Estabilidad en reactores BWR

As stated earlier (refer Figure 6) the quantitative data analysis not only found a significant improvement in the vocabulary of the Experimental Group, but also found that there was a significant improvement in the vocabulary of the learners in Control Group B, even though these learners were not exposed to the intervention. Even though it is not a focus of this study, the researcher felt it prudent to discuss the various factors which could have contributed to the results of Control Group B. These factors will be discussed in the following sections.

 Maturation

It can be argued that the improvement of the vocabulary knowledge of Control Group B is due to natural maturation since learners tend to develop or increase their vocabulary over time. However, this argument fails to explain why the learners from Control Group B outperformed the learners of Control Group A by such a large margin, given that the groups were homogenous at the beginning of the research (refer Table 7). If maturation was the only influence on vocabulary growth there would not have been a significant difference in the vocabulary growth of the learners in Control Group A and Control Group B given that neither group was exposed to the intervention. The researcher therefore had to look elsewhere for possible reasons for this difference.

140

Providentially, the choice of research design, namely the mixed methods approach (using both qualitative and quantitative data), provided the researcher with valuable data and insight into issues that could have impacted on the results of Control Group B. In addition to the quantitative data in the form of the PPVT-IV test scores, the qualitative data obtained from classroom observations and the teacher interview were used to attempt to explain why Control Group B out-performed Control Group A in the PPVT-IV post-test scores, despite neither group being exposed to the intervention. In the next sections the possible reasons (other than maturation) for Control Group B’s performance will be discussed.

 Instructional time for AL

An important distinction between the two control groups had to do with the teaching time allocated to English. According to the CAPS document, the instruction time for Additional Language—in this case English—is a minimum of two hours and a maximum of three hours per week (Department of Basic Education, 2011a). As stated in Section 4.2.2.13, School A (the Experimental Group and Control Group A) had decided to spend the minimum time (two hours per week) teaching English, while School B (Control Group B) spent the maximum time allocation (three hours per week) teaching English. It stands to reason that this would have had an influence on learners’ English (L2) and vocabulary development. The learners in Control Group B were exposed to longer English teaching and instruction time, compared to learners from Control Group A (and the Experimental Group), and as a consequence it can be expected that Control Group B improved their English proficiency at a higher rate than that of learners in School A. Also, learners in Control Group B received regular reading and spelling homework as opposed to learners in Control Group A who received no homework. These could possibly be some of the reasons why Control Group B’s PPVT-IV post-test scores improved significantly compared to Control Group A.

 Language used during AL lessons

The teacher of Control Group B exposed her class to English more often than the other two teachers. This she did by speaking English during English sessions, greeting learners in English and explaining work in English. She was also the only teacher who actively encouraged her learners to speak English (refer to ‘talk time’ in

141

Section 4.2.2.2). It is reasonable to assume that the increased use of the target language (AL) would increase learners’ uptake of new vocabulary.

 Role of storybook reading

It becomes apparent from the Literature Review in Chapter 2 (Section 2.5.2) that storybook reading plays a vital role in vocabulary acquisition (Ard & Beverly, 2004). The CAPS document underscores this, stating that Foundation Phase learners must be exposed to oral language in the form of stories, rhymes, poems, songs and oral instructions (Department of Basic Education, 2011a). During the pre-intervention observation period, it was noted that one of the primary differences between the two teachers of the two control groups is that Teacher CB (Control Group B) read to her learners in the L2 while Teacher CA (Control Group A) did not. Teacher EG (the teacher of the Experimental Group) also read to her learners in the L2. It needs to be added that, although both Teacher CB and Teacher EG made use of Big Books during shared reading, Teacher CB was the only teacher who also read other English storybooks to her learners. Consequently, during storybook reading learners in Control Group B were exposed to books with more complex storylines than Big Books and, as a result to more, as well as more advanced, L2 vocabulary. According to the literature (refer 2.5.2), storybook reading plays a determining factor in the rate of acquiring new L2 words. The extent of inclusion of shared reading is therefore another possible explanation of why the learners in Control Group B outperformed the learners in Control Group A in the PPVT-IV post-test.

 Adult interaction during AL lessons

The discussion around explicit vocabulary instruction (refer 2.5.2) further indicates that it is not storybook reading alone that enhance vocabulary acquisition but, more importantly, the adult interaction that accompany the reading (Ard & Beverly, 2004). The type of interactive practices that were reported to be effective were, amongst others, asking questions, expanding on the responses learners give, explaining vocabulary, and responding both verbally and non-verbally (Ard & Beverly, 2004). Other researchers (Dickinson & Smith, 1994; Justice et al., 2005; Beck & McKeown, 2007) confirm that adult mediation in the form of interactive and analytical talk during L2 reading sessions, combined with rich, focused instruction, enhances learners’ language and vocabulary development and facilitates word learning. In other words,

142

storybook reading, combined with adult interaction - in the form of teacher-learner interaction - are more effective than simply reading aloud to learners.

The researcher noticed that Teacher CB interacted with her learners during storybook reading sessions more so than Teacher EG. Teacher CB’s reading sessions contained comments and questions about the characters, vocabulary and events, while, in contrast, there was very little interaction between Teacher EG and her learners during her English reading sessions (refer Section 4.2.2.11 on storybook reading).

In contrast, Teacher CA did not read to her learners in the L2, nor did she encourage learners to contribute during English lessons. In fact, she saw learners’ contributions as interruptions and, consequently, there was very little interaction between her and her learners. Of all three groups observed, Teacher CA’s learners were the least willing to answer or ask questions and did not participate actively during the English lessons. In comparison, the learners from Control Group B were spontaneous and not shy to offer answers and ask questions. The interaction between teacher and learners have been proven to be conducive to vocabulary acquisition (refer 2.6.2).  Vocabulary teaching strategies

During storybook reading the teacher of Control Group B would use teaching strategies like explicitly explaining word meaning to her learners (although limited incidences were observed), as well as making an effort to expose learners to the vocabulary multiple times during reading sessions. In addition, Teacher CB would interact with her learners and involve them in the reading process; teaching practices which, according to Elley (1989) and Hulstijn (2001), will improve word acquisition. The observation data regarding L2 teaching practices are presented in Tables 9 – 16.

In comparison, Teacher CA and Teacher EG seldom explained vocabulary explicitly and the researcher rarely observed multiple word exposures during their English lessons. According to researchers like Hulstijn (2001) and Beck and McKeown (2007), teaching strategies that lead to increased word learning are, amongst others, teaching practices used by Teacher CB such as explicit vocabulary instruction and increased exposure to words.

143  Difference in socio-economic status

Apart from the influence of the teacher and the teaching practices on the post-test scores learner-related variables like socio-economic factors also need to be taken into account when examining the difference in post-test scores of the two control groups. As stated earlier (refer 3.4.2) the two schools differ in socio-economic status, with School B (and Control Group B) situated in a middle class neighbourhood and School A (Control Group A) located in a low economic income area. The consequences of the difference in SES are that learners in Control Group B have parents who are literate, involved with their children’s education and expose learners to books and reading materials at home. In contrast, learners in Control Group A come from a print-poor home environment, are on a school feeding scheme and have poorly educated parents.

There is no difference in the SES between the Experimental Group and Control Group A and consequently SES is not a factor which could have caused the difference in vocabulary acquisition between these two groups. However, differences in SES and the resulting home dynamics could have had an influence on the different rate of vocabulary acquisition between Control Group A and Control Group B. These factors have been proven by research studies (Hart & Risley, 1995; Beck & McKeown, 2007) to have an influence on vocabulary and academic development. Parental talk and language interaction are linked to vocabulary development and learners from wealthy homes, where this type of language interaction takes place, know more words than their peers from poorer homes where interaction is limited. Furthermore, there is evidence that children from lower SES families build vocabulary at a slower rate than children from higher SES (Hart & Risley, 1995). The 2016 PIRLS results reflect the importance of parental encouragement with Grade 4 learners whose parents read achieving the highest mean score (359) as opposed to learners whose parents do not like to read, achieving the lowest mean score at 307 points (Howie et al., 2017:10).

In summary, according to existing research (refer 2.7) about the effects of SES on vocabulary acquisition, the fact that the Control Group B learners in this study come from a higher socio-economic background could arguably have had a positive influence on their vocabulary acquisition and be considered a contributing factor as

144

to why the learners from Control Group B outperformed the learners in Control Group A.

Next, the qualitative data in the form of the post-intervention interview with the Experimental Group’s teacher will be discussed in an attempt to cast some light on the already obtained results and attempt to answer Research Questions 3.