lexical quality of esl learners: effects of focused training on encoding susan dunlap, benjamin...

Lexical Quality of ESL Learners:Effects of Focused Training on Encoding

Susan Dunlap, Benjamin Friedline, Alan Juffs, & Charles A. Perfetti

University of Pittsburgh

Jeanine SunWashington University in St. Louis

Background

• ESL encoding task (of RSAs)• Arab L1 seem to make more spelling errors

than Korean, Chinese, and Spanish L1

• Differences cannot necessarily be accounted for by L1 writing system, L1 orthographic depth, L2 vocabulary knowledge, or L2 fluency

Previous Research

• Arab L1 have more problems with prelexical word identification; Japanese L1 have more problems with online word integration (Fender, 2003)

Previous Research

• Reading skill better than L1 as a predictor of L2 spelling accuracy in school-aged children (Wade-Woolley & Siegel, 1997)

Theoretical Framework

• Lexical Quality Hypothesis – (Perfetti & Hart, 2001) in L1– orthography, phonology, meaning– plus don’t forget: syntax and morphology

• L1 affects L2 learning of grammar, spelling, vocabulary, etc.– (MacWhinney, 2005)

Connection to PSLC Framework

• Robust Learning– Retention (of trained words)– Transfer (to new words)– Accelerated future learning (faster decrease in

error rates across ESL years)

• Assistance dilemma

• Explicit vs. implicit instruction

Hypotheses/Predictions

• Intervention with focused encoding and meaning-based encoding task will increase quality of lexical representations– Retention

• improved lexical quality (of trained words)

– Transfer• improved lexical quality (of new/untrained words)

– Accelerated future learning• faster decrease in error rates (steeper slope)

Method

• Two-phase approach– Phase 1: Knowledge Component Analysis– Phase 2: Focused Intervention

Method

• Phase 1 – Knowledge Component Analysis– in-depth coding of RSA transcription data– aka data mining

Coding• Correct

– AWL K1-5 (e.g., accumulation, techniques)

– acceptable (e.g., blog, otolaryngology, falafel)

• Typing (form)– capitalization (e.g., english)

– punctuation (e.g., couldnt)

– spacing (e.g., myfriend)

• Errors– encoding errors

Error Types• Consonant

– Missing conect (spa4)– Extra fittness (kor3)– Substitution afternoom (kor4)

• Vowel– Missing tuch (chi4)– Extra aabout (ara4)– Substitution becose (kor3)

• Multiple C/V errors voleyboll (spa3)• Transpositions afetr (ara3), becuase (kor5)• Lexical/morphological

– Plural, tense, affixes truthable (kor4); laught (tai3)• Garble cabegle (chi4); thr (ara4)

Preliminary FindingsProportions of All Attempted Items

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4

ARABIC CHINESE KOREAN SPANISH TAIWAINESE

AWL K1-5

ACCEPTABLE

TYPING ERROR

TRANSPOSITION

ENCODING ERROR

Preliminary FindingsProportions of Error Types

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4

Arabic Chinese Korean Spanish Taiwanese

Garble

Lexical

Transposition

Multiple

Consonant

Vowel

Preliminary FindingsProportions of Correct Items from Academic Word List

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4

Arabic Chinese Korean Spanish Taiwanese

AWL K5

AWL K4

AWL K3

AWL K2

AWL K1

Summary of Preliminary Findings

• For all L1 groups, errors decrease from Level 3 to Level 5

• Arab L1 group makes more errors compared to other L1 groups, this difference persists through Level 5

• Arab L1 seem to be attempting more “advanced” words (fewer AWL1 words)

• Vowel errors most prevalent for Arab L1• Consonant errors most prevalent for Spanish L1

Method

• Phase 2 – Intervention– Fall 2008– In vivo ESL LearnLab– Designed to focus attention to form-meaning

mappings

Implementation• Participants

– Pilot in Fall 2008 (Level 5 students)– Data collection in Spring 2009, weeks 1-15– ESL 3, 4, and 5 writing classes

• Exercises– Required but not graded– Done in language lab (CL G-17)– Overseen by researcher on site for weekly scheduled

lab times• Programmed in Revolution (or Flash?)• Separate from REAP-based vocabulary study

Groups A and B

Group A

(one half of the students)

Group B

(other half of students)

Spelling Recognition

Sublexical Quiz

Spelling Recognition

Attitudes Assessment

Attitudes Assessment

Sublexical Quiz

Intervention - Whole Word

Intervention - Sublexical

Intervention - Sublexical

Intervention - Whole Word

Spelling Attitudes Assessment

Spelling Recognition Pre-test and Post-test

Select the correctly spelled word:

opportunity oportunitiy oportunity opportuintiy

Select the correctly spelled word:

actualy actully achually actually

How important is it to be good at spelling in English?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 not important extremely important

How important is it to communicate your ideas clearly in written communication for school or for work?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

not important extremely important

How often do you rely on computerized spell-checking to proofread your written correspondence?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

never always

Intervention

Presentation – Whole Word Condition

Presentation – Sublexical Condition

Prompt

Study the spelling of the word.

Click to proceed

BELIEVE (v. to accept as true)

Type the complete and correct form of the previous word.

OK

Study the spelling of the word.

Click to proceed

BEL_EVE (v. to accept as true)

Feedback

CORRECT

Correct form: BELIEVE

Your response: BELIEVE

Proceed to the next item.

INCORRECT

Correct form: BELIEVE

Your response: BELEEVE

Study the item and try one more time.

Fill-in-the-Blank Meaning Task

Sublexical Quiz

Type the word that best completes this sentence:

I really do _ _ _ _ _ _ _ that Lisa is telling the truth.

Select the letter that correctly completes the word:

CHOO_E (v. to select, to make a choice)

C S Z H

Predicted Results

• L1 x Level x Focus (whole word/sublexical)– Retention

• improved lexical quality (of trained words)

– Transfer• improved lexical quality (of new/untrained words)

– Accelerated future learning• faster decrease in error rates (steeper slope)

Acknowledgments

• Sally J. Andrews, Michael Nugent, Claire Bradin Siskin• PSLC ESL LearnLab, funded by NSF award number SBE-0354420