The study was conducted in two rounds with the same subjects completing the two rounds sequentially. Each round of the study employed a pretest-posttest design (Brown, 1988, p. 154) with an experimental group and a control group. The pretest for each round served to control for vocabulary knowledge prior to the treatment. The treatment for each round included three conditions as follows: (1) an individual communication task introducing new lexical items to individual members of the experimental group, (2) a group communication task introducing new lexical items to small groups of members of the experimental group, and (3) unrelated activities for the control group. The posttest for each round measured both productive and receptive vocabulary knowledge, and served as a measure of acquisition (i.e., long-term recall) of the new lexical items introduced through the communication tasks conducted during the treatment. Please see Figure 1 for an overview of the research design.
Figure 1. Overview of Research Design
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
¦
¦ ¦
¦
¦ R
¦ PRETEST ¦ administered individually to
all subjects ¦
¦
¦ ¦
¦
¦ O
+-----------+---------------------------------------------¦
¦
¦ ¦
¦Task 1A conducted with
¦
¦ U
¦ ¦
Condition 1 ¦individual members of the
¦
¦
¦ ¦
¦experimental group
¦
¦ N
¦ +-------------+-------------------------------¦
¦
¦ ¦
¦Task 1B conducted with small ¦
¦ D
¦ TREATMENT ¦ Condition 2 ¦groups of members of the
¦
¦
¦ ¦
¦experimental group
¦
¦
¦ +-------------+-------------------------------¦
¦
¦ ¦
¦unrelated activities conducted ¦
¦ O
¦ ¦
Condition 3 ¦with members of the control ¦
¦
¦ ¦
¦group
¦
¦ N
+-----------+---------------------------------------------¦
¦
¦ ¦
¦
¦ E
¦ POSTTEST ¦ administered individually to all subjects
¦
¦
¦ ¦
¦
¦-----+-----------+---------------------------------------------¦
¦
¦ ¦
¦
¦ R
¦ PRETEST ¦ administered individually to all
subjects ¦
¦
¦ ¦
¦
¦ O
+-----------+---------------------------------------------¦
¦
¦ ¦
¦Task 2A conducted with
¦
¦ U
¦ ¦
Condition 1 ¦individual members of the
¦
¦
¦ ¦
¦experimental group
¦
¦ N
¦ +-------------+-------------------------------¦
¦
¦ ¦
¦Task 2B conducted with small ¦
¦ D
¦ TREATMENT ¦ Condition 2 ¦groups of members of the
¦
¦
¦ ¦
¦experimental group
¦
¦
¦ +-------------+-------------------------------¦
¦
¦ ¦
¦unrelated activities conducted ¦
¦ T
¦ ¦
Condition 3 ¦with members of the control ¦
¦
¦ ¦
¦group
¦
¦ W
+-----------+---------------------------------------------¦
¦
¦ ¦
¦
¦ O
¦ POSTTEST ¦ administered individually to all subjects
¦
¦
¦ ¦
¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
The main variables which the present study investigates are interaction, comprehension, and acquisition of new lexical items. The extent to which these variables occur in individual settings as compared to group settings is also investigated. Additionally, the degree of overall lexical acquisition attained by the experimental group is compared with the degree of overall lexical acquisition attained by the control group.
As reflected in the research questions, the present study includes an investigation of the relationships among these variables (i.e, interaction, comprehension, and lexical acquisition). In the group setting, the study also allows for the investigation of the relationships among these variables for the subjects who actively participate in the interaction as compared to those subjects who are merely exposed to the interaction.
Hence, a complete list of variables investigated by the present study is as follows: (1) interaction, (2) comprehension, (3) lexical acquisition, (4) setting, which has two levels: individual and group, (5) group, which has two levels: experimental and control, and (6) participation, which has two levels: active and passive.
The identification of subjects for this study took place at the beginning of the school-year (September, 1991) at an American elementary school located in a self-contained American community in Japan. The school's population consists of approximately 1,000 students in kindergarten through sixth grade; over the last 10 years there has been an average of 45 students enrolled in the school's ESL program. The subjects for the study consisted of the 14 kindergarten students who had been determined to be eligible for the ESL program. These students attend a regular kindergarten session of 2½ hours with native-English-speaking peers and teachers; additionally, they attend a daily ESL class of 45 minutes with one of two native-English-speaking ESL teachers. At the beginning of the study, the subjects' ages ranged from 5 years and 2 months to 6 years and 2 months and represented three first-language backgrounds: Japanese, Tagalog, and Thai. Please see Appendix A for additional background information about each subject.
The 14 subjects were randomly assigned to either the experimental group
or the control group and remained in their assigned group for both rounds
of the study. Three of the subjects were selected to serve as the control
group, with 11 forming the experimental group; illness and absence affected
the experimental group. Illness of 1 student during the first round left
10 students in the experimental group; that student participated in the
second round. However, the absence of another student again left 10 students
in the experimental group for Round 2. The control group remained intact
for both rounds of the study.
Eligibility for the ESL program is based on results of the PRE-LAS (Language
Assessment Scales) (Duncan & De Avila, 1985) administered at the beginning
of the school-year. Scoring on the PRE-LAS provides for five levels of
English proficiency, Level 1 being a non-English-speaker and Level 5 being
a nativelike English speaker. Students scoring in PRE-LAS Levels 1 through
3 are considered eligible for the ESL program; the results played no other
role in the study. The PRE-LAS is an untimed test, administered individually;
it was administered and scored by one of two ESL teachers who followed
the procedures as described in the instruction manual. Results of the PRE-LAS
are shown in Appendix B.
The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) (Dunn & Dunn, 1981) is
designed primarily to measure a subject's receptive vocabulary in Standard
American English. The PPVT was used as a measure of general lexical proficiency,
as the study investigates vocabulary development. The PPVT is an untimed
test, administered individually; it was administered and scored by the
researcher who followed the procedures as described in the instruction
manual. Results of the PPVT are shown in Appendix B.
The pretest for the first round consisted of words from the following categories: colors, bugs, and birds. The words are vocabulary items from the Peabody Language Development Kit (Dunn & Smith, 1965) and are part of the ESL curriculum. At the time of the study, colors had been taught, whereas bugs and birds had not yet been introduced in class.
The pretest for the second round consisted of words from the following
categories: fruit, vegetables, and occupations. The fruit-names and vegetable-names
are vocabulary items found in Lexicarry (Moran, 1984) and are part
of the ESL curriculum, while the occupation-names are vocabulary items
from the Peabody Language Development Kit (Dunn & Smith, 1965) and
are also part of the ESL curriculum. At the time of the study, none of
these words had been introduced in class.
Aim
The pretests for both rounds measured both productive and receptive
vocabulary knowledge, and served to control for vocabulary knowledge prior
to the treatment phase of the study.
Administration
The pretests for both rounds were administered individually by the researcher. Productive vocabulary knowledge was measured by the subject's ability to verbalize the names of flash-cards representing the items. The researcher asked the subject to name each flash-card while displaying them in turn, allowing ample time for the subject to respond. Each set of flash-cards was presented separately. In Round 1, first colors; then bugs; and finally, birds were presented. In Round 2, first fruit; then vegetables; and finally, occupations were presented.
The pretest for receptive vocabulary knowledge immediately followed the pretest for productive vocabulary knowledge. Employing a forced-choice format, the researcher asked the subject to point to one item on each page of a picture booklet, allowing ample time for the subject to respond. Each page contained six pictures (i.e., the correct picture and five distracters). Receptive vocabulary knowledge was measured by the subject's ability to identify the appropriate picture. Three picture booklets, one for each set of words, were used. Only pictures representing words from within each set were used in each picture booklet. Each picture booklet was presented separately. In Round 1, first colors; then bugs; and finally, birds were presented. In Round 2, first fruit; then vegetables; and finally, occupations were presented.
All words introduced as new lexical items in the communication tasks during the treatment phase (i.e., bugs, and birds in Round 1; and fruits, vegetables, and occupations in Round 2) were concrete nouns. Please see Appendix C for a complete list of lexical items included in the pretest.
Based on the results of the pretest in the first round, the researcher selected vocabulary items for use in the treatment phase of Round 1.
Six color-names that were known receptively by all subjects were selected for use in both the individual and group tasks. As colors were part of the teacher's directions in the communication tasks and not introduced as new lexical items, it was necessary to make certain that these color-names were known by the subjects.
Flash-cards representing four bug-names and four bird-names which were unknown productively and receptively to each subject in the experimental group were selected for use in the individual communication task in Round 1. Three of these four bug-names and three of the four bird-names were explicitly included in the teacher's instructions while the remaining two flash-cards (one bug and one bird) served as distracters.
Flash-cards representing four bug-names and four bird-names which were unknown productively and receptively to all subjects in each subgroup of the experimental group were selected for use in the group communication task in Round 1. These bug- and bird-names were different from those used in the individual task. Three of the four bug-names and three of the four bird-names were explicitly included in the teacher's instructions while the remaining two flash-cards (one bug and one bird) served as distracters.
Thus six words were introduced as new lexical items in both the individual
and group communication tasks during the first round.
Round 2
Based on the results of the pretest in the second round, the researcher selected vocabulary items for use in the treatment phase of Round 2.
Flash-cards representing four fruit-names, four vegetable-names, and three occupation-names which were unknown productively and receptively to each subject in the experimental group were selected for use in the individual communication task in Round 2. Three of these four fruit-names and three of the four vegetable-names were explicitly included in the teacher's instructions while the remaining two flash-cards (one fruit and one vegetable) served as distracters. All three of the occupation-names were explicitly included in the teacher's instructions.
Flash-cards representing four fruit-names, four vegetable-names, and three occupation-names which were unknown productively and receptively to all subjects in each subgroup of the experimental group were selected for use in the group communication task in Round 2. These fruit-, vegetable-, and occupation-names were different from those used in the individual task. Three of the four fruit-names and three of the four vegetable-names were explicitly included in the teacher's instructions while the remaining two flash-cards (one fruit and one vegetable) served as distracters. All three of the occupation-names were explicitly stated in the teacher's instructions on two separate occasions.
Thus nine words were introduced as new lexical items in both the individual
and group communication tasks during the second round.
The treatment in both rounds of the study consisted of three conditions;
however, every attempt was made to conduct the treatment so that it would
appear to the subjects to be a regular class activity.
Condition 1
Condition 1 was met by each member of the experimental group participating
in an individual communication task conducted by the researcher. Both the
individual communication task in the first round of the study (Task 1A),
and the individual communication task in the second round of the study
(Task 2A) introduced new lexical items to these subjects.
Condition 2
Condition 2 was met by two subgroups of the experimental group participating
in a group communication task conducted by the researcher. The experimental
group of 10 students was divided into two subgroups of 5 students each
for the group task in each round. There was no difference in the conditions
for these two subgroups as it is the norm at the data collection site for
ESL classes to meet in small groups. Both the group communication task
in the first round of the study (Task 1B), and the group communication
task in the second round of the study (Task 2B) introduced new lexical
items to these subjects.
Condition 3
Condition 3 was met by the control group participating in unrelated
activities with another teacher during the time the members of the experimental
group participated in the communication tasks. This was accomplished by
arranging for the control group to visit the computer center at the designated
time of the group communication task.
As in previous research in this area carried out by other researchers,
this study used communication tasks to serve as the vehicle for data collection.
Of the three communication tasks (jig-saw task, information-gap task, and
opinion-exchange task) described by Pica (1992), it is the information-gap
task that has proved to be most suitable for very young learners. In classroom
activities involving communication tasks conducted with kindergartners
at the data-collection site of this study, the researcher and a colleague
both found the opinion-gap tasks to be beyond the linguistic, or perhaps
cognitive skills of the subjects, while jig-saw tasks were beyond their
social skills. Furthermore, information-gap tasks allow the teacher to
hold the crucial, task-relevant information through which the new lexical
items are introduced. Considering these advantages, four information-gap
tasks were developed by the researcher for use in the study.
Content
All four of these tasks involved the subjects' selecting certain flash-cards
and placing them at a particular destination on a board in front of them,
as instructed by the teacher. Embedded in the teacher's instructions were
lexical items which were unknown to the subjects. As it was established
before hand that the new lexical items were in fact unknown to the subjects,
it was predicted that the subjects would request the information held by
the teacher (i.e., the word meanings) in order to successfully complete
the task. The tasks themselves were simple enough that the researcher believed
that the only obstacle for the subjects to complete the task would be the
meanings of the new lexical items. A pilot study conducted the previous
school-year confirmed these predictions.
Task 1A (Individual Zoo Keeper). This task served as the individual
information-gap task for Round 1. The names of the flash-cards that the
subjects were instructed to select were new lexical items. Please see Figure
2 for a diagram representing Task 1A..ls 1
Task 1B (Group Zoo Keeper). This task served as the group information-gap
task for Round 1. The names of the flash-cards that the subjects were instructed
to select were new lexical items. Please see Figure 3 for a diagram representing
Task 1B.
Task 2A (Individual Snack Time). This task served as the individual
information-gap task for Round 2. The names of the flash-cards that the
subjects were instructed to select were new lexical items. The names of
the destinations at which the subjects were instructed to place these flash-cards
were also new lexical items. Please see Figure 4 for a diagram representing
Task 2A.
Task 2B (Group Snack Time). This task served as the group information-gap
task for Round 2. The names of the flash-cards that the subjects were instructed
to select were new lexical items. The names of the destinations at which
the subjects were instructed to place these flash-cards were also new lexical
items. Please see Figure 5 for a diagram representing Task 2B.
--------------
Figure 2
--------------
Figure 3
--------------
Figure 4
--------------
Figure 5
The individual tasks served to introduce new lexical items to individual subjects; stimulate interaction between the researcher and the subjects; and to measure the subjects' comprehension of the input containing the new lexical items, as measured by the level of success achieved in completing the tasks. Analyzing transcriptions of the interaction which occurred during the individual tasks, allowed the researcher to investigate the effect of negotiated interaction on the comprehension of input containing new lexical items.
The group tasks served to introduce new lexical items to small groups
of subjects; elicit interaction between the researcher and the subjects
and possibly among the subjects; and to measure the subjects' comprehension
of the input containing the new lexical items, as measured by the level
of success the subjects achieved in completing the tasks. Subjects were
free to interact, or not to interact, at their discretion. Thus, analyzing
transcriptions of the interaction which occurred during the group tasks,
allows the researcher to investigate the effect that participation in the
interaction has on the comprehension of input containing new lexical items
as compared to the effect that exposure to the interaction has on the comprehension
of input containing new lexical items.
Administration
For a detailed description of the tasks, please see Appendix D. Additionally,
Appendix E contains complete transcriptions of the information-gap tasks.
General guidelines followed by the researcher when carrying out all information-gap
tasks are as follows:
Both rounds of the study employed a posttest which was administered individually by the researcher 7 days after completion of the tasks. The posttest for each round was identical to the pretest for that round; it contained all words contained in the pretest and employed the same flash-card format to measure productive vocabulary knowledge and the same forced-choice, picture booklet format to measure receptive vocabulary knowledge as that used in the pretest. Please see Appendix C for a complete list of lexical items included in the posttest. The posttest served as an indication of lexical acquisition to the extent that it measured long-term recall of the words.
To investigate the research questions posed by the present study, the three variables (interaction, comprehension, and lexical acquisition) were operationalized and a scoring system for each was developed. This section describes the procedures used in scoring the data collected. The interaction and comprehension scores are derived from analysis of the treatment phases of the study (i.e., the communication tasks) while lexical acquisition scores are derived from results of the pre- and posttests.
The type of interaction most relevant to the present study is verbal interaction which contains negotiation for the meaning of a new lexical item, as it is theorized that this negotiation brings about the interactional adjustments which makes the input comprehensible to the learners and plays an essential role in the acquisition process. Varonis and Gass focused on non-native-speaker discourse to present their model for the negotiation of meaning or "non-understanding routines" (1985b, p. 73) which they define as "those exchanges in which there is some overt indication that understanding between participants has not been complete" (1985b, p. 73). Please see Figure 6 for a diagram of this model which Varonis and Gass describe as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------
Trigger Resolution
+---+
+------------+
¦ T ¦ »
¦ I » R » RR ¦
+---+
+------------+
----------------------------------------------------------
Two refinements to this model described in subsequent studies are relevant
to the present study. First, to allow for a more detailed analysis of the
data, the indicator is subdivided into two classifications, namely, direct
and indirect indicators of non-understanding (Gass & Varonis, 1985a).
Gass and Varonis (1985a) explain that direct indicators leave no doubt
that there has been a lack of understanding and are often expressed with
a wh- word, while indirect indicators are a more gentle means of expressing
a lack of understanding and are often a repetition of a word or phrase
from the previous utterance. The present study recognizes both direct and
indirect indicators of non-understanding under the condition that the indicator
is verbal; that is, for scoring purposes, silence is not considered
to be an indicator of non-understanding. Second, Gass and Varonis define
negotiation to be "those exchanges in which there is some overt indication
that understanding between participants has not been complete and there
is a resultant attempt to clarify the non-understanding" (1985b, p. 39).
The present study considers this attempt to clarify the non-understanding
to be met if the teacher's response to the learner's indicator contains
additional information. That is, for scoring purposes in the present study,
a non-understanding routine is considered complete when the teacher supplies
additional information in response to a learner's utterance which signals,
directly or indirectly, the non-understanding of a target word.
After the tasks were recorded and transcribed, in order to quantify the interaction which occurred, the transcriptions were scored in terms of the model for non-understandings presented by Varonis and Gass (1985b) with consideration given to the two refinements described above. The flow chart used as the model for scoring negotiated interaction in the present study is displayed in Figure 7.
--------------
Figure 7
--------------
This model does not assume, however, that understanding is attained, only that negotiated interaction has occurred. Neither does it preclude the possibility of a single target word resulting in numerous non-understanding routines.
As a measure of interaction, the present study assigned 1 point to the subjects for each non-understanding routine in which the trigger (T) was a new lexical item introduced in the task, the indicator (I) was a subject's utterance(s) which overtly marked non-understanding of the trigger, and the response (R) was the teacher's utterance(s) which provided additional information to the subject. The present study considers the reaction to the response (RR) an optional unit of the routine, as do Varonis and Gass (1985b), thus its absence or presence plays no role in scoring the interaction. An example of a complete non-understanding routine taken from the data collected for the present study appears here in Excerpt 1.
Excerpt 1.
---------------------------------------------------------
Teacher: please give the papaya to
the roofer/ (T)
Subject: what's the roofer? like this?/ (I)
Teacher: a roofer is a person who climbs
up (R)
on top of the house to fix the roof/
Subject: okay/
(RR)
----------------------------------------------------------
The subject in the above negotiated interaction (Excerpt 1) received
1 interaction point for having brought about this interactional adjustment
by first noticing the trigger "roofer," indicating non-understanding by
asking for a definition of the unknown word which, in turn, brought about
a response by the teacher which provided additional information. The subject's
subsequent reaction to the teacher's response ("okay") played no role in
the scoring. That is, for the subject to receive an interaction point the
trigger (a new lexical item), the indicator (a verbal indication
of non-understanding), and the response (providing new information)
must all be present.
In Excerpt 1, the indicator of non-understanding is a direct indicator, as the subject specifically asks for information about the target word. An example of an indirect indicator of non-understanding appears here in Excerpt 2.
Excerpt 2.
----------------------------------------------------------
Teacher: are you ready for the next
one?/ okay/ +
please find the coconut=
(T)
Subject: =coconut/= (I)
Teacher: =and give it to the veterinarian/
Subject: coconut/ (I)
Teacher: do you know what a coconut
is?/ + a
coconut is like a big brown ball and it (R)
looks like it has hair on it/ ++
----------------------------------------------------------
In this case, the subject received 1 interaction point for having brought about this interactional adjustment by first noticing the trigger "coconut," indicating non-understanding with an "echo" (Gass & Varonis, 1986, p. 334) by repeating part of the previous utterance in a falling intonation pattern which, in turn, brought about a response by the teacher which provided additional information. The subject in fact produced two indirect indicators but received only 1 point, as only one of the indicators brought about a response by the teacher.
Both of the excerpts above are rather simple exchanges. An example of
a more complex exchange appears here in Excerpt 3.
Excerpt 3.
----------------------------------------------------------
Teacher: please find the spinach and=
(T)
Subject: =what it look like?/= (I)
Teacher: =give it to the veterinarian/
okay/
spinach looks like green leaves on
(R)
little stems/ big green leaves/
Subject: ah look like corn?/ (I)
Teacher: well it doesn't look like
corn/
(R)
corn is yellow/ spinach is green/
green leaf/ green/ it's green/
with a lot of leaves/ big leaves/ ++
Subject: i got it/ ++ i got it already/
(RR)
----------------------------------------------------------
The subject in the above negotiated interaction (Excerpt 3) received 2 interaction points as both of the indicators brought about responses by the teacher which provided additional information. The new lexical item "spinach" provides the trigger for both indicators.
Of course it is conceivable that a subject may attempt to carry out
the instructions without negotiating for the meaning of an unknown lexical
item, as interaction is not the only option available to learners who encounter
new linguistic material. Færch and Kasper point out that "inference"
(1986, p. 270) can be a useful tool for learners, and Sharwood Smith (1986)
contends that other knowledge systems (e.g., the L1 system, gesture, logical
inferences, the current situation) may be accessed to make input comprehensible.
Considering the fact that in the tasks that comprise the treatment phase
of the present study, there is a finite number of flash-cards to select
from and places to put them, it is certainly within the realm of possibility
that the learners could carry out the instructions without negotiating
and do so correctly.
Comprehension was measured by the subjects' success in completing the
tasks as directed by the teacher. Subjects received 1 point for the correct
selection of a flash-card and 1 point for the correct placement of the
flash-card. Subjects were directed to select and place six flash-cards
for a total of 12 possible points. In Round 1 of the study, the names of
the six flash-cards to be selected were new lexical items; however, the
names of the locations at which they were to be placed were known. In Round
2, the six names of the flash-cards to be selected and the three names
of the locations at which they were to be placed were new lexical items.
At appropriate times throughout the execution of each task, the researcher
checked each subject's board and marked a score sheet accordingly. Scores
were tallied after completion of the tasks.
As mentioned in Chapter 2, several views of vocabulary knowledge propose that the lexical store be viewed as a continuum rather than a dichotomy (e.g., Gass, 1988a; & Teichroew, 1982). According to Teichroew, "the boundaries of receptive knowledge and productive knowledge are variable" (1982, p. 21); therefore, for the purposes of the present study, the notions of productive and receptive vocabulary knowledge are tightly defined. A subject displays productive knowledge of a word by correctly verbalizing the names of flash-cards representing the items when asked to do so by the researcher. This flash-card format test is administered individually according to the procedures described above. A subject displays receptive knowledge of a word by correctly identifying the appropriate picture in a forced-choice test (described above) which is administered individually following similar procedures to that of the PPVT.
Lexical acquisition was measured for both productive and receptive knowledge of the new lexical items presented by administering the posttests 7 days after completion of the tasks. Round 1 of the study introduced six new lexical items to the subjects in each task (i.e., Tasks 1A and 1B), while Round 2 introduced nine new lexical items to the subjects in each task (i.e., Tasks 2A and 2B). For the productive lexical acquisition score, subjects received 1 point for each word used in the tasks and produced correctly in the posttest which had not been produced correctly in the pretest. For the receptive lexical acquisition score, subjects received 1 point for each word used in the tasks and identified correctly in the posttest which had not been identified correctly in the pretest.
In addition to serving as a tool for measuring vocabulary growth in
the new lexical items presented in the tasks as described above, the overall
pre- and posttest scores achieved by the experimental group are compared
with those achieved by the control group (who did not participate in the
treatment phase of the study) in order to establish whether there were
any learning effects from completing the tests.
Since the results of this study are based in part on quantitative measures
of the variables (interaction, comprehension, and lexical acquisition),
it is important to ensure that the procedures and tests used are consistent
and accurate. This section describes the steps taken to address the issue
of reliability of the quantitative measures used.
A second rater was trained in the procedures for scoring the interaction
as described above using the data from the pilot study. Then two subjects
from each task were selected randomly for comparison with the scoring done
by the researcher in order to test the reliability of the scoring method
and to report a measure of the degree to which the scoring was done accurately
and consistently. The trial-by-trial agreement (Page & Iwata, 1986)
was calculated with the interaction resulting from the introduction of
one new lexical item comprising one trial. This calculation yielded an
inter-rater reliability index of 86.66%.
The measure of comprehension is simple and accurate. As described above,
the researcher marks a score sheet indicating whether or not the subject
has carried out the instructions correctly. However, since no scoring system
is completely infallible, a safeguard was taken to double check the scoring.
At the end of each session, the researcher called out the name and placement
of each of the items on each student's board. Thus, by reviewing the recordings
of the tasks, the researcher was able to make certain all score sheets
were marked correctly. Therefore, it is safe to assume that the reliability
of the measure of comprehension consistently approaches 100% accuracy.
Measures of the internal reliability of the tests of receptive vocabulary knowledge,3 used as the pre- and posttests, appear in Table 1.
Table 1. Reliability of Tests of Receptive
Vocabulary
Knowledge
-----------------------------------------------------------
Test
K-R20
-----------------------------------------------------------
Round 1 Pretest
.37
Round 1 Posttest .76
Round 2 Pretest .80
Round 2 Posttest
.82
-----------------------------------------------------------
All tests, with the exception of the pretest in Round 1, exhibit an
acceptable level of reliability. It must be pointed out, however, that
the low measure found in the Round 1 pretest appears to be more a problem
of the skewed distribution of the data (all subjects scored relatively
low on the test) than with actual test reliability. The reliability measures
were calculated with the Kuder-Richardson formula 20 (K-R20) using the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences computer software (SPSS/PC+)
(Norusis, 1990).
The analysis begins with an overview of the results which includes a close look at the quantifications made for interaction, comprehension, and acquisition of the new lexical items introduced during the treatment phase of the present study. Additionally, the descriptive statistics of these measures are reviewed.
The analysis of interaction, comprehension, and lexical acquisition includes an investigation of the effect that the setting (individual or group) has on these measures. This analysis treats interaction, comprehension, and lexical acquisition as dependent variables with setting (individual or group) as the independent variable. This analysis was accomplished by calculating Multivariate analysis of variance procedures and Univariate F-tests using SPSS/PC+ (Norusis, 1990). The alpha level for statistical decisions based on these calculations was set at .05.
Additionally, the degree of overall lexical acquisition attained by the experimental group (those subjects who participated in the tasks) is compared with the degree of lexical acquisition attained by the control group (those who did not participate in the tasks). Overall lexical acquisition is measured by comparing total pre- and posttest scores for the members of each group (experimental and control). The analysis was accomplished by calculating Group by Test Repeated-measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), using SPSS/PC+ (Norusis, 1990), for each round of the study. The alpha level for statistical decisions based on these calculations was set at .05.
Further investigation is intended to shed light on the issues addressed
by the research questions presented in Chapter 1. Each research question,
along with an explanation of the types of analysis used to accomplish its
investigation, is presented here.
What is the relationship between interaction and the comprehension of input containing new lexical items?
The analysis of this question entails an examination of the descriptive
statistics and the comparisons made between settings for the variables
addressed (i.e., comprehension and lexical acquisition). Additionally,
correlations between the interaction scores and the comprehension scores
using the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient were calculated,
using SPSS/PC+ (Norusis, 1990), to determine the degree of relationship
between these variables. Due to the fact that several correlations were
calculated from scores achieved by the same subjects, the alpha level for
statistical decisions of .05 was divided in half and set at a more conservative
.025 for all correlations.
What is the relationship between interaction and the acquisition of these new lexical items?
The analysis of this question entails an examination of the descriptive
statistics and the comparisons made between settings for the variables
addressed (i.e., interaction and lexical acquisition). Additionally, correlations
between the interaction scores and the acquisition scores using the Pearson
product moment correlation coefficient were calculated to determine the
degree of relationship between these variables. A decision was made post
hoc to calculate two additional correlations (i.e., rehearsal/acquisition
and teacher repetition/acquisition, described below). Due to the fact that
several correlations were calculated from scores achieved by the same subjects,
the alpha level for statistical decisions of .05 was divided in half and
set at a more conservative .025 for all correlations. Correlation coefficients
were calculated using SPSS/PC+ (Norusis, 1990).
What is the effect of the comprehension of input containing new lexical items on the acquisition of these new lexical items?
The analysis of this question entails an examination of the descriptive
statistics and the comparisons made between settings for the variables
addressed (i.e., comprehension and lexical acquisition). Additionally,
correlations between the comprehension scores and the acquisition scores
using the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient were calculated,
using SPSS/PC+ (Norusis, 1990), to determine the degree of relationship
between these variables. Due to the fact that several correlations were
calculated from scores achieved by the same subjects, the alpha level for
statistical decisions of .05 was divided in half and set at a more conservative
.025 for all correlations.
During group interaction, do the relationships among interaction, comprehension, and acquisition differ for those subjects who orally participate in the interaction as compared to those subjects who are exposed to the interaction but choose not to orally participate?
The analysis of this question entails a review of the descriptive statistics
of the three variables and the correlations calculated for Research Questions
1 through 3. Additionally, to investigate the effect that participation
has on the relationships among the variables, the subjects who completed
the group information-gap tasks in each round are subdivided into classifications
based on the amount of negotiated interaction they initiate. Fisher Exact
probability tests (Siegel, 1956, p. 96) are calculated to determine if
those subjects who orally participate in the interaction achieve comprehension
and acquisition of the new lexical items differently than those subjects
who are exposed to the interaction but choose not to orally participate.
The alpha level for statistical decisions based on these calculations was
set at .05.
This section summarizes the procedures of the present study. Kindergarten ESL students (N=14) are administered a pretest to determine unknown lexical items. An experimental group (n=11) then participates in information-gap tasks with their ESL teacher which are similar to class activities carried out on a regular basis; however, these particular tasks explicitly include unknown lexical items in the teacher's instructions. A control group (n=3) is administered the pretest, but does not participate in the tasks.
The study is conducted in two similar rounds, each consisting of individual tasks and group tasks. There are, however, differences between the two rounds. Round 1 introduces six new words to the subjects, while Round 2 introduces nine new words. Also, in Round 1 the teacher gives feedback to the subjects only after their verbal indication of non-understanding, while in Round 2 the teacher gives unsolicited feedback to the subjects as to whether or not their selection and placement of the items is correct.
The interaction which occurs during the tasks is quantified by employing a model of non-understanding presented by Varonis and Gass (1985b). Comprehension is measured by the subjects' success in completing the tasks. Lexical acquisition is measured by a posttest administered to both the experimental group and the control group 7 days after the experimental group completes the tasks.
The results of these measures are analyzed in order to shed light on
the issues addressed by the research questions presented in Chapter 1.