Discussion and conclusions
7.1 Introduction
While Chapter 6 presentedthe quantitative results ofthe studyin graphic and numericalterms, withlittleinterpretative comment,this chapter first aimsto offer a more detailed discussion ofinsights, reflections and questionsthat arise fromthe same data. The discussion followsthe order ofthe five research questionsthat were presentedin Chapter 5, with each question discussed herein separate sections. When addressing RQ5, pertinent quasi-interview data (see Section 5.4.2.3.4 for details) will also be referredto. Followingthis discussion, a summary ofthe major findings ofthis study will be offered, with pedagogical implications, which willthen be followed bythe methodologicallimitations ofthis study. Finally,there will be concluding remarks and future directions for research.
7.2 Differential effects of whole-text and partial-text recitation on engagementin memorization
This section addressesthe first research question setin Chapter 5: Do ‘whole-text’ and
‘partial-text’ recitation of alarge volume of useful dialogs, preparedin advance of
instruction, engageforeignlanguage classroomlearnersin memorization overthe course of one semester, andisthere a significant difference betweenthetwointheirfacilitative effect?
The progress made on 1st Check and 2nd Check of dialog recitation by both TGs (see Section 5.4.2.2 for details)is first discussed, andis followed by discussion ofthe results of the questionnaireitems pertinenttothis research question.
135 7.2.1 First Check of dialog recitation
The results show high mean percentages atthe point ofthe 1st check: 98.67% for TG1 and 80.92% for TG2. This seemsto suggestthatthe whole-text andpartial-text recitation of a large number of dialogs overthe course of a semester didindeed engagethe studentsin memorization.
In view ofthelarge volume of materialthat students weretolearn by heart and be able to recite,these are remarkably high figures. Intotal,the dialogs consisted of 3,182 wordsin the case of TG1, and 1,045 wordsinthe case of TG2. The results seem allthe more
remarkableif wetakeinto accountthe factthat students hadto sustaintheir focus onthetask for an entire semester, andthisin a class for whichthere would be no grade counting for GPA or graduation. It seemsthatthe students were genuinely committedtothis
memorization work.
Why wouldthey show such commitment? This was probably becausethe materials, which were designedto be helpfultothe studentsintheir prospective period of study abroad, were perceived bythe studentsthemselvesto actually be helpfulinthis way. Sincethisis preciselythe reason for developingthe set of model dialogs inthe first place,the result can be seen as a vindication ofthe rationale forthe course. More generally,it also underliesthe importance forteachersto use materialsthat will be perceived as useful bytheir students, a pointthatis returnedto belowin Section 7.7.4. A further pointthat needsto be bornein mind, and onethat can only be briefly mentionedinthis research,isthatthere was probably a
“rub-off” oftheteacher’s genuine enthusiasm for, commitmentto and beliefinthe project. Let us nowturntothe second half of RQ1, and consider whetherthereis a difference betweenthe extentto which whole-text and partial-text recitation facilitated engagementin memorization. The results suggestthatthereis such a difference because, as shownin Section 6.2,the achievement percentage of TG1 forthe 1st Check was significantly higher thanthat of TG2. In a sense,this result must come as a surprise, becausewhole-text
136
memorization can be assumedto be far more demandingthan partial-textmemorization (see also Section 7.2.3.3). Figure 7.1 depictsthe varying achievement results for each dialog group by group. As mentionedin Section 5.4.2.3.1, one caveatin analyzingthis figureisthat while TG2 on average had one weeklessthan TG1inthe semester (TG1: 14.5 class
meetings; TG2: 13.5 class meetings), TG2 on average started working withthe dialogs one week soonerthan TG1 (with TG1 starting halfwaythroughthethird class, TG2 halfway throughthe second).
7.2.2 Second Check of dialog recitation
The data fromthe 2nd check offer us a more attenuated andless affirmative answerto RQ1. While both groups madelittle progress beyond whatthey had achieved forthe 1st Check, TG2 made more progress onthe 2nd Checkthan TG1, butthe difference was non-significant. Taking a closerlook atthe 2nd Check accomplishment data, whilethetop three achieversin TG1 constituted 59.46% of all 2nd Check achievement bythat group,the topthreein TG2 constituted 59.29%—almostthe same percentage as TG1’stopthree achievers—of all 2nd Check achievement made bytheir group. All ofthese2nd Checktop three achieversin each group had attained 100% ontheir 1st Check. Onthe other hand, TG1’stopthree achievers onthe 2nd Check completed 22% on average, whereas TG2’stop three completed 55.33% on average. Assumingthatthese six students were amongthe most motivatedinthetwo groups,the dataindicatethatthe highly motivatedlearners were ableto do morethan half oftheir 2nd Check allocation when assignedto do partial-text recitation, whileif assignedto do whole-text recitation,it became hard forthemto reach even one quarter oftheirtarget. This reinforcesthe point made abovethat whole-text recitation can be consideredto be more demanding than partial-text recitation.
Once again,the whole-text recitation group hadto committo memory much morethan the partial-text recitation group (3,182 words comparedto 1,045 words, whichis 304%, or
137
threetimes as much). Itis not,then,a question of which highly motivated group performed better, but rather of what pedagogicalimplicationthereis here. It seemsto bethis: for highly motivated students, partial-text recitation assessedtwice may work betterthan whole-text recitationthatis assessed only once, assumingthat worktowards being assessedtwice creates a better chance of resultingin memorytrace.
138
Figure 7.1. The varying achievement results for each dialog group by group. 44
139 7.2.3 Questionnaireitems pertinent to RQ1
To some extent atleast,the questionnaire results are also pertinentto RQ1 and needto be noted here. Inthis sub-section,the results fortheitem ‘A gradeincentive will help me engagein dialog memorization’ will be reviewed, followed by discussion of the firstthree reflectiveitems on engagementin memorization, given onlytothe TGs (Section 6.8, Table 6.16). Discussion ofthelast reflectiveitem (i.e., ‘practicing until attaining proper
articulation’) will be addressed separately under Section 7.3.3, wheretheimprovementsin pronunciation will be discussed.
7.2.3.1 A gradeincentive
The non-significant varianceinthe changes ontheitem ‘A gradeincentive will help me engagein dialog memorization’ (see Table 6.15) suggeststhat evenif atask requires hard work,the factthatitis perceived as useful by studentsis sufficientto drivetheir engagement in memorization. However,the results forthisitem might have beendifferentif grades contributingto GPA had beeninvolved, so further research needsto be doneto understand theimpact ofthis variable.
7.2.3.2 Motivational effects ofin-class recitation As pointed outin Section 6.8, TG1 showed a significantly higher score fortheitem ‘I worked hard on dialog memorizationthankstothe Check’than TG2, but no other significant variance betweenthetwo groups was found forthe otherthreeitemsinthis category:
‘motivational effects ofin-class memorizationtime,’ ‘practicing until fast,’ and ‘practicing until attaining proper articulation.’ The results suggestthatin-class recitationtasks can strongly motivate studentsto memorize alarge volume oftext; otherwise, TG1 would not have hadthe significantly higher scorethan TG2 on motivational effects ofin-class recitation.
140
Itis possibleto alsointerpretthese results asindicatingthat students would not work on lengthytext memorization for an extended period oftime ontheir own, evenif they feltthatit would helpthemlearn material better, and so a classin which students areindeed expectedto do a substantial amount of recitation (andtherefore necessarily, memorization) can be helpful tothose who would belikelyto benefit from such memorization-orientedlearning. The question of which students can be consideredlikelyto so benefit represents animportant
potential area for furtherinvestigation and clarificationthatis suggested bythe present study.
7.2.3.3 Motivational effects ofin-class memorization time This referstotheitem ‘I engagedin dialog memorizationthankstothein-classtime giventoit.’ While TG2 only neededto memorize about athird ofthe amount oftexttackled by TG1,the studentsin TG2 appreciatedthein-class memorizationtime almost as highly as thosein TG1. This mayindicatethat whenthe degree of challenge presented bythe
memorizationtaskis unnecessarilylow, students may not putin as much effort asthey would otherwise do. Ifthisisthe case,it seemsto suggestthatthereis a needto seek an optimal level of challengethat will maximizetheir engagement.
7.2.3.4 Practicing until fast
Theitem ‘I practiced until I was ableto act outthe dialogs fast,’ was based onthe assumption ofthe clear desirability for encodingto reach a point wherethe material can be readily retrieved from memory. Otherwiseit will belesslikelyto be usefulin realtime language use.Inthis respect,the mediocre mean scores forthis questionnaireitemindicate that neither ofthetwoinstructional approachestaken were sufficient. Perhaps, since partial-text memorization requires farlesstimethan whole-text memorization,it may be possibleto push students engaged initto practicethe material untilthey are ableto retrieveit atthe speed of native speaker production. Setting a specific recitationtimelimit on each
141
dialog might have had a stronger motivational effect. This might have been particularlytrue inthe case of TG1, where students workedin pairs when acting outthe dialogs;in other words, atimetrial approach would not work so effectivelyin pair work, because both studentsin a pair haveto be ableto act outtheir part atthe specified speed, anditis easyto imagine a situation where one partner can achievethis butis dragged down by his or her partner,therebytaking awaythe socio-interactional‘bubble’thatthistask was meantto create. Thisis an obvious area for further research.
7.2.4 Conclusions for RQ 1
The following conclusions can be drawn,then, fromthe results of RQ1. First,it can be concludedthat bothtypes of classroomintervention were effectivein engaging foreign language classroomlearnersin memorization overthe course of one semester. Regardless of gradeincentive, students can be effectivelyinstructedto memorize alarge volume oftext overthe course of a semester, providingthe contentis perceived as relevant. However,the question of perceived relevance isitself an area for further research, andthisinsight should therefore be seen astentative. For highly motivated students, both whole-text and partial-text approaches seemto work well. For partial-text recitation, atimetrial approach may generate morelearning.
7.3 Differential effects of whole-text and partial-text recitation on holistic processing This section addressesthe second research question setin Chapter 5: Does engaging foreignlanguage classroomlearnersinthe whole-text and partial-text dialog recitation specifiedin Research Question 1facilitateformulaic speech production, andisthere a significant difference betweenthetwointerms oftheirfacilitative effect? The results for RQ 2 are analyzedinterms ofthe following four categories: (1)the use by students of formulaic sequences (Section 6.4, Tables 6.3-7; Section 6.6, Table 6.13; Section 6.9, Table6.17); (2)
142
the appropriateness of responsestotime-pressed cued promptsin Part 2 ofthe speakingtest (Section 6.5, Tables 6.8-12); (3) pronunciation, based on Part 1 ofthe speakingtest (Section 6.3, Table 6.2; Section 6.8, Table 6.16; Section 6.10, Table 6.18); and (4)the abilityto processlanguage data (Section 6.11, Table 19).
7.3.1 Use by students of formulaic sequences
Inthis sub-section,the results forthe use of FSsin Part 2 ofthe speakingtest (for time-pressed cued prompts; Section 6.4, Tables 6.3-7) are discussed. This needsto be approached fromthe points of view of ‘direct application’ and ‘modified application.’ This will be followed by a review ofthe results forthe use of FSsin Part 3 ofthetest (extensive oral production; Section 6.6, Table 6.13). Finally,the results forthe questionnaireitems pertinenttothelearning of FSs will be analyzed.
7.3.1.1 Direct application
What needsto be noted hereisthat forthe ‘repeated’ category, a significant
improvement was detectedonly inthe case of TG2, butinthe case of ‘non-repeated’ both TGs significantly outperformedthe CG. Thereisthus a needto explainthe discrepancyinthe comparative results for ‘repeated & direct’ and ‘non-repeated & direct’ application prompts. Sincethere weretechnicallythree prompt sets,it seems mostlikelythattheinternal
difficulties of the promptsinthesethree sets were different and/orthe participants’ prior knowledge aboutthe formulaic sequencesinthose prompts varied. This needsto be
acknowledged as a methodological weakness ofthis research. Nevertheless,the factthat TG2 showed significant advancements for both repeated and non-repeated prompts suggeststhat partial recitation may work atleast slightly more effectively with direct application prompts. Thereis, however, animportant argument forthe TG1instruction having worked even betterthanthe TG2instruction, an argumentthat finds supportin a study by Peters (2012).
143
Investigatingthe effect on retention oftypographic enhancement and of glossing, a form of input enhancement, Peters foundthatthe participantsinthetreatment group, who worked on texts withtypographic enhancement (underlining and bold font) were better ableto recollect glossed formulaic sequences from reading withthe enhancement. One methodologicalissue with her study wasthatthe students had beeninformedthat a vocabulary post-test would follow, which meansthatthey may have made more of an effortto rememberthe highlighted itemsinthetextthanthose which were not highlighted. Inthe study presentedinthis
dissertation,too,the administration ofthe Post-Test was announced beforehand (see below also). Itis conceivablethat some studentsin both groups made an extra effortto remember the material, althoughthey had beeninformedthatthe score forthis would not be counted as part of their final grade forthe course (and again,the final grade would not be counted as part oftheir GPA either). Assumingthatthey did make an extra effortto rememberthe material as a preparation fortakingthe Post-Test,then, TG2 had a better chance of obtaining good scores, becausethey would havethoughtthatthe focus ofthetest would bethose parenthesized wordsthatthey had committedto memory, whereas TG1 students would have hadto determine forthemselves wherethe focus ofthetest was goingto be, becausethey were expectedto memorize everything. Thus, although TG2 performed slightly betterthan TG1 on this part ofthetest,thelearning outcome of TG1 should perhaps be consideredto be greater.
7.3.1.2 Modified application
In contrast withthe case ofthe ‘repeated & direct application’ prompts, no significant improvement was confirmed from any group for ‘repeated & modified application’ prompts. Whenit comesto ‘non-repeated’ here, as seen withthe ‘repeated’ & modified application prompts, no significant enhancement was confirmed from either group. The resultstaken together suggestthat bothtypes of recitationtasks helpthelearnersto become ableto use themintheir original forms, but neitheris ofitself sufficientto helpthemapplythese