Discussion for reflective cycle three.

The data collected during reflective cycle three was useful in addressing the research questions from section 6.2.1. The research questions will be discussed individually to show what findings were made and the aspects of the findings which were further investigated.

The first research question focused on the students’ perception of their experiences of studying collocations. As with the first two reflective cycles, the students’ impression of this experience was positive. The mean score for the first questionnaire item, as seen in Table 6.2, was 3.85, which indicated the students thought the collocation instruction was useful. Additionally, Table 6.4 shows the findings from the questionnaire item comparing studying collocations to studying individual words. The mean score of 4.14 indicates the students believed a focus on collocations is more helpful than studying individual words. The qualitative data also supported this positive response. The following quotes taken from Table 6.10 show the students find collocation study to be useful and more effective than addressing vocabulary instruction by targeting individual words:

‘It was difficult to memorize collocation but it was useful.’

‘Collocation is better than just memorize vocabulary. It's easy to remember. It was difficult to remember on and for (preposition).’

These findings are consistent with the findings from the first two reflective cycles.

The second questionnaire item, which had the students assess their productive ability in using the targeted collocations, addressed research question 2. The mean score for this item was 3.33 (Table 6.3) with nine students (43%) agreeing or strongly agreeing that they are capable of using the targeted collocations in conversations compared to three students who disagreed with the statement. Since a lack of productive ability using previously taught vocabulary was the initial area of concern for this study (described in Chapter one), this finding is encouraging, especially when considered with the findings for the fifth research question described below. The qualitative data also supported the notion that the students felt they were making progress in regard to their spoken proficiency as seen in the following responses:

‘I feel I improve my English when I use new vocabulary in conversation.’ ‘I think studying collocations is good for speaking English because we use collocations when we speak English.’

‘It was tough to memorize the collocations but I could use them in the conversation. That was good.’

The following two quotes taken from my field notes also address the students’ ability to use the targeted collocations in conversations:

‘The students who did not do the homework, had a lot of trouble in the speaking exercises.’

‘The students enjoyed the speaking exercises.’

These responses and excerpts from my field notes show the students had a favorable impression of the speaking exercises, but it is not clear that this enjoyment is synonymous with an improvement in productive ability. However, it should be noted that my impression during the intervention was that the students needed the homework exercise to prepare them for the productively challenging tasks used at the end of the class. Each of the productive tasks described in section 6.2.2 will be discussed in greater detail at the end of the section.

The third research question focuses on the students’ development of competence in using collocations throughout the intervention. This question is best answered by examining the students’ performance during the productive tasks because during this portion of the class the students demonstrated their ability (or lack of ability) in using the targeted collocations. The following quotation taken from my field notes provides insight:

It was clear that many students did not do the homework, perhaps as many as 30%. I can easily tell the students who did the homework from those who didn’t, especially by monitoring the students at one of the cloze conversations. The students who had done the homework would fill in the blank correctly or make a mistake that still indicated they had an idea about the answer (used an incorrect delexicalized verb, used a different collocation from the homework, were able to provide one half of the collocation). If I suspected a student of not having done the homework, I would ask them directly. Most of these students admitted they did not do the homework. The students who did not do the homework had very little chance of doing the exercises successfully.

The quotation above underscores the importance of repetition in acquiring collocation competence. To efficiently enable students to use a collocation productively, it appears necessary to progress through a series of stages where students are initially exposed to the targeted structures, are required to compete exercises involving the collocations, and then engage in productively challenging tasks. The majority of my students had to prepare themselves for the speaking exercises by completing the homework, and the students who did not prepare performed at a much lower level than the other students, so they were easily identified. Other researchers (Lewis, 2008; Schmitt, 2000; Ur, 1991) have also stressed the positive influence of repetition on vocabulary acquisition.

The fourth research question compared the findings from this reflective cycle to reflective cycle two. The purpose of this question was to gauge the learners’ responses for the productive+ tasks used in this intervention to the receptive and productive tasks from reflective cycle two. The students had a positive impression of the usefulness of the tasks from this cycle as seen in the following mean scores taken from Table 6.5, 6.6, and 6.7: reading definitions and example sentences (3.71); cloze tasks (4.00); productive+ tasks

(3.81). In reflective cycle two (Tables 5.18 to 5.21), the learners’ responses about the usefulness of the receptive tasks had the following mean scores: reading definitions and sentences (3.77); answering questions about the sentences (3.67). The learners’ responses about the productive tasks from reflective cycle two had the following mean scores: reading definitions and example sentences (3.95); cloze tasks (4.00). While each group of students had a positive impression of their tasks, the mean scores for the productive and productive+ tasks were higher. As mentioned in the procedures section for reflective cycle three,

researchers have stated the effectiveness of productive tasks (Lewis, 2008; Nation, 2001; Nation, 2008; Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992). The qualitative data also supported the notion that the learners preferred tasks which were productively demanding as seen in the following quotes:

‘I think speaking makes our English improve. Just studying vocabulary doesn't help me.’

‘I feel I improve my English when I use new vocabulary in conversation.’ In reflective cycle two, the qualitative data (section 5.3.8) also indicated the students preferred tasks which were productively demanding.

To address the fifth research question, a comparison of an initial (pre-intervention) and summative spoken assessment was conducted. As seen in Table 6.9, the mean score for the students’ spoken fluency increased by 1.33 as measured blind by an expert judge on a seven-point scale (see section 5.3.6 for a description of this procedure). This difference was statistically significant and is evidence the productive+ tasks lead to an improvement in the learners’ speaking ability.

The final research question focused on the number of collocations targeted each week. In this reflective cycle, 95% of the students responded that twelve collocations per week was ‘just about right’. This is consistent with the previous two reflective cycles in which the students also responded positively about targeting twelve or fifteen collocations on a weekly basis.

While this was not an original research question, the qualitative data also included quotes which I used to evaluate the productive+ tasks used during this reflective cycle. The following quotes concerning the procedures used were taken from my field notes. I have organized this data in Table 6.11 according to the specific productive+ task to which it refers. Table 6.11 Data taken from field notes concerning productive+ tasks

Productive+ task

Examples from data Translate and

make a sentence

The students did not put much effort into this exercise. This exercise was difficult to monitor.

Students progress through this exercise much faster than I anticipated. When I join a group to offer assistance, it takes much longer to complete the translation and sentence. Either the students are not making

sentences when I am not present or they misunderstood what to do. Half a

crossword

Crosswords were very enjoyable for the students. Many Ss would stick to the simple translation hints. Create a

conversation

The writing of a conversation using a collocation was okay, but I had to check the students’ usage of the collocation. Many groups used the collocations in unnatural ways. Every group which had the collocation ‘get comfortable’ misused this collocation. They understood the meaning after I showed them the picture from the dictionary.

Having the students go around and read the other collocation conversations was enjoyable for them.

Conversation cloze

Spoken cloze activity was my favorite, but it was also the most difficult to monitor.

Ss really tried to understand the situation of the conversation. The simple act of moving around seems to keep the students interested/motivated.

The students seem to like the challenge of filling in the blanks.

The first few times they would make verb tense mistakes, but they would reduce these mistakes in later conversations.

Partner quiz The partner quiz was very difficult to monitor. However, I did not notice many mistakes. The students would sometimes discuss if the sentence was okay in partners.

Occasionally, some students would ask me for help but not as much as I would have liked.

Some students might have assumed their partner created a good sentence and did not ask for confirmation from me. Most of the corrections I made were when I listened in as opposed to being asked for help.

With the exception of ‘translate and make a sentence’, all of the tasks were worthwhile in my opinion as the teacher. However, it was difficult to verify if the language produced by the students was accurate as seen in the following quote from my field notes:

‘All of the productive+ tasks were difficult to monitor.’

Overall, I believe the productive aspects of these tasks were well received by the students as evidenced by the questionnaire responses discussed above and effective for improving the students’ spoken abilities as corroborated by the improvement in the spoken assessment.