REAP Comparison to Classroom Instruction (Fall 2006)
|Contributors||Alan Juffs, Lois Wilson, Maxine Eskenazi, Michael Heilman|
|Study Start Date||September 2006|
|Study End Date||April, 2007|
|Learnlab Courses||English Language Institute Reading 4 (ESL LearnLab)|
|Number of Students||~72|
|Total Participant Hours (est.)||approximately 360|
|Data in Datashop||no|
THIS WIKI ENTRY IS IN PROGRESS.
This paper focuses on the long-term retention and production of instructed vocabulary in an intensive English program (IEP). The paper draws on the practical framework of Coxhead (2001) and Nation (2005) and the theoretical perspectives of Laufer & Hulstijn (2001). The project collected data from over 72 ESL learners over a period of two semesters. The vocabulary instruction occurred in intermediate level reading class (intermediate =TOEFL 450 or iBT TOEFL 45, average MTELP score, 58). All learners spent 40 minutes per week for 9 weeks reading texts containing words from the Academic Word List. In fall 2006, topic interest was manipulated in the CALL condition. In spring 2007, for some students, the words were highlighted and learners could click to access on-line definitions. In contrast, in class, a subset of the learners' normal in-class vocabulary instruction was tracked for two semesters. Pre-, post and delayed post-test data were collected for the CALL vocabulary learning and the in-class learning. In addition, during this period, all of the students' writing assignments were collected on-line. From this database of written output, each student’s texts were analyzed to determine which words seen during computer training and regular reading class had transferred to their spontaneous output in compositions in their writing class. Results indicate that although the CALL practice led to recognition one semester later, only the words which were practiced during regular reading class vocabulary instruction transferred to their spontaneous writing. This transfer effect is attributed to the output practice and deeper processing that occurred during the regular vocabulary instruction. The data also showed that the production of words seen in the CALL condition alone suffered from errors in word recognition (‘clang’ associations) and morphological form errors (Schmitt & Meara, 1997). We conclude that these data suggest that some negative views on output practice by Folse (2006) and Barcroft (2005) must be modified to accommodate these data.
In the fall of 2006 and the spring of 2007, we followed learners using REAP and also tracked the in class vocabulary instruction led by teachers. This study focused on a comparison of REAP with what normally happens in classrooms. In that sense, it is not very strictly controlled study, but it is ecologically valid in the sense that the study reflects what actually happens in classes.
It is important to note that the REAP treatments in the fall of 2006 and spring 2007 were slightly different. In the fall of 2006, participants were introduced to the personalization of texts that they read. Some students received texts that they were interested by topic. In the fall of 2006, all of the students had their focus words highlighted, but not all students received text that were of interest to them all the time. Details can be read here. Students were all able to select their topics of interest in the spring of 2007 and also had their focus words highlighted. [See the study in level 5 for a comparison of highlighted versus non lighted words,
In the classroom conditions, the Reading 4 curriculum supervisor decided on a list of Academic Word List vocabulary items that had been excluded from the tests that the students took to establish their focus word lists. This list included 58 items that in her view the students should know.
In this report, we compare learning gains in REAP in the fall of 2006 with in class learning. In the spring of 2007, we again compare learning gains with REAP and in class interaction.
Recent research in vocabulary acquisition has suggested that the time taken for written output practice may not be well spent (Folse, 2006). Instead of using words to create new meaningful texts, Folse (2006) has suggested that fill-in-the-blank type exercises are more efficient. However, Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) have suggested the involvement load hypothesis for vocabulary acquistion. This hypothesis suggests that the factors of need (which they label 'non-cognitive'),
1. What does vocabulary learning look in ‘in vivo’ as opposed to a very tightly controlled study? (action research) 2. How does in class vocabulary instruction differ from the CALL in the reading course in intermediate ESL? 3. How do the learning outcomes differ?, both in the immmediate number of words learned, and in the number of words the learners transfer to other contexts. 4. If there are differences, what might the source of those differences be? 5. Can deeper processing through writing be ‘skipped’ by using a CALL program?
Allum, P. (2002). CALL and the classroom: the case for comparative research. ReCALL, 14, 146-166.
Barcroft, J. (2004). Effects of sentence writing in second language lexical acquisition. Second Language Research, 20, 303-334.
Barcroft, J. (2006). Negative Effects of forced output on vocabulary learning. Second Language Research, 22, 487-497.
Folse, K. S. (2006). The effect of type of written exercise on L2 vocabulary retention. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 273-293.
Hulstijn, J., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 539-558.
Juffs, A., Friedline, B. F., Eskenazi, M., Wilson, L., & Heilman, M. (in review). Activity theory and computer-assisted learning of English vocabulary. Applied Linguistics.
Stanowicz, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407.