Examining Students’ Language Preferences: A Case Study of Sublime, Emo-Sensory and Simple Styles

Document Type : Research

Authors

1 Professor in TEFL,, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran; pishghadam@um.ac.ir

2 Assistant Professor of Persian Language Education, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

3 M.A. in Persian Language Education, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract

Writing scientific and academic books, articles, and delivering lectures on various scientific topics are among the effective ways of communicating knowledge and information to audiences and learners. Therefore, it is worth noting that researchers, scholars, and teachers in various fields of research should adopt a writing or lecturing style that effectively and successfully communicates information to the audience, enabling them to easily benefit from learning new content and information. Priority should be given to using scientific language, which is plain, direct in interpretation, and has logical structures and order that utilize words in their true meaning, guiding the audience directly to the intended meaning.
However, some authors, researchers, and speakers opt for a sublime and glorious style of presentation, aiming to deliver eloquent speech or writing. Despite this, they should consider that the primary and crucial goal of presenting scientific content is to convey it properly and explicitly to the audience. Therefore, teachers should pay attention to differences such as gender, education, and field of study among their audience when choosing their presentation style. Each variable affects people's preferences for learning. For example, studies in applied linguistics have shown that gender differences play a role in the use of language tools, with men and women differing in their use of lexical items. Additionally, individuals' level of education and their expertise and specialization shape the way they use lexical items or grammatical structures. If the audience is trained according to their preferences in receiving and processing information, they will achieve better academic results.
Due to these differences among learners, the education system needs to consider learners' learning styles and emotions, as they are essential factors in the field of education. Emotions not only affect students' preparation and motivation to deal with problems but also their efforts and the strategies they use to understand the course content. In this regard, utilizing the emo-sensory style (involving the senses and evoking emotions) and engaging different senses of students in the process of grasping information can be beneficial.
Given the importance of considering audience differences and their needs when selecting the writing and speaking style of authors and speakers, the present study aims to examine the language preferences of students of different genders, various levels of education, and fields of study. This analysis is conducted using a new measure that examines sublime, emo-sensory, and simple styles. The paper seeks to answer the question of whether gender, level of education, and field of study significantly influence learners' preferences regarding these styles.

Keywords


  1. Ahadi, F., Abedsaeidi, J., Arshadi, F., & Ghorbani, R. (2010). Learning styles of nursing and allied health students in Semnan University of Medical Sciences. Koomesh, 11(2), 141-146. [In Persian].
  2. Anderson, L. (2004). Increasing teacher effectiveness. Paris: UNESCO international institute for educational planning.
  3. Argamon, S., Koppel, M., Fine, J., & Shimoni, A., & Shimoni, A. R. (2003). Gender, genre, and writing style in formal written texts. Text & Talk, 23(3), 321-346.
  4. Artino, J. A. R., Holmboe, E. S., & Durning, S. I. (2012). Control-value theory: Using achievement emotions to improve understanding of motivation, learning and performance in medical education. AMEE Guide, 4(3), 60-148.
  5. Baines, L. (2008). A teachers' guide to learning multisensory improving literacy by engaging the senses. Virginia USA: Association for supervision and curriculum development (ASCD).
  6. Ebrahimi, S., Tabatabaeian, M. S., & Al Abdwani, T. (2022). Enhancing the communicative skills of normal ‎and mentally-challenged learners through ‎emo-sensory textbooks. Journal of Business, Communication, & Technology, 1(2), 1-12.
  7.  ‎Fotoohi Rudmajani, M. (2015). Academic Confessions (2): Zero grade writing. Retrieved from <http://karsi.blogfa.com/post/219/%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%B4%DA%AF%D8%A7%D9%87%DB%8C-(2)> [In Persian].
  8. Geary, D. C. (1998). Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences. Washington: American Psychological Association Books.
  9. Hajari, H. (2009). A few tips on editing textbooks. University Textbooks: Research and Writing,14(21), 65-74. [In Persian].  
  10. Hajizadeh, M. (2014). Teaching based on individual differences and examining its effect on increasing the level of learning of mathematics and science courses in middle school students. Modirat-E-Farda Journal,12(37), 120-138. [In Persian].
  11. Hosseini, S. H. (2000). Biological differences between men and women. Book Review Journal, 17, 220-259. [In Persian].
  12. Hosseini, M. & Motavvar, M. (2012). A review of academic textbooks in the field of educational sciences in Iran. University Textbooks: Research and Writing, 16(26), 119-142. [In Persian].
  13. Hosseini Lorgani, M. & Sayf, A. (2001). The comparison of students' learning styles according to the gender of the degree and field of study. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 7(19), 94-114. [In Persian].
  14. Homayoni, A., Kadivar, P., & Abdollahi, H. (2006). The relationship among learning styles cognitive styles and the choice of academic courses in male high school students. Developmental Psychology, 3(10), 137-144. [In Persian].
  15. Imani, M., Pishghadam, R., Ebrahimi, S. (2023). An investigation of gender effects on students’ preferences for literary and non-literary strokes. Journal of Woman in Culture Arts, 14(4), 627-652. [In Persian].
  16. Klašnja-Milićević, A., Marošan, Z., Ivanović, M., Savić, N., & Vesin, B. (2019). The future of learning multisensory experiences: Visual, audio, smell and taste senses. Nature, 1(9), 1-9.
  17. Lovelace, M. K. (2005). Meta-analysis of experimental research based on the Dunn and Dunn model. The Journal of Education Research, 98(3), 176-183.
  18. Longinus, C. (2008). Longinus on the sublime. Translated by R. Seyyed Hosseini, Tehran: Academy of Persian Language and Literature. [In Persian].
  19. Moeinian, N. (2017). Sociological study of language differences between men and women. Journal of Sociology Studies, 9(33), 83-9. [In Persian].
  20. Nasr, A., Jamali Zavareh, B., Nili, M., & Armand, M. (2012). Explaining the writing and structure criteria for authoring and developing textbooks in disciplines of education psychology and consulting. Higher Education Letter, 5(18), 45-66. [In Persian].
  21. Pishghadam, R. (2015). Emotioncy in language education: From exvolvement to involvement. Paper presented at the 2nd conference of Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language Teaching, Literature, and Translation Studies. Iran, Mashhad.
  22. Pishghadam, R., Adamson, B., & Shayesteh, S. (2013a). Emotion-based language instruction (EBLI) as a new perspective in bilingual education. Multilingual Education, 3(9), 1-16. 
  23. Pishghadam, R., Tabatabaeian, M., & Navari, S. (2013b). A critical and practical analysis of first language acquisition theories: The origin and development. Mashhad, Iran: Ferdowsi University of Mashhad Press. [In Persian].
  24. Pishghadam, R., & Ebrahimi, S. (2020). Examining the effects of emotioncy-based language instruction on non-Persian language learners’ level of cultural intelligence. Zabanpazhuhi, 12(35), 55-82. [In Persian].
  25. Pishghadam, R., Ebrahimi, S., & Rajabi, A. (in press). Emotions and success in education: From apathy to transpathy. Jouranl of Cognition, Emotion, & Education.
  26. Pishghadam, R., Ebrahimi, S., & Tabatabaeian, M. S. (2019a). A novel approach to psychology of language education. Mashhad: Ferdowsi University Press. [In Persian].
  27. Pishghadam, R., Jajarmi, H., Shayesteh, S. (2016). Conceptualizing sensory relativism in light of emotioncy: A movement beyond linguistic relativism. International Journal of Society, Culture, & Language, 4(2), 11-21.
  28. Pishghadam, R., Shakeebaee, G., & Shayesteh, S. (2018). Introducing cultural weight as a tool of comparative analysis: An emotioncy-based study of social class. Humanities Diliman. 15(1), 139-158.
  29. Pishghadam, R., Shakeebaee, G., & Rahmani, S. (2019b). Sensory capital in education: The missing piece? Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, 11(3), 264-282.
  30. Rezai, V. (2004). The standard language and its characteristics. Name-ye Farhangestan, 6(3), 20-35. [In Persian].
  31. Rezai, V. (2011). The role of the standard language and text linguistics in designing college textbooks. Ayar, 15(2), 95-110. [In Persian].
  32. Razi, A. (2009). The criteria for evaluation and critique of academic coursebooks. Sokhan Samt, 14(21), 21-30. [In Persian].
  33. Samiee Guilani, A. (1999). Writing and editing. Tehran: Samt. [In Persian].
  34. Zaidi, Z. F. (2010). Gender differences in human brain: A review. The Open Anatomy Journal, 2(37), 37-55.
  35. Zeinabadi, H. R., & Babanabadi, F. (2017). A reflection on the factors and symptoms of effectiveness of a book in the field of educational administration. University Textbooks; Research and Writing, 21(40), 1-24. [In Persian]