OUR FINAL ORAL PRESENTATION

DATA ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions

- The tasks chain offers opportunities for contact with the target language beyond school as informal practice.
- The tasks chain, when implemented as a habit at home, has a positive learning effect, which can be applied as a self-access reinforcement continuum.
- The online tasks give a model of correct pronunciation that as effect help parents who do not manage the language in order to support students at home, enhancing as well phonological awareness, which is the basis for teaching the vocabulary.
- Parental support is a necessary effect, that also has a positive result on students’ vocabulary ability.
- The amount of activities that required parents’ participation was significant, which favored their degree of involvement throughout the method’s implementation providing affectiveness to back up the process.
- Tasks Chain design must respond to students learning styles and affectivity.
- The Tasks Chain designed enhanced students’ vocabulary ability, assuring input, storage, and retrieval. (McCarthy, 1990).
- The tasks chain designed had effects regarding behaviors, such as discipline, study habits, and interest towards language learning and computer based learning.
- The method offers a prospect for students’ autonomy development.
- The method has strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities to be worked out for future implementation.
- It is indispensable to take students to the Computer Lab(s) and train them in the use of the online tasks.
- Questionnaires and other type of written information to be given to parents must be written in both English and Spanish to assure comprehension.
- Through carrying out this research project, we reflected upon our teaching practices, before, during and after its implementation, which helped us enhance our professional disposition towards vocabulary teaching based on making informed decisions. (Mills, 2000).


Unexpected conclusions

- This research also helped scaffold students’ self-regulated learning, metacognition and autonomy during their practice with the online tasks.
- The online tasks go beyond the target population’s use because of its easy access through the school’s web page which makes it available for anyone who wants to explore them (e.g. for tutoring, reinforcement or leveling students, for parents to use with their other children).
- There is a new teacher who has been using the task chain, and she found it inspirational to add some new refreshing tasks to the chain: such as a popular children game called “teléfono roto” - “broken telephone game”, in which students in a line tell a word to each other as a secret; depending on the students’ attention and aural discrimination, the message gets to the last student in the right way or wrong way, allowing students to recognize the vocabulary properly or to correct it when necessary.

Data analysis

The following theoretical constructs have emerged:

Tasks Chain design effects on students’ vocabulary acquisition- Vocabulary acquired (lexical items acquired and use in context). Input, storage, and retrieval. - The project elicits positive input (language is ‘written’ in a graphic way), storage (that is held and not lost), and retrieval (it can be called up when need for use (McCarthy, 1990) - .

Project’s implementation at home benefits and drawbacks - Tasks chain’s frequency practice at home. Parental support effects on students’ vocabulary acquisition.

Students’ autonomous response to the method - Autonomy development.

Project’s strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities.

Theoretical narrative

When our Spanish speaking 4 to 5 years old prekindergarten students - starting their first encounter with a formal school system, - experienced the tasks chain we designed to enhance vocabulary ability, they had to begin a habit formation process accompanied by their parents. As we could expect just few of them had had previous contact with English learning, and only few of their parents managed the language. The following is the description of how they faced the process.

To start the implementation of the method, we required to guarantee two clue issues: Parents’ collaboration and constant practice at home (PARENTAL SUPPORT EFFECTS ON STUDENTS’ VOCABULARY ABILITY) which we attempted to assure by getting to know their English knowledge and their understanding of their daughters’ needs and possibilities for language learning. (Background English knowledge and habits for potential parental participation (degree of involvement)), and student’s learning styles and interests to verify the appropriateness of the tasks chain design for our participants. (TASKS CHAIN DESIGN RELATION WITH STUDENTS LEARNING STYLES AND AFFECTIVITY). In this way, we informed participants (students and parents) about our research requirements in terms of language and involvement, and we got to know some of our students’ learning styles, study habits and attitude towards English learning (Students’ predisposition towards L2 learning, different learning styles and types of intelligences and connection with the tasks and materials’ design). The conclusions that emerged from the analysis of all this information were that parents were not able to be as involved as we expected, only 15 families out of 44 answered the survey and we attribute this gap of parents’ response to the fact that the surveys were set in English. Therefore, from that moment on we decided that the information sent to parents hat to be written in both languages: English and Spanish. Another aspect that was evident was that most of the fathers speak English, but mothers do not. Fortunately, all of them were motivated towards the project. Concerning the tasks chain design, the surveys confirmed us that the tasks were suitable for our students’ range of learning styles. For the purpose of this study, we designed a task-continuity chain– “chaining of activities” that forms a sequence in which the successful achievement of previous tasks will lead to the completion of the following ones “ – (Nunan, 1989, p.119). We adapted as well Ellis (2003) definition of a task: “work plan that requires learners to process language pragmatically in order to achieve an outcome that can be evaluated in terms of whether the correct or appropriate propositional content has been conveyed. To this end, it requires them to give primary attention to meaning and to make use of their own linguistic resources, although the design of the task may predispose them to choose particular forms. The tasks Chain design had an effective effect on students’ vocabulary ability- Vocabulary acquired (lexical items acquired and use in context). Input, storage, and retrieval.

When implementing the project, students’ L2 performance was challenged (INPUT, STORAGE, AND RETRIEVAL). To start, we decided to make a vocabulary knowledge teacher-made oral pretest (Prior knowledge - degree of L2 previous vocabulary knowledge in English to be taught -) showing the following results (See Table 3):

The project elicits positive input (language is ‘written’ in a graphic way), storage (that is held and not lost), and retrieval (it can be called up when need for use (McCarthy, 1990, p . 34). However, there are some are high flyers or average children who did not practice the tasks chain at home, only at school, they have strong skilled potential towards English learning. Table 3 shows results of vocabulary acquired before, during and after the implementation. (The vocabulary assessed were 35 words, 7 for each introduces letter sound: F, S, M, L, D) (See Table 3 Pre, while and post implementation).

During seven weeks students experienced the chain of tasks progressively: For the first letter introduced (Tasks chain implementation progression related to frequency and vocabulary ability), students developed the first task of the chain, memory game. For the second and third letters, they developed four tasks of the chain: memory game, charades, online tasks and collaborative sentence building. For the last two letters, students developed five tasks to complete the chain: memory game, charades, online tasks, collaborative sentence building and pictograph. We found out that the tasks chain implementation at home followed different patterns that showed students’ willingness and commitment degree to develop the habit of practicing the tasks chain on their own, as well as parents’ response in acquiring such habit (TASKS CHAIN’S FREQUENCY PRACTICE AT HOME) (See Appendix 4.1). This information revealed students’ behaviors towards developing the tasks, and learning language, which implies constant imitation and repetition of the input (oral vocabulary, mimicry of that vocabulary). This “drilling” aspect of the task chain, which objective is to be a tool for students to experience “input, storage and retrieval” (Mc. Carthy), is favored by the Behavioral theory which recognizes language learning as a process of imitation and repetition (rote verbal learning, instrumental learning, discrimination learning) of what is heard, that could not proceed without input. Such “input must be continuous, accurate as an important factor in developing new behaviors” (Brown, 2007, pp. 17-25). In our case, this input consisted of giving students a set of new habits (tasks chain) to be acquired by repeated imitation of correct models of pronunciation of studied vocabulary words.

Our hypothesis includes the use of Transfer and reinforcers as constructs that serve the Behavioral Theory, applied through the tasks chain design (memory game, charades, online tasks, collaborative sentence building, and pictograph.), this means that students were expected to acquire habits (recognize, exercise, drill, and recall) through stimuli that would finally allow them gain vocabulary ability as a response. The Skill Acquisition Theory (De Keyser, n.d, 2001 cited by Van Patten and Williams, 2007), behavioral in nature, backs up our theory in reaction times, error rates, differences in performance from one condition to another (See Table 3). It also takes into account interferences, such as L1 interference, when developing the collaborative sentence building task, and accounts of how students progress in learning from initial to advanced. The method experienced by the participants enhanced a learning process in which progress was paced, and had a continuous development from simpler tasks to more complex ones that accounted how learners began acquiring vocabulary, developing positive behaviors and self-confidence each time, leading them to use words in a more customized, fluent and spontaneous way (Accurate use of vocabulary acquired “that will progressively allow students play with the words to build sentences (Willis, 2001, p.129), enhancing vocabulary ability and contextualization).

At the end of the implementation, the participants were faced to a post intervention test to assess students’ vocabulary ability, which included all the vocabulary taught and practiced (Post intervention vocabulary ability (degree of L2 vocabulary learned in English). Surprisingly, the participants had an overall progress, even the students who during the implementation follow-up had a low and average performance (See Table 3).

The project was designed having in mind two aspects regarding the practice of the tasks: one related to the tasks themselves as fun, entertaining, educational, challenging, didactic, motivational, appealing and engaging activities, and the other related to parental involvement when practicing the tasks at home. Such aspects are related in terms of giving an enriched affective environment for learning. In order to have information about the effects of all this, we decided to send questionnaires home to have parents’ feedback – as participants- on the implementation, and progresses of their daughters vocabulary usage in the tasks development at home (PROJECT’S IMPLEMENTATION AT HOME BENEFITS AND DRAWBACKS & PARENTAL SUPPORT EFFECTS ON STUDENTS’ VOCABULARY ABILITY.) This student- parent-tasks chain interaction is supported by the Affective Filter Hypothesis, which shows the importance of the affective factors in the process of second language acquisition (SLA) – vocabulary ability in this case –- , since the designed tasks included learner’s needs and learning styles with the intention of lowering the affective filter. Some factors we took into account for the implementation of the tasks chain at home involving parents were: motivation self-confidence, and handling anxiety, following Van Patten & Williams statements: “Students who are comfortable, and have a positive attitude toward language learning, have a low affective filter. They seek and receive more input, interact with confidence and are more receptive to the input they receive. On the other hand, a stressful environment, where students are forced to produce, raises the affective filter because it prevents acquisition from taking place.” (Van Patten & Willliams , 2006).

Parental involvement helped students feel comfortable and receptive to the input in their “at home” learning environment making their emotional states and attitudes act like a filter that allowed vocabulary ability to take place. (Brown, 2007, p. 26-28). Parents shared their opinions about the positive and not so positive effects of using the method at home (Project’s positive/negative features related to family involvement and implementation at home); they enjoyed it and found it fun to learn in family: “It is enjoyable, interesting and a fun way to learn together, for the students and family”. Some expressed that the method gave them the opportunity to support their daughters’ learning process: “It involves family to support the learning process.” as well as to follow up their progresses: “It helps the family to keep track of students’ progress and amount of vocabulary learned.” And “It helps parents identify students’ strengths and weaknesses.” A positive overall effect for parents was that the tasks chain implementation at home “is the perfect combination: learning, playing and collaborating in family.” Other values added that parents commented on were:

“It develops self-discipline and the quality of being persistent”, “It develops learning autonomy”, “It is challenging, it invites and motivates students to achieve goals”,

“It develops self-motivation towards language learning”, “It helps develop a continuous learning process habit that requires dedication” and “It causes ‘incidental learning’ because students learn vocabulary while they play without being aware of it.”

As conclusive comments from the post implementation questionnaire, parents agreed that: “ The method enhances frequency, repetition and fosters the usage of different learning strategies at an early age”, “It gives the girls opportunities to approach games, technology and English learning”, “Memory is exercised”, “Good pronunciation is enhanced,”, “ it is practical and easy to use”, “The method includes a competitive component as a different strategy to learn vocabulary and letters”, “The method leads students to realize the importance of acquiring the second language, “The method has shown bilingual parents some innovative ways to teach vocabulary to their daughters”.

On the other hand parents perceived obstacles and certain negative issues that popped up during the method’s implementation at home. Some of them reported that they were not able to participate due to lack of language knowledge: “I have not been able to practice at home because I do not speak, nor understand English”. Others reported that the method demands time and availability that they do not have due to different reasons such as their jobs: “We don`t spent enough time”, “We don’t have time”, “It is difficult to acquire the discipline to play in English”.

One issue that drew parents’ attention - and ours – towards the continuous practice at home expected, was that “the project demands students’ concentration and practice at home, when they may be tired” after the school’s day, and “playing the tasks all over again, every day becomes boring”. For some parents “Students depend a 100% on their parents’ or adults’ support to practice at home”.

Students were given manipulative material consisting of vocabulary cards made out of paper; this material was generic to be used to develop all the tasks in the chain, concerning this material, parents commented positively and negatively about it (Project’s design and material’s advantages and disadvantages). The positive statements about the material included: “It is innovative”, “It is a well-designed tool”, ” It is creative”, “The way the material (vocabulary cards) is handled, helps students customize it when coloring, cutting, and organizing it”. However some parents found gaps in the quality of the paper used and the illustrations: The vocabulary cards’ material is of low quality making them transparent and easy to recognize (for the memory game, especially)”,”one negative aspect is that vocabulary cards are in black and white”.

The parents commented about all the benefits of the method, including some additional values (Vocabulary ability and values added). “The method allows quick,

effective and evident vocabulary learning.”, “Words became part of student’s every day vocabulary”, “Students recognize the words in different contexts such as while watching TV, while in the street, and practicing with parents, using phrases or sentences with the vocabulary words” , “The method enhances frequency, repetition and fosters the usage of different learning strategies at an early age”, “Memory is exercised”, “Good pronunciation is enhanced”, “The method includes a competitive component as a different way to learn vocabulary and letters”. However, there were some drawbacks according to them as well: “Vocabulary use in context is not evident at home.” This is due to the fact that the collaborative sentence building task is not worked at home, only at school, guided by teachers.

Some parents thought that “the method might confuse students because they are faced to learn vocabulary in English when they do not even know how to command Spanish.” Even though, this comment came from a couple of families we see it as a reality that must be confronted taking into account students’ age, and that some of the students enter the school talking baby talk.

To deal with this aspect, as well as with the vocabulary ability, the project includes the Processability theory (Pienemann, 1998, cited by Van Patten and Williams, 2007), which implies that L2 acquisition starts with an unmarked functional structure in beginners, and evolves requiring additional processing procedures that will be acquired later. When processing information at any state of development, the learner can produce and comprehend only those second language linguistic forms that the current state of the language processor can handle. In our case, our target group can handle learning words, and identifying them with images. The language processor accounts for language processing in real time, within human psychological constraints, such as word access, and working memory.

The theory includes an implicational hierarchy because each level is prerequisite for processing a skill at the next level (Pienemann and Hakansson, 1999, cited by Saville-Troike, 2005, p. 77):

1. “Lemma- word access”: At the beginning our students processed words or lemmas, without any grammatical information neither any ordering rules.

2. Category procedure: Lexical items were categorized and used as needed to develop the tasks by students and teachers included implicit grammatical information in the collaborative sentence building task to help students connect the items (words) in context. (e.g. number and gender to nouns, tense to verbs).

3. Phrasal Procedure: Operations within the phrase level occurred, when students attempted to retell the collaborative sentences built as a story.

Constructivist Interaction hypothesis was also taken into account based on Brown, (2007); the dynamic nature of the tasks chain interaction between learners and their peers, their teacher, parents and others with whom they interacted and the interpersonal context in which they carried out the tasks, had great significance as opportunities to practice and use the words in a meaningful way, through the development of the method. Here collaborative learning and autonomy were also promoted connecting to “Vygostky’s zone of proximal development where students construct the new language through socially mediated interaction”. (Brown, 2007). All this having in mind that “The acquisition of the word meanings takes much longer than the acquisition of the spoken form of the words, and children use words in their speech long before they have a full understanding of them” (Locke, 1993, cited by Cameron, 2001, p. 73). Then, “learning words is a cyclical process of meeting new words and initial learning, followed by meeting those words again and again, each time extending knowledge of what the words mean and how they are used in the foreign language. Each time children met the vocabulary words while practicing the tasks chain, their approach to those words changed, offering opportunities to expand language usage and their conceptual knowledge. (Cameron, 2001, p. 74).

Our method attempts to make vocabulary meaningful as it is needed and used in each of the chain’s tasks. This idea is supported by Collier 1995a; Grosjean 1982; Krashen, 1996 & McLaughlin 1984, (cited by Clark, 2000), “Language learning is not linear... language learning is dynamic, language must be meaningful and be used.”

As one of our secondary objectives; parents and students had the opportunity to explore and get acquainted with ICT’s usage (Computer Based Learning (CBL) (Brown, Earlam, & Race, 1998). - Online tasks usage), through the use of online tasks that were uploaded in the school’s web page for self-access. Connectivism theory (Siemens, 2004), supported the fact the inclusion of these online tasks founded on the understanding that new information is continually being acquired, and “Learning may reside in non-human appliances” (Siemens, 2004). Hence online tasks were designed to be used as virtual practice. Such online tasks were meant to nurture and maintain connections to assist continual learning of the selected vocabulary at home (Siemens, 2004). Parents and students were able to decide what to learn and the meaning of incoming input, in other words; they practiced “knowledge management” which is one of Connectivism principles. (Siemens, 2004).

Parents’ opinions regarding the use of the online tasks were: “Online tasks complement the practice with vocabulary cards”, “Online task are easy to access and use”,”… are a didactic way to practice vocabulary”, “… enhance habit formation and vocabulary ability when taken as a routine”, “As homework is great”, “it is a fun and enjoyable activity”, “It is a good tool, nice to practice with our kids at home, it is creative , we wish all home activities were like that”, “it is an excellent method for learning, I like it because the girls educate their hearing and pronunciation of each word accurately, moreover, the drawings and music are “motivating”, “we will keep practicing”, “Very interesting”, “It would be good to include whole the vocabulary to be taught”, “Good methodology”, “The whole family played…it is a marvelous way to learn”, “We are very grateful for this study method”, “Fun activity captures attention”, “Fabulous”, “Congratulations”.

Regarding the online tasks design, access and usage at home, there were some aspects to improve highlighted by parents: “ The online tasks were used but not with the necessary frequency”, “Sometimes, we could not access the tasks”, “We lack of time to support the practice with online tasks on a regular basis”, “It is difficult to acquire the habit to practice in the computer due to lack of internet connection”, “Online tasks’ sound was not appropriate at times”, “Online tasks should be modeled and practiced at school”, “Sometimes playing at the computer is tiring for students.”, “Some tasks are difficult”.

Our 4 to 5 years old students gave their opinions regarding the method in general (Students’ perceptions and responses to the method) for them: “Some games were good”, “Learning while playing is likeable”, “Playing in the computer is fun”, “playing with my family is fun”. Likewise, they expressed a constrain: “Some games were not so good”, and few parents reported that “Students are not always in the mood to play, because due to their age, they expressed to be tired in the afternoons, after school.

As for the other secondary objective, students experienced a first approach to autonomy (STUDENTS’ AUTONOMOUS RESPONSE TO THE METHOD - AUTONOMY DEVELOPMENT) through the practice of the tasks chain at home, which was not imposed. Therefore, the implementation of the method at home was intended to be developed in an autonomous way. The findings regarding the comparison between students’ vocabulary ability performance among the Pre-While-Post Implementation stages, revealed evidence of autonomous work, especially in between the While and Post Implementation, since students vocabulary ability improved considerably as shown in Graphic 4, which illustrated continuous practice of the tasks chain on their own, with all the vocabulary taught. Nonetheless, a follow-up format was sent home as a motivational and self-assessment strategy (Reflection on autonomous work), but the response was not positive as expected because there were only 12 students (27%) that turned back such format not properly filled in, showing lack of commitment with this part of the project. Continuing with the autonomous component of the research, some online tasks required students to bring an output (vocabulary illustrations) to share with the class (Results of autonomous work by the use of online tasks). Such products were handed in only by 4 students (9%), which also demonstrated either lack of understanding or commitment towards the use of the online tasks. One of our study’s secondary objectives was to promote learner autonomy by means of “transferring responsibility for aspects of the language learning process from the teacher to the learner,” Cotteral (n.d), which consist of “setting goals, selecting learning strategies, and evaluating progress,” according to Cotteral (n.d). In our case, letting students choose the tasks from the chain they wanted to practice at home enhanced the second aspect ‘selecting learning strategies’. Concerning the third aspect, evaluating progress of the process, the format ‘Daily Achievement’ (See Appendix 8) was designed to serve self-assessment on autonomous work at home. As a final result of the implementation, it could be said that the method involved “students’ capacity to use their learning independently from teachers,” making students’ autonomy emerge. (Littlewood, 1999, cited by Cotteral, n.d). The method helped students understand and manage their learning in a way that contributed to improve vocabulary ability along their performance on the different tasks, supported by parents who were informed on how to carry out each one of them.

During the implementation and for effects of triangulation, we as participants- researchers took notes on different issues (Approaches and behaviors while implementing the tasks in class) that arised along its development (PROJECT’S REQUIREMENTS, STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, and OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS). (See Appendix 6). Some of the strengths found were: Students interest towards Memory Game during the first four letters introduced; students enjoyed coloring and cutting the cards; students enjoyed the practice of charades and pictograph in class (as model for them to practice at home) as well as the collaborative sentence building (done only at school), which assured understanding of the usage of vocabulary words in context assisted by L1. A further consideration focuses on “epistemological traditions in relation to learning: Objectivism, Pragmatism, and Interpretivism.

Objectivism (similar to behaviorism) states that reality is external and is objective, and knowledge is gained through experiences. Transferring this concept into the project means: Vocabulary is objective and is acquired through experiences or tasks in a repeated exposure to it.

Pragmatism (similar to cognitivism) states that reality is interpreted, and knowledge is negotiated through experience and thinking. Transferring this concept into the project means: Vocabulary words are meant to be owned by the learner, who interprets, and negotiates knowledge through thinking when .developing the tasks.

Interpretivism (similar to constructivism) states that reality is internal, and knowledge is constructed.” Transferring this concept into the project means: Vocabulary is internalized in order to use it in context and construct knowledge. (Siemmens, 2007).

Some of the weaknesses consisted on: 18% of the students started to express boredom towards the Memory Game task, when introducing the fifth letter; 15% of the students had trouble cutting the cards appropriately; 45% of the students tended to cover the illustrations when coloring them, making them illegible; coloring and cutting the cards in class was time consuming. Therefore, vocabulary cards were sent home for students to color and cut them under parents’ supervision, leaving class time to assure more practice on the tasks chain; there was a general sense of parental lack of commitment and involvement in following all the tasks in the chain.

Since students were not able to recall the whole sentences on their own, only the words learned by filling the gaps left by the teacher when telling the sentences; drawing the individual sentence building illustration, (after the collaborative one) using the learned words, assisted by L1 could have been a great data source to prove students’ vocabulary usage in context, but there was no time to listen to each of them retelling their own creations;

Some of the opportunities to improve the method applied for future use were stated: the quality of the material (paper) used to make the vocabulary cards should be revised, sample vocabulary cards used by the teacher need to be bigger and colorful to be more appealing for the students.

During the Collaborative story telling time, students connected the vocabulary acquired using L1 words to complete their ideas, which were translated to L2 by the teacher, enhancing echoing of the right target language structures; while checking students’ individual vocabulary usage through the sentence telling, the opportunity for the rest of the group to create a sentence individually popped up, this activity was added to the chain while implementation opening a space for individual storytelling.

As support for the weakness and opportunity on collaborative and individual building sentence time and based on Kooslyn’s statements (1983, cited by Arnold 1999), “young children rely strongly on imagery, something that should certainly be taken into account in early education.”, we must continue stimulating our students’ visualization abilities to foster oral language production through students’building sentences and telling them.

According to Neville’s suggestion, (1989, cited by Arnold, 1999), “simple exercises must be used to retrain the imagining, which like language significantly affects the child’s ability to learn, to develop peer and adult relationships, to pursue goals and to experience pleasure.” That is why we included in the project the use of building sentences as an exercise to develop imagery, creativity, visual memory, productive skills, participation, collaborative learning and interpersonal skills.

Using a ‘Sentence building” (Wills, 2001) strategy for students to practice and internalize new vocabulary, as well as to gain confidence in ‘building’ L2, are stated by Ellis and Brewster (1991, p.1-2), (cited by Loukia, N. 2006, p.3): The sentences built by students serve as short stories “Stories can enrich the pupils’ learning experience. Stories are motivating and fun and can help develop positive attitude towards L2. Stories exercise the imagination and are a useful tool in linking fantasy and the imagination with the child’s real world.” Moreover, “listening to stories in class is a shared social experience. Children enjoy listening to stories over and over again. This repetition allows language items to be acquired and reinforced. Listening to sentences built in a collaborative or independent way develops the child’s listening and concentrating skills. Sentence building creates opportunities for developing continuity in children’s learning in order to create stories.

Some of the threats were: Online tasks were not introduced and practiced at school due to lack of time, which seemed to be a constraint for students’ further practice at home. They were left to practice with parents, which did not assure real use of them; parents informed to feel overwhelmed because of the amount of information received at the beginning of the schooling process, and during the research implementation; students’ constant absences affected their follow-up of the tasks ‘procedures, even though the materials and instructions were sent home as soon as they returned to school.

DATA ANALYSIS OUTLINE

We have chosen ‘Grounded Theory’ to analyze data as this method helps develop inductively from a corpus of data acquired by us as participants-observers.“The grounded theory approach, particularly the way Glauser and Strauss (The discovery of grounded theory, 1967) developed it, consists of a set of steps whose careful execution is thought to “guarantee” a good theory as the outcome. Strauss would say that the quality of a theory can be evaluated by the process by which a theory is constructed.” (Borgatti, n.d). We attempt to qualify and support the quality of our theory by analyzing the data collected, following such process by applying Auerbach and Silverstein’s coding procedures.

WHEN: March 6th through 8th
WHAT: Open codingResearch concernsTo Look at field notes taken to identify indicators of categories in events and behavior name them, categorize them and describe phenomena found.
WHY:Contextualization and Interpretation To analyze data collected as descriptive, sentences and, paragraphs in search of the answer to our forts analysis question “what was the research about? Which phenomena were found? What is all the data that has been collected? How can it be categorized?
HOW:By reading and revising field notes and other data collected in order to conceptualize it (in nouns, verbs, adjectives and) and to identify and code them with numbers and colors.
RESEARCHERS' ROLE: Individual work for further comparison, and identification of common conceptualization and coding.

WHEN:March 9th and 10th
WHAT:Relevant textRepeating ideas
WHY:To compare codes to text to find consistencies and differences. The consistencies between codes (similar meanings or pointing to a basic idea)
HOW:Relating the text to concerns (the field notes, interviews, etc.)Looking/choosing information that directly relates to theresearch.ComparingCodes: consistencies and differences (for categorization)
RESEARCHERS' ROLE:Individual work to be shared and merged on March 10th, 2010.

WHEN:March 11th through 14th
WHAT:Themes and theoretical constructs
WHY:To reveal the first categories.
HOW:By relating categories to theoretical background to support those categories with constructs
RESEARCHERS' ROLE:Individual work to be complemented, including new theoretical findings.
WHEN:March 15th & 20thWHAT:Theoretical narrative WHY:To write the data analysis report
HOW:By following the procedure for academic writing.RESEARCHERS' ROLE:Collaborative work.

WHEN:March 21th
WHAT:Proofread Data analysis report.
WHY:To guarantee the quality of academic writing.
HOW:Peer proofreading
RESEARCHERS' ROLE:Individual work.

Task Continuity Chain ppt

http://www.slideshare.net/monicaorma/arp-task-continuity-chain-3432222

Action Research Project Implementation and Data Collection Report ppt.

http://www.slideshare.net/monicaorma/arp-implementation-and-data-collection-report

PK VOCABULARY ACQUISITION

May 30, 2009
As Prekindergarten English teachers reflecting upon the methodology used to teach vocabulary, observing our 3 to 5 years old students’ learning patterns and wanting to be the best teachers of all, we came up with two questions:
- How can students be motivated to drill and use the vocabulary at school and at home?

- How to develop vocabulary acquisition and its usage in context?

We started then, to explore theories and general information about vocabulary acquisition, communicative approach, task-based learning and teaching English to young learners, looking for information to propose our project and justify it.

August 28, 2009

We designed a pedagogical intervention and were ready to start our research's data collection and implementation with the following objectives in mind:

Main objective:

To implement a methodology through the use of Task Based Learning – Task-continuity – “chaining of activities” (Nunan, 1989, p.119), to foster vocabulary acquisition skills that will progressively allow students play with the words to build sentences (Willis, 2001, p.129), enhancing language use in context.

Secondary objectives:

*To design and implement online tasks to enhance students’ vocabulary acquisition skills.
*To promote autonomy.

We decided on the instruments to carry out data collection:

For the pre-stage:

- Diagnostic activity – proforma & Video.
- Surveys for parents

For the while stage:

- Video recording
- Photos
- Autonomy chart (daily achievements reflection and follow up)
- Log - Observation and note taking -
- Proformas (to asses students performance)
- Documents (Students' illustrations)
- Parents feedback at random.
- Students’ survey on progress and use of the task chain.
- Questionnaire for parents, and interview at random.
- Students' post intervention diagnostic test.

September 9, 2009
Even though we had clear thoughts about our research we needed to narrow the research question, so we came out with this final version:

What is the effect of the implementation of Task-based approach – task continuity through chained activities – on developing vocabulary acquisition at early childhood? (3 to 5 years old stage)

Our research already started its course...

Parents were informed and asked for their active participation through the consent letters we designed, which have were authorized by the school's staff of directors.

We set two surveys for parents in the school's web page to help us get information about learners' profile and language contact opportunities.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspxsm=seq0_2fTDj7I8Sae0RKF5kOA_3d_3dSae0RKF5kOA_3d_3d
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspxsm=vvhyadf5tjBebbsZWhho3Q_3d_3dbsZWhho3Q_3d_3d

Up to the date we received 12 replies out of 44 families to the questionnaire called "Student-parents questionnaire," and 9 replies to the other survey called "Premontessori Students' Learner Profile."

The diagnostic activity was carried out in order to know about students' previous knowledge of vocabulary, using flashcards corresponding to the vocabulary to be taught.

We already started piloting the materials designed (memory cards) and the first task for the task-continuity chain (memory game) with our little students, who were motivated and willing to learn.

Septiembre 11, 2009

The implementation procedure consists of:

1. Teacher introduces the new sound and related vocabulary, by means of songs, especially designed learning objects, flashcards and realia.
2. Students color the illustrations on designed worksheets (two of the same for each student) while drilling the vocabulary.
3. Students cut the illustrations to make a set of vocabulary cards with which to play memory game, charades and pictograph.
4. Teacher models how to play (memory game, charades and pictograph) in a whole group activity.
5. Students are guided to play in pairs/groups using a set of vocabulary cards. Groups will be monitored one by one in order to check for correct pronunciation and proper game procedure.
6. Students take the vocabulary cards home in order to have self access for autonomous practice.
7. Students self access ICTs designed tools/online tasks available at the school’s web page for autonomy develpment and practice.
8. Students make a follow-up of their autonomous performance by filling out a “Daily achievement format” sent home.
9. A week later assessment implementation is applied through a collaborative sentence building activity.
10. Students individually illustrate the vocabulary in context by representing their collaborative production.
11. Students use the vocabulary learned in a personal guided way-teacher-student- by forally filling the missing word when teacher tells the story, living the space for students to identify each word.

September 25,2009
Up to the date there has been some preliminary data analysis concerning the diagnostic activity, the surveys and the implementation procedure.

After analyzing the Diagnostic activity in which the 44 students were exposed to 56 words of the vocabulary to be studied - words begining with letters F, S, M, L, D, N, R, P (7 words of each), to observe previous knowledge. Proformas were filled out showing that:

54.4% of the students (26/44) do not know a word from the vocabulary that will be studied (0/56 words).
18.1% of the students (8/44) know 1.7% of the words from the vocabulary that will be studied (1/56).
6.8% of the students (3/44) know 3.5% of the words from the vocabulary that will be studied (2/56).
9.9% of the students (4/44) know 5.3 % of the words from the vocabulary that will be studied (3/56).
2.2% of the students (1/44) know 7.1% of the words from the vocabulary that will be studied (4/56).
2.2% of the students (1/44) know 8.9% of the words from the vocabulary that will be studied (5/56).
2.2% of the students (1/44) know 12.5% of the words from the vocabulary that will be studied (7/56).

Once sample Surveys (14 out of 44) were analyzed, we took into account the most relevant data for our just started implementation which let us discover that the project was on the right track:
*87.5% (14 families) come from nonbilingual prekindergartens.
*87.5% (14 families) play games together every day.
*86.7% (13 families) say that students are motivated to learn English.

*93.3% (14 families) say that students feel happy in the English class.
*86.7% (13 families) say that students like to learn new words in English.
*100% (14 families) say that learners have good memory for names and general information.
These high percentages will serve the purpose of the research project and will positively affect its application.
*86.7% (12 families) say that students read illustrations and images easily. This information is relevant for our project’s purposes.
*73.3% (10 families) say that students make clear drawings. This perception does not really fit the evidence we have through the assessment worksheets.
*73.3% (10 families) say that students use a lot of hand gestures and body movement when talking. This will be useful when students play charades and when they participate in the collaborative sentence building task.
*100.0% (14 families) say that students learn new games easily and quickly. This is also a good starting points for the students to access English practice through the task continuity chain. (Sequence of games).
*80% (11 families) say that students accurately express her ideas and feelings. This is going to be proved through students oral participation in the different tasks.
*80% (11 families) of the students talk to their parents about their progresses, goals and achievements.
*80% (11 families) of the students are encouraged to use what they have learned at school in other contexts. This is also a relevant issue to take into account for the project’s data collection procedures.

Having started the implementation of the project and making it part of the school's annual planning we realized that the number of sounds and words should be changed due to time needed to teach other topics in the Bimontly planning. Therefore we ommited including vocabulary with letters R, N, P and C for the research purpose. However, these are including in the annual planning and will be taught with the same methodology, as well as the rest of the alphabet letters along the school's academic year.

September 28, 2009
Students have been enjoying playing and learning the vocabulary with the different tasks:

MEMORY GAME
Notes and video taken show that the methodology used for introducing the initial sounds taught and their corresponding vocabulary was clearer the second time and students were more autonomous in the elaboration of the cards although cutting the cards is still a fine motor skill difficult for some students. This could mean that with time, students will get used to handle the Memory Game easily and be ready to start applying the second task which is Charades.

INTRODUCING THE VOCABULARY

CHECKING UNDERSTANDING INDIVIDUALLY

(LETTER M)




INTRODUCING MEMORY GAME PROCEDURE
TO GROUP
(LETTER F)




PRACTICING MEMORY GAME IN SMALL
GROUPS
(LETTER F)




CHARADES
This task refers to an activity in which one student makes gestures to represent a word (mimic) and another one guesses which word it is.
Students have shown interest in this task, and have commented that they play it with their parents and all of them like to mimic the meaning of the vocabulary word cards. This is a positive change of scheme using the same cards, as proposed in our design intervention.

PICTOGRAPH
The word pictograph referes to illustrations of the meaning of word.

The worksheets designed to assess students had shown as a pattern, that students have some difficulties to make their drawings clear, even for them –due to their age –. However, developing fine motor skills is one of Prekindergarten’s goals, not only for the English department, also for other subject departments, and this practice develops not only these kind of motor skills, perception, expression and creativity are developed as well.
After the second letter was introduced, these worksheets were replaced by a blank paper used in the sentence building time to benefit students' communication through drawing the stories in context, this change allows them to make free use of the space, and saves time for independent assessment.
At home, pictograph will be used to identify and practice isolated vocabulary words as well.

PICTOGRAPH TASK

(LETTER F)

ONLINE TASKS

Online tasks have been designed for students'further practice as independent work at home, with the purposes of including parents in the students' learning process, offering a self-access space to develop self-regulated learning.

Such online tasks have been uploaded in the school's web page.
http://www.gimnasiofemenino.edu.co/portal/index.phpoption=com_content&view=category&id=35&Itemid=59

Student's as well as parents have been giving positive feedback about them, as well as suggestions to make make not only this, but the other tasks, better.

ONLINE TASK USAGE AT HOME

(PICTURES SENT BY PARENTS)

COLLABORATIVE SENTENCE BUILDING TIME

Collaborative sentence building is a space in which students attemp to say make sentences using the vocabulary learned in a collaborative way. Once they come out with sentences that connect all the words learned, they illustrate the sentence, and once they finish illustrating it, the teacher goes around the classroom recalling the sentences to each student, living a space for the student to say the corresponding word in order to complete the sentence.

For the first letter, only two students’ of each group participated in creating the sentences with the vocabulary taught. For the second letter, the participation increased up to five students in two of the groups. The pattern shown is that use of L1 is combined with the production of the specific vocabulary studied, demonstrating understanding of the purpose of the activity.

RECALLING WORDS AS PART OF SENTENCES



October 2, 2009
A daily achievement format was sent home with two purposes:
- To enhance students' self reflection on autonomous work with parents' help.
- To collect data about autonomus work done at home.

October 13, 2009

We began to look for patterns in the proformas used to assess the students' vocabulary acquisition. It was found that a high percentage had learned the words, using them at home to play with their parents and in the school when recalling the sentences built collaboratively.

October 19, 2009

A questionaire for parents was designed and sent home along with an invitation for an interview to be held on October 23rd, day in which parents will come to school to receive their daughters' grades report.

October 23, 2009

Some parents voluntarily came for the interview. They gave us positive feedback and suggestions.

October 26 to November 7, 2009

Post intervention diagnostic test was implemented. The procedure was exactly the same as the diagnostic activity, except for it was done individually and using only letters F, S, M, L and D flashcards.