of the curriculum design of the Academy of Civil Service’s personnel management skills development and training program for newly appointed supervisors using the 4MAT teaching and learning model. T&D Fashion, 214, 1–32 [in Chinese]

Lin, Y.W. (2016b). The development and application of the exploration and action learning course: The 2012–2015 research results of the Academy of Civil Service’s personnel management skills development and training program for newly appointed supervisors. T&D Fashion, 223, 1–29 [in Chinese].

McCarthy, B. (1980). The 4MAT system. Oakbrook, IL: Excel.

McCarthy, B. (1997). A table of four learners: 4MAT’s learning style. Educational Leadership, 54(6), 46–51.

McCarthy, B. (2000). About teaching. Wauconda, IL: About Learning Inc.

McCarthy, B., & O’Neill-Blackwell, J. (2007). Hold on, you lost me: Use learning styles to create training that sticks. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press.

Reio, T.G., Rocco, T.S., Smith, D.H., & Chang, E. (2017), A Critique of Kirkpatrick’s Evaluation Model. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 29, 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20178

Sim, J. (2017). Using Kirkpatrick Four Level Evaluation model to assess a 12‐week accelerated ultrasound intensive course. Sonography, 4, 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1002/sono.12116

Sousa, D.A. (2011a). How the brain learns (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Sousa, D.A. (2011b). How the ELL brain learns. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Sylwester, R. (1995). A celebration of neurons: An educator’s guide to the human brain. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press.

United States Office of Personnel Management. (2008). Best practice: Mentoring. Retrieved from http://www.opm.gov/hrd/lead/BestPractices-Mentoring.pdf

Watson, M.K., Pelkey, J., Noyes, C., & Rodgers, M.O. (2019) Using Kolb’s Learning Cycle to Improve Student Sustainability Knowledge. Sustainability, 11, 4602. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174602

White, E.G. (1903). Education. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press.

Wolfe, P. (2010). Brain matters: Translating research into practice (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press.

Zull, J. E. (2002). The art of changing the brain. Sterling, VA: Stylus.


Abstract views: 106
PDF Downloads: 26
Published
2020-04-16
How to Cite
Lin, Y.-W., & Bazaluk, O. (2020). Using Brain Science Theory to Analyze the Unity between Language Input and Output: Methodology Improvement Substantiation. PSYCHOLINGUISTICS, 27(1), 195-218. https://doi.org/10.31470/2309-1797-2020-27-1-195-218