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.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario