There are several key points that seem to emerge from this data. The first is that both learners seem to agree that the spoken discourse markers studied were, in a general sense, useful to them. S 01, for instance, suggests:
‗When you know how to use discourse markers, you know, you, your sentences will be, how can I say, more clear or something like this‘, while S 05 states that:
‗now I remember how these discussion, discourse markers are important and I can hear them almost everywhere and many people use them, even foreigners, so they are important.‘
These comments reinforce some of the positive evaluations regarding the lesson content made by students in their diaries. There is also a clear belief that this language needs to be learnt, at least to some extent, within the classroom and cannot easily be acquired through exposure to the language. In this regard, the comments of S 05 are particularly interesting:
‗I‘m thinking about understanding and speaking, I don‘t believe that learning English structure without theory is a good idea. We learn our mother tongue but it last for a very long time and we start when we are very young and our brain is in different stage probably‘. He goes on to suggest that ‗learning English without grammar, some lessons, also looks ridiculous I think because of my friend. Obviously he knows, he has a very wide vocabulary, he speaks, he can communicate but sometimes his language looks like, sometimes he, it sounds like a comedian.‘
S 01 has less strongly held beliefs but does also suggest that looking at such language in the classroom helps:
‗I think it‘s possible you know to get these, for example discourse markers or other things, other vocabulary and these kind of stuff in environment or outside the university, in normal life. But when you completely focus these items in a class you can find it all ―oh I‘ve heard it before‖ for example, at train, at bus station, yeah.‘
These comments help to provide a degree of negative evidence. Students do not seem to believe that this kind of language can easily be acquired outside the classroom; therefore there is a place for the use of different teaching approaches in helping student with this process.
In regard to the different approaches, a more mixed picture emerges. The students seem to disagree on the usefulness of practice. Student S 01 suggests that classroom practice of language forms may not be needed. Instead, he believes that for adults, they themselves can be responsible for this:
‗If you have a class and all the students are above twenty five, yeah, you can leave the practice to them. They will practise, maybe, maybe not but most of them I think, practise after the class or during the week till next classes.‘
Student S 05, on the other hand, suggests that practice, which he terms ‗training,‘ is of use to students:
‗If I learn something theoretically, it is only for a few days/weeks/months and then I forget it. But if I train then it is for much longer. If we think about training, just speaking and practising then probably because of problems with understanding, because we use different pronunciation and it was sometimes difficult for me so probably I cannot say exactly but I think it was a good way of learning, this way of training.‘
He then qualifies that slightly by suggesting that good practice needs adequate time and should not be rushed:
‗If I could exercise more, if it was longer it would be much more useful but it was useful.‘ What emerges here then are two contrasting views: one that says you can leave practice to students, particularly mature (and presumably motivated), adult learners and one that says it is helpful, if there is adequate time and preparation for it.
In terms of noticing, the comments reflect much more agreement. Both students make several comments which suggest the lesson helped them to notice the DMs outside the class. Student S 01 suggests, for instance, that:
‗...you can hear such as these kind of language err, I don‘t know , at train, at bus station, at bus, these kind of situations, you know‘, while S 05 states, ‗I remember how these discussion, discourse markers are important and I can hear them almost everywhere and many people use them, even foreigners.‘
This suggests that both approaches contributed to students noticing the forms outside of class. This may account in some way for the greater use of DMs in the post-test scores of each group, if we accept Schmidt‘s (1990) argument that conscious noticing is a necessary prerequisite of acquisition. It may also account, somewhat simplistically, for the generally positive evaluation
of the usefulness of DMs. If students are able to notice them in use, this may add to their perception that they are useful and this in turn may encourage them to make use of them in their own language output. This suggestion must, however, be tempered by S 01‘s final comments, where he suggests that amongst non-native speakers, the extensive use of DMs may not always be positive:
'Maybe it‘s really useful, you know, to use these kind of discourse markers but maybe if you use as a foreign student, maybe it‘s OK and it‘s right for you I don‘t know, your son or your native students. But if I use, as a foreign student, if I use lots of time ―you know‖, ―you mean‖ ―well‖, ―so‖ maybe it‘s a bit inconvenient of yourself and it shows your self-confidence is not high enough.‘
3.4.3 Chapter summary
Viewed as a whole, the data allows us to draw several conclusions:
Both approaches led to an increased use of DMs in a paired format speaking test, when compared to their use in a pre-course test.
This increase in use was not reflected equally across all students.
The PPP group used a marginally wider range of the target DMs in their post-test. The difference was not enough to suggest that one approach was more beneficial than the other in this regard and the results were not analysed to check for statistical
significance.
Students from both groups could demonstrate explicit knowledge of what was studied. There was a commonly held view that studying DMs was useful.
In interviews, it was agreed that studying DMs in the classroom was more likely to help them than simply acquiring them from the input they are exposed to.
Amongst all students there was a more positive evaluation of an III framework but practice was also seen as useful, providing it was not rushed and there was time to prepare.
Practice within the classroom was not seen as essential by all students, though many felt it was helpful.
Both approaches seemed to enhance students‘ ability to notice the DMs focused upon. This was reflected in diary comments, interviews, and if we are to accept the claims made for noticing, we could argue it may have contributed to the increase in the use of DMs pre- and post-test.
Overall, the results of the pilot study were instructive and suggested a number of changes to the study design which were made for the main study. We will move on to discuss and give a rationale for these changes in detail in the next chapter but they can be summarised here, as follows:
1. The research questions were revised.
2. The main study also contained a control group. This group were not given any explicit focus on DMs but it was expected that they would be exposed to the DMs within their classroom and non-classroom input.
3. The number of participants increased so that three groups, each containing twelve learners, formed the subjects of the study.
4. Each group was given a pre-test, immediate post-test and delayed post-test of eight weeks.
5. The quantitative data was analysed for statistical significance.
6. Two focus groups of six learners undertook post-study guided interviews. Learners were interviewed according to the group (PPP/III/Control) they were a participant of.
7. The qualitative data was coded using computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software and word frequencies, keyword frequencies and the most frequent chunks were produced using corpus analysis software.
4 Methodology
4.0 Chapter introduction
Having described our pilot study, we now move on to describing and justifying the methodology used for the main study. This section begins with a review of our research questions and the hypotheses we are trying to prove, including an explanation of the revisions made to the questions following the pilot study. The chapter then gives an outline of the research tradition on which this study is based, before detailing and justifying the proposed methodology and the revisions made as a result of the pilot study.