Discussion of reflective cycle one.

The data collected provided me with enough information to address the research questions for this reflective cycle and also to reflect on the implications of the data for taking the process of action research further. Specifically, the field notes were helpful in that they provided a great deal of information which would help shape future reflective cycles.

The first research question, ‘What are low-proficiency Japanese university students’ responses to studying collocations?’, was specifically addressed by the first and third questionnaire items. The students had a positive impression of studying collocations (3.44 mean for questionnaire statement 1) and felt studying collocations was more helpful than studying individual words (3.54 mean for questionnaire statement 3). The students’ responses on the questionnaire indicated they felt this alternative approach to vocabulary instruction to be more useful than targeting individual words. However, the results also showed that the majority of students are still not confident in their abilities to productively use the collocations. Questionnaire item 2 asked if the students feel capable of using the

collocations in conversations, and the mean response was 2.90. This indicated, in the students’ opinion, that the approach used in the first reflective cycle needed to be adapted if the students were to improve their spoken fluency with the targeted collocations.

Additionally, the findings from this questionnaire item only elicited the students’ self-

assessment of their abilities with the targeted collocations; there was no evidence collected during this reflective cycle to support or question the students’ opinion.

The questionnaire item eliciting responses about the value of writing sentences indicated this activity to be beneficial in the students’ opinion. Item 4 on the questionnaire had a mean of 3.73 which indicated the students’ positive feelings towards the productive activity of writing sentences. However, it is interesting to consider why this item received such a positive response and item 2 did not. I believe there are two possible reasons for this disparity. The first is that the students valued improving their written fluency even if this

improvement did not help their spoken fluency. The second possibility is that the students were underestimating their ability to use the targeted collocations in conversations. It was clear that I needed to address this problem in reflective cycle two.

The final research question, ‘From the students’ perspective, how many collocations should be targeted each week?’, was addressed by questionnaire item 5. Overall, the students felt 15 collocations was a suitable number per week for the activities and homework in reflective cycle one.

Based upon the observations recorded in my field notes, the alternative approach to the vocabulary component was a success, as evidenced by quotes such as the following:

‘The students are more engaged during the in-class activities than they were during the in-class activities for the individual GSL words the previous semester.’

‘The students are putting more effort into their homework.’

An example of how this increased level of engagement and effort was manifested could be seen in the students’ homework. Specifically, I noticed that the students seldom copied sentences from their dictionaries; this was a common problem during the semester when individual words were taught from the GSL. The students probably did not know how to find sentences with a certain collocation in a dictionary and were left with no other option but to write the sentences themselves. Furthermore, since the student sentences were original and contained mistakes, they provided an excellent opportunity for individual and pair revision based upon my feedback. During the pair revision tasks, the students actively helped their partners and would often ask me questions about specific mistakes, which collectively, they were unable to solve. However, despite the productive exercise of writing sentences appearing to be beneficial, it was time consuming for both the students to complete as homework and for my revisions. A more time efficient approach for teaching collocations needed to be investigated in reflective cycle two (see section 5.3.2).

After the first collocation test in week eight, I addressed a weakness in the procedure for the first reflective cycle: the students often misunderstanding the meaning of the

collocations. The matching exercise described in section 5.2.3 (see Appendix 6 for an example of this matching exercise) helped in this regard. In subsequent reflective cycles, I decided that the students would have access to a ‘collocation dictionary’ that I prepared which included a Japanese translation of each collocation, an example sentence, and a picture. I predicted that this dictionary would provide the same assistance as the matching exercise.

As I mentioned in section 5.2.3, I decided to use a different collocation list for reflective cycle two. The reason for this change was that based upon the sentences the

students wrote throughout the intervention period it was apparent that collocations containing delexicalized verbs were the most problematic collocations. The errors made by the

students when using delexicalized verb collocations were numerous and fundamental. To illustrate one fundamental error, a common student sentence for the collocation ‘get lost’ was the following:

‘I get lost my keys.’

This exact same sentence was submitted by six of the students and several others made a similar error with this collocation. I did not believe the students copied each other because I had warned them not to and the other sentences for this homework assignment were not the same. I considered this to be a fundamental error because it violates the form, meaning, and use of this particular collocation. This error appeared to be made because the students understood one possible definition for ‘lost’ and did not realize that the collocation ‘get lost’ had a different meaning. The students’ use of this error strengthens the argument that students should learn how to use the words they already know as opposed to simply acquiring new individual lexical items (Hill, Lewis, & Lewis, 2000; M. Lewis, 1994; Morgan Lewis, 2000; Wollard, 2005). While this was the most common error, other delexicalized verbs were also misused in a similar way as seen in the following sentences taken from student workbooks:

‘I make time for 12 clock.’ ‘I catch fire matches.’

‘I go bad and my mother is angry.’

There were of course many other errors within the sentences for different collocations, such as the following:

‘I apply for a job for money.’

‘I went quickly because I miss the bus.’

However, the majority of sentences written by the students for non-delexicalized verb collocations, such as the examples presented above, indicated they understood the collocations’ meaning.

To summarize, this reflective cycle provided me with useful data which addressed the initial research questions. Specifically, the knowledge gained through my field notes also influenced the procedures for future reflective cycles.

5.2.8 Changes in procedure implemented for reflective cycle two.