Discussion of diary data

As we have suggested, both groups displayed an ability to use the metalanguage needed to describe what they studied, as shown in the use of words such as ‗markers‘ and ‗discourse‘ and this provides support for the claims we have made that both experimental groups displayed declarative knowledge. As we have also stated, we might ordinarily expect learners who have had explicit language lessons to be able to explain what it is they have studied to a greater degree than learners taking implicit lessons. In our initial discussion of the single word

frequency lists, we noted that ‗learned‘ had a higher ranking for the PPP group than the III group (eighteen for the PPP group and sixty for the III group). We suggested that this could indicate that the PPP group displayed a higher level of declarative knowledge through

explaining what they had learnt. However, looking at the data as a whole, the higher frequency and higher keyness factor of metalanguage such as ‗markers‘ (frequency rank of forty four, keyness factor of 383.40) ‗discourse‘ (frequency rank of twenty five, keyness factor of 657.20) in the III group diaries, seem to indicate that the III group displayed a greater ability to use such language to describe what had been studied. This could be said to indicate a higher level of declarative knowledge. This is further supported by the frequency of such chunks as ‗discourse markers‘ and ‗spoken English‘, which are ranked at number four and number eight in the III group‘s data.

The III group more frequent use of ‗English‘, ‗written‘, ‗Chinese‘ and ‗different‘ and the higher keyness factor of each provides support for the suggestion that the III group displayed more ability to make comparisons within and between their L1 and the L2 and spoken and written modes of language, which, as we have argued earlier, indicates a greater level of noticing. This is also demonstrated through the use of chunks such as ‗spoken English and written English‘ and ‗the difference between‘. The concordance lines for this group give further evidence of this, as we can see in the examples below:

1. discourse markers‘ meaning will like ‗Excuse me‘. Therefore, CHINESE culture is different with English.

2. understand the difference between these English dialogs and CHINESE dialogs. I think it will help us make less mistake.

3. we will not use these discourse markers in Chinese because CHINESE is director than English.

1. listeners like you go on. And the written language is very DIFFERENT especially the newspaper it needs succinct.

2. Chinese for example, mind up. As we know, oral English is DIFFERENT from academic writing English.

This is in contrast to the PPP group, who do not seem to have noticed these differences between the languages in the same way. Generally, their use of the words ‗Chinese‘ and ‗different‘ do not provide as much evidence that this group compared the target DMs to the L1 or noticed differences between spoken and written modes because the words are used in a more general sense.

1. very interesting think. At last to tell the truth, I think CHINESE foods are more delicious than local foods.

2. cook something. That is 100% real. In China, a traditional CHINESE girl should be able to cook delicious dishes.

3. In the first part, we did some conversations about weekend. CHINESE students like use very formal question to ask.

1. However, I found this class quite a bit DIFFERENT. First of all, the tutor himself is a native speaker.

2. middle class time in order to make more conversation with DIFFERENT people.

The PPP group‘s much more frequent use of ‗useful‘ (ranked at twenty one, with a keyness factor of 140.00) and ‗interesting‘ (ranked at fifty six, with a keyness factor of 42.95) indicates they found the overall methodology of their classes more helpful than the III group. This again supports the findings of the diary coding. The PPP group‘s use of ‗practice‘ (ranked at fifty, with a keyness factor of 41.36) reflects both the differences in type of instruction used and provides support for the fact that they found practice to be useful. These results are supported by the high frequency of the two and three word chunks ‗very useful‘ and ‗is very useful‘, (raked at ten and five respectively), which do not occur in the III group‘s top ten chunks. Concordance lines from the PPP group‘s data, such as the following, offer support for this:

1. worked in a post office and served the customer. This was INTERESTING and useful, I had to calculate the numbers.

2. It is very useful for me. Today the class was very INTERESTING because we discussed the food.

3. when your friends shared them stories with you that‘s a very INTERESTING thing. And you only need to be a good listener.

1. In a words, the practices and USEFUL for me to memorise what I have learned.

2. Today I have learnt some phrases. I think they are USEFUL I can use them in conversation.

3.The language I learned today is very USEFUL in my daily life

1. learned to each other to practice. This is a good way that PRACTICE directly after learned we can remember that

2. story, the interesting but scaring story. I think I should PRACTICE more after class in order to

3. Finally, we did a game with our deskmates. Due to enough PRACTICE of this game, I can understand it well and use it

When the III group use similar words, they tend to refer to listening practice and use the words ‗interesting‘ and ‗useful‘ in a slightly more general sense, about the classes as a whole and not activities which are specifically linked to the type of instruction they received:

1. it‘s easy to understand with readers. Today‘s class was very INTERESTING because we learnt something about cooking.

2. All in all, this class is INTERESTING for me because I learn many new knowledge.

3. I hope can meet more information about UK it must be very INTERESTING. At the beginning of oral class our teacher gave

1.We‘re enjoyable and the knowledge are USEFUL to our future lessons.

2. give us some ideas and general spoken grammar. It‘s USEFUL to our UK life.

3.In this class, I have leaned some USEFUL language. I should work hard.

1. methods instead of the direct answer. After the listening PRACTICE and the link of translation I found lots of difference.

2. to arise in the written newspaper story. Finally, we also PRACTICE our listening skill in this class. We‘re enjoyable

3. This class is very useful for us because we need to PRACTICE the listening exercise constantly.

6.3.3 Summary

To summarise the findings thus far, we can suggest that according to the diary data, both groups were able to state what they had learnt, something we would normally expect when using an explicit teaching approach. The III group demonstrated more use of metalanguage to discuss what they had learnt. This indicates that the classes developed a higher level of declarative knowledge, a finding which is consistent with Truscott‘s (1998) suggestion that noticing tends to develop this. We can argue that this may have a beneficial impact when learners come to make conscious choices in their use of language. The III group also noticed more about differences between L1 and L2 and written and spoken modes. We might suggest that this higher level of noticing may have a greater impact over time, even if, as we have discussed in chapter five, it did not always have a direct impact upon their test results.

The PPP group found the type of instruction more useful and interesting than the III group, a finding which suggests that PPP was the preferred framework. We can also suggest that there is a positive correlation between these students‘ views about their type of instruction and their superior test results. As we have noted in chapter five, the PPP group outperformed both the

control and III group in terms of their mean usage of DMs in the immediate post-test, a finding which had statistical significance.

We will discuss these results in greater detail and in relation to the research questions in the summary of this chapter and in chapter seven. Next, we will describe and discuss the focus group data.