Husillo

During the first reflective cycle, I realized I needed to collect information about the

effectiveness of the students’ experiences studying vocabulary. The primary goal was to test the argument that the students were not sufficiently improving their productive abilities with previously targeted individual words (see section 1.1 for a detailed description of the

motivation for this study and section 1.5 for a description of the communicative English class in which this problem was identified). This questionnaire also provided the opportunity to collect data about the strategies used by the students and their feelings about vocabulary instruction in general. Before analyzing the findings, I was unsure of what trends would be identified in the data.

The initial questionnaire eliciting information about the students’ previous vocabulary experience is included in Appendix 14. The participants completed this questionnaire prior to the intervention period. As stated above, the purpose of the questionnaire was to learn about the participants’ experiences studying vocabulary, and in general, the experiences for low-proficiency first year Japanese university students. The initial questionnaire was

completed by 153 participants at the beginning of their second semester. As mentioned in section 4.5, the second Japanese university semester begins in October and continues through January. The questionnaire elicited both quantitative and qualitative data, and due to the students’ low-level in English, a Japanese translation for each question was given. The following discussion reports the quantitative and qualitative findings.

The following four statements had the participants assess their receptive and productive abilities with the targeted vocabulary they had previously studied. I assigned each response a point value so mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) could be calculated.

A response of ‘strongly agree’ was assigned a value of 5, ‘agree’ had a value of 4, ‘neutral’ had a value of 3, ‘disagree’ had a value of 2, and ‘strongly disagree’ had a value of 1. Statement 1: ‘I can usually understand the words I studied when I hear or read them.’ Table 5.7 Receptive knowledge of previously studied vocabulary

Statement (n=153)

Likert Positive Responses

(%)

Neutral Negative Responses (%)

1

Mean Std-Dev 5 4 3 2 1

2.88 0.90 4

(2.6%) 33 (21.6%) 65 (42.5%) 43 (28.1%) 8 (5.2%) The following statement was designed to have the students assess their productive ability with previously taught vocabulary.

Statement 2: ‘ I can usually use the words I studied when speaking or writing.’ Table 5.8 Productive knowledge of previously studied vocabulary Statement

(n=153)

Likert Positive Responses

(%)

Neutral Negative Responses (%)

2

Mean Std-Dev 5 4 3 2 1

2.51 0.84 0

(0%) 19 (12.4%) 55 (35.9%) 64 (41.8%) 15 (9.8%) Statement three is similar to the first statement, however, the focus is on the students’ retention of their receptive ability for previously taught vocabulary.

Statement 3: ‘After several weeks, I can still understand the words I studied when I hear or read them.’

Table 5.9 Retention of receptive knowledge of previously studied vocabulary Statement

(n=153)

Likert Positive Responses

(%)

Neutral Negative Responses (%) 3 Mean Std-Dev 5 4 3 2 1 2.60 0.81 1 (0.7%) 16 (10.5%) 70 (45.8%) 53 (34.6%) 13 (8.5%) The following statement was designed to have the students assess their productive ability with previously taught vocabulary after a period of several weeks.

Statement 4: ‘After several weeks, I can still use the words I studied when speaking or writing.’

Table 5.10 Retention of productive knowledge of previously studied vocabulary Statement

(n=153)

Likert Positive Responses

(%)

Neutral Negative Responses (%) 4 Mean Std-Dev 5 4 3 2 1 2.33 0.81 0 (0%) 14 (9.2%) 42 (27.5%) 78 (51.0%) 19 (12.4%)

The fifth Likert scale statement from questionnaire 1 asked the participants to rank their level of agreement (similar to statements 1 to 4) to the following statement:

Statement 5: ‘Studying individual words in my previous classes has been useful.’ Table 5.11 Students’ perception of the usefulness of their previous vocabulary

study Statement

(n=152)

Likert Positive Responses

(%)

Neutral Negative Responses (%) 5 Mean Std-Dev 5 4 3 2 1 3.99 0.70 30 (19.7%) 98 (64.5%) 17 (11.2%) 7 (4.6%) 0 (%)

The final closed question from questionnaire 1 had the students identify the various techniques/tools they had used to study vocabulary either in class or on their own. This question allowed the participants to choose more than one answer, so the total percentage is greater than one hundred. Statement 6: ‘I have used the following methods to study

vocabulary (please check all that apply).’

Table 5.12 Techniques used for studying vocabulary by participants Technique/Tool for Studying Vocabulary

(n=153)

Number of participants who have used this technique

Percentage of participants who have used this technique

Word cards 81 52.9%

Vocabulary notebooks 129 84.3%

Memorizing word lists 66 43.1%

Writing sentences 65 42.5%

Fill in the blank exercises 75 49.0%

Writing translations from a dictionary 107 69.9% Memorizing words from reading passages 68 44.4%

Other 4 2.6%

The following section presents the qualitative data collected from the open-ended

questionnaire item. Since this set of data was collected before the students undertook their respective receptive or productive tasks, I did not feel it was necessary to separate the responses based upon their group. The students’ comments about their previous vocabulary experiences are classified into several categories. The questionnaire item elicited responses about the students’ likes and dislikes, and also what the students found easy or difficult in regard to studying vocabulary. As a result, the majority of the responses could be classified as being positive or negative. Table 5.13 presents the positive responses and Table 5.14 presents the negative responses. The full data set is included in Appendix 19 and 20.

The procedure used to analyze the qualitative data involved a categorizing process in which each response was given one or more tags relating to possible themes or patterns.

After all learner responses were tagged, each theme was investigated individually. Within a theme, a second cycle of tagging was often conducted to identify sub-categories. By grouping the responses in this manner, the patterns within the data were identified.

The themes which emerged from the data through analysis indicated the learners had beliefs for how vocabulary should be introduced, what words should be targeted, what

techniques were effective for acquiring the targeted structures, and how this targeted vocabulary should be reviewed. Additionally, the learners identified components of English vocabulary which were problematic and aspects of vocabulary instruction which were not enjoyable.

Category Sub-category Example from the data Learners’ responses

about techniques used to introduce vocabulary

Pronunciation for the target vocabulary

Remembering the pronunciation makes vocabulary easy. New vocabulary

through readings

Memorizing words from a reading passage is easier because we can learn how to use the words.

New vocabulary through listening

Looking at vocabulary as I listen is effective. Memory I like to memorize.

Quantity Not having to memorize too many new words. If the number of words is small, it’s easy. When I think it seems easy, it’s easy to get started.

Learners’ responses about techniques for reviewing previously taught vocabulary

Vocabulary cards Vocabulary cards are a good way to study.

Vocabulary books Studying vocabulary notebooks everyday is helpful. Repetitive exposure

Trying to use the vocabulary over and over again helps me remember. Learners’ responses

about activities which help students acquire targeted vocabulary

Dictionary It is easy to remember as I look up words in the dictionary. Use I like easy to use vocabulary. We can use the word straightaway. Learners’ responses

about what vocabulary should be targeted

Type of word Learning familiar words for our daily life and nouns and verbs is good. Short words Short words and common words in long sentences are easy to remember. Common words .

Daily English is good for studying.

L1 Comparing English words with Japanese is helpful. For example, ‘My mother is angry with me’ and ‘My mother Is occurred with me.’ (It doesn't make sense, but angry and occur both mean OKORU in Japanese.

Category Sub-category An examples from the data Learners’ responses

about aspects of studying vocabulary which are problematic

Use targeted vocabulary

I had trouble when I had to figure out how I can use the words in a particular situation. Words which have

many meanings

If the vocabulary has many meanings, it's difficult. Differences from their

L1

It’s difficult to remember the vocabulary which we don’t use in Japanese. Learners’ responses

about aspects of vocabulary instruction which they did not enjoy

Studying uncommon words

I want to improve my English skill, so I’ll try to answer in English. I like studying

vocabulary, but it is often difficult for me. The reason is some words are not useful in daily conversation. Actually, some Japanese students learn English only for passing entrance exam or getting high scores, so many students dislike studying vocabulary I think. Dictionary I dislike having to look up new words in a dictionary every time.

5.3.5 Discussion of the findings about experiences studying vocabulary.